BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Yep, but I only really get to see the random nobodies venting on the Internetrjsterry said:
Let's limit it to actual political bodies/individuals with actual campaign budgets being spent on pushing to rejoin rather than random nobodies venting on the Internet. I'll give you Count Binface 😁 who else?Stevo_666 said:
I could name a couple who are ousting that agenda or something that effectively means rejoining, such as rejoining the SM. All I am trying to do here is inject a spot of realism so that people's energies can be better spent on things that might yield results.rjsterry said:
Not sure who you have in mind here. Genuinely not seen anyone actively campaigning to rejoin.Stevo_666 said:
Starmer reportedly to announce no return to Freedom of Movement and no rejoining the Single Market or customs union. Not looking great for those who think we can just waltz back in as it now requires the pro-rejoin parties (Lib Dems and the SNP?) to get control at the next election: squadron of pigs on standby.tailwindhome said:Labour positioning as 'Make Brexit Work'
And that's assuming the EU would have trouble makers like us back...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Think through the implications of joining the SM. Remember the 4 pillars, no cherry picking etc.kingstongraham said:
So now being in the single market means effectively being in the EU?Stevo_666 said:
I could name a couple who are ousting that agenda or something that effectively means rejoining, such as rejoining the SM. All I am trying to do here is inject a spot of realism so that people's energies can be better spent on things that might yield results.rjsterry said:
Not sure who you have in mind here. Genuinely not seen anyone actively campaigning to rejoin.Stevo_666 said:
Starmer reportedly to announce no return to Freedom of Movement and no rejoining the Single Market or customs union. Not looking great for those who think we can just waltz back in as it now requires the pro-rejoin parties (Lib Dems and the SNP?) to get control at the next election: squadron of pigs on standby.tailwindhome said:Labour positioning as 'Make Brexit Work'
And that's assuming the EU would have trouble makers like us back..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Do you mean with their definition? Being in the SM and CU would have met the definition of the referendum question and would be the easy solution but would be shouted down by the true believers (even though some of those initially said we could stay in the SM at the time of the campaign).tailwindhome said:
*sigh*surrey_commuter said:
could you indicate which of these countries you consider to be EU members;tailwindhome said:
Quitesurrey_commuter said:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”tailwindhome said:
Yet, somehow we don't seem to be able to agree that Brexit isn't done, without changing either the definition of the UK or the definition of BrexitTheBigBean said:
Did I say otherwise? I don't really have any interest in this discussion. As I said, the status is known by everyone.rjsterry said:
Last time I checked, GB is not a state.TheBigBean said:
Complete in GB, not in NI. No idea why so much is debated about this.rjsterry said:
Sfo it's still incomplete.TheBigBean said:
They're trying to sort that out for you.tailwindhome said:
Can the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he decides to do so, reduce VAT on fuel to 0% in the UK?
Turkey
Norway
Ukraine
Can you indicate which of those countries have a relationship with the EU which the Conservative Party, who claim Brexit is done, would have accepted for the UK as representing Brexit being *done*
If either met the definition of Brexit, they wouldn't be fannying about with the Protocol Bill, they'd simply join the Single Market and customs union0 -
Fair point, and not one that necessarily entails signing up to various EU forms of control. However I expect the EU will not be as keen as we are relatively stronger on that front compared to them: presumably if it were in their interests they might have raised it during the negotiations.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Issue there is that there is a border for goods (which I assume you don't like), there is no border for people as they are in Schengen (politically highly unlikely to fly and not part of stated Labour or Tory policy). See my favourite Brexit diagram.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
See Starmer's initial menu.
