No, there isn't a trade deal signed with Canada. There's an agreement to roll over the existing deal (which was agreed between Canada and the EU, and so includes things like a role for the ECJ which the Brexidiots will object to) and to start the process of negotiating a trade deal between the UK and Canada. Whether that deal in a few years time will be as good for the UK as the one we had as part of the EU remains to be seen.
And, my posts have been all about more than trade. Five years of posts where trade has been one part of the picture. Occasionally I might make a short post just about trade, but I've never been of the view that the EU is just a trading bloc nor that trade is the only, or even the most important, aspect of the discussion. My last post about the Commonwealth is also not all about trade, even if the first paragraph is.
Virtually all of the posts about how much worse off we’re going to be after Brexit are about trade. And pretty much all of the others are about stuff virtually nobody who voted leave is likely to care about. Take freedom of movement, for example - if I have no desire to go and live in an EU country then why would it matter to me that I can no longer do so as easily?
And pretty much all of the others are about stuff virtually nobody who voted leave is likely to care about. Take freedom of movement, for example - if I have no desire to go and live in an EU country then why would it matter to me that I can no longer do so as easily?
I suppose it's just possible you might have enough empathy to realise that this might affect other people. Or maybe leavers really are entirely self-centred.
And pretty much all of the others are about stuff virtually nobody who voted leave is likely to care about. Take freedom of movement, for example - if I have no desire to go and live in an EU country then why would it matter to me that I can no longer do so as easily?
I suppose it's just possible you might have enough empathy to realise that this might affect other people.
About as much empathy as the left has for the rich.
We are in the Commonwealth of Nations. 54 countries with a population of nearly 2.5 billion people. Our Queen is the head and our PM is the secretary
I don't want to disillusion you, but she is not just "Our Queen". She is also Queen of Australia, NZ, Canada and some dozen more countries. Roll on the day when we are a republic.
And pretty much all of the others are about stuff virtually nobody who voted leave is likely to care about. Take freedom of movement, for example - if I have no desire to go and live in an EU country then why would it matter to me that I can no longer do so as easily?
I suppose it's just possible you might have enough empathy to realise that this might affect other people. Or maybe leavers really are entirely self-centred.
You don't want the opportunity to work wherever the best jobs are if you wish. Fine. Others disagree. I wish I'd taken the chance to work elsewhere in the EU when I had a chance, my short contract in Japan was a fantastic opportunity though family life complicated things. I want my children to have the same chances I had to take the best jobs, to marry and live elsewhere should they fall in love with someone from further than the next village. Add to which the opportunities we give our university students to study in other places so they can get the best education, and to mix with the best students from elsewhere in universities here. And, opportunities for young people to just travel around Europe in the summer. You want none of that for any children you may have? Or any nephews or nieces?
Or maybe you're not interested in our universities and research institutes being among the best in the world? You don't want the benefits to UK research of cooperation with others elsewhere in Europe, the prestige of leading international research projects? You're happy for the best scientists and academics to move to other places in Europe (subject to visa requirements if they don't have EU citizenship) where they can benefit from the structures of the EU in facilitating the best research?
What about the various crises which we face? The climate emergency, the millions of people seeking refuge from war and oppression and poverty, the pandemic we're in. Do you not see how cooperation with other nations is a surer approach to a solution than each nation working alone? Has not large parts of the UK benefited from EU funds developing infrastructure and social action?
Or, maybe you'll be more interested in the UK being part of a large and powerful bloc of nations so that we can stand rather than being dominated by the interests of multinational corporations without democratic accountability? Working with our neighbours to secure our borders, protect our trade and the businesses that depend on it (sorry, one little economic comment), the sovereignty of our Parliament, the fish in our territorial waters. Or, do you really believe that a small island (plus a few even smaller islands) that has grown wealthy within the EU can really be strong enough to stand alone in a world where everyone else is joining clubs to maintain their mutual self-interests?
