Brexit
- Thread starter britbox
- Start date
WHAT ARE THEY UP TO ,, BRITBOX?
trying to FOOT DRAG the brexit -- as dictated by kerry from his recent rushed visit to london saying "'we an WALK THIS BACK" to EU?
YA? like UK is going to be ''guided back" by uncle sam ? as if to say'
"YOUR VOTES AND DECISIONS -- people of UK are of no importance -- come let us WALK YOU BACK TO EU -- the CIA PROJECT from 1950's must continue"
OF COURSE many of you don't believe me -- but -- sorry folks -- declassified material very recently JUST SHOWED it was ALL DESIGNED by the USA right as soon as the world war ended...and exactly how to do it with the ''reconstruction"
EUROPE -- AS what later became known today as ''EU" --
was indeed a CIA - AMERICAN PROJECT to HERD europe into compliance, incrementally to BE where TTIP wants europe to be
NO national soverieignty -- controlled from BRUSSELS -- and COMPLETELY dependent on american arms and military (have you all noticed how the european countries DON'T HAVE any real viable military industrial independence of their own? -- THAT';S a USA project of dismantling european manufacturing -- and FORCING europe to BUY AMERICAN military products, folks, lol)
but -- in due time those of you who are skeptical -- that you've been HAD by the USA --
will understand ...
just let me say at least -- I SAID IT HERE FIRST.
roflmao.
Like the lyrics to "The Clash".... "Should I stay or should I go now?"
Should the UK exit the EU or should it stay?
Any thoughts @Federberg @Jammymich @danbrusca @JesuslookslikeBorg @Glenys -@Rides if you are interested of course
Other opinions welcomed, just I know these are fellow brits.
i thought it's quicker and perhaps clearer if i just ask directly any of you - real brits.
i read yesterday that IRELAND ''might exit" EU -- could you educate me about how that works for the UK or BRITAIN?
i mean -- what are the intricacies of the ''union'" and relationships? that the news says about ireland exiting? isn't it all already ''voted" upon? or do the other parts of the kingdom have some kind of autonomous vote of their own?
or is it about the north ireland and south? the EU dictators anyway are making noises about ''punishing" britain for voting exit...like -- really?
thanks.
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,597
- Reactions
- 5,693
- Points
- 113
Republic of Ireland is a separate country. Northern Ireland is part of the UK
@teddytennisfan - As per Federberg, the Republic of Ireland is a separate country and they are part of the EU. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and although they voted to Remain in the EU, the UK as a whole voted to leave - so they will leave along with the other countries that form the UK - England, Wales and Scotland. Scotland also voted to remain while England and Wales voted to leave. 49 million of the 64 million population reside in England.
The only way Northern Ireland could leave on their own is if they left the UK and I doubt there is a will do that. The Unionists are still likely to be the bigger bloc in the province... Not sure that will be the case long term... and the Republicans want a United Ireland rather than an independent Northern Ireland.
The only way Northern Ireland could leave on their own is if they left the UK and I doubt there is a will do that. The Unionists are still likely to be the bigger bloc in the province... Not sure that will be the case long term... and the Republicans want a United Ireland rather than an independent Northern Ireland.
Brexit will happen I think. May made that clear when she stood for the Conservative leadership. I was more concerned about Johnson getting the leadership as I think there may have been a half-assed half way house.
It's actually smart not to rush things too much formally... we are talking about 30 years of EU legacy embedded in Britain... although I think the quicker the "general picture" is established then the quicker everything will settle down.
The EU isn't completely dependent on US arms and military. BAE Systems and Airbus Group are mammoth defence contractors.
THANK YOU both -- Britbox and Federberg.
i understand better now.
whatever the people and regions decide i just hope it will all be for what's best for all .
but definitely - from the way the EU is dictated by these unaccountable ''elites" in brussels and the other capitals -- and this includes what london contributed to that group --
i just think the UK people shouldn't allow themselves to be subjected to more of that nonsense.
even if in the short term perhaps there will be difficult adjustments and all that - as with any big change -- but how ELSE are the UK people going to get back at least some of their decision making for their own destiny and future -- not least in their own DAILY Lives ?
i mean -- all the ''tax contributions" to EU and in exchange for ''economic-union'' with EU -- THE ORDINARY brit has to be subjected to so much nonsense from the bureaucrats who serve no one but themselves and their ''masters" above them -- especially washington DC?
have yhou all noticed, i am sure -- how without further ''argument" -- EU decides that ''monsanto GMO grown" seeds are now OK for europe?
