advantages of Brexit

Odhinn

ozmo wrote: »

They have a funny way of trying to get on his good side - Trump Baby Balloons etc.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan must feel in a very confident commanding position to have felt he can insult the one person they need most to have on their side.

By reason of his birth and Trumps 'ideology' that was never going to happen, hence the balloons.

Odhinn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, the very best of luck to Scotland as our newest independent neighbours, you can rely on us to support you.

There can be a ceremony, with the exchange of traditional heavily battered food products from both countries.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, the very best of luck to Scotland as our newest independent neighbours, you can rely on us to support you.

Some independence is more valuable than other independence clearly.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

The trade that the UK does with the likes of NZ etc is currently done under EU rules. They have no agreements on a crash out.

So yes, they can start to feed themselves, but what to you think is the reason they don't currently do so and export some? Because they can get food in cheaper and earn more money from exports.

So, prices will rise and profits will fall. Hardly a good start.

And in that 60% there are things that are required to be imported to keep that 60% going. Take for example the silage issue earlier this year. Ireland needed to import silage. If we can't that effects the output on the farms. But does the UK have the capacity to fill the 40%? If not then there will be shortages. But I guess people eat to much anyway so that isn't a problem.

And as explained in the article, even an increase in 2 minutes on checks will lead to significant delays, leading to produce not being able to be sold.

Will the UK survive of course it will. People live through wars and disasters. But to inflict that on themselves is utter madness.

They could of course simply throw open the borders to avoid any issues, but then you can forget about exports as no EU country will take any produce in as it can't be verified.

You pass a change in diet of as just something that will be accepted by millions. Its the little things that p1ss people off. Its not the international trade agreements or Brexit, people don't understand them and have bigger things to worry about. But taking away their favorite foods? You don't think that is going to cause a problem?

so, simple answer, will medicine and food disappear off the shelves, as the poster stated?

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Aw yes the old bogeyman of China,Russia,US etc. etc

I'd have serious reservations about this ever closer union,especially the way they have gone about it,not Democratic in the slightest.Take open borders as an example, people need to carefully consider and debate this as once you do it there is no going back,I'll be honest I think hitching your cart economically,finacially and politically to the EU is sheer madness because when the inevitable collapse comes there will be chaos.

the trouble with the EU (and any "Big" government) is that they are a machine who churn out legislation and rules, even when those rules and legislation aren't really needed or can quite easily be handled at a local level.When this happens, the machine just keeps driving in one direction with no one to stop it, it almost fuels itself and ends up serving itself more than the people who it is supposed to serve.

Take the EU parliaments response to the drop in funding and the drop in numbers that Brexit will bring about. it decided amongst itself, that the 90 UK MEPs that disappear, will be replaced with MEPs from other countries and the hole in th budget will just mean a 10% increase for the remaining members. No hint of a cut back or reduction in the parliament, just keep the machine rolling with fewer tax payers to pay for it.

The only possible conclusion to this, is the united states of Europe, with the EU parliament having the role of the senate and the EU being the Federal Government.

And who can stop it, because there is no one within Brussels that wants to derail the gravy train, the Germans are too scared to out of guilt, the French don't want to, because they want to run it and no one else is strong enough because they need the funding the eu gives them.

Leroy42

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Aw yes the old bogeyman of China,Russia,US etc. etc

I'd have serious reservations about this ever closer union,especially the way they have gone about it,not Democratic in the slightest.Take open borders as an example, people need to carefully consider and debate this as once you do it there is no going back,I'll be honest I think hitching your cart economically,finacially and politically to the EU is sheer madness because when the inevitable collapse comes there will be chaos.

Its not about them being bogeymen, its the reality of us being such a small nation.

the past 18 months have shown that Trump can cause serious issues whenever he likes. On our own we are completely powerless against that (or China, India etc). At least within the EU we have a voice. Not enough on its own, but working with others we can get our points across.

On our own we have nothing. Its nothing against Ireland, we are the country we are, but just like a large supermarket dictates the reality of the shops around it, we are going to be under the influence of some other countries no matter what.

So do we want to play an active role in those decisions and potentially protect ourselves, or simply strike out on our own and hope for the best?

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, the very best of luck to Scotland as our newest independent neighbours, you can rely on us to support you.

but if they leave the EU and the UK, then surely they will have no food on the shelves, no medicines and no flights in or out of their airports?