There is nothing from the Brexhsitters on this thread other than "we won the right to shoot ourselves and houou in the foot because we damn well want to." How I wish I could push such vindictive small-mindedness a million miles from me in a hermetically sealed craft, so none of its poison escaped. You have unleased a tideal wave of shit in this country the like of which I hoped never to see in my lifetime.
And, my posts have been all about more than trade. Five years of posts where trade has been one part of the picture. Occasionally I might make a short post just about trade, but I've never been of the view that the EU is just a trading bloc nor that trade is the only, or even the most important, aspect of the discussion. My last post about the Commonwealth is also not all about trade, even if the first paragraph is.
Virtually all of the posts about how much worse off we’re going to be after Brexit are about trade. And pretty much all of the others are about stuff virtually nobody who voted leave is likely to care about. Take freedom of movement, for example - if I have no desire to go and live in an EU country then why would it matter to me that I can no longer do so as easily?
Do you desire to eat? Or take medicine? Or maybe drive a car? Pretty certain those who voted Leave will care about those.
And pretty much all of the others are about stuff virtually nobody who voted leave is likely to care about. Take freedom of movement, for example - if I have no desire to go and live in an EU country then why would it matter to me that I can no longer do so as easily?
I suppose it's just possible you might have enough empathy to realise that this might affect other people.
About as much empathy as the left has for the rich.
Congratulations, you've just won the prize for most nonsensical statement on this thread.
The two are not equivalent. Nor is yours, I suspect, true.
About as much empathy as the left has for the rich.
On the assumption that the left and the rich don't overlap, and on the assumption that the left really has no empathy for the rich, what differences would it make to left-wing policies if the left did develop empathy for the rich?
I don't know about the UK/European form of leftist, which is farther left than most of the US left. But, here, a Venn diagram of left-leaning people and rich people does have an overlap.
Yes, you could scarcely call the Roosevelts or Kennedys anything but rich. Roosevelts were on both sides of course, but the Kennedy clan from Joe onwards, at least, were strongly Democrat. In the 1976 Presidential election, Democrat Carter came from a wealthier family than did Republican Ford. And you'd not call Eisenhower wealthy
Wow. So... if you were in a room with 27 other people trying to sort out what to do, you'd just up and leave because having all those other people involved was not to your advantage?
If the other 27 decided to do something that I didn't want to do then you're damn right I'd reserve the right to walk away rather than be forced to go along with it.
Except 'walking away' in this instance consists of taking about 2 steps outside the door and being still clearly visible to everyone while you stand there.
Even if it wasn't for Northern Ireland, the UK can't physically remove itself from being smack bang next to the EU.
I don't know about the UK/European form of leftist, which is farther left than most of the US left. But, here, a Venn diagram of left-leaning people and rich people does have an overlap.
Plenty of well-off left wingers here.
The rule is, if you are poor it's "politics of envy"
I'm going to hold my breath until I can determine for myself how much oxygen I need.
Yes!! British people don't need to respire 15 times a minute. This is a burdensome rule forced on us by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Good, honest British hedgehogs only need one or two breaths a minute at this time of year. Okay, all they do is lie unconscious under a pile of leaves, but they are free of the EU respiration bullies!!
BTW, a Grauniad reader wondered if The Lord Protector and Ursula von der Leyen were going Dutch over the Scotch Eggs they would no doubt be having as their substantial Brexshit-talk meal.
Presumably the only thing stopping the Wetherspoons bobbin upping sticks, is that no other country’s folk would go to a ‘Spoons because they have a thousand better options.
I wonder how The Last Supper In Brussels is progressing?
Bojo: 'But, Ursula - you mean you don't believe in Unicorns?' Fr von der Leyen: 'No, I don't - and what's this ghastly Scotch Egg thing you've ordered for your main course?'
EU membership doesn't prevent self-determination. Being subsumed into the UK does (by default).
Scotland has its own parliament with considerable freedom to set its own laws. It also has independent judicial and education systems.
