Anyone else notice in the news that our Foreign Minister went on trade trip / diplomatic visit to Turkey this week? I found his reported speeches amazing.
Mr Johnson, Im sure youll remember was largely pro Eu until the spring of last year when he joined the Brexit campaign. Some of this campaigns issues were about Turkey being about to join the Eu and what a bad thing this would be,etc etc. He then won a competition with an insulting poem about President Erdogan. (Im no fan of Erdogan nor an apologist for him).
Now during his time there, he explained how the UK would seek strong trade links with Turkey. Trade deals that often involve talking of exchange of goods and also free passage of people. He also said hed help Turkey to join the EU !! The same Eu he thinks we should exit. Wonder how much attention our current Eu partners will pay to his advice? Wonder how much Pres Erdogan really believed him? I know where I place his personal integrity, and it aint very high. I can see why Mrs May has put the Brexiteers in positions influencing our departure, (for internal party reasons, so she can blame them when/if it all goes belly up, and to avoid accusations of going for a soft exit), but who will ever believe anything he says?
Yes we know there’s a load of inconsistencies among the Cons in being ideologically Federalist while trying to pretend to be Nationalists when it suits them.On that note if we could really trust any of the Con Eurosceptics they’d obviously refuse to work with remainers May and sidekick Hammond.Just like the inconsistencies within the SNP supposedly being Nationalists while supporting handing over the sovereignty of the place to Brussels and Juncker instead of Westminster.As for May sending Boris to carry on with Cameron’s policy of grovelling to Turkey isn’t that all part of the same bs US and EU agenda of supposedly good Islam v bad Islam.IE supporting Erdogan,Al Nusra and Wahabbist Saudi supposedly good Islam v IS bad Islam when it’s all the same bleedin thing. 
Which affects the issue of the Brexit,being mostly about the Labour vote supporting people like Kate Hoey,not Cons supporting Boris,how.
Or for that matter staying with the EU solves what in that regard.As opposed to following Hoey in telling Juncker and Hollande and Merkel ( and May and Obama ) to shove it.
Seems to me that most of the Brexiteers are pretty inconsistent. There are are a few, Id say, who take a credible view that they wish to exchange a strong trading position within the Eu, for a life outside the Eu with probably a harder financial life. Not my choice, but credible. Then there are those who talk of a being outside the Eu, but still waving their hands around waffling on about how the Eu will "have" to trade with us, and some even say on better terms than now! Un-■■■-believable! Trust which Euro Sceptic Cons? Wed agree not Johnson. Gove? Well nuff said there. Fox seems to one of those arm waving dreamers I was mentioning before, shouting about a rosy dawn, but without any sign of evidence to support him. Inconsistency by the Scots? Maybe one of the reasons they voted to stay in the UK was to stay within the EU. (would a newly independent Scotland be admitted by Spain). So now, by pressing again to leave the Eu they are being consistent. The UK may be an island, but we cant realistically trade like an isolated entity, by definition by needing to trading we are not wholly independent.
Franglais:
Seems to me that most of the Brexiteers are pretty inconsistent. There are are a few, Id say, who take a credible view that they wish to exchange a strong trading position within the Eu, for a life outside the Eu with probably a harder financial life. Not my choice, but credible. Then there are those who talk of a being outside the Eu, but still waving their hands around waffling on about how the Eu will "have" to trade with us, and some even say on better terms than now! Un-■■■-believable! Trust which Euro Sceptic Cons? Wed agree not Johnson. Gove? Wellnuff said there. Fox seems to one of those arm waving dreamers I was mentioning before, shouting about a rosy dawn, but without any sign of evidence to support him. Inconsistency by the Scots? Maybe one of the reasons they voted to stay in the UK was to stay within the EU. (would a newly independent Scotland be admitted by Spain). So now, by pressing again to leave the Eu they are being consistent. The UK may be an island, but we cant realistically trade like an isolated entity, by definition by needing to trading we are not wholly independent.
-
If the EU are saying they want to punish us economically for the crime of seceding that’s just another good reason to leave.
-
As for a so called ‘harder financial life’ out of it how is that possible when we’re a net contributor to the EU budget for the privilege of being a net importer of EU goods.
-
Why would the EU see any advantage in imposing trade restrictions against a net importer of its products.See 1.
-
Why is any relationship which requires trading sovereignty for trade supposedly good for us or in the national interest.Bearing in mind it’s effectively economic blackmail.
As for trade supposedly removing independence how do you explain Australia’s,Canada’s,and New Zealand’s independence from UK or China or Japan.Or for that matter in exactly what way does NAFTA remove US or Canadian sovereignty and independence respectively.In terms of their respective National economic and immigration policies.IE no Mexican trucks running US-Canadian freight journeys nor Mexican freedom of movement for example.Or in what way did EFTA membership ever mean giving up sovereignty among the EFTA member states.
- Punish us? No, merely treat us equally with any non-Eu member.
- Will leaving the Eu benefit us thro having tariffs added to our exports? I think not.
- Why would we expect a more favourable treatment outside the Eu as a non dues payer, than as “fully paid up member of the club”? Refusing to pay monies and accept the housing of migrants, but expecting a good deal on trade?? Not in the real world will that happen, I`d say.
- There is no such thing as a free lunch! All deals have ups and downs. The Queen buys what food she doesn
t grow in the the window boxes at Buck House, but is still Sovereign. She trades without losing sovereignty. Quote "As for trade supposedly removing independence how do you explain Australia's,Canada's,and New Zealand's independence from UK or China or Japan.Or for that matter in exactly what way does NAFTA remove US or Canadian sovereignty and independence respectively.In terms of their respective National economic and immigration policies.IE no Mexican trucks running US-Canadian freight journeys nor Mexican freedom of movement for example.Or in what way did EFTA membership ever mean giving up sovereignty among the EFTA member states." Carryfast. Any one who trades gives up something. Be it goods only for money, as in a deal, or a deal sweetened with extra visas, reduced taxes and tariffs on some goods or increased taxes against the first partners rivals. Norway has to accept free passage of Eu citizens, and pays into the Eu, although it has no voting rights. It is still a sovereign state and that is its price of preferred trading terms with the Eu. How would we get on trying to trade with…say China? Yes well buy your steel and yes well sell you insurance, but absolutely refuse to have any of your citizens get a single job as a translator here. That would fly like a brick! In the real world this aint the 1850s Victorian Empire, it aint even the 1950s Commonwealth, we arent a 3rd rate trading nation but we cant afford to invite extra taxes to make us one!
Franglais:
- Punish us? No, merely treat us equally with any non-Eu member.
- Will leaving the Eu benefit us thro having tariffs added to our exports? I think not.
- Why would we expect a more favourable treatment outside the Eu as a non dues payer, than as “fully paid up member of the club”? Refusing to pay monies and accept the housing of migrants, but expecting a good deal on trade?? Not in the real world will that happen, I`d say.
- There is no such thing as a free lunch! All deals have ups and downs. The Queen buys what food she doesn
t grow in the the window boxes at Buck House, but is still Sovereign. She trades without losing sovereignty. Quote "As for trade supposedly removing independence how do you explain Australia's,Canada's,and New Zealand's independence from UK or China or Japan.Or for that matter in exactly what way does NAFTA remove US or Canadian sovereignty and independence respectively.In terms of their respective National economic and immigration policies.IE no Mexican trucks running US-Canadian freight journeys nor Mexican freedom of movement for example.Or in what way did EFTA membership ever mean giving up sovereignty among the EFTA member states." Carryfast. Any one who trades gives up something. Be it goods only for money, as in a deal, or a deal sweetened with extra visas, reduced taxes and tariffs on some goods or increased taxes against the first partners rivals. Norway has to accept free passage of Eu citizens, and pays into the Eu, although it has no voting rights. It is still a sovereign state and that is its price of preferred trading terms with the Eu. How would we get on trying to trade with…say China? Yes well buy your steel and yes well sell you insurance, but absolutely refuse to have any of your citizens get a single job as a translator here. That would fly like a brick! In the real world this aint the 1850s Victorian Empire, it aint even the 1950s Commonwealth, we arent a 3rd rate trading nation but we cant afford to invite extra taxes to make us one!
As I said if they want to add tarrifs to our products then we add even higher tarrifs,or preferably quotas,to their’s bearing in mind they export more to us than we export to them.Who gains from that other than the potential that it would,by necessity,have the beneficial effect of creating more British jobs making more British products,for sale in the more protected UK market,to make up for the fall in EU imports.
As for Norway as I’ve said there’s no more reason for any EFTA state to give up sovereignty for trade with the EU as there is between each other.Other than submission to EU political blackmail.
As for China the fact is we don’t have a free movement deal for trade with China just as there is no need for any free movement deal between NAFTA member states.
The fact is the government have been given a democratic mandate to take us out of the EU based on a non EEA member state manifesto.At which point the EU knows it’s present Federal government system will no longer be sustainable and will rightly be smashed assuming that mandate is correctly implemented.
As for any deal which trades EU membership for EEA membership that would obviously raise the question of the referendum result effectively being over turned and ignored.Which,ironically for your comments regarding Boris is probably,predictably,where the remainer led Cons are going.