Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
They binned her!Is she the one who advised the Greek government to sue HMG over the Elgin Marbles?
They binned her!Is she the one who advised the Greek government to sue HMG over the Elgin Marbles?
That, of course has not been proved at all, any more than US military contracts are used to subsidise Boeing.Alright, look at its breach with Airbus for a start:
EU paid Airbus billions in illegal subsidies, WTO rules
The World Trade Organisation rules the EU paid illegal aid to the European planemaker, paving the way for trade tariffs.www.bbc.co.uk
I have no idea what you are rambling about. The European Defence Agency is just that an agency, it is not going to launch a pre-emptive strike on anyone unless they can beat them to death with a laptop.
As for gun boat diplomacy you only have to look at recent talks with China:
SNP MP Angus MacNeil, referencing 19th century moves by British imperialists to send gun boats to China during the Opium Wars, advised the Defence Secretary to brush up on his history.
George Osborne "You've got the Defence Secretary engaging in gunboat diplomacy of a quite old-fashioned kind, at the same time as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary are going around saying they want a close economic partnership with China.
Gavin Willamson
UK must be ready to take “action” against “those who flout international law…to shore up the global system of rules and standards on which our security and our prosperity depends.”
Full of hyperbole but contains no substance. Typical propagandist article.
This is the gist of their argument...
Yet nowhere does it explain where and how the EU has broken whatever rule it has in mind, which also isn't specified.
- "The EU has been acting in breach of a material term of the WA, meaning that the treaty was entered into on a false premise"
I have answered every question that has a definitive answer. I cannot answer quantitive questions that have larges ranges of possible answers depending on the eventual circumstances agreed or not agreed.Same as all your diatribe...You answer no question put to you, only try to belittle and scorn challenge..
Write something sensible that is worthy of a detailed reply.Same as all your diatribe...You answer no question put to you, only try to belittle and scorn challenge..
Yet you seek others to answer what you cannot...I have answered every question that has a definitive answer. I cannot answer quantitive questions that have larges ranges of possible answers depending on the eventual circumstances agreed or not agreed.
I can refer you to generally agreed figures for the financial hit if we left without a deal and traded on WTO terms. This would be between a 5% to 8% hit to the general economy over up to a 15 year period.
Now that may not seem too drastic for the terminally brexit-supporting mind. However, if we are hit by 5% annually, it is somewhat cumulative and over a 15 year period it will result in the UK and its residents being very materially poorer than otherwise within only a very few years. That's both in terms of individual living standards and the affordability of the public purse to finance health and social security, the police and defence and so on and so forth.
As long as the application passes all the tests required, tests which all other 3rd countries qualify for, the EU will list GB as an approved 3rd country. They cannot do otherwise without rendering themselves liable to sanctions over MFN status.The next question is why? Is it a dereliction or is the application all prepared and ready to submit but is being held back for some tactical reasons? I would suggest there will be parts of the application that if agreed to would put serious restrictions in our ability to trade freely elsewhere? The UK must submit and application to become a third country exporter but once in the hands of the EU they can sit on it or even reject it if they are actually willing to shoot both sides in the knees and feet.
Write something sensible that is worthy of a detailed reply.
All I want to know is do I still have to pay my taxes? I would only be breaking the law in a 'limited and specific way' which I wouldn't deem 'unacceptable', so must be OK
Actually, the UK needs to ensure its Nuclear Arms are state of the art to avoid being bitch sapped by anyone.
To the ones who feel our nuclear subs et al should be disbanded - need to check themselves... And sign into a looney bin....
We Must, keep our Nuclear Deterant to the highest order - No Argument...
Chris Grey gives this analysis in his column this week:-I have answered every question that has a definitive answer. I cannot answer quantitive questions that have larges ranges of possible answers depending on the eventual circumstances agreed or not agreed.
I can refer you to generally agreed figures for the financial hit if we left without a deal and traded on WTO terms. This would be between a 5% to 8% hit to the general economy over up to a 15 year period.
Now that may not seem too drastic for the terminally brexit-supporting mind. However, if we are hit by 5% annually, it is somewhat cumulative and over a 15 year period it will result in the UK and its residents being very materially poorer than otherwise within only a very few years. That's both in terms of individual living standards and the affordability of the public purse to finance health and social security, the police and defence and so on and so forth.
Only if your surname is Cummins.....
Chris Grey gives this analysis in his column this week:-
'In this febrile atmosphere, and with a Prime Minister so lacking in consistency, principle, or even basic competence, Brexit predictions are more difficult than ever. So as the week ends it still looks possible that after all the chaos of this autumn (of which there is much more to come) clears away, some kind of fairly limited deal will be done. At least, there are a few straws in the wind – as regards both fisheries and even state aid – that this might be so.
If so, the economic consequences will be bad but not dramatic and not very visible, just a gradual decline of prosperity. Relations with the EU will be sour but not totally destroyed. Resentfully the UK will comply with the Irish Sea border, and the complex, rickety mechanisms for doing so may just about work. There will be years of ongoing negotiations on a piecemeal basis, and constant attempts by the UK to push to the limit and beyond what it had agreed. The Brexiters will be sulphurous and constantly urging more antagonistic stances, and still convinced that their fantasy would have been possible had it not been betrayed.
It’s hardly an inspiring vision, yet, limited though it is, an optimistic one which in another week may seem hopelessly unrealistic. For there are many obstacles to reaching even this very modest destination.'
A reasonable analysis I think.
Your quite right. I always feel sorry for Belgian, Swede, Sengalese et al who lives day to day in fear knowing his government does not have a Nuclear deterrent to protect him in his sovereign state. They need not fear Covid when there government does not possess any nuclear missile armed submarines.
Rule Brittania my friend.
Chris Grey gives this analysis in his column this week:-
'In this febrile atmosphere, and with a Prime Minister so lacking in consistency, principle, or even basic competence, Brexit predictions are more difficult than ever. So as the week ends it still looks possible that after all the chaos of this autumn (of which there is much more to come) clears away, some kind of fairly limited deal will be done. At least, there are a few straws in the wind – as regards both fisheries and even state aid – that this might be so.
If so, the economic consequences will be bad but not dramatic and not very visible, just a gradual decline of prosperity. Relations with the EU will be sour but not totally destroyed. Resentfully the UK will comply with the Irish Sea border, and the complex, rickety mechanisms for doing so may just about work. There will be years of ongoing negotiations on a piecemeal basis, and constant attempts by the UK to push to the limit and beyond what it had agreed. The Brexiters will be sulphurous and constantly urging more antagonistic stances, and still convinced that their fantasy would have been possible had it not been betrayed.
It’s hardly an inspiring vision, yet, limited though it is, an optimistic one which in another week may seem hopelessly unrealistic. For there are many obstacles to reaching even this very modest destination.'
A reasonable analysis I think.
As your noted as being anti Britain, your points are deluded.
Outside of the EU and to the point in question, we will require our deterant to be maintained at the fullest despite what Scottish Trout Face wants.
Maybe sign up for a stint in HM Forces to help educate you as to what goes on in the real world....
The other members of the EU are the so called “bunch of control freaks”.It is not difficult to see how trapped the other members of the EU are when we are struggling to extricate ourselves from the mire without getting screwed by the biggest bunch of control freaks on earth. While "the Project" is trying to preserve its control it is hammering nails in its own coffin.
Actually, the UK needs to ensure its Nuclear Arms are state of the art to avoid being bitch sapped by anyone.
To the ones who feel our nuclear subs et al should be disbanded - need to check themselves... And sign into a looney bin....
We Must, keep our Nuclear Deterant to the highest order - No Argument...