homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Shake it all about: Brexit thread II (Page 47)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  ...  54  55  56 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We still don't know if there's anything actually in the bill that the UK can reasonably object to.

What's in the bill is only one consideration. While I don't take over seriously the comments of ardent leavers like Jacob Rees-Mogg or John Redwood, they have both said independently that David Davies has no authority to agree an exit payment to the EU, and that it would have to go before parliament. I don't claim to know definitively if that is true, but if so, I would be interested to see which members would be willing to vote away £90 billion knowing that two thirds of voters think that anything over £10 billion is unacceptable. Mr Barnier is a clever man and must know this. Ultimately the government can only agree an amount which would garner the support of parliament, and it won't be a figure of 75 billion or more.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The majority of a majority may be a minority. 48% of the population did not vote to leave the EU. If only another 3% did not want to leave the single market then there is no majority in favour of leaving the single market or ending freedom of movement

I write this as someone who has never believed that immigration from the EU has been a problem to the UK, quite the opposite. But if it isn't considered a vote winner or loser, why does every politician go on about it. Sir Keir Starmer's latest Labour plan, which includes staying in the SM and CU for a protracted interim period, could be made permanent, he says, provided a deal can be struck on restricting freedom of movement.I don't know why he thinks he would have a better chance of achieving what David Cameron failed to achieve. Had such been on offer, we wouldn't be in his situation.

Today I read that Tony Blair now thinks we should be working to control immigration from inside the EU. In what comes as close to an apology as a man like Mr Blair is capable of, he conceded that perhaps he didn't have it right 13 years ago when he opened up the gates to Eastern Europe. But why does he think this can now be achieved when it couldn't before? In both cases, it reflects that all people who comment on our relationship with the EU, Labour or Tory, Leave or Remain, are fighting to assure us they will curb immigration. So it is seen as a major issue throughout the political spectrum.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It mooted what I would personally consider to be the only possible solution in regards to trade and free movement (which is clearly unacceptable to the UK, especially since they shacked up with the Diabolical Unionist Party) which involved a sea border. This would preserve the GFA.

Such a move might preserve the GFA, and that is so important as to make it worth considering. But if it sets up a customs border between NI and rUK it would make no economic sense. Much more of NI's trade is with rUK than with ROI or the rEU. As the economy of NI is small it could be worth subsidising it to maintain the GFA, which happens already. But as you point out, try getting that past the DUP.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6383 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't claim to know definitively if that is true, but if so, I would be interested to see which members would be willing to vote away £90 billion

I agree with you that a vote just on that question will not get through the House - for some it will be a case of "we can avoid the need to pay this if we stay in the EU" and others who will say "it's too high a price to pay for continuing access to the EU markets". But, if it comes as part of a package deal then it may not get so much difficulty - though without enforcing the whip to get it through any package will struggle to get through Westminster anyway; too many it will be too far (MPs are largely Remainers, who will probably reluctantly vote for a deal which maintains the benefits of EU membership even at a cost), to a few it's likely to not be far enough.

I write this as someone who has never believed that immigration from the EU has been a problem to the UK, quite the opposite. But if it isn't considered a vote winner or loser, why does every politician go on about it.[/qb][/quote]Politicians go on about it because the far right media have managed to sell the UK population a heap of lies. Despite the evidence to the contrary, a large proportion of the people of the UK do think that current immigration levels are creating problems. Mainly because of the scare stories of the fascists writing for the Mail and other organs of propaganda for the racist and xenophobic minority. It's easier for politicians to get votes by playing along (in the process making the whole thing worse) than to challenge the underlying falsehood and bigotry. They're lazy, spineless and scared.

quote:
Today I read that Tony Blair now thinks we should be working to control immigration from inside the EU. In what comes as close to an apology as a man like Mr Blair is capable of, he conceded that perhaps he didn't have it right 13 years ago when he opened up the gates to Eastern Europe.
The difference is that 13 years ago the UK government had a choice - the treaties that enabled the expansion of the EU included provisions that allowed existing EU nations to limit immigration from the new nations. The UK government at the time (rightly) saw that a large influx of young, motivated workers would be a significant economic boost to the UK. Many other nations in the EU were afraid of their right wing and chose to enact the restrictions available to them - the UK profited from a lot of Poles, Romanians etc because they were not able to go to Germany or France. Those particular provisions have timed out now (though, should there be a further expansion to, say, include Turkey then similar provisions will almost certainly exist). What does still exist are the provisions that can already be used to limit freedom of movement - host countries are not obliged to support someone who has no source of income after three months (so, after that immigrants need to have found a job or have some other income such that they do not need support from the welfare system), host countries are not obliged to provide medical assistance unless the immigrant has the means to pay for it (either through medical insurance, or some arrangement that their own country pays for it), and other similar measures. The UK is under no obligation to provide a home for welfare scroungers or health tourists. Though the number of people concerned is very small, and the costs to the NHS and welfare system miniscule, we didn't need to leave the EU to address those concerns that people have about immigration.