I was just in RUSSIA -- for 2 weeks in a classical music festival making friends with people from different countries - and that was 2 weeks ago ..
i can tell you --GMO'S are absolutely forbidden in russia -- and the food is SO good and so abundant and so cheap you can eat to your heart's content if you happen to be using euro or dollars...but the point is -- THAT'S sovereignty.
they are - russians -- when i would discuss with them about what the ''outside world" says -- they know about all the western talk about 'russian aggression and expansion and threat" by the whining poles and baltics (for whom YOUR TAXES are being spent) -
and russians calmly just smile at it in AMUSEMENT..and actually feel SORRY for europe and what it is doing to itself...because as they say:
"why would we want to threaten them -- for their land? we are not interested...and a waste of our time and energy...we have more than enough here and there are plenty of things we have to accomplish for ourselves..but one thing we will not tolerate is any of them telling us what to do with ourselves here..IF THEY persist in this -- we can make friends with so many more others - like in asia...".
THAT'S sovereignty. that Europeans have lost . and to WHOM? washington DC.
i kid you not.
i understand better now.
whatever the people and regions decide i just hope it will all be for what's best for all .
but definitely - from the way the EU is dictated by these unaccountable ''elites" in brussels and the other capitals -- and this includes what london contributed to that group --
i just think the UK people shouldn't allow themselves to be subjected to more of that nonsense.
even if in the short term perhaps there will be difficult adjustments and all that - as with any big change -- but how ELSE are the UK people going to get back at least some of their decision making for their own destiny and future -- not least in their own DAILY Lives ?
i mean -- all the ''tax contributions" to EU and in exchange for ''economic-union'' with EU -- THE ORDINARY brit has to be subjected to so much nonsense from the bureaucrats who serve no one but themselves and their ''masters" above them -- especially washington DC?
have yhou all noticed, i am sure -- how without further ''argument" -- EU decides that ''monsanto GMO grown" seeds are now OK for europe?
I was just in RUSSIA -- for 2 weeks in a classical music festival making friends with people from different countries - and that was 2 weeks ago ..
i can tell you --GMO'S are absolutely forbidden in russia -- and the food is SO good and so abundant and so cheap you can eat to your heart's content if you happen to be using euro or dollars...but the point is -- THAT'S sovereignty.
they are - russians -- when i would discuss with them about what the ''outside world" says -- they know about all the western talk about 'russian aggression and expansion and threat" by the whining poles and baltics (for whom YOUR TAXES are being spent) -
and russians calmly just smile at it in AMUSEMENT..and actually feel SORRY for europe and what it is doing to itself...because as they say:
"why would we want to threaten them -- for their land? we are not interested...and a waste of our time and energy...we have more than enough here and there are plenty of things we have to accomplish for ourselves..but one thing we will not tolerate is any of them telling us what to do with ourselves here..IF THEY persist in this -- we can make friends with so many more others - like in asia...".
THAT'S sovereignty. that Europeans have lost . and to WHOM? washington DC.
i kid you not.