Sure, there are some areas in which they have to follow what the whole union decides. But they have democratic representation in the Westminster parliament, which means they have a say in making those laws, so that’s ok. Right?
In 2015 you could say the same about the UK ... considerable freedom, independent judicial systems, democratic representation in European Parliament and other institutions, a say in regulations and standards. If the UK was subsumed by the EU and needed to regain it's sovereignty then so is Scotland subsumed within the UK ... or Scotland is actually free within the UK and the UK was free within the EU. By that argument.
Or else, the two arrangements are fundamentally different and not comparable. Which is what I would say: The Scottish Parliament has very few powers and in most areas is subject to Westminster (just try and get the Scottish Government policy, supported by the majority of the people, to ban nuclear weapons on Scottish soil enacted). The voice of the Scottish Parliament and Government is unheard south of the border. A few MPs only have influence if neither of the two big English political parties has a majority. Being subject to a foreign government with almost no say in that government is no where near comparable to being one of the biggest voices in a cooperative organisation of independent sovereign nations.
The upshot of the much trailed dinner appears to be that the EU and the U.K. have noticed they disagree with each other and this is somewhat problematic.
EU membership doesn't prevent self-determination. Being subsumed into the UK does (by default).
Scotland has its own parliament with considerable freedom to set its own laws. It also has independent judicial and education systems.
Sure, there are some areas in which they have to follow what the whole union decides. But they have democratic representation in the Westminster parliament, which means they have a say in making those laws, so that’s ok. Right?
The Scottish Parliament's "freedom" is currently within the gift of Westminster. The Sewel Convention, as per recent court judgements, does not have the force of law. This gives the devolved bodies less power to prevent being overruled by the Westminster government than even the House of Lords. "Devolved" is in fact the key term - in the UK the Westminster parliament is sovereign and can grant or revoke powers to other bodies simply by passing legislation. The EU is the opposite - made up of independent states who choose to pool decision making on certain issues. The power there rests with the individual states, while in the UK it is all centralised. As I've mentioned previously, this is made crystal clear by the different processes required for the 2014 and 2016 referenda.
I wonder how The Last Supper In Brussels is progressing?
Bojo: 'But, Ursula - you mean you don't believe in Unicorns?' Fr von der Leyen: 'No, I don't - and what's this ghastly Scotch Egg thing you've ordered for your main course?'
Comments
Which I gather is near enough "not a deal at all"
Well, you've just signed a trade deal with Canada, and so far as I know, we're not a unicorn.
Self determination.
Virtually all of the posts about how much worse off we’re going to be after Brexit are about trade. And pretty much all of the others are about stuff virtually nobody who voted leave is likely to care about. Take freedom of movement, for example - if I have no desire to go and live in an EU country then why would it matter to me that I can no longer do so as easily?
Sounds like Germany’s with the EU.
I suppose it's just possible you might have enough empathy to realise that this might affect other people. Or maybe leavers really are entirely self-centred.
Er... No
About as much empathy as the left has for the rich.
Do you think Greece would agree with you?
I don't want to disillusion you, but she is not just "Our Queen". She is also Queen of Australia, NZ, Canada and some dozen more countries. Roll on the day when we are a republic.
Or maybe you're not interested in our universities and research institutes being among the best in the world? You don't want the benefits to UK research of cooperation with others elsewhere in Europe, the prestige of leading international research projects? You're happy for the best scientists and academics to move to other places in Europe (subject to visa requirements if they don't have EU citizenship) where they can benefit from the structures of the EU in facilitating the best research?
What about the various crises which we face? The climate emergency, the millions of people seeking refuge from war and oppression and poverty, the pandemic we're in. Do you not see how cooperation with other nations is a surer approach to a solution than each nation working alone? Has not large parts of the UK benefited from EU funds developing infrastructure and social action?