When Cameron toured the EU nations seeking further immigration controls, is it any wonder he didn't get very far by asking for powers he already had, and asking for further powers when he didn't do anything to use those existing powers (indeed, almost looked like he was unaware of them). If you want a serious response from others, you need to at least appear like you're a credible person who knows what they're talking about. Someone appearing to be an idiot with no credible plan is not going to get a great reaction from people who just see him wasting their time. Several members of the current government should take note of that.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 32134 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
While I don't take over seriously the comments of ardent leavers like Jacob Rees-Mogg or John Redwood, they have both said independently that David Davies has no authority to agree an exit payment to the EU, and that it would have to go before parliament.

As they've both voted against giving Parliament any final say on the deal I can only think that's a piece of cynical political opportunism.

quote:
I don't claim to know definitively if that is true, but if so, I would be interested to see which members would be willing to vote away £90 billion knowing that two thirds of voters think that anything over £10 billion is unacceptable.
If the UK cannot be counted on to honour spending commitments they've already made I'm sure the EU will take that into account. The EU can also decide that no deal is better than a bad deal with a known welcher.

quote:
I write this as someone who has never believed that immigration from the EU has been a problem to the UK, quite the opposite. But if it isn't considered a vote winner or loser, why does every politician go on about it.
Simply, no politician has the courage to challenge the right-wing press on this and it is easier to use immigration as a scapegoat for the UK's problems than to do something about the real causes.

quote:
Such a move might preserve the GFA, and that is so important as to make it worth considering. But if it sets up a customs border between NI and rUK it would make no economic sense.
Leaving the Single Market makes no economic sense, so we've ruled that out as a reason for doing or not doing anything.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10376 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Someone appearing to be an idiot with no credible plan is not going to get a great reaction from people who just see him wasting their time.

Fortunately for the government as a whole, nobody who has looked upon May's election campaign would suspect her of being such a person.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10376 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Unfortunately I think the "divorce" payments are a catch-22. On the one hand, even if legally the UK can avoid paying any number that the EU comes up with, it is going to royally piss the other member states off if it refuses. Which is going to make getting a sensible trade agreement even harder.

On the other hand, I think any politician who votes for a massive divorce payment whilst the NHS crumbles is going to have a very hard time come the next election, particularly in areas where cash is tight.

I think MPs for parts of South Wales which (a) voted leave (b) is currently struggling with an NHS in meltdown and is (c) facing the imminent loss of EU funds is going to have a pretty rough time next election.

--

I know others have said this, but I'm increasingly thinking that the whole question of the Irish border is going to scupper both the UK and EU negotiating positions.

If the EU digs in and refuses to budge, then it seems to me that it is basically sacrificing the Republic, as it is hard to see how it is going to be able to protect the Irish economy with Brexit Britain in the way.

It is possible that the UK unilaterally refuses to enforce EU customs rules for stuff moving from Republic to NI, but it is hard to see how this would work without some other customs arrangement between the Island of Ireland and the rest of the UK. Which the unionists refuse to accept, full stop.

If the UK government continues with its idiotic position, then we'll be doing the WTO thing, and suddenly there will be tariffs across the Irish border, and no incentive for the nearest EU countries to bother trying to trade with the UK, and no incentive for the UK businesses to bother trying to trade with the EU rather than whoever else.

If the EU can't find a way to fill the UK-sized hole, it is going to feel the pain. If the UK can't find anyone who wants a free trade agreement, then it is going to have no option but to devalue. If that happens, presumably that's going to have a big impact on the Irish Republic even if some trade fudge is agreed.

I don't know, it seems like a spiral to me. Possibly the EU as a whole would be protected from being dragged into the vortex by quickly severing trade links with the UK, but it seems like the poor Irish are connected at the hip whatever happens.