Kirsty Wark must be the most irritating interviewer around... Bring back Paxman, all is forgiven.
what UK needs -- IF brexit indeed goes through - and with it the fall of the pound -- is do a 'CHINA" - AND A RUSSIA --
USE THE low currency to couple it with government support for small and medium sized businesses -- allow them to thrive through the competitiveness that the lowered pound entails.
end of story.
as we SPEAK -- ONE of the TOP national dialogue stories in china on a daily basis is this:
"that we must pay more intense and real attention to improving the lives of the most vulnerable of our population: the migrants, the jobless, the low wage, the ones not YET reached with the national economic projects - improve the roads, infrastructure, jobs and business and ventures creation, ease their ability to bring their goods to the urban areas, homes, health care , pensions and savings, education..they need greater support to protect their needs and efforts , any losses of their local industries due to modernization we must replace with education, training, and creating conditions for them to be secure in jobs and livelihoods --- having 800 million chinese enter the middle class is not enough -- it must be everyone".
if CHINA -- from a ''basket case of asia" - could achieve in the shortest time in the entire history of the planet -- the raising of hundreds of millions to the ''global middle class" levels -- while financing the development and infrastructure producing and creating livable jobs in country after country in asia and africa -- to the tune of at least 1 trillion dollars worth of real money -- JUST in the coming five years -- (not that fake toilet paper dollar printing press with no real collateral fraud) --
why can't britain do for its own people?
USE THE low currency to couple it with government support for small and medium sized businesses -- allow them to thrive through the competitiveness that the lowered pound entails.
end of story.
as we SPEAK -- ONE of the TOP national dialogue stories in china on a daily basis is this:
"that we must pay more intense and real attention to improving the lives of the most vulnerable of our population: the migrants, the jobless, the low wage, the ones not YET reached with the national economic projects - improve the roads, infrastructure, jobs and business and ventures creation, ease their ability to bring their goods to the urban areas, homes, health care , pensions and savings, education..they need greater support to protect their needs and efforts , any losses of their local industries due to modernization we must replace with education, training, and creating conditions for them to be secure in jobs and livelihoods --- having 800 million chinese enter the middle class is not enough -- it must be everyone".
if CHINA -- from a ''basket case of asia" - could achieve in the shortest time in the entire history of the planet -- the raising of hundreds of millions to the ''global middle class" levels -- while financing the development and infrastructure producing and creating livable jobs in country after country in asia and africa -- to the tune of at least 1 trillion dollars worth of real money -- JUST in the coming five years -- (not that fake toilet paper dollar printing press with no real collateral fraud) --
why can't britain do for its own people?
the ''sanctions" that have been led by the USA AND its servant UK against russia -- forcing and twisting arms of europe to ''isolate russia" ...
has harmed russia economically FAR LESS than it has harmed those that signed on to uncle sam's diktat..--
EUROPE HAS LOST AT LEAST 200-300 billion dollars worth of earnings from lost trade with russia - in agriculture, finished products, services, and jobs...
the CLOWN boris johnson screams about ''indicting russia for war crimes in the hague" -- along with THREATENING russia with real war?
roflmao......
germany insists russia has to '\'comply'' with european, usa, uk, western demans on how to ''behave" -- that is -- BE AN OBEDIENT country so they can ''privatize" and plunder russian resources like they were doing in the 1990's?
poland and baltics insist the russian ''gas pipelines'' MUST be stopped in transit to europe -- YET they DEMAND russia GIVE them gas at the lowest discount possible -- while also DEMANDING THE lines must be built on THEIR territory rather than their neighbors for the PROFITS OF transit?
could they please DECIDE what they WANT?
BECAUSE as putin says:
"ok -- they don't want nuclear power - they say it's dangerous..they say they don't want russian gas unless we obey their demands which we can not give in to because it amounts to giving up our soveriegnty like in 1990's -- so what do they want? they want to stay cold in winter? they will have to burn logs -- but where will they get it? from our russian Taiga - forests? they need to do make up their minds".
lol.
has harmed russia economically FAR LESS than it has harmed those that signed on to uncle sam's diktat..--
EUROPE HAS LOST AT LEAST 200-300 billion dollars worth of earnings from lost trade with russia - in agriculture, finished products, services, and jobs...
the CLOWN boris johnson screams about ''indicting russia for war crimes in the hague" -- along with THREATENING russia with real war?
roflmao......
germany insists russia has to '\'comply'' with european, usa, uk, western demans on how to ''behave" -- that is -- BE AN OBEDIENT country so they can ''privatize" and plunder russian resources like they were doing in the 1990's?
poland and baltics insist the russian ''gas pipelines'' MUST be stopped in transit to europe -- YET they DEMAND russia GIVE them gas at the lowest discount possible -- while also DEMANDING THE lines must be built on THEIR territory rather than their neighbors for the PROFITS OF transit?
could they please DECIDE what they WANT?