Spook_ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This stupid myth again.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/britain-take-back-control-immigration-eu-directive-brexit

Members of the EU don't have control over immigration from within the EU because they are signed up to allow free movement of people and goods, if the entire population of Latvia decided to move to Ireland en masse they would be entitled to do so.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

The only possible conclusion to this, is the united states of Europe, with the EU parliament having the role of the senate and the EU being the Federal Government.

And who can stop it, because there is no one within Brussels that wants to derail the gravy train, the Germans are too scared to out of guilt, the French don't want to, because they want to run it and no one else is strong enough because they need the funding the eu gives them.

This tired old nonsense again. Somehow I don't see the Visegrad group allowing this to happen to say nothing of the other 23 member states.

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

but if they leave the EU and the UK, then surely they will have no food on the shelves, no medicines and no flights in or out of their airports?

But independence is worth paying the price, say the Brexiteers.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

so, simple answer, will medicine and food disappear off the shelves, as the poster stated?

To varying degrees yes. Some local products will of course remain, but then the ability to grow and or produce those products will start to be effected. But in the very short term, yes as the supply chain simply does not have the ability to pivot that quickly.

Look at the recent KFC debacle. That was caused by a changeover in logistics partner. Simple really but latest nearly two weeks. Now multiply that across every sector within the food industry.

Aegir wrote: »

the trouble with the EU (and any "Big" government) is that they are a machine who churn out legislation and rules, even when those rules and legislation aren't really needed or can quite easily be handled at a local level.When this happens, the machine just keeps driving in one direction with no one to stop it, it almost fuels itself and ends up serving itself more than the people who it is supposed to serve.

Take the EU parliaments response to the drop in funding and the drop in numbers that Brexit will bring about. it decided amongst itself, that the 90 UK MEPs that disappear, will be replaced with MEPs from other countries and the hole in th budget will just mean a 10% increase for the remaining members. No hint of a cut back or reduction in the parliament, just keep the machine rolling with fewer tax payers to pay for it.

The only possible conclusion to this, is the united states of Europe, with the EU parliament having the role of the senate and the EU being the Federal Government.

And who can stop it, because there is no one within Brussels that wants to derail the gravy train, the Germans are too scared to out of guilt, the French don't want to, because they want to run it and no one else is strong enough because they need the funding the eu gives them.

But we are equal partners in the whole thing. You speak of it as some nebulous organisation of which we have no impact, when that is not the case. We have veto rights over many things. We can use our contacts to get other countries to side with us.

And you have still given no alternative.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This tired old nonsense again. Somehow I don't see the Visegrad group allowing this to happen to say nothing of the other 23 member states.

Why is it nonsense? It is the logical progression of a parliament with the mission statement of ever closer union, make all laws in every country the same, harmonise taxation, sign off on state budgets, control the central bank. Control foreign and defence policy. what's left after that?

so let me understand this. If the UK objects to this "Ever Closer Union" they are laggards and holding the project back, but if the Visegrad group do, they are exercising their rights?

Is that how it works?

4068ac1elhodqr

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Aw yes the old bogeyman of China,Russia,US etc. etc

I'd have serious reservations about this ever closer union,especially the way they have gone about it,not Democratic in the slightest.Take open borders as an example, people need to carefully consider and debate this as once you do it there is no going back,I'll be honest I think hitching your cart economically,finacially and politically to the EU is sheer madness because when the inevitable collapse comes there will be chaos.

The open borders concept does need some discussion, while it goes part and parcel with free trade, but if external borders aren't protected, then the internal borders aren't also. (Not to even to mention future EU expansion plans).

Just last week there was an acid attack on a 3yo in Eng' by an Afgan refugee, and yesterday 600 jumping a fence into Spain whilst throwing corossive liquids and faeces at the border guards. Last month the crew of a commercial ship was threatend with going overboard, by the very folks it resuced from the Med.

People complain about the cost of unification with the 6 counties, but the EU superstate is equivilent to 1,483 counties, assuming more harmonisation.

There may be advantages to be had by brexit, but there is also disadvantages if Ire's generous welfare state becomes a new attractiion to the 445,000,000+ once the UK sail off on their own.

FrancieBrady

Spook_ie wrote: »

Members of the EU don't have control over immigration from within the EU because they are signed up to allow free movement of people and goods, if the entire population of Latvia decided to move to Ireland en masse they would be entitled to do so.