What a - fucking - mess. There is no good path out of this for anyone.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10212 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

What a - fucking - mess. There is no good path out of this for anyone.

Absolutely right, as far as I can see.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20929 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689

 - Posted      Profile for MarsmanTJ   Email MarsmanTJ   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What a - fucking - mess. There is no good path out of this for anyone.

Uh, yes. Pretty much. And yet, Remainers who said that there would be a problem with Ireland and that we might be facing a new version of the Troubles after Brexit were accused of peddling 'Project Fear'.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:


I don't know, it seems like a spiral to me. Possibly the EU as a whole would be protected from being dragged into the vortex by quickly severing trade links with the UK, but it seems like the poor Irish are connected at the hip whatever happens.

What a - fucking - mess. There is no good path out of this for anyone.

I suppose that could be a last ditch solution for the EU. if official trade links with the UKare broken, but the Irish border is open. Then if some stuff does go Europe->Ireland->Northern Ireland->Uk then at least Ireland does get some benefit. If good stuff comes the reverse route, ditto (the issue is of course is if bad stuff does, but at that point for it to contaminate Europe there should be some liable importer).

[And yes, that is still no good path]

[ 10. September 2017, 20:15: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posts: 1615 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

Today I read that Tony Blair now thinks we should be working to control immigration from inside the EU. In what comes as close to an apology as a man like Mr Blair is capable of, he conceded that perhaps he didn't have it right 13 years ago when he opened up the gates to Eastern Europe. But why does he think this can now be achieved when it couldn't before?

In addition to what Alan said above; it's a matter of record that the Tory party at the time campaigned along similar lines. Pledges to expand the EU were in their 1992 manifesto, and their 2004 manifesto outlined their vision to expand the EU to Turkey (they were a rather lonely figure in this).

As it happened; the conservative end of the media started playing the immigration card and playing it heavily, which opened up space to their right, hence the UKIP, hence the mess they are in now.

As Alan alluded to above, FoM is defined very narrowly in terms of freedom of movement of labour rather than that of people. The UK chooses not to avail itself of existing provisions - and the politicians on the right make hay by spreading ignorant bollocks.

[ 10. September 2017, 20:37: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 3844 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have been struggling to understand how harmonization (or convergence), works for a 'third country', which is what we will become after Brexit.

It seems that the UK will hope to match EU regulations, on things like medicines, vehicle types, chemicals, and so on.

So there are a number of requirements here - the EU has to recognize British conformity with their regulations; as rules change, there has to be some mechanism to ensure conformity; if there are disputes, there has to be a mechanism for resolving these.

So one of the big issues is the continuation of convergence - the UK has to be able to monitor EU regs, and update ours, and ensure that the EU okays our convergence.

Well, this is going to take a lot of work, a lot of software updates, and meetings between various officials. Are you ready, UK?

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9663 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have been struggling to understand how harmonization (or convergence), works for a 'third country', which is what we will become after Brexit.

It seems that the UK will hope to match EU regulations, on things like medicines, vehicle types, chemicals, and so on.

It seems to me that actually this is quite simple: if one wants levels of harmonisation, then third countries have to comply with EU regulations in those sectors - otherwise the EU would be swamped with cheap products produced in ways that wouldn't be tolerated within the Union.

So agreements are in place with countries who have a range of products they want to be able to trade with the EU - such as Canada - where products are able to be traded in both directions because they have apparently harmonised trade rules.

But the big difference is that the UK wants to continue in the present regime (ie no trade barriers of any kind or any checks on the types of trade) at Dover and across the Irish border.

Which one would think is only possible if EU regulations are kept for every conceivable product.

I'm at a loss to understand how else this could be done.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10212 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose you could have a patchwork system, whereby the UK matches EU on some things, but not others. It does sound baffling, and ironically, could increase red tape.

But I think somebody has already made the point - we want to leave the customs union, as we are not in control, but we want to obey EU regs, where we are not in control. Of course, this leaves out free movement, which we want control over, so we will fill labour shortages, which we are not in control of. Good stuff.

[ 11. September 2017, 13:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9663 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose you could have a patchwork system, whereby the UK matches EU on some things, but not others. It does sound baffling.

I was involved in importing products from a third country which had a tariff free agreement with the EU. The process to import wasn't exactly easy - one had to get their trade of commerce to certify that the items had been produced in the correct place and was on the list as being able to be imported tariff free. one then needed to inform the EU customs that the shipment was coming with the correct item code. When it arrived it was kept in bonded warehouses awaiting customs checks of the paperwork.