BECAUSE as putin says:
"ok -- they don't want nuclear power - they say it's dangerous..they say they don't want russian gas unless we obey their demands which we can not give in to because it amounts to giving up our soveriegnty like in 1990's -- so what do they want? they want to stay cold in winter? they will have to burn logs -- but where will they get it? from our russian Taiga - forests? they need to do make up their minds".
lol.
Britain doesn't have that much trade with Russia... it's pretty negligible I think. The bonds with the US are far more important to the UK... you won't see Britain getting into bed with Russia EVER to be frank. However, there are other European countries with far more important relationships to the old bear...
I don't think anybody is stupid enough to launch a nuclear strike on either side... because as we know... there are no winners.
I don't think anybody is stupid enough to launch a nuclear strike on either side... because as we know... there are no winners.
Powerful speech by Theresa May - frames the Brexit.... Hard Brexit is the first step in the negotiations.
strategic-culture.org
UK’s Delusional Threats to Europe over ‘Hard Brexit'
Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May delivered her much-anticipated speech on Brexit this week, and it was suffused with delusions of grandeur. When are British leaders going to realize that their days of imperial greatness are long gone? Listening to May, however, one would think that the world’s map was still splattered in red, white and blue colors of the Union Jack – otherwise known by former colonial subjects as the Butcher’s Apron.
The Conservative prime minister gave a bravado speech that heralded a blissful, prosperous future for «global Britain». May said that Britain was now open for free trade with the rest of the world, after having voted in a referendum last June to quit the European Union, after 43 years of membership.
Finally, after seven months of dithering and confusion on the matter, May declared that Britain would henceforth be seeking a «hard Brexit», whereby the United Kingdom would no longer seek to be part of the EU’s single market. It would therefore be free from obligations concerning migration and free movement of European citizens. That is, Britain would gain full control of its borders. A «soft Brexit» option would have involved a compromise between retaining single-market membership and accepting a degree of open borders.
No way. Theresa May was at last supposedly giving clarity on Britain’s position, saying there would be «no half measures, no half in, half out… Brexit means Brexit». The Financial Times approved of her upbeat message with the headline: «No more Theresa Maybe».
Listening to May’s prognosis of glowing prospects for «global Britain» – trading with the US, Canada, China, India and the Persian Gulf among others as bilateral partners – makes one wonder why Britain ever bothered joining the EU’s single market back in 1988, as her predecessor Margaret Thatcher had zealously committed to (15 years after its original accession to the European Economic Community, the precursor of the EU.)
Perhaps it has something do with the fact that nearly 50 per cent of the UK’s exports go to EU markets – free from any trade barriers. How Britain’s exports will fair in a global marketplace of cut-throat trade tariffs is a moot question.
According to the British government it’s all going to be rosy. That, by the way, wasn’t May’s position prior to the referendum. She campaigned for remaining in the EU and in doing so she had predicted that leaving the bloc would spell economic disaster for Britain. All that doom seems to have dramatically disappeared now in May’s apparently revised upbeat world outlook, without providing an explanation for her U-turn.
Here’s the thing: Downing Street’s supposed announcement of clarity on the Brexit this week raises, on the contrary, even more befuddling questions. May is aiming to conclude Brexit negotiations in two years with the European Commission based in Brussels. But that timescale is impossibly optimistic. Only a few weeks ago, her top diplomat charged with negotiating the Brexit was forced to resign because he dared to warn that a separation deal would take up to 10 years to finalize. And that longer-term view is probably a realistic assessment. For instance, it took Canada seven years to recently conclude a free-trade pact with the EU. For Britain, with many more legal entanglements to resolve, any less timeframe seems in the realm of «daydreams» – as some EU politicians caustically remarked following May’s speech this week.
