Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

Now the UK can do what it should always have been doing. Moving out into the wider world to trade.

Please explain how being a member of the EU prevents the UK from trading with the rest of the world. It doesn't.

[Robin Hood]

It's a fantasy. Do you earnestly believe, that if the likes of Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece were outside the EU and asked if they wished to join - they would say yes?

Yes, I do.

I don't think you would find many Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese or Greeks that would agree with you. In fact I don't think you would find many Cypriots that would agree either!

Of course there is a point to be considered . The British have this crazy attitude that when you join a club you abide by the rules. Those countries you quote , and others including Cyprus, frequently apply the rules that suit and ignore those that don't.

[Londonrake]

Now the UK can do what it should always have been doing. Moving out into the wider world to trade.

Please explain how being a member of the EU prevents the UK from trading with the rest of the world. It doesn't.

As you well know Tim, only the Commission can make trade deals. Then you have to allow for the likes of umpteen Waloonyan vetoes. Furthermore, there are usually any number of vested interests to accommodate. Can't buy widgets for €2 from China if it puts Italian widget makers out of jobs. Have to buy theirs for €20. Isn't that one of the fundamental reasons that Germany has been the major beneficiary from membership?

For an organisation that's been involved in these negotiations for decades, the Commission's track record is pretty dire.

Outside the Federation countries are free to conclude their own bilateral deals. You're playing on words. I guess these discussions will be interminable.

BTW. Do I take it from the way you very selectively cherry pick from posts that you are in agreement with the rest of the substance? Just jokin'

[Robin Hood]

Now the UK can do what it should always have been doing. Moving out into the wider world to trade.

Please explain how being a member of the EU prevents the UK from trading with the rest of the world. It doesn't.

In that case, tradewise, there is no problem in the UK leaving the EU ? We just do bi-lateral trade deals with each individual member state then? Oh but hang on ..... isn't there some rule that says we cannot do trade deals until AFTER we have left the Club?

[Tim Drayton]

As you well know Tim, only the Commission can make trade deals. Then you have to allow for the likes of umpteen Waloonyan vetoes. Furthermore, there are usually any number of vested interests to accommodate. Can't buy widgets for €2 from China if it puts Italian widget makers out of jobs. Have to buy theirs for €20. Isn't that one of the fundamental reasons that Germany has been the major beneficiary from membership?

Sorry, not the way I see things at all. A large trade bloc can secure better deals than individual small countries can. We may well be about to find that out the hard way.

By the way, the comment about Waloonyan, and I suppose the mispelling of Wallonian is what counts for humour in your mind, actually demonstrates that my characterisation of Brexiteers being bigotted, racist litte Englanders is perhaps not so wide of the mark, after all. Do you not see that you are fully living up to my stereotype of 'hating the frogs, wops and krauts etc.' ? QED. Why shouldn't French-speaking Belgians have genuine concerns that should be factored into trade deals any more than, say the people of Cornwall or Yorkshire? It is all about striking difficult balances.

Cherry picking? No, just identifying which point I am addressing. It's a well-established internet forum practice that makes debate flow more easily.

[miltiades]

Lets face it , the predominant reason the mostly working class labour brexit vote and the ....geriatric little Englanders was NOT trade but what most now say.
" We fought two world wars for our ....freedom, we do not want bloody foreigners dictating to us, we want our .....country back, no more bloody Eastern Europeans, we prefer third world people to prepare us for entering the 3rd world our selves.

As for those millions that our NHS would benefit by, well mate a little fib is not a crime !!

I wonder why STG is down against all major currencies, could this have anything to do with Brexit ??
As for the closet brexeteer , our very own May, what can one say apart from " you silly old cow "

[Londonrake]

Sorry, not the way I see things at all. A large trade bloc can secure better deals than individual small countries can. We may well be about to find that out the hard way.

Does that mean we will be at the back of the "queue"?

You have brushed over the point I was making. Not only are there 28 (currently) countries that can veto Commission trade deals, it gets worse. That extends to regional parliaments in some countries. In fact there are 38 vetoes to take into consideration. Is it any wonder that the Commission's record is so sclerotic? This of course will be a matter of concern in the Brexit negotiations. Although, the fact that UK laws and regulations at the starting grid are fully EU compliant is a considerable advantage. That doesn't of course preclude the actions of the "Punish them" pundits.

