What on earth are you talking about? More gibberish.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
What on earth are you talking about? More gibberish.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
Anything like a Norway option (for me personally) is not really what i voted for and i will be honest here,i was unaware of the options until a Remainer started to highlight them in the early days before the vote,i did some online re-search and wanted WTO and No 4 Freedoms,so a Hard Brexit, when voting to leave.
If a deal is done of sorts to accommodate any financials then perhaps a deal can be done on limiting Freedom of movement.It would appear that No deal can be done on the 4 freedoms,so this may be a non starter,not too long though to wait before things get under way..
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Nah. I'll take my lead from the OED which spells it with a hyphen.
As regards the rest of your reply, I refer you back to my previous post where I wrote that I think a deal will be struck that respects both parties' sovereignty. What that means in practice is far too early to say but let's call it a known unknown. That attempt at a parting shot with bendy bananas is risible. Do you want a sensible debate or don't you?
OK, spell it with a hyphen, but use it in the right context.
I will refrain from parting shots, however risible, if you will refrain from making the accusation that I want a bad outcome, just to be proven correct on a football forum.
I want a good outcome, but I believe that what I am told are the core tenets of Brexit, No freedom of movement, No fees, No regulation from the EU, are incompatible with getting a good outcome.
There is a hint in the article that one of these tenets will have to be worked around, is EU regulation of UK financial services a bridge too far for you, or is at acceptable to maintain the vital business that we do?
melias shoes
Well-known member
- Oct 14, 2010
- 4,830
When are people like you going to realise. Leave means leave (well that's what the doomsayers were saying) and that is precisely what I want. Leave, Out, Finished completely,not some watered down deal because it suits the remainers. We voted OUT. So let's do it.
Absolutely nothing to do with what was being said. Be quiet, you silly little man.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,310
still missing the point of the article: its about them needing access to our financial sector. the obvious quid pro quo would be we have access to their financial markets, which in practical terms would be necessary so we can provide the services to them that they require. or if they want, they can restrict access to the largest market for currency, euro bonds and derivatives, making it more costly for them to acquire financing. we'll probably still sell the services to them anyway, through brass plaques in Dublin and Paris.
melias shoes
Well-known member
- Oct 14, 2010
- 4,830
Im afraid this whole thread is precisely that. Idoits like you
refusing to accept the referendum result. That's why we're having a debate. One that goes off on a tangent from time to time but let's face one push comes to shove that's exactly what it's all about. Now you go and find yourself a nice pile of sand and bury your head.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Indeed, all is about to be revealed. I have to say, I hope you don't get what you wanted, but please do not take that personally.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
It was used in context (definition 3). You jumped the gun by putting conditions that are in place now as the conditions that will have to exist when a new deal is struck. I can only repeat that no-one knows the details yet but access to the City by EU institutions isn't just desirable but essential to the stability of the Eurozone. There will need to be pragmatism on both sides and the EU will have to respect the sovereignty of UK law and vice versa. That doesn't mean that we necessarily have to adopt all of the EU regulations of financial services nor does it mean that we won't have any EU financial regulations codified into UK law after the deal is struck. A lot of those regulations originate from best practice from within the City institutions anyway and so keeping specific ones isn't a question of success or failure on the part of Brexit negotiators but plain common sense.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
I never take anything too much to heart,i hope we do,for i really would have felt staying in the EU the better option,certainly until support to leave had gathered more momentum in the coming years..
Baldseagull
Well-known member
I am not missing the point, I acknowledge it would be mutually beneficial to have a working arrangement, I think you are missing the point that 27 members of the EU are unlikely to all agree to allowing the UK financial services to operate without regulation, or fees. France may have new leadership soon, but the current President, is not for it at all.
There is risk to both sides in this, but the risks to the EU are counterbalanced by a possible reward later on. If we are blocked from passporting in and out, the EU will eventually gain some of the business currently done here, probably not as much as we would lose, but on our side where is the potential reward for putting the business at risk?
Much of the EU is already unhappy that American and Swiss Banks based in London are using the passport system, this aspect is sure to come up.
Oooh, she's lost it.
"Kyle Taylor, the director of Smart Brexit, appears delighted that Labour has accepted that Brexit is inevitable and hopes that a “decent crate of lager" is brought to the party.
Meanwhile we'll be sipping lovely hand crafted beers from small batch artisanal breweries. Enjoy your party
Meanwhile we'll be sipping lovely hand crafted beers from small batch artisanal breweries. Enjoy your party
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Why,have you already got that position reserved?
melias shoes
Well-known member
- Oct 14, 2010
- 4,830
Fool.
Brilliant. Anyway, I'm off to the French market, we simply don't know how much longer we'll be able to say those words, eh.
Have a lovely day and try not to be too much of a ****.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
I would disagree that I was attacking anything, just pointing to conditions that from the article, may be included in a deal that may happen. I would argue that if we were using common sense, we would not be putting ourselves in a position where the rewards do not stack up against what is at risk.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
that's why i love this thread....you and a special mention to [MENTION=33848]The Clamp[/MENTION] and [MENTION=17469]melias shoes[/MENTION] have made me laugh so much this morning...
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Would be fascinated to know how you came to your conclusions on those percentages.
But you are just shoving your unsubstantiated prediction further upstream on a different scenario, it still holds true that those that are now saying what you are now saying were the exact same people that said it about us not joining the Euro and they were wrong, so very wrong as the sector actually boomed post that decision.
You cannot keep making predictions, ontop of previously inaccurate predictions and expect to be afforded any credibility whatsoever.