Then, maybe, further down the line, see what the appetite is for a Norway model, given that's what Farage suggested.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It was a straightforward enough question.Stevo_666 said:
Think through the implications of joining the SM. Remember the 4 pillars, no cherry picking etc.kingstongraham said:
So now being in the single market means effectively being in the EU?Stevo_666 said:
I could name a couple who are ousting that agenda or something that effectively means rejoining, such as rejoining the SM. All I am trying to do here is inject a spot of realism so that people's energies can be better spent on things that might yield results.rjsterry said:
Not sure who you have in mind here. Genuinely not seen anyone actively campaigning to rejoin.Stevo_666 said:
Starmer reportedly to announce no return to Freedom of Movement and no rejoining the Single Market or customs union. Not looking great for those who think we can just waltz back in as it now requires the pro-rejoin parties (Lib Dems and the SNP?) to get control at the next election: squadron of pigs on standby.tailwindhome said:Labour positioning as 'Make Brexit Work'
And that's assuming the EU would have trouble makers like us back...0 -
True. They are not exactly the same, but you can ignore the obvious issues if you want.kingstongraham said:
It was a straightforward enough question.Stevo_666 said:
Think through the implications of joining the SM. Remember the 4 pillars, no cherry picking etc.kingstongraham said:
So now being in the single market means effectively being in the EU?Stevo_666 said:
I could name a couple who are ousting that agenda or something that effectively means rejoining, such as rejoining the SM. All I am trying to do here is inject a spot of realism so that people's energies can be better spent on things that might yield results.rjsterry said:
Not sure who you have in mind here. Genuinely not seen anyone actively campaigning to rejoin.Stevo_666 said:
Starmer reportedly to announce no return to Freedom of Movement and no rejoining the Single Market or customs union. Not looking great for those who think we can just waltz back in as it now requires the pro-rejoin parties (Lib Dems and the SNP?) to get control at the next election: squadron of pigs on standby.tailwindhome said:Labour positioning as 'Make Brexit Work'
And that's assuming the EU would have trouble makers like us back..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There are a lot of services. Doesn't necessarily need to cover every single one.Stevo_666 said:
Fair point, and not one that necessarily entails signing up to various EU forms of control. However I expect the EU will not be as keen as we are relatively stronger on that front compared to them: presumably if it were in their interests they might have raised it during the negotiations.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.0 -
You mean Northern Ireland not having left the SM?Stevo_666 said:
True. They are not exactly the same, but you can ignore the obvious issues if you want.kingstongraham said:
It was a straightforward enough question.Stevo_666 said:
Think through the implications of joining the SM. Remember the 4 pillars, no cherry picking etc.kingstongraham said:
So now being in the single market means effectively being in the EU?Stevo_666 said:
I could name a couple who are ousting that agenda or something that effectively means rejoining, such as rejoining the SM. All I am trying to do here is inject a spot of realism so that people's energies can be better spent on things that might yield results.rjsterry said:
Not sure who you have in mind here. Genuinely not seen anyone actively campaigning to rejoin.Stevo_666 said:
Starmer reportedly to announce no return to Freedom of Movement and no rejoining the Single Market or customs union. Not looking great for those who think we can just waltz back in as it now requires the pro-rejoin parties (Lib Dems and the SNP?) to get control at the next election: squadron of pigs on standby.tailwindhome said:Labour positioning as 'Make Brexit Work'
And that's assuming the EU would have trouble makers like us back...0 -
True. FS is probably the most important area and my point about EU unwillingness in this area stands:rick_chasey said:
There are a lot of services. Doesn't necessarily need to cover every single one.Stevo_666 said:
Fair point, and not one that necessarily entails signing up to various EU forms of control. However I expect the EU will not be as keen as we are relatively stronger on that front compared to them: presumably if it were in their interests they might have raised it during the negotiations.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
https://instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-financial-services#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20EU%20was%20unwilling,through%20mutual%20unilateral%20equivalence%20decisions.
Possibly something for the future when they have come to terms with our departure and are being a bit more cooperative."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Issue there is that there is a border for goods (which I assume you don't like), there is no border for people as they are in Schengen (politically highly unlikely to fly and not part of stated Labour or Tory policy). See my favourite Brexit diagram.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
See Starmer's initial menu.
Then, maybe, further down the line, see what the appetite is for a Norway model, given that's what Farage suggested.
Hence my comment about Starmer's cautious menu, and then assessing the appetite for anything else. The more the economic downsides of this hard Brexit become apparent, the less general resistance there will be to taking pragmatic steps to improve things (apart from those for whom sovereign unicorns are more important than actual, you know, economics).
0 -
He can steer clear and be credible?
You lack optimism. Once it stops being a battle about making brexit a success/failure, which would help with different leadership, I think there is a middle ground to be made. TBH you wouldn't need a big deal to be an improvement on the current situation.Stevo_666 said:
True. FS is probably the most important area and my point about EU unwillingness in this area stands:rick_chasey said:
There are a lot of services. Doesn't necessarily need to cover every single one.Stevo_666 said:
Fair point, and not one that necessarily entails signing up to various EU forms of control. However I expect the EU will not be as keen as we are relatively stronger on that front compared to them: presumably if it were in their interests they might have raised it during the negotiations.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
https://instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-financial-services#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20EU%20was%20unwilling,through%20mutual%20unilateral%20equivalence%20decisions.
Possibly something for the future when they have come to terms with our departure and are being a bit more cooperative.0 -
Surely the Telegraph must have unearthed some dastardly plan, no? There must be someone. Steve Bray?Stevo_666 said:
Yep, but I only really get to see the random nobodies venting on the Internetrjsterry said:
Let's limit it to actual political bodies/individuals with actual campaign budgets being spent on pushing to rejoin rather than random nobodies venting on the Internet. I'll give you Count Binface 😁 who else?Stevo_666 said:
I could name a couple who are ousting that agenda or something that effectively means rejoining, such as rejoining the SM. All I am trying to do here is inject a spot of realism so that people's energies can be better spent on things that might yield results.rjsterry said:
Not sure who you have in mind here. Genuinely not seen anyone actively campaigning to rejoin.Stevo_666 said:
Starmer reportedly to announce no return to Freedom of Movement and no rejoining the Single Market or customs union. Not looking great for those who think we can just waltz back in as it now requires the pro-rejoin parties (Lib Dems and the SNP?) to get control at the next election: squadron of pigs on standby.tailwindhome said:Labour positioning as 'Make Brexit Work'
And that's assuming the EU would have trouble makers like us back...1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This is the bit where the EU needs to reattach its nose.rick_chasey said:He can steer clear and be credible?
