Cycling UK Forum

Ben@Forest wrote:...
A pro EU German MP recently wrote that that the EU should not expect the same or similar fishing rights, and he accused the French of acting petulantly. Why is Britain somehow wrong and should surrender any national interest to a country which is famous for being thoroughly independent and bloody-minded when it wants to be?

You allege that France is acting independently? Surely some mistake - the official line is that France as an EU member state has no sovereignty or independence and has to do what the Brussels bureaucrats say.

Carpetcleaner, In my career I have worked for several large private sector firms, and I can assure that they all had plenty of waste.

And if your analysis was correct then why didn't Patel explain that, instead of insulting the NHS frontline staff (who won't have been the ones making the decisions anyway)?

But if you're happy with Patel then all must be well.

carpetcleaner wrote:I said many, not every. Proper analysis of the crisis will be done in the years to come.

I'll judge the UK government's response to the virus when all the facts are known and they have been properly studied by experts.

I won't jump to amateurish verdicts influenced by my opinion of the politicians involved.

You may want to wait for 10 years before judging the overall response. But you can right now agree that Patel's non-apology was an insult to NHS workers whose lives are being put at risk because of the lack of PPE? Can't you?

al_yrpal wrote:Yes Mick, it doesnt make sense does it? Scotland would be an even smaller entity with respect to the EU, about 1% instead of 8% of the UK?

And yet Scotland has almost zero influence over UK decisions, whereas as an independent nation member of EU it would have more influence over the EU thanks to the wonders of qualified majority voting. And the Scottish parliament would take control over all the things that UK currently decides for it.

landsurfer wrote:Trump and his Russian handlers, Corbyn and his Russian handlers ..... what a pair .

No vote, no attacks on Russian personnel or assets, no problem...

And you could have added that May and Bojo wouldn't be in their eminent positions if the Russian money hadn't won the Brexit vote.

Ben@Forest wrote:

1gunsalute wrote:Back to the immediate point at issue, a question to those of you who advocate no deal and a hard border in Ireland, how is that compatible with our commitments in the NI peace process?

I don't advocate a no deal and hard border but the DUP were right to object to the proposed 'regulatory alignment'. It may seem the easiest option in dealing with the land border and the EU but would put NI in a different position to the rest of the UK when we end up signing other trade deals with the rest of the world, so for every advantage it may confer there will be a disadvantage later down the road.

There is of course the political perspective too - it does look like a step towards re-unification of Ireland if you are looking at it from the Unionist perspective, and Ireland and NI have to agree on such steps. What it shows more than anything is that Vardakar and May were happy to tread on Unionist toes with no forethought.

I was hoping that one of the Brexiters here would be able to answer my question. The fact that they haven't shows that they don't know or don't care.

As Philip Hammond said, if we don't honour our obligations, how can we expect other countries to trust us in future negotiations?

As to a step towards re-unification, I dont think RoI wants NI!

Back to the immediate point at issue, a question to those of you who advocate no deal and a hard border in Ireland, how is that compatible with our commitments in the NI peace process?

BrianFox wrote:3. The UK govt is an utterly incompetent negotiator. .

UK govt is being incompetent if its aim is to achieve a good deal. But why do you assume that? More likely, its aim is simply to achieve "no-deal" in circumstances where any blame can be deflected onto the EU - and from some posts above, this tactic seems to be working.

I dont see any other explanation for how UK govt's official position is still for cake-and-eat it deal which everyone knows isnt achievable. And for how UK govt still hasn't come up with realistic proposals for the Irish border, "divorce bill", etc.

Clearly a number of the extremists in the cabinet actively want a no-deal outcome. They know that the effect will be costly for the UK economy and people, but it's better for the extremists to get the pain over and done with sooner, so we have all forgotten about it by the time of another election. And of course the dopey Tory remainers can be strung along until it's too late to reverse the policy. (Hence Davis suggestion that parliament might get a vote after we have left!)

Not a U-turn by Labour. Their previous policy was cake and eat it but they've come to a T-junction and had to decide whether to go left or right. A U-turn would be going back the way we came (i.e. staying in EU).

Incidentally I see that Maybot has repeated her claim that we can't be in the single market without being a member of the EU. Despite the fact that Norway is in the single market and isn't a member of the EU. Why lie so blatantly?

Anyone got any views on Labour's new policy of staying in the single market during a transition period?

The papers have described it as a U-turn but it seems to me a logical consequence of their manifesto policy of prioritising jobs and the economy, now we know that we can't have our cake and eat it. Certainly it's better than supporting the Tories' cliff-edge disaster Brexit.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972776

"Removing all trade tariffs and barriers would help generate an annual £135bn uplift to the UK economy, according to a group of pro-Brexit economists. "

Obviously not as much as the £350m a week we will gain by leaving the EU, but a useful bonus you might think?

But seriously, this is indeed what the Tory hard brexiters want to achieve. Note that the "uplift" requires wholesale deregulation to cut our production costs down to Indian/Chinese levels. I wonder if this is what all the former labour Leave voters thought they were voting for?

Joggers should be legally required to wear hi-viz clothing and bells. They should have to buy a licence and insurance.

If a Norway/Switzerland model was not going to be on the table post-Brexit, it would have been good of the Leave campaign to say so instead of pretending that all options would be on the table and we would be in control, etc.

But that would require the Brexiters to be honest with the British people, which would be an unrealistic expectation.

pwa wrote:According to a recent poll (usual caveats apply) only about 20% of us now believe Brexit should not happen. Maybe some of you should shift your focus to how Brexit can be brought about in the best way. I know most on this thread don't want it, but it is probably going to happen so why not get over it and start talking about the kind of Brexit you find least difficult to accept?

Lots of us have been trying to debate just that subject of what sort of Brexit is best. But it seems that Brextremists keep trying to shut down the debate - "the country voted to take control of immigration therefore we have to leave the single market". But the country also voted for a Brexit that doesn't damage jobs and the economy, and for a Brexit that delivers an extra £350m a week for the NHS.

So the debate can't really start until the Brextremists admit that we can't have a cake and eat it Brexit. Meantime we have less than 21 months to agree on all this stuff.

Trouble is the Brextremists are happy not to have the debate - let negotations run to the wire, say that EU isn't offering a good deal so we'll crash out without a deal. Their idea of heaven.

Last year we stayed in the Escale Oceania, about 1km east of the old town. Nice big garage plenty of room.