That's it. Don't process the info you are given and instead indulge in fantasy and misinformation

Junkyard Tom

The greatest advantage of Brexit is to the EU.

Britain is a region with less then one percent of the world's population, an economy largely based on speculation, whose foreign-owned manufacturing will happily relocate to Europe, has a productivity rate worse than Italy, has an 'elite' media and political class replete with utter morons who live in a 19th Century bubble. Britain is a fifth wheel and needs to be dumped so that the EU can move forward.

Britain is truly lucky that it still has a toe-hold in Ireland or they'd already be facing an economic melt-down. They are also looking at messy break-up with Scotland and unionists in the northeast of Ireland have to be very nice to their nationalist neighbours or they'll just vote themselves out of the UK and back into the EU via a United Ireland.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

Why is it nonsense? It is the logical progression of a parliament with the mission statement of ever closer union, make all laws in every country the same, harmonise taxation, sign off on state budgets, control the central bank. Control foreign and defence policy. what's left after that?

so let me understand this. If the UK objects to this "Ever Closer Union" they are laggards and holding the project back, but if the Visegrad group do, they are exercising their rights?

Is that how it works?

Because it isn't even remotely feasible and it's little more than a scare tactic.

Where did I call the UK laggards? Quote please.

Leroy42

Spook_ie wrote: »

Members of the EU don't have control over immigration from within the EU because they are signed up to allow free movement of people and goods, if the entire population of Latvia decided to move to Ireland en masse they would be entitled to do so.

Ireland yes, Belgium no. They could move for three months before they would be kicked out. That is within the rules, it is our decision not to implement it.

srsly78

Spook_ie wrote: »

Members of the EU don't have control over immigration from within the EU because they are signed up to allow free movement of people and goods, if the entire population of Latvia decided to move to Ireland en masse they would be entitled to do so.

This is not the case. Free movement is not the same as freedom to live in any country.

Spook_ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's it. Don't process the info you are given and instead indulge in fantasy and misinformation

I'd prefer to read an official source

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Moving-to-another-EU-Country_holder.aspx

If you are unemployed, you have the right to live in another EU country for a "reasonable period" of time in order to look for a job. In the absence of a definition of "reasonable period", most EU countries are now operating a 6-month period, though some EU countries are still operating a 3-month period. You are advised to check the exact situation with the national authorities of the EU country in which you are looking for work. However, no matter how long you have to look for a job, you cannot be asked to leave the country if you can prove that you are genuinely looking for a job and that you have a real chance of finding one. For example, you have still got interviews or tests to attend.

Leroy42

So basically if someone is actively looking for work they can stay. Seems fairly reasonable.

It s a long way from the entire population of Latvia moving to Ireland and staying here though isn't it.

Since you like to get from an official source, maybe you should read it before making up stuff to post.

ArchXStanton

Aegir wrote: »

Why is it nonsense? It is the logical progression of a parliament with the mission statement of ever closer union, make all laws in every country the same, harmonise taxation, sign off on state budgets, control the central bank. Control foreign and defence policy. what's left after that?

so let me understand this. If the UK objects to this "Ever Closer Union" they are laggards and holding the project back, but if the Visegrad group do, they are exercising their rights?

Is that how it works?

They.just.dont.get.it

If they paid close attention to the EU they would see it's a regular utterance out of the bureaucrats.

It has its own flag,anthem,government buildings and lo and behold the project of peace now wants its own army.Not to mention trying to instill some "European identity" on the people,it's all a bit too forced and fake.

Anyhoo I don't think the United states is something to try emulate

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

To varying degrees yes. Some local products will of course remain, but then the ability to grow and or produce those products will start to be effected. But in the very short term, yes as the supply chain simply does not have the ability to pivot that quickly.

Look at the recent KFC debacle. That was caused by a changeover in logistics partner. Simple really but latest nearly two weeks. Now multiply that across every sector within the food industry.

so that was a no then?

Leroy42 wrote: »

But we are equal partners in the whole thing. You speak of it as some nebulous organisation of which we have no impact, when that is not the case. We have veto rights over many things. We can use our contacts to get other countries to side with us.

And you have still given no alternative.

There are no veto rights in the eu parliament, it is a parliament.

The alternative is simple, drastically cut back the powers and the numbers that make up the eu.

Why do we have three presidents? all of whom earn more than all the heads of government in the eu and none of whom have any of the responsibility? Why does the whole thing pack up every three weeks and travel to Strasbourg, at massive expense?