A country acting alone doesn't have that problem'

The point about vested interest is also valid. This is a matter of growing concern within the EU, as countries become increasingly vocal and militant in protecting their own backyards.

By the way, the comment about Waloonyan, and I suppose the mispelling of Wallonian is what counts for humour in your mind, actually demonstrates that my characterisation of Brexiteers being bigotted, racist litte Englanders is perhaps not so wide of the mark, after all. Do you not see that you are fully living up to my stereotype of 'hating the frogs, wops and krauts etc.' ? QED. Why shouldn't French-speaking Belgians have genuine concerns that should be factored into trade deals any more than, say the people of Cornwall or Yorkshire? It is all about striking difficult balances.

Well, this is funny. Despite the fact that levity it seems is regarded as inappropriate. Although "satire" appears perfectly acceptable.

I am sorry to rain on your parade and undermine your forensic analysis, proving that your gratuitous insults were in fact fully justified. However, the truth is somewhat less than a deep psychological fault held by all Leave voters. I simply spelled it wrong. I'm afraid that's a common characteristic with us "Prize idiots" (get it?). Please don't feel guilty though. You have misspelled misspelling, So, you can come join me. Pedants not being confined to the ranks of any one side of the divide.

Cherry picking? No, just identifying which point I am addressing. It's a well-established internet forum practice that makes debate flow more easily.

Yes, it's certainly flowing.

[Tim Drayton]

The pro-Brexit fascist rag the Daily Express reports Donald Trump, somebody it adores, as saying in his inauguration speech:

"We will follow two simple rules, buy American and hire American."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/756 ... st-updates

If it's good for Trump to say 'buy American', why is it bad for the EU to say 'buy European' - which may mean 'buy Wallonian' of 'buy Lancastrian' (not that I am necessarily arguing for protectionsism, just pointing to the glaring contradiction).

I imagine for the Daily Express's readers the mere mention of a continential sounding word like 'Wallonian' (how many of them would even know that it means a French-speaking Belgian) produces an immediate hostile reaction, conjuring up images of hated continentals, but it may come as a surprise that there are a lot of people with far broader outlooks. Mention Wallonia to me and I recall a very pleasant day spent years ago now in the Wallonian town of Liege, a charming place full of beautiful Medieval buildings populated by charming people.

[Londonrake]

The pro-Brexit fascist rag the Daily Express reports Donald Trump, somebody it adores, as saying in his inauguration speech:

"We will follow two simple rules, buy American and hire American."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/756 ... st-updates

If it's good for Trump to say 'buy American', why is it bad for the EU to say 'buy European' - which may mean 'buy Wallonian' of 'buy Lancastrian' (not that I am necessarily arguing for protectionsism, just pointing to the glaring contradiction).

I imagine for the Daily Express's readers the mere mention of a continential sounding word like 'Wallonian' (how many of them would even know that it means a French-speaking Belgian) produces an immediate hostile reaction, conjuring up images of hated continentals, but it may come as a surprise that there are a lot of people with far broader outlooks. Mention Wallonia to me and I recall a very pleasant day spent years ago now in the Wallonian town of Liege, a charming place full of beautiful Medieval buildings populated by charming people.

I don't tend to read the DE. I can say in all honesty, hand on heart, that I have certainly never bought one.

What Trump says and does I suspect will be two entirely different things once reality bites.

Currently the EU doesn't just say "buy European" it legislates (oh, how it loves that process!) for protectionism and has become increasingly inward looking. Some of the poorer regions of the planet have had their lives made immeasurably worse by such actions.

You have this ingrained view of Leave voters. Like they are an army of identical clones. It's unassailable of course and provides a comforting justification for some of your views I suspect. I've spent 11 years of my life so far living and (mostly) working in European countries. They are not "the enemy" and I wish and hope that when the dust settles we can carry on cooperating in many fields, not just trade.

I'm surprised that somebody like yourself can't see the inherent hypocrisy in your stance. Many who piously parade their "democratic" credentials argue vociferously against the result of the referendum. It's denial and so very much an EU attitude. These matters should be left to those who know about such things. I find myself repeating that often but to no avail.

[Tim Drayton]

Here we go, round and round the same mulberry bush again. For example, Labour won the 1997 general election with 418 seats and 43.2% of the votes. That was a majority. The tories had previously been in government for 17 years, but now they were in the minority, so by your logic they had to shut down and not act as an opposition party, otherwise they would be 'bad losers' and 'moaners'.