Britain’s Foreign Minister Boris Johnson can crow all he likes that «the world is queuing up to do business with Britain». One of those potentially new trade partners is Britain’s old colony, the United States of America. Following President Donald Trump’s welcoming remarks for a «quick trade deal» with Britain earlier this week, there was much excitement from Johnson and other Brexiteers that a new lucrative horizon was indeed dawning.
The harsh reality is that Britain will be technically and legally a member of the EU until it concludes departure negotiations that could several years. Under those circumstances, as several EU politicians have pointed out, Britain will not be free to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with the US or any other nation. That means that Britain will not be able to gallop off into supposed new trade deals with the US, China or anyone else, until it finishes its no doubt protracted divorce proceedings with the EU.
The Brexit process is going to be a rude awakening for British leaders who seem to harbor delusions about Britain’s stature in the world.
This delusional thinking was revealed when Theresa May issued a barely veiled warning to the EU that Britain would not accept a «punitive» Brexit deal.
Despite her speech opening with charming talk of Britain being the best of friends with Europe, May drew a dagger towards the end.
«I know there are some voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path. That would be an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend,» said the British premier.
With a foreboding tone, she added: «Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such an approach. And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.»
It was a glinting threat from May, akin to flashing a knife at the EU.
Earlier, May said in contradictory fashion that while Britain was leaving the single market, at the same time it was demanding «full access to markets as an associate member to make trading as frictionless as possible».
So, only in a rhetorical sense is the British government declaring a «hard Brexit» by purportedly «leaving the single market». For all intents and purposes, however, the British still want «full access» to the market, as May stipulated in her speech. And this privilege is to be had at the same time that Britain takes full control of its borders over EU migration.
That sounds like Britain wanting to have its cake and eating it. Supposedly being out of the market, but still in it for all practical purposes, while pulling up the draw bridge on the rest of Europe. Moreover, the British prime minister is declaring that if Britain does not get «full access» it will be perceived as «punitive» – and then in that case her country will «walk away» from negotiations.
Her haughty attitude sparked outrage across the EU. Guy Verhofstadt, the EU Parliament’s point man on Brexit, reportedly fumed that Britain’s «days of cherrypicking and a la carte Europe are over».
Tomas Prouza, the Czech’s EU minister, noted sardonically of the British position: «Trade as free as possible, full control of immigration… where’s the give for all the take?»
What May was alluding to in her threat of walking away was that Britain would undercut the EU by slashing corporation tax, thereby luring foreign companies away from continental Europe to set up shop in Britain. That is, turning Britain into a tax haven to cheat the rest of Europe.
May also hinted that Britain’s military forces in NATO might be pulled out of Poland and the Baltic states, which would have the effect of destabilizing these EU members, given their congenital paranoia over alleged Russian aggression.
The British government’s threats to the EU stems from a misplaced arrogant attitude of a has-been world power, which somehow still thinks that it can pontificate to other, perceived lesser nations.
With a ballooning trade deficit with Europe and an all-but extinct industrial base, the only asset that the UK can claim is its City of London global financial center – which accounts for 80 per cent of its national economy. Despite Theresa May’s supercilious tone, Britain will find that it needs Europe a lot more than Europe needs Britain. And if cut loose harshly, the former Great Britain is in no industrial shape to ply the global markets as it once did with the backing of its colonial armies of occupation.
Britain’s «hard Brexit» is all «hard talk» belying typical British subterfuge to wheedle self-serving concessions. Such conceited British attitude will only stiffen EU resolve to make minimal trade concessions in the final separation. If the British are seen to get a «cherry-picked» deal of access to the single market, yet be able to spurn any immigration, that would be tantamount to giving an exit license for other members of the EU to do likewise. And given the level of Euro-skepticism rising across Europe, Brussels and other pro-EU governments must, of their own necessity, act sternly towards Britain in its divorce arrangement.
Britain can indeed expect a «hard Brexit». On much harder terms from the EU than delusional British politicians are arrogantly demanding. Less Rule Britannia; more like Fool Britannia.