You lack optimism. Once it stops being a battle about making brexit a success/failure, which would help with different leadership, I think there is a middle ground to be made. TBH you wouldn't need a big deal to be an improvement on the current situation.Stevo_666 said:
True. FS is probably the most important area and my point about EU unwillingness in this area stands:rick_chasey said:
There are a lot of services. Doesn't necessarily need to cover every single one.Stevo_666 said:
Fair point, and not one that necessarily entails signing up to various EU forms of control. However I expect the EU will not be as keen as we are relatively stronger on that front compared to them: presumably if it were in their interests they might have raised it during the negotiations.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
https://instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-financial-services#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20EU%20was%20unwilling,through%20mutual%20unilateral%20equivalence%20decisions.
Possibly something for the future when they have come to terms with our departure and are being a bit more cooperative.0 -
Yeah. I think having someone else in Britain who won't declare every tiny victory as vindication for Brexit would help them along in that regard.TheBigBean said:
This is the bit where the EU needs to reattach its nose.
0 -
Not often that accusation is levelled at merick_chasey said:He can steer clear and be credible?
You lack optimism. Once it stops being a battle about making brexit a success/failure, which would help with different leadership, I think there is a middle ground to be made. TBH you wouldn't need a big deal to be an improvement on the current situation.Stevo_666 said:
True. FS is probably the most important area and my point about EU unwillingness in this area stands:rick_chasey said:
There are a lot of services. Doesn't necessarily need to cover every single one.Stevo_666 said:
Fair point, and not one that necessarily entails signing up to various EU forms of control. However I expect the EU will not be as keen as we are relatively stronger on that front compared to them: presumably if it were in their interests they might have raised it during the negotiations.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
https://instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-financial-services#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20EU%20was%20unwilling,through%20mutual%20unilateral%20equivalence%20decisions.
Possibly something for the future when they have come to terms with our departure and are being a bit more cooperative.
I'd be all for it but there is a time and a place for it which probably is further down the line (for the reason I gave above) in order to give it the best chance of success."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Not often that accusation is levelled at merick_chasey said:He can steer clear and be credible?
You lack optimism. Once it stops being a battle about making brexit a success/failure, which would help with different leadership, I think there is a middle ground to be made. TBH you wouldn't need a big deal to be an improvement on the current situation.Stevo_666 said:
True. FS is probably the most important area and my point about EU unwillingness in this area stands:rick_chasey said:
There are a lot of services. Doesn't necessarily need to cover every single one.Stevo_666 said:
Fair point, and not one that necessarily entails signing up to various EU forms of control. However I expect the EU will not be as keen as we are relatively stronger on that front compared to them: presumably if it were in their interests they might have raised it during the negotiations.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
https://instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-financial-services#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20EU%20was%20unwilling,through%20mutual%20unilateral%20equivalence%20decisions.
Possibly something for the future when they have come to terms with our departure and are being a bit more cooperative.
I'd be all for it but there is a time and a place for it which probably is further down the line (for the reason I gave above) in order to give it the best chance of success.
So are we still in the 'Too early to tell' phase?1 -
Some people are so busy watching for other people's flags they've not noticed they've hoisted one or two of their own...Jezyboy said:
Is it not more that if you're as young as Draver, and have friends elsewhere in the world, you were quite possibly vaccinated after them. Despite living in a country that was apparently "world beating"TheBigBean said:
It's all a conspiracy, why won't people listen. "3. These facts have not only been concealed by Gov and media alike".pinkbikini said:
It’s not new, but the thread dissects the ongoing Tory claim that the vaccine rollout was one of the big calls Spaffer got right. It’s about the only flag the Tories have got to fly. It’s a highly disputed fact (you could almost call it a lie) that is continually peddled by Johnson supporters.TheBigBean said:
Keep flying the flag.ddraver said:
Is that the flag you meant?
The whole thing was discussed at length at the time. I would have thought only Ursula's mum would have been quite so keen to keep the fight going, but it appears that there are some others too.
In my eyes, the only mistake the UK government made on vaccines was not vaccinating even earlier i.e. they were too cautious. I do understand the counter argument though.
I'm also not sure you need to be a fortune teller to know that vaccines might be a good idea in a pandemic.