It has become too big and too powerful, it has done its job now, the whole thing can be scaled down significantly and concentrate on what it should be, a free trade area with basic common principles.

Taytoland

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Sadiq Khan is arguably the worst mayor seen in over a hundred years in Britain, so I wouldn't worry too much about what he says, he lacks credibility.

By what metric? That he isn't some regressive white nationalist?

That he is overseeing some of the worst times in London in years, friends with Islamists, rampant knife crime which is a 7 year high.

FrancieBrady

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd prefer to read an official source

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Moving-to-another-EU-Country_holder.aspx

Is that not an example of a limit?

Do try and interpret what you are quoting.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Because it isn't even remotely feasible and it's little more than a scare tactic.

Where did I call the UK laggards? Quote please.

The accusation has been thrown around already in this thread, or fifth wheel according to Junkyard Tom.

why is the eu superstate no feasible?

There are calls from very senior people for an eu army from the President of the EU commission https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary

The european commission has to sign off on each Euro state's budget

There are widespread calls for tax harmonisation.

The EU already tells us what medicines we can use, what we can smoke an what size vacuum cleaner we can use. It regulates our food and our vehicles and controls all flights in and out of europe.

What's left?

But any objectors are just holding back the project, despite no one ever actually defining what that project is.

First Up

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Aegir wrote: »

Why is it nonsense? It is the logical progression of a parliament with the mission statement of ever closer union, make all laws in every country the same, harmonise taxation, sign off on state budgets, control the central bank. Control foreign and defence policy. what's left after that?

so let me understand this. If the UK objects to this "Ever Closer Union" they are laggards and holding the project back, but if the Visegrad group do, they are exercising their rights?

Is that how it works?

They.just.dont.get.it

If they paid close attention to the EU they would see it's a regular utterance out of the bureaucrats.

Is that so?

It was a phrase in the 1957 Treaty of Rome - 12 years after WW2 - and referred to ever closer union among the peoples (plural) of Europe.

It has been misrepresented by people of questionable motives ever since but I've not seen the "regular utterances out of the bureaucrats".

Got any examples?

blinding

Spook_ie wrote: »

Members of the EU don't have control over immigration from within the EU because they are signed up to allow free movement of people and goods, if the entire population of Latvia decided to move to Ireland en masse they would be entitled to do so.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/freedom_of_movement_in_the_eu.html

You are entirely correct . You have no control over Mass Immigration from the Eu while in the Eu .

Spook_ie

Leroy42 wrote: »

So basically if someone is actively looking for work they can stay. Seems fairly reasonable.

It s a long way from the entire population of Latvia moving to Ireland and staying here though isn't it.

Since you like to get from an official source, maybe you should read it before making up stuff to post.

As I said there is nothing to prevent the entire population of Latvia moving here, they are entitled to under EU legislation. As long as they sign up with an employment agency there is FA Ireland could do about it. Now I suggest you read another bit of the source I posted

EU Directives on free movement of workers
If you are an EU national moving to another EU country to take up employment or self-employment or to provide a service, the Directives cover you. Members of your family, whatever their nationality, have the right to accompany you or to join you in your country of employment. Your family is defined as your spouse and your children who are under 21 years of age (or older if they are dependent on you) and their spouses, as well as your parents and your parents-in-law, if they are dependent on you. Your registered partner (and dependent relatives) is also entitled to move with you if the host member state treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage.

The host member state must facilitate the entry and residence of other family members who do not have an absolute right to move but who are dependent on you or whose health is such that they require care by you. Member states must also facilitate the entry and resident the entry and residence of a partner with whom you have a durable relationship.

EU citizens exercising their right to free movement are not required to have a residence card but their family members who are not themselves EU citizens may be required to have such a card.

If they wish to, your spouse, civil partner and children also have the right to work without restriction in your country of employment. You and your family members have the right to the same social benefits as the nationals of the host member state. This includes the right to education access and benefits.

Members of your family who come from a non-EU country may be asked for an entry visa by the country of employment. This visa is granted quite easily and should be free of charge.

blinding

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The greatest advantage of Brexit is to the EU.

Britain is a region with less then one percent of the world's population, an economy largely based on speculation, whose foreign-owned manufacturing will happily relocate to Europe, has a productivity rate worse than Italy, has an 'elite' media and political class replete with utter morons who live in a 19th Century bubble. Britain is a fifth wheel and needs to be dumped so that the EU can move forward.