UK’s Delusional Threats to Europe over ‘Hard Brexit'
Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May delivered her much-anticipated speech on Brexit this week, and it was suffused with delusions of grandeur. When are British leaders going to realize that their days of imperial greatness are long gone? Listening to May, however, one would think that the world’s map was still splattered in red, white and blue colors of the Union Jack – otherwise known by former colonial subjects as the Butcher’s Apron.
The Conservative prime minister gave a bravado speech that heralded a blissful, prosperous future for «global Britain». May said that Britain was now open for free trade with the rest of the world, after having voted in a referendum last June to quit the European Union, after 43 years of membership.
Finally, after seven months of dithering and confusion on the matter, May declared that Britain would henceforth be seeking a «hard Brexit», whereby the United Kingdom would no longer seek to be part of the EU’s single market. It would therefore be free from obligations concerning migration and free movement of European citizens. That is, Britain would gain full control of its borders. A «soft Brexit» option would have involved a compromise between retaining single-market membership and accepting a degree of open borders.
No way. Theresa May was at last supposedly giving clarity on Britain’s position, saying there would be «no half measures, no half in, half out… Brexit means Brexit». The Financial Times approved of her upbeat message with the headline: «No more Theresa Maybe».
Listening to May’s prognosis of glowing prospects for «global Britain» – trading with the US, Canada, China, India and the Persian Gulf among others as bilateral partners – makes one wonder why Britain ever bothered joining the EU’s single market back in 1988, as her predecessor Margaret Thatcher had zealously committed to (15 years after its original accession to the European Economic Community, the precursor of the EU.)
Perhaps it has something do with the fact that nearly 50 per cent of the UK’s exports go to EU markets – free from any trade barriers. How Britain’s exports will fair in a global marketplace of cut-throat trade tariffs is a moot question.
According to the British government it’s all going to be rosy. That, by the way, wasn’t May’s position prior to the referendum. She campaigned for remaining in the EU and in doing so she had predicted that leaving the bloc would spell economic disaster for Britain. All that doom seems to have dramatically disappeared now in May’s apparently revised upbeat world outlook, without providing an explanation for her U-turn.
Here’s the thing: Downing Street’s supposed announcement of clarity on the Brexit this week raises, on the contrary, even more befuddling questions. May is aiming to conclude Brexit negotiations in two years with the European Commission based in Brussels. But that timescale is impossibly optimistic. Only a few weeks ago, her top diplomat charged with negotiating the Brexit was forced to resign because he dared to warn that a separation deal would take up to 10 years to finalize. And that longer-term view is probably a realistic assessment. For instance, it took Canada seven years to recently conclude a free-trade pact with the EU. For Britain, with many more legal entanglements to resolve, any less timeframe seems in the realm of «daydreams» – as some EU politicians caustically remarked following May’s speech this week.
Britain’s Foreign Minister Boris Johnson can crow all he likes that «the world is queuing up to do business with Britain». One of those potentially new trade partners is Britain’s old colony, the United States of America. Following President Donald Trump’s welcoming remarks for a «quick trade deal» with Britain earlier this week, there was much excitement from Johnson and other Brexiteers that a new lucrative horizon was indeed dawning.
The harsh reality is that Britain will be technically and legally a member of the EU until it concludes departure negotiations that could several years. Under those circumstances, as several EU politicians have pointed out, Britain will not be free to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with the US or any other nation. That means that Britain will not be able to gallop off into supposed new trade deals with the US, China or anyone else, until it finishes its no doubt protracted divorce proceedings with the EU.
The Brexit process is going to be a rude awakening for British leaders who seem to harbor delusions about Britain’s stature in the world.
This delusional thinking was revealed when Theresa May issued a barely veiled warning to the EU that Britain would not accept a «punitive» Brexit deal.
Despite her speech opening with charming talk of Britain being the best of friends with Europe, May drew a dagger towards the end.
«I know there are some voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path. That would be an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend,» said the British premier.
With a foreboding tone, she added: «Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such an approach. And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.»
It was a glinting threat from May, akin to flashing a knife at the EU.
Earlier, May said in contradictory fashion that while Britain was leaving the single market, at the same time it was demanding «full access to markets as an associate member to make trading as frictionless as possible».