I've heard stories of shipments which were abandoned by foreign companies at bonded warehouses because they couldn't navigate the customs system successfully.

In comparison, if I'd imported the items from one EU country to another (providing they're not things like meat or plants), one can stick them in a white van and drive them across the border. Customs might check that there is nothing illegal in the shipment, but there are no bonded warehouses and all that malarky.

quote:
But I think somebody has already made the point - we want to leave the customs union, as we are not in control, but we want to obey EU regs, where we are not in control. Of course, this leaves out free movement.
Right. I suppose I'm just saying that one could have some kind of free trade agreement but still have huge barriers to trade (compared to being inside the customs union). A Canada-style EU/UK agreement does not mean friction free trade.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10212 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have been struggling to understand how harmonization (or convergence), works for a 'third country', which is what we will become after Brexit.

It seems that the UK will hope to match EU regulations, on things like medicines, vehicle types, chemicals, and so on.

It seems to me that actually this is quite simple: if one wants levels of harmonisation, then third countries have to comply with EU regulations in those sectors - otherwise the EU would be swamped with cheap products produced in ways that wouldn't be tolerated within the Union.

So agreements are in place with countries who have a range of products they want to be able to trade with the EU - such as Canada - where products are able to be traded in both directions because they have apparently harmonised trade rules.

But the big difference is that the UK wants to continue in the present regime (ie no trade barriers of any kind or any checks on the types of trade) at Dover and across the Irish border.

Which one would think is only possible if EU regulations are kept for every conceivable product.

I'm at a loss to understand how else this could be done.

It's known as the California effect. Products tend to be produced to the highest market standards. Even if they're not originally meant for that market as it means they could be sold there if they wanted. It's actually quite common. (It just makes a nonsense of all the claims that we're taking back control and will be able to get things like proper lightbulbs back. No one's going to produce bulbs that can't be sold in more than one market. Not commercially viable).

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12647 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
...and anyone who voted for Brexit in the hope of being able to go back to Imperial weights and measures is doomed to disappointment, unless they buy all their food at the local market and only patronise traders who are willing to put up with their foibles.

The big food companies are not going to do separate packaging just for us.

Posts: 3934 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...and anyone who voted for Brexit in the hope of being able to go back to Imperial weights and measures is doomed to disappointment, unless they buy all their food at the local market and only patronise traders who are willing to put up with their foibles.

The big food companies are not going to do separate packaging just for us.

A paper label will be slapped across the package with the relevant information. Already done for the even more backwards markets.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16963 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It's known as the California effect. Products tend to be produced to the highest market standards. Even if they're not originally meant for that market as it means they could be sold there if they wanted. It's actually quite common. (It just makes a nonsense of all the claims that we're taking back control and will be able to get things like proper lightbulbs back. No one's going to produce bulbs that can't be sold in more than one market.

And, getting "proper lightbulbs" back isn't very likely since the UK government was one of the leading lights in pressing for an EU ban on incandescent light bulbs in the first place.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 32134 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The difference is that 13 years ago the UK government had a choice - the treaties that enabled the expansion of the EU included provisions that allowed existing EU nations to limit immigration from the new nations. The UK government at the time (rightly) saw that a large influx of young, motivated workers would be a significant economic boost to the UK. Many other nations in the EU were afraid of their right wing and chose to enact the restrictions available to them - the UK profited from a lot of Poles, Romanians etc because they were not able to go to Germany or France.

Perhaps you could explain the ways in which we benefitted and Germany/France didn't between 2004 and the credit crunch. I can't say I noticed any massive rise in national prosperity during that time, nor did I notice us pulling ahead of those countries economically.

If the economic boost was so significant then shouldn't we have noticed that we were getting it and they weren't?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29891 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If the economic boost was so significant then shouldn't we have noticed that we were getting it and they weren't?

It wasn't noticed because it was largely taken for granted. The UK has lower productivity than either France or Germany, and without the boost from migration it wouldn't have kept track with those other economies.
Posts: 3844 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A few months age, President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Brexit "cannot be a success." Indeed a successful outcome would be an existential threat to all that the enthusiasts of "ever closer union" hold dear. This is why I suspect that Mr Barnier has an unwritten brief to scupper the negotiations. It's now virtually impossible that he will recommend next month that "sufficient progress" has been made in the three key areas to allow the talks to progress. But look at what is at stake.

