Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That will be exactly the point. The EU want them to stay. The British want all the privileges of being a member. In reality politicians both in Britain and rest EU want the UK to stay. The tricky part is how to maintain the illusion of democracy. They'll just keep negotiation to no end.
The British don't want anything other than a free trade agreement, something that the EU already has with 60 nations outside of the EU.
The EU has 36 free trade agreements with 60 non EU countries, and regardless of petty disputes over small borders which are never going to have a hard border, the EU should be concentrating on trying to negotiate a trade deal.
If the EU can negotiate free trade agreements with most of North Africa, the Middle East and numerous other countries, then making a trade agreement with a close ally who helps defend Europe, should not present any problem whatsoever.
The EU even has a provisionally applied free trade agreement with Zimbabwe.
The fact that you will be able to freely trade goods from the likes of Morocco but not the UK is absoloutely ridiculous, and it's not down to the UK it's down to the EU trying to manipulate the situation and punsih Britain.
No they don’t. They just want a trade agreement. As I pointed out in one of these threads, Canada had a free trade agreement with the EU. Japan does too. So does Mexico.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
The British don't want anything other than a free trade agreement, something that the EU already has with 60 nations outside of the EU.
...
Trade is just part of the problem and they could care less if the deficit increases. The main issue is finances. They can't have investors leave London.
Farage explains it well. The will of the people does not matter. Between the money interest of the city of London and Brussels' policies they'll extend this until they figure out how to trick people into accepting the status quo.
Trick the people? That train has already left the station.
Everything from ads on buses to the constant barrage of speeches and social media postings assured everyone that there was not going to be an economic cost to Brexit. In fact, Brexit would be an economic boon as every nation on earth would be tripping over themselves to sign free trade agreements with the UK.
A couple of regulars on C-D are constantly posting about all these free trade agreements .
Hopefully, their optimistic assessments will pan out better than earlier assurances have.
Trade is just part of the problem and they could care less if the deficit increases. The main issue is finances. They can't have investors leave London.
Farage explains it well. The will of the people does not matter. Between the money interest of the city of London and Brussels' policies they'll extend this until they figure out how to trick people into accepting the status quo.
As Jacob Rees-Mogg rightly points out, London has never been in competition with Frankfurt, Paris or Amsterdam. In terms of banking London is in competition with NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai etc.
The projection for job losses in London is a mere 4,600 banking jobs, which have already been replaced by massive investment from other sectors including the growing tech sector.
The financial sector could thrive in London after Brexit, as we would not be tied to a lot of EU regulations and would be able to put in place our own regulatons in order to make London as competitive as possible on the global stage.
In terms of trade, the EU has a $100 Billion surplus with the UK, and Germany even has a surplus in terms of finance and services, so would be doubly hit, at a time when Germany is believed to be going in to recession.
I really don't understand where some Americans get this view of the EU, when in fact it's the global economy and global trade that is important and the financial industries throughout the world can not be stopped from trading because of the EU. The US trades on equivalency as do other nations, and the UK will trade in a similar manner.
Pulling a fast one on the British People was never going to work!
She failed to build the alliances with the parties for the plan to pass. For example she did not listen to DUP party (Democratic Unionist Party), and therefore did not get their support.
Nothing is going to happen on March 29. Parliament will say brexit is not possible without a deal. This will extend indefinitely because the British demands are unrealistic.
Interesting how you switch brexit=no moving parts, no brexit=multiple moving parts. You are confusing a single statement with all the actual changes brexit implies. Trade, finances, and social policies will continue with the EU. In the end, money matters, not voting.
Brexit is done, it's in British Law, the only way to stop it is to do something. It's the default position.
Anything else needs action.
The UK can't extend, May is the election of the EU Commissioner, if the UK stays until then their MEP's get to vote on who it will be. You think Juncker is going to let that happen? You'd need to amend EU law to refuse the vote to the UK, and that literally can't be done prior to May.
A couple of regulars on C-D are constantly posting about all these free trade agreements .
Hopefully, their optimistic assessments will pan out better than earlier assurances have.
I’m not sure if you are referring to me since I just posted about trade agreements. However, the point I was making is that posters are flat out wrong when they state or imply that a free trade agreement with the EU is only possible if a country is part of the EU and accepts free movement.
I listed current EU free trade agreements with non-EU countries as proof. How does stating a simple FACT i.e. those free trade agreements exist equal ”optimistic assessment?”
When Britain first asked to join the Common Market in 1963 under British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, British membership was vetoed by Charles de Gaulle. His argument was that the UK was too close to the USA. And de Gaulle was right- Britain has a lot more in common with their former colonies than with polyglot continental Europe.
As Jacob Rees-Mogg rightly points out, London has never been in competition with Frankfurt, Paris or Amsterdam. In terms of banking London is in competition with NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai etc.
The projection for job losses in London is a mere 4,600 banking jobs, which have already been replaced by massive investment from other sectors including the growing tech sector.
The financial sector could thrive in London after Brexit, as we would not be tied to a lot of EU regulations and would be able to put in place our own regulatons in order to make London as competitive as possible on the global stage.
In terms of trade, the EU has a $100 Billion surplus with the UK, and Germany even has a surplus in terms of finance and services, so would be doubly hit, at a time when Germany is believed to be going in to recession.
I really don't understand where some Americans get this view of the EU, when in fact it's the global economy and global trade that is important and the financial industries throughout the world can not be stopped from trading because of the EU. The US trades on equivalency as do other nations, and the UK will trade in a similar manner.
What I mean is that everyone is underestimating London as a financial center and its relation to the rest of Europe. It employs 1.6% of workers in the UK, yet produce 22% of GDP. I know London is not a competitor with other European cities. It is a competitor with place like NYC, etc. but that is in part because of its relation with other European countries.
Jobs, trade, industry take second place when it comes to finances, specially for the UK. The news are talking about either an extension of negotiations or/and a second referendum. You can believe all you want in a hard exit, but it's probably not going to happen. I would be really surprised if that was the case. We'll see in March.
As for the EU in general, I don't support them but I believe they are going to become stronger not weaker, they just have to use a few dirty tricks.
My UK Brexit friend excitedly emailed the Telegraph article today:
Thousands of Conservative members are likely to defect to a new Brexit party which was today officially recognised by the electoral regulator, its backers claim.
The Electoral Commission on Friday formally recognised the Brexit Party as an official organisation which will allow it to field candidates at elections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