So, only in a rhetorical sense is the British government declaring a «hard Brexit» by purportedly «leaving the single market». For all intents and purposes, however, the British still want «full access» to the market, as May stipulated in her speech. And this privilege is to be had at the same time that Britain takes full control of its borders over EU migration.
That sounds like Britain wanting to have its cake and eating it. Supposedly being out of the market, but still in it for all practical purposes, while pulling up the draw bridge on the rest of Europe. Moreover, the British prime minister is declaring that if Britain does not get «full access» it will be perceived as «punitive» – and then in that case her country will «walk away» from negotiations.
Her haughty attitude sparked outrage across the EU. Guy Verhofstadt, the EU Parliament’s point man on Brexit, reportedly fumed that Britain’s «days of cherrypicking and a la carte Europe are over».
Tomas Prouza, the Czech’s EU minister, noted sardonically of the British position: «Trade as free as possible, full control of immigration… where’s the give for all the take?»
What May was alluding to in her threat of walking away was that Britain would undercut the EU by slashing corporation tax, thereby luring foreign companies away from continental Europe to set up shop in Britain. That is, turning Britain into a tax haven to cheat the rest of Europe.
May also hinted that Britain’s military forces in NATO might be pulled out of Poland and the Baltic states, which would have the effect of destabilizing these EU members, given their congenital paranoia over alleged Russian aggression.
The British government’s threats to the EU stems from a misplaced arrogant attitude of a has-been world power, which somehow still thinks that it can pontificate to other, perceived lesser nations.
With a ballooning trade deficit with Europe and an all-but extinct industrial base, the only asset that the UK can claim is its City of London global financial center – which accounts for 80 per cent of its national economy. Despite Theresa May’s supercilious tone, Britain will find that it needs Europe a lot more than Europe needs Britain. And if cut loose harshly, the former Great Britain is in no industrial shape to ply the global markets as it once did with the backing of its colonial armies of occupation.
Britain’s «hard Brexit» is all «hard talk» belying typical British subterfuge to wheedle self-serving concessions. Such conceited British attitude will only stiffen EU resolve to make minimal trade concessions in the final separation. If the British are seen to get a «cherry-picked» deal of access to the single market, yet be able to spurn any immigration, that would be tantamount to giving an exit license for other members of the EU to do likewise. And given the level of Euro-skepticism rising across Europe, Brussels and other pro-EU governments must, of their own necessity, act sternly towards Britain in its divorce arrangement.
Britain can indeed expect a «hard Brexit». On much harder terms from the EU than delusional British politicians are arrogantly demanding. Less Rule Britannia; more like Fool Britannia.
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,597
- Reactions
- 5,693
- Points
- 113
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...nt-last-and-donald-trump-is-would-be-dictator
Probably talking his own book. I heard his fund lost a yard over Brexit
Probably talking his own book. I heard his fund lost a yard over Brexit
and lost another BILLION betting on hillary -- the vampire from hungary imagines himself a global ``king-maker`;
but he better pipe down right now unless he wants Trump to REALLY sic it on him...lol...
there are a LOT of CIA,FBI, NSA, etc who openly threw their lot with hillaryéobama -- that`s literally telling everyone -- not just how they really are partisan after all -- that are SHAKING in their knees right now as they clear out their desks.............should trump carry out his campaign slogan of ```DRAINING THE SWAMP``...lol...
AND MIND YOU -- he has full authority under american laws and protocol to order HIS justice department to fully prosecute whatever it is the clintons obamas had during their official capacities that are criminal enterprises...that remains to be seen of course....
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,597
- Reactions
- 5,693
- Points
- 113
for future reference...
"yard" = billion
i hope the VAMPIRE gets DRAINED OF ALL the blood he`s drunk in his hideous existence..
remember what he did to the Pound decades ago with his speculation -- what a creep.
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,597
- Reactions
- 5,693
- Points
- 113
I saw nothing wrong with that. That was a great trade! If the government wasn't messing around trying to maintain the pound at unsustainable levels it would never have happened