On citizens rights, Mr Barnier wants the ECJ to have jurisdiction over future rights of EU citizens resident in the UK. No sovereign nation could permit that because it's unprecedented anywhere on earth. Should a US court be taking care of the rights of US citizens in the UK? The UK is a democracy with an internationally respected judicial system, which is perfectly valid to take care of the rights of all citizens be they British, American or European.

Dafyd seems to think that we must owe the EU anything which it tells us we owe. I wouldn't trust figures cooked up by an organisation so financially incompetent and wasteful that it hasn't been able to sign off its own accounts for 20 years. But even if it could justify £75 billion or more, Mr Barnier and his team know that no UK government can concede this unless it's woven into a long term deal.

On the NI border. There has to be a customs agreement, at least on the island of Ireland to permit an open border. This could involve a customs border in the Irish Sea. But the Unionists would never tolerate that. It could involve Ireland being given a unilateral special relationship with the UK, which Barnier rejects. It could involve Northern Ireland being given a special status within the EU, which was rejected by the European Parliament on 5th July. Or it could involve a customs deal between the EU and the UK, as suggested by the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar. When that was suggested in the UK position paper it was branded an "unworkable fantasy." But there are very few options left, and the EU thinks it's up to the UK to solve this.

Taken together, this all points to the EU wanting a hard Brexit to "teach the UK what it means to leave the Single Market" to quote Mr Barnier last week. Even plans for a transitional deal have been met with a lukewarm response, and I fail to see why any British politician, Sir Keir Starmer too, who has any reason to believe that such a deal will be on offer.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6383 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A few months age, President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Brexit "cannot be a success."

Which could be taken as how it was meant; as a simple observation rather than a threat.

quote:

Dafyd seems to think that we must owe the EU anything which it tells us we owe. I wouldn't trust figures cooked up by an organisation so financially incompetent and wasteful that it hasn't been able to sign off its own accounts for 20 years.

That old hoary chestnut ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36276175

[ 11. September 2017, 19:07: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 3844 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

The UK is a democracy with an internationally respected judicial system, which is perfectly valid to take care of the rights of all citizens be they British, American or European.

Except for all the times they don't - like when the US wants to extradite someone from the UK.
Posts: 3844 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
On citizens rights, Mr Barnier wants the ECJ to have jurisdiction over future rights of EU citizens resident in the UK. No sovereign nation could permit that because it's unprecedented anywhere on earth. Should a US court be taking care of the rights of US citizens in the UK? The UK is a democracy with an internationally respected judicial system, which is perfectly valid to take care of the rights of all citizens be they British, American or European.

We'll need to wait and see what the courts say, but they are now being asked to judge on the legality of the Home Office deporting EU citizens, even those who have lived in the UK for more than 5 years who theoretically have security of residence, on the flimsiest of cases. When it takes the courts to act to prevent the UK government from acting contrary to any basic justice or human rights then there's something seriously wrong - and as an EU citizen I would certainly prefer the ECJ to have jurisdiction if it prevents other EU citizens to be unjustly deported or prevented to enter the country.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 32134 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If the economic boost was so significant then shouldn't we have noticed that we were getting it and they weren't?

It wasn't noticed because it was largely taken for granted. The UK has lower productivity than either France or Germany, and without the boost from migration it wouldn't have kept track with those other economies.
We would have noticed even less doctors and nurses than we have, even less care workers, fields of fruit and veg rotting unharvested etc.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 32134 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A few months age, President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Brexit "cannot be a success."

So he did not say 'must not be a success', or 'ought not be a success'. He said 'cannot be a success'. 'Cannot' is a prediction or statement of fact, not the expression of a wish. He is saying that there is no way in which Brexit can result in a better situation for anybody, the UK or the EU.

quote:
This is why I suspect that Mr Barnier has an unwritten brief to scupper the negotiations.
I don't believe that is why you suspect that. I think you'd suspect that no matter what Juncker or Barnier or anybody else in the EU had said.
There are a lot of people in the UK who know deep down that the UK government is through malice or incompetence scuppering the negotiations and who are desperately trying to shift the blame onto the EU.