Britain is truly lucky that it still has a toe-hold in Ireland or they'd already be facing an economic melt-down. They are also looking at messy break-up with Scotland and unionists in the northeast of Ireland have to be very nice to their nationalist neighbours or they'll just vote themselves out of the UK and back into the EU via a United Ireland.

You do know that One Third of SNP Voters voted for Brexit .:eek:

blinding

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ireland yes, Belgium no. They could move for three months before they would be kicked out. That is within the rules, it is our decision not to implement it.

How often are they kicked out even in countries that hold that right ?

Taytoland

blinding wrote: »

Spook_ie wrote: »

Members of the EU don't have control over immigration from within the EU because they are signed up to allow free movement of people and goods, if the entire population of Latvia decided to move to Ireland en masse they would be entitled to do so.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/freedom_of_movement_in_the_eu.html

You are entirely correct . You have no control over Mass Immigration from the Eu while in the Eu .

A scandalous treaty and THE key foundation for why Brexit is happening. No freedom of movement, no Brexit.

ArchXStanton

First Up wrote: »

Is that so?

It was a phrase in the 1957 Treaty of Rome - 12 years after WW2 - and referred to ever closer union among the peoples (plural) of Europe.

It has been misrepresented by people of questionable motives ever since but I've not seen the "regular utterances out of the bureaucrats".

Got any examples?

Here you are the " example"

https://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/schulz-calls-for-united-states-of-europe-as-spd-agrees-talks-with-merkel/

Its worth checking Verhofstadts Facebook page also...if only to laugh at his fanaticism

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

The accusation has been thrown around already in this thread, or fifth wheel according to Junkyard Tom.

Then I suggest you ask him.

Aegir wrote: »

why is the eu superstate no feasible?

There are calls from very senior people for an eu army from the President of the EU commission https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary

The european commission has to sign off on each Euro state's budget

There are widespread calls for tax harmonisation.

The EU already tells us what medicines we can use, what we can smoke an what size vacuum cleaner we can use. It regulates our food and our vehicles and controls all flights in and out of europe.

What's left?

But any objectors are just holding back the project, despite no one ever actually defining what that project is.

Calls, ie cherrypicked comments. An EU superstate requires members to cede sovereignty to Brussels, something which is politically toxic at the moment.

ancapailldorcha

Taytoland wrote: »

That he is overseeing some of the worst times in London in years, friends with Islamists, rampant knife crime which is a 7 year high.

Worst times? Care to elaborate?

How many knife crimes are there, exactly?

Finally, can you prove he is friends with Islamists?

First Up

First Up wrote: »

Is that so?

It was a phrase in the 1957 Treaty of Rome - 12 years after WW2 - and referred to ever closer union among the peoples (plural) of Europe.

It has been misrepresented by people of questionable motives ever since but I've not seen the "regular utterances out of the bureaucrats".

Got any examples?

http://www.spinelligroup.eu/about-us

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

How often are they kicked out even in countries that hold that right ?

Not the point and you know it.
But keep clinging to myths

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not the point and you know it.
But keep clinging to myths

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/freedom_of_movement_in_the_eu.html

First Up

I can only admire the degree of paranoia needed to see Martin Schultz or the Spinelli Group as a threat to the sovereignty of EU member states.

Leroy42

As has been pointed out there is a difference between FoM and mass immigration.

Belgium for example, and it is acknowldged in the Irish citizens website, can send you back after 3 months. The UK, in 2015, got permission to withhold any state support until a person has worked for a certain period of time.

So they can only really come to a place if they have a job. So what is wrong with them coming if they are going to be productive?

You are mixing up immigration and FoM.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

I can only admire the degree of paranoia needed to see Martin Schultz or the Spinelli Group as a threat to the sovereignty of EU member states.

Guy Verhofstadt, a leading member of the Spinelli group very nearly became president of the Eu commission. He is now a key negotiator in Brexit.

A man who believes in putting the Eu state’s best interests is negotiating on behalf of Ireland.

How reluctant do you think he would be to throw Ireland under the bus if it meant keeping federalism on track?

Don’t underestimate the federalists.

blinding

Leroy42 wrote: »

As has been pointed out there is a difference between FoM and mass immigration.