Or, maybe you'll be more interested in the UK being part of a large and powerful bloc of nations so that we can stand rather than being dominated by the interests of multinational corporations without democratic accountability? Working with our neighbours to secure our borders, protect our trade and the businesses that depend on it (sorry, one little economic comment), the sovereignty of our Parliament, the fish in our territorial waters. Or, do you really believe that a small island (plus a few even smaller islands) that has grown wealthy within the EU can really be strong enough to stand alone in a world where everyone else is joining clubs to maintain their mutual self-interests?
Do you desire to eat? Or take medicine? Or maybe drive a car? Pretty certain those who voted Leave will care about those.
Congratulations, you've just won the prize for most nonsensical statement on this thread.
The two are not equivalent. Nor is yours, I suspect, true.
EU membership doesn't prevent self-determination. Being subsumed into the UK does (by default).
I don't know about the UK/European form of leftist, which is farther left than most of the US left. But, here, a Venn diagram of left-leaning people and rich people does have an overlap.
Except 'walking away' in this instance consists of taking about 2 steps outside the door and being still clearly visible to everyone while you stand there.
Even if it wasn't for Northern Ireland, the UK can't physically remove itself from being smack bang next to the EU.
I believe we traded you Tony Abbott. Though what horrible thing you did to deserve that, I've no idea.
Plenty of well-off left wingers here.
The rule is, if you are poor it's "politics of envy"
If you're rich it's "champagne socialist"
I'm so sick of it.
So long as the UK doesn’t just slowly fade away.
(Is this a literary game between us?)
Crash and burn in a spectacular display of self destruction.
"...wheels on fire, rolling down the roooaaaaddd! Notify my next of kin, this wheel shall explode."
Yes!! British people don't need to respire 15 times a minute. This is a burdensome rule forced on us by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Good, honest British hedgehogs only need one or two breaths a minute at this time of year. Okay, all they do is lie unconscious under a pile of leaves, but they are free of the EU respiration bullies!!
Leaving just a manic grin in the air, like the Cheshire Cat?
You couldn't make it up, could you? Nauseating.
BTW, a Grauniad reader wondered if The Lord Protector and Ursula von der Leyen were going Dutch over the Scotch Eggs they would no doubt be having as their substantial Brexshit-talk meal.
What has been subsumed into the UK ?
Scotland and Northern Ireland (Wales was technically subsumed into England before the UK was formed).
England, of course, will win, as *Britannia rules the waves* and all that shite...
I also read somewhere that fishermen in the Falkland Islands are seriously worried...maybe they'd have been better off with Argentina, after all?
Bojo: 'But, Ursula - you mean you don't believe in Unicorns?'
Fr von der Leyen: 'No, I don't - and what's this ghastly Scotch Egg thing you've ordered for your main course?'
Scotland has its own parliament with considerable freedom to set its own laws. It also has independent judicial and education systems.
Sure, there are some areas in which they have to follow what the whole union decides. But they have democratic representation in the Westminster parliament, which means they have a say in making those laws, so that’s ok. Right?
Or else, the two arrangements are fundamentally different and not comparable. Which is what I would say: The Scottish Parliament has very few powers and in most areas is subject to Westminster (just try and get the Scottish Government policy, supported by the majority of the people, to ban nuclear weapons on Scottish soil enacted). The voice of the Scottish Parliament and Government is unheard south of the border. A few MPs only have influence if neither of the two big English political parties has a majority. Being subject to a foreign government with almost no say in that government is no where near comparable to being one of the biggest voices in a cooperative organisation of independent sovereign nations.
The Scottish Parliament's "freedom" is currently within the gift of Westminster. The Sewel Convention, as per recent court judgements, does not have the force of law. This gives the devolved bodies less power to prevent being overruled by the Westminster government than even the House of Lords. "Devolved" is in fact the key term - in the UK the Westminster parliament is sovereign and can grant or revoke powers to other bodies simply by passing legislation. The EU is the opposite - made up of independent states who choose to pool decision making on certain issues. The power there rests with the individual states, while in the UK it is all centralised. As I've mentioned previously, this is made crystal clear by the different processes required for the 2014 and 2016 referenda.
Ha ha, subtle