quote:
On citizens rights, Mr Barnier wants the ECJ to have jurisdiction over future rights of EU citizens resident in the UK. No sovereign nation could permit that because it's unprecedented anywhere on earth.
It's not unprecedented. It is the status quo in the UK at the moment.
Every single EU citizen who moved to the UK before 2016 did so in the knowledge that the ECJ had jurisdiction. The UK government wants to unilaterally withdraw that. Barnier is merely asking for the status quo to continue.

quote:
The UK is a democracy with an internationally respected judicial system, which is perfectly valid to take care of the rights of all citizens be they British, American or European.
Internationally respected, yes. Respected within the UK? The cheerleaders for Brexit in our press called our 'internationally respected' judicial system 'enemies of the people' last year with little to no rebuke from the present government.

quote:
Dafyd seems to think that we must owe the EU anything which it tells us we owe.
I think that unless you can give concrete evidence that the EU bill is too high you have no grounds for saying that it is too high.
Instead, as chris stiles has shown, you are resorting to groundless and false allegations about incompetence and corruption.

quote:
On the NI border. There has to be a customs agreement, at least on the island of Ireland to permit an open border. This could involve a customs border in the Irish Sea. But the Unionists would never tolerate that. It could involve Ireland being given a unilateral special relationship with the UK, which Barnier rejects. It could involve Northern Ireland being given a special status within the EU, which was rejected by the European Parliament on 5th July. Or it could involve a customs deal between the EU and the UK, as suggested by the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar. When that was suggested in the UK position paper it was branded an "unworkable fantasy." But there are very few options left, and the EU thinks it's up to the UK to solve this.
So setting up customs barriers between Northern Ireland and Britain is ruled out because the Unionists won't stand for it.
Giving Northern Ireland special status in the EU is ruled out because it would require customs barriers between Northern Ireland and Britain, and anyway, the Unionists wouldn't stand for it (you're trying to shift blame onto the EU here, but it's clear the Unionists wouldn't stand for it anyway).
A special customs deal without border checks on the Ireland/Northern Ireland border is an unworkable fantasy; you have given no reason to think that it isn't.
You have rejected out of hand any compromise on the part of the UK that might deal with this problem, which the UK has created. You are therefore casting wildly around for a way to make the EU take responsibility for the consequences of the UK's refusal to compromise.

quote:
Even plans for a transitional deal have been met with a lukewarm response, and I fail to see why any British politician, Sir Keir Starmer too, who has any reason to believe that such a deal will be on offer.
Keir Starmer isn't in government. To say that the Government has plans for a transitional deal is laughable. As part of the Cabinet's internecine feuds and jockeying to take over from May, some Cabinet Ministers, slightly more in touch with reality, have in public said that a transitional deal might be necessary. Other Cabinet ministers and backbench Tory MPs have shot the statements down.
The EU cannot be expected to greet every public statement by a member of the UK government with serious consideration under such circumstances.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10376 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

Every single EU citizen who moved to the UK before 2016 did so in the knowledge that the ECJ had jurisdiction. The UK government wants to unilaterally withdraw that. Barnier is merely asking for the status quo to continue.

The status quo is that the UK is in the EU. Apparently, that's going to change.

The role of the ECJ is to be the ultimate arbiter of EU law - the ECJ tells member states and their courts what the EU law says, and how they should apply it. Post-Brexit, there will be no EU law in the UK, so nothing for the ECJ to do.

M. Barnier wishes, apparently, to extend the ECJ's remit to give it jurisdiction (presumably in interpreting whatever new treaty the UK and EU signs) in order to protect EU citizens against the UK changing its laws in the future to the possible detriment of EU citizens.

Is he willing to offer the UK courts the same role in interpreting the treaty in order to protect UK citizens living in the EU against some hypothetical future change in the law of either the EU or an EU member state?

Posts: 4852 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by PaulTH:
quote:

But there are very few options left, and the EU thinks it's up to the UK to solve this.

Of course it's up to the UK to solve it. This is what they call 'taking back control', 'guarding our own sovereignty' and 'not having to do what Europe tells us'.This - and not having anything to do with dirty foreigners and some fantasy nonsense about giving the NHS 350 million per annum - was what the vote was won on. Wasn't it?

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5203 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
M. Barnier wishes, apparently, to extend the ECJ's remit to give it jurisdiction (presumably in interpreting whatever new treaty the UK and EU signs) in order to protect EU citizens against the UK changing its laws in the future to the possible detriment of EU citizens.

Is he willing to offer the UK courts the same role in interpreting the treaty in order to protect UK citizens living in the EU against some hypothetical future change in the law of either the EU or an EU member state?