Not taking part in the EU purchasing process was a good decision. But to listen to some of the criticism, you'd think that the difference between the UK and EU overall pandemic performance was remarkable, when that really doesn't seem to be the case.
This - it's more triangulation. It deceives precisely no one and inspires even less...rick_chasey said:Brexit voters won't believe Starmer. Simple. Go ask any Brexiter and ask them if they believe Starmer's promise. I'd be surprised if you find anyone who does.
So why take the cost associated with the promise for no gain?
Even the remainer defence of the position boils down to "he doesn't really believe it, as long as it gets him in". Punters see through that cynicism.
BoJo used to be thought of as authentic, as he seemed incapable of being media trained...hence his electoral success, despite any evidence of his competence.
In a post Cumming's three word slogan world a "five point plan" is useless. It may as well be an Ed Stone. (and that's before people notice that 3 of the 5 have nothing to do with the EU.
Owen Jones (!) writes a column a week about how Starmer appears to have dropped the promises he was elected to Leader on. Much more of this type of half assed wish wash and normal people will start to notice it too.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
It seems to be more than fair to judge the claims of achievement by the Conservative Party, against the criteria set by the Conservative PartyPross said:
Do you mean with their definition? Being in the SM and CU would have met the definition of the referendum question and would be the easy solution but would be shouted down by the true believers (even though some of those initially said we could stay in the SM at the time of the campaign).tailwindhome said:
*sigh*surrey_commuter said:
could you indicate which of these countries you consider to be EU members;tailwindhome said:
Quitesurrey_commuter said:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”tailwindhome said:
Yet, somehow we don't seem to be able to agree that Brexit isn't done, without changing either the definition of the UK or the definition of BrexitTheBigBean said:
Did I say otherwise? I don't really have any interest in this discussion. As I said, the status is known by everyone.rjsterry said:
Last time I checked, GB is not a state.TheBigBean said:
Complete in GB, not in NI. No idea why so much is debated about this.rjsterry said:
Sfo it's still incomplete.TheBigBean said:
They're trying to sort that out for you.tailwindhome said:
Can the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he decides to do so, reduce VAT on fuel to 0% in the UK?
Turkey
Norway
Ukraine
Can you indicate which of those countries have a relationship with the EU which the Conservative Party, who claim Brexit is done, would have accepted for the UK as representing Brexit being *done*
If either met the definition of Brexit, they wouldn't be fannying about with the Protocol Bill, they'd simply join the Single Market and customs union“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Brexit meant the UK leaving the EU and no longer being a member.tailwindhome said:
*sigh*surrey_commuter said:
could you indicate which of these countries you consider to be EU members;tailwindhome said:
Quitesurrey_commuter said:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”tailwindhome said:
Yet, somehow we don't seem to be able to agree that Brexit isn't done, without changing either the definition of the UK or the definition of BrexitTheBigBean said:
Did I say otherwise? I don't really have any interest in this discussion. As I said, the status is known by everyone.rjsterry said:
Last time I checked, GB is not a state.TheBigBean said:
Complete in GB, not in NI. No idea why so much is debated about this.rjsterry said:
Sfo it's still incomplete.TheBigBean said:
They're trying to sort that out for you.tailwindhome said:
Can the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he decides to do so, reduce VAT on fuel to 0% in the UK?
Turkey
Norway
Ukraine
Can you indicate which of those countries have a relationship with the EU which the Conservative Party, who claim Brexit is done, would have accepted for the UK as representing Brexit being *done*
If either met the definition of Brexit, they wouldn't be fannying about with the Protocol Bill, they'd simply join the Single Market and customs union
How nutters define that is irrelevant to me, they have spent their entire adult lives raging against the EU and that is not going to change.0 -
in the history of FTA's none has ever included services. You have fallen for another Brexshit lie.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.0 -
First time for everything?surrey_commuter said:
in the history of FTA's none has ever included services. You have fallen for another Brexshit lie.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
Few countries have done anything like brexit, so I don't think it would be surprising if the eventual fall out contained a number of "firsts".0 -
Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.0 -
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.1 -
The only services that require FTAs are ones that are regulated, and not that many things are regulated. For example, if you require a website to be designed, the person who does it can sit in any country.surrey_commuter said:
in the history of FTA's none has ever included services. You have fallen for another Brexshit lie.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.0 -
TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.0 -
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.0 -
TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?0 -
Where your theory falls down is that all other trade deals have signalled convergence rather than divergence and it still has not been possible.Jezyboy said:
First time for everything?surrey_commuter said:
in the history of FTA's none has ever included services. You have fallen for another Brexshit lie.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
Few countries have done anything like brexit, so I don't think it would be surprising if the eventual fall out contained a number of "firsts".
Ignoring the rights and wrongs the EU would be mad not to try and steal the jewel in our crown0 -
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
0