Belgium for example, and it is acknowldged in the Irish citizens website, can send you back after 3 months. The UK, in 2015, got permission to withhold any state support until a person has worked for a certain period of time.

So they can only really come to a place if they have a job. So what is wrong with them coming if they are going to be productive?

You are mixing up immigration and FoM.

How many people have Belgium or any other Country that kept this right sent back ?

ArchXStanton

First Up wrote: »

I can only admire the degree of paranoia needed to see Martin Schultz or the Spinelli Group as a threat to the sovereignty of EU member states.

Never mind...just go back to having your head in the sand

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

The accusation has been thrown around already in this thread, or fifth wheel according to Junkyard Tom.

From an EU perspective? Yes. Your primary concern, at this point, should be avoiding a growing backlash emanating from the EU. If the EU loses its patience you will learn quickly that Britain is very much a bit-player in the EU and will be treated as such

Don't be at all surprised if the EU becomes more pro-Brexit than the clowns you have running the show over there.

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

Guy Verhofstadt ... Don’t underestimate the federalists.

This guy?

First Up

Aegir wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I can only admire the degree of paranoia needed to see Martin Schultz or the Spinelli Group as a threat to the sovereignty of EU member states.

Guy Verhofstadt, a leading member of the Spinelli group very nearly became president of the Eu commission. He is now a key negotiator in Brexit.

A man who believes in putting the Eu state’s best interests is negotiating on behalf of Ireland.

How reluctant do you think he would be to throw Ireland under the bus if it meant keeping federalism on track?

Don’t underestimate the federalists.

There is no "EU state" and your use of such a term reveals a pretty fundamental failure to grasp what the EU is about.

Ireland's best interests are at the centre of the EU's stance on Brexit, because they are collective interests.

Leroy42

blinding wrote: »

How many people have Belgium or any other Country that kept this right sent back ?

No idea, but if it is low then it obviously isn't the issue you seem to think it is.

At the core, despite what people are claiming, each country still maintains a very large degree of control over the people within its borders.

Whether they excise any actions to to this control, is control itself. They make that decision, not some unelected somebody somewhere.

Zubeneschamali

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Don't be at all surprised if the EU becomes more pro-Brexit than the clowns you have running the show over there.

Just as the Brexiteers huff and puff about walking away with no deal, it is completely within the EUs power to walk away - no deal, no transition period, no free trade agreement, no UK-EU flights.

Oh, and we can object to the UKs submissions to the WTO, too, and the EUs voice is a loud one there.

Let's see how long they keep threatening Ireland with a hard border in that situation.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

From an EU perspective? Yes. Your primary concern, at this point, should be avoiding a growing backlash emanating from the EU. If the EU loses its patience you will learn quickly that Britain is very much a bit-player in the EU and will be treated as such

Don't be at all surprised if the EU becomes more pro-Brexit than the clowns you have running the show over there.

This is one of, if not the most amusing thing about Brexit.

The Shinners, who have campaigned against the EU in every single referendum, are now the biggest europhiles ever

It’s not a football game Thomas, you don’t have to cheer for whoever are playing England.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whether they excise any actions to to this control, is control itself. They make that decision, not some unelected somebody somewhere.

And in the case of the UK, the person who has been making the decision not to excercise the control available has been...


Theresa May as Home Secretary and now PM.


Know why? The UK economy needs those EU workers, and will (if they ever get Brexit sorted out) let in the same number under their new rules.


If they haven't scared them all off permanently, which would cost their economy another % or two.

afatbollix

Ya know the best thing to happen is how much money Ireland will make!


It's already happening.

Since the Apple tax ruling a couple of years ago there is no reason to stay in Ireland now.

BUT

They are staying Facebook, LinkedIn, Paypal & Twitter have all their European headquarters in Dublin.

According to here, the top 200 AIB executives have jumped ship to a Brexit company.
https://www.ft.com/content/6d9d410e-90d0-11e8-b639-7680cedcc421

Even that twat Rees Mogg has opened two hedge funds here.


The BOOM is back...

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

The Shinners, who have campaigned against the EU in every single referendum, are now the biggest europhiles ever

Why are you bringing up Sinn Fein?

It’s not a football game Thomas, you don’t have to cheer for whoever are playing England.

I couldn't give a shit about football.

Don't bother quoting me and wasting bandwidth if you're going to ignore what I wrote in favour of rambling on about Sinn Fein and football.