The original remit of the ECJ is the arbitration of treaty obligations between EU (formerly EEC etc) members. It still retains that role. If the rights of EU citizens in the UK or UK citizens in the EU are to be granted in a treaty some body has to arbitrate disputes over whether the parties are adhering to that treaty. Since the ECJ already has a body with that kind of responsibility there's no reason why a new body needs to be set up. It is true that the UK would need to have continued representation in the ECJ if it had that function. But that's easily solved.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10376 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also, the European Court of Justice is NOT AN AGENCY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

As the UK has just been censured by the United Nations for not respecting the human rights of disabled people, I can perfectly understand why the EU negotiators are concerned. Our judicial system is independent of Parliament, but its role is to uphold British law. And the whole point of leaving the EU is to gain the freedom to change laws without reference to the rest of the EU - including the Human Rights Act. The courts cannot uphold it if it's repealed.

Posts: 3934 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's a strong sense that the Ultras are getting ready to blame the EU for any perceived delays or blockages in negotiations. In fact, it's already going on, as can be seen in the trash press.

However, cynics are also wondering if an element of provocation may come in - that is, a deliberate messing up of the talks, followed by the finger pointing - it's Barnier's fault.

But to what extent will government ministers follow suit? It seems impossible to say, but again, cynics are saying, watch this space. How long before May and Davis are following suit? Her Maj government has tried earnestly and assiduously to conduct honourable negotiations, but we are up against perfidious foreigners.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9663 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Also, the European Court of Justice is NOT AN AGENCY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

As the UK has just been censured by the United Nations for not respecting the human rights of disabled people, I can perfectly understand why the EU negotiators are concerned. Our judicial system is independent of Parliament, but its role is to uphold British law. And the whole point of leaving the EU is to gain the freedom to change laws without reference to the rest of the EU - including the Human Rights Act. The courts cannot uphold it if it's repealed.

This article clarifies the differences between the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The ECJ is an agency of the European Union. It's role is to consider the actions of institutions within the EU and its judgments serve to clarify European law to ensure that it is applied in the same way in all EU Member States. No third country is bound by it's rulings.

The ECtHR isn't. It deals with breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unless the UK leaves the Convention, it still has a role.

May has muddled the two up and suggested that the UK leave both - and got knocked back. I doubt she'd get a vote to leave the Convention through Parliament.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12647 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops, you're right. And I have criticised Mrs Mayhem for getting them mixed up [Hot and Hormonal]

<wanders off in search of caffeine>

Posts: 3934 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Oops, you're right. And I have criticised Mrs Mayhem for getting them mixed up [Hot and Hormonal]

<wanders off in search of caffeine>

If it's any consolation I'm sure she has done so deliberately.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24011 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's a strong sense that the Ultras are getting ready to blame the EU for any perceived delays or blockages in negotiations. In fact, it's already going on, as can be seen in the trash press.

However, cynics are also wondering if an element of provocation may come in - that is, a deliberate messing up of the talks, followed by the finger pointing - it's Barnier's fault.

But to what extent will government ministers follow suit? It seems impossible to say, but again, cynics are saying, watch this space. How long before May and Davis are following suit? Her Maj government has tried earnestly and assiduously to conduct honourable negotiations, but we are up against perfidious foreigners.

It's more likely to be six of one ... There are Ultras on both sides who've got no interest in achieving anything. Hopefully the moderates will win out, but who knows?!

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12647 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We were told that getting a 'good deal' from the EU would be 'the easiest thing in the world'. If negotiations are proving difficult, it must be because the Commission is being deliberately obstructive.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 444 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
We were told that getting a 'good deal' from the EU would be 'the easiest thing in the world'. If negotiations are proving difficult, it must be because the Commission is being deliberately obstructive.

Or Brexiters are full of crap. [Big Grin]

Your opinions on whether Brexit is a good thing or bad thing may influence who you blame for the current state of affairs.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12647 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose there is a conflict between ideology and pragmatism. Ideologically, the right wing envisage a bonfire of regulations, low taxes, trade of an unimaginable freedom, outside the EU.

But pragmatically, those close to business fear that Dover could turn into a huge lorry park, as trucks line up to cross the Channel, while their cargoes are checked. In other words, you can't just stop trading with the EU, and non-tariff barriers could be a nightmare.

I notice that Hammond yesterday made a speech, saying that there should be a transition period, during which, regulations and movement of people should stay the same. He will not be popular with the nutters!

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9663 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose there is a conflict between ideology and pragmatism. Ideologically, the right wing envisage a bonfire of regulations, low taxes, trade of an unimaginable freedom, outside the EU.

Bonfire of the regulations and the UK gets close to zero chance of doing any trade deals - because everyone fears that the UK becomes a backdoor for shipping substandard crap into their trade area.

The right wing are barking. Their latest proposal has a steampunk flavour about it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41232991

[Amusingly, Legatum are connected via 'Baroness' Stroud to the rump of what would pass for a Religious Right in the UK].

Posts: 3844 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
We were told that getting a 'good deal' from the EU would be 'the easiest thing in the world'. If negotiations are proving difficult, it must be because the Commission is being deliberately obstructive.

I read that as a typically English ironic statement. The Leavers looked like snake oil salesmen then and they still do.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24011 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose there is a conflict between ideology and pragmatism. Ideologically, the right wing envisage a bonfire of regulations, low taxes, trade of an unimaginable freedom, outside the EU.

Bonfire of the regulations and the UK gets close to zero chance of doing any trade deals - because everyone fears that the UK becomes a backdoor for shipping substandard crap into their trade area.

The right wing are barking. Their latest proposal has a steampunk flavour about it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41232991

[Amusingly, Legatum are connected via 'Baroness' Stroud to the rump of what would pass for a Religious Right in the UK].

Yes, I've heard that if the UK did start to import crap US food, such as the mythical chlorinated chickens, the EU inspection regime would be micro-managed to prevent dross slipping through.

I suppose this applies to Ireland also, since if rubbish is coming into N. Ireland, it must be prevented from entering the Republic.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9663 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well spotted, Sioni Sais. Full marks for perspicacity.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 444 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I've heard that if the UK did start to import crap US food, such as the mythical chlorinated chickens, the EU inspection regime would be micro-managed to prevent dross slipping through.

The other EU nations and the Commission have been worried for years about UK imports, because enforcement of the standards has been so lax (mostly a result of cut backs affecting staff numbers and morale) that the UK is the choice port of entry for sub-standard goods to the EU.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 32134 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting article from the Irish Examiner. While the overarching conclusion can be quibbled with, parts of it seem to be fairly accurate:

quote:

"IT WAS a wise Irish civil servant who told me once, years ago, that the time to be afraid of British negotiators was when they offered a flurry of ideas. “Read them,” he said, “and you’ll notice one thing. They’re trying to trap you into discussing points of detail, so you end up ignoring the fundamentals.”

That’s why the British paper, which pretends that you can have a hard Brexit without hard borders, reminds me so much of the “angel papers” they used to produce during the Anglo-Irish negotiations.

They were called angel papers, and it was a British term, because they had no official standing. A paper could be produced full of the kind of language in which an agreement could be framed. But it would be presented as “random thoughts” or “musings”. If you didn’t like them, no harm done. "

The latter in particular seems to capture David Davis' entire negotiating strategy.

[ 14. September 2017, 09:16: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 3844 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mrs May is said to be about to make a speech which will miraculously dissolve the obstacles to progress in the Brexit negotiations. The next round has been postponed for a week to oblige her. This will be before the start of the Conservative Party conference.
It is difficult to envisage what of substance she can say that will not upset the applecart either at the conference or in the negotiations. The London Times says she is already having to modify what she is to say for fear of BoJo's reaction.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 444 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On a different, and lighter, note I imagine myself, in my wilder moments, hoisting a European flag over my house, and defying the fanatical hordes, like General Gordon at Khartoum. My main difficulty in carrying out this plan (much to my wife's relief) is the unavailabilty, in the UK, of a readily available source of EU flags. Can shipmates suggest any solution?

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 444 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
My main difficulty in carrying out this plan (much to my wife's relief) is the unavailabilty, in the UK, of a readily available source of EU flags. Can shipmates suggest any solution?

Any flag retailer?
Posts: 3586 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Such as?

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 444 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Such as?

There are lots of flag manufacturers with websites. They'll make whatever you want.
Posts: 3586 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Such as?

Amazon will sell flags and ship them via Prime. I assume you should be able to find such things on ebay also.
Posts: 3844 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Choose your size. you might also want to purchase these, choose your window size.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16963 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  ...  54  55  56 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools