Trade deal with the US after Brexit

[franglais]

muckles:

Franglais:

muckles:
Having followed the developments of CETA, TTIP etc before Brexit I think there are as many free marketeers in the EU as in our own government, TTIP stalled but CETA is due to ratified.

The more I see of these people, in our government, other governments and the EU the more I think Guy Fawkes had the right idea.

I can’t say you’re wrong…
I wish, with respect, I could prove you wrong, but I can’t.
It’s not often I feel like an optimist, but your view of World Politics is…worrying…?
I’ve still got some hope in the EU even with all it’s faults. But no hope in the world ReesMogg, Farage, Redwood, Johnson etc have planned.
.
The EU is like democracy: it’s the worse choice.
Apart from all the other choices, that is.
.
You talk sense, in identifying problems, but I don’t see that leaving the EU is in any form or way a solution to them.
But I CAN see that leaving the EU would introduce more problems.

Personally I don’t see leaving or staying in the EU a solution to the problems, the problems are far too deep, embedded in every rich democracy, promoted by multi-nationals, globalists.

We need not just reform, but wholesale change, this won’t happen while those in power, either in Westminster or Brussels, are not at least shaken out of their complacency that the electorate are just going to let them carry on.
It hasn’t helped that for the last few decades there hasn’t been an alternative, one group looks pretty like the other with not much between what they have to offer and a culpable media making sure any alternative don’t get coverage, the internet and social media has changed this, allowing ordinary people to spread their views across the globe, which is no doubt why governments are looking at ways to control it.

Just to quickly look at that part of your post.
The internet is truly a double edged sword.
It does enable dissemination of information, and bypasses censorship, but it also enables the spread of false news.
The press in the UK has a chequered history of course, with some newspaper other media owners seeking to influence us all. But some of the media does a valuable job in vetting and fact checking information. Social media too often is a means of spreading lies and nonsense. We still do need a professional Fourth Estate.
That some media is biased is no reason for us to ignore it all. And it is difficult for us to decide what is biased and what isnt. One danger is only believing what "chimes" with what we already believe: the echo chamber effect. Another less obvious form of bad reporting comes from media, with the best intentions, leaning over backwards to be fair. We saw this with the Andrew Wakefield MMR business, and more recently with climate change. That there are are two side to an argument doesnt mean that they should be given equal weight. A responsible media DOES have a duty to report both sides, but if the science is much stronger in one way than another, then equal reporting is a disservice, not an asset.

It is a big subject, and the BBC, in spite of the flak they take, do try to be unbiased. At least they publish criticism of themselves and try to improve.
Really good series from them on the World Service about the US elections and social media. Cant for the life of me remember the name of the programmes now. It would have been about 04hr00 on a Monday…guess thats why I cant remember!
Huge and complex subject for sure.

[hkloss1]

Brexiters, your very own Piers Morgan, admits this country is going to be desperate to sign trade deals, especially with the mighty US, when it leaves the EU, and guess what happens to someone who is desperate, his life depends on striking a deal, to sell anything or buy anything, and all his potential trading partners know about?
Does he get a good or avery poor deal?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=sMYbr_JufkM

It seems all your prophets know about it, except you, dear believers, you are all being led to believe it is all going to be rosy.

[muckles]

hkloss1:
Brexiters, your very own Piers Morgan, admits this country is going to be desperate to sign trade deals, especially with the mighty US, when it leaves the EU, and guess what happens to someone who is desperate, his life depends on striking a deal, to sell anything or buy anything, and all his potential trading partners know about?
Does he get a good or avery poor deal?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=sMYbr_JufkM

It seems all your prophets know about it, except you, dear believers, you are all being led to believe it is all going to be rosy.

Ah Yes the famous Government Minister Piers Morgan, head of the negotiating team.

Meanwhile we have CETA on the table, waiting to be ratified.

The EU-Canada trade deal will cause 300,000 job losses, study says

The researchers said most models used to assess whether the deal was a good idea assumed permanent full employment and so the potential for job losses had been “ruled out from the outset”.

Using a different, more “realistic” model of the effects showed that some 227,000 jobs would go in Ceta countries and a further 80,000 in the rest of the world over the next six years, they wrote.

Workers would also miss out on average earnings of between about £275 and £1,150 a year in the EU and more than £1,500 in Canada, while the share of national income going to the wealthiest would increase.

They said four studies that had been used to support the need for Ceta were based on “standard but unrealistic neoclassical assumptions, such as the permanent full employment of all workers in Canada and the EU, the result of which is that any proven risk or macroeconomic and social costs associated with liberalisation are ruled out from the outset”.

“The only winners from this deal will be the big corporations who will be getting a raft of new powers that enable them to sue governments, have enormous influence to weaken important protections on the food we eat and lock in the privatisation of vital public services like the NHS.”

CETA opens up tendering for NHS contracts any Canadian company or more importantly any company with a Canadian subsidiary, that could include US companies, so it’s TTIP by the back door.

Of course although this is an EU trade deal it has been totally backed by the UK government, continuing policies of successive UK governments, Tory and pretend Tory, more commonly known as New Labour, to privatise our national services, in the name of efficiency, but more likely to benefit their and their friends investments.

[muckles]

Franglais:

muckles:
Personally I don’t see leaving or staying in the EU a solution to the problems, the problems are far too deep, embedded in every rich democracy, promoted by multi-nationals, globalists.

We need not just reform, but wholesale change, this won’t happen while those in power, either in Westminster or Brussels, are not at least shaken out of their complacency that the electorate are just going to let them carry on.
It hasn’t helped that for the last few decades there hasn’t been an alternative, one group looks pretty like the other with not much between what they have to offer and a culpable media making sure any alternative don’t get coverage, the internet and social media has changed this, allowing ordinary people to spread their views across the globe, which is no doubt why governments are looking at ways to control it.

Just to quickly look at that part of your post.
The internet is truly a double edged sword.
It does enable dissemination of information, and bypasses censorship, but it also enables the spread of false news.
The press in the UK has a chequered history of course, with some newspaper other media owners seeking to influence us all. But some of the media does a valuable job in vetting and fact checking information. Social media too often is a means of spreading lies and nonsense. We still do need a professional Fourth Estate.
That some media is biased is no reason for us to ignore it all. And it is difficult for us to decide what is biased and what isnt. One danger is only believing what "chimes" with what we already believe: the echo chamber effect. Another less obvious form of bad reporting comes from media, with the best intentions, leaning over backwards to be fair. We saw this with the Andrew Wakefield MMR business, and more recently with climate change. That there are are two side to an argument doesnt mean that they should be given equal weight. A responsible media DOES have a duty to report both sides, but if the science is much stronger in one way than another, then equal reporting is a disservice, not an asset.

It is a big subject, and the BBC, in spite of the flak they take, do try to be unbiased. At least they publish criticism of themselves and try to improve.

Of course the internet is a double edged sword and people do tend read and believe information that confirms what they already believe, but this happened with traditional media outlets, some would buy the Guardian, others the Daily Mail or maybe The Sun or the Daily Mirror. These papers would carefully edit their stories and select pictures to suit their agenda.

However traditional media outlets, even if they weren’t complicit in peddling fake news, remember WMD’s, controlled what information we were given, this includes the BBC, somebody has to make a decision what stories are run on the news, that however hard somebody tries cannot be unbiased.
What the internet gives those who choose to make use of it are many outlets, a chance to dig deeper, to see the stories that the mainstream outlets, for whatever reason, choose not to run, those who stay in their echo chambers would have been there with the papers of old, regurgitating the stuff they’ve read without any critical thought.

[franglais]

muckles:

Franglais:

muckles:
Personally I don’t see leaving or staying in the EU a solution to the problems, the problems are far too deep, embedded in every rich democracy, promoted by multi-nationals, globalists.

We need not just reform, but wholesale change, this won’t happen while those in power, either in Westminster or Brussels, are not at least shaken out of their complacency that the electorate are just going to let them carry on.
It hasn’t helped that for the last few decades there hasn’t been an alternative, one group looks pretty like the other with not much between what they have to offer and a culpable media making sure any alternative don’t get coverage, the internet and social media has changed this, allowing ordinary people to spread their views across the globe, which is no doubt why governments are looking at ways to control it.

Just to quickly look at that part of your post.
The internet is truly a double edged sword.
It does enable dissemination of information, and bypasses censorship, but it also enables the spread of false news.
The press in the UK has a chequered history of course, with some newspaper other media owners seeking to influence us all. But some of the media does a valuable job in vetting and fact checking information. Social media too often is a means of spreading lies and nonsense. We still do need a professional Fourth Estate.
That some media is biased is no reason for us to ignore it all. And it is difficult for us to decide what is biased and what isnt. One danger is only believing what "chimes" with what we already believe: the echo chamber effect. Another less obvious form of bad reporting comes from media, with the best intentions, leaning over backwards to be fair. We saw this with the Andrew Wakefield MMR business, and more recently with climate change. That there are are two side to an argument doesnt mean that they should be given equal weight. A responsible media DOES have a duty to report both sides, but if the science is much stronger in one way than another, then equal reporting is a disservice, not an asset.

It is a big subject, and the BBC, in spite of the flak they take, do try to be unbiased. At least they publish criticism of themselves and try to improve.

Of course the internet is a double edged sword and people do tend read and believe information that confirms what they already believe, but this happened with traditional media outlets, some would buy the Guardian, others the Daily Mail or maybe The Sun or the Daily Mirror. These papers would carefully edit their stories and select pictures to suit their agenda.

However traditional media outlets, even if they weren’t complicit in peddling fake news, remember WMD’s, controlled what information we were given, this includes the BBC, somebody has to make a decision what stories are run on the news, that however hard somebody tries cannot be unbiased.
What the internet gives those who choose to make use of it are many outlets, a chance to dig deeper, to see the stories that the mainstream outlets, for whatever reason, choose not to run, those who stay in their echo chambers would have been there with the papers of old, regurgitating the stuff they’ve read without any critical thought.

It is difficult.
As individuals we obviously cant look at all of available sources and make our own minds up on a balance. There is too much real info out there for us to examine, without even looking at the deliberately false stuff. I dont see how anyone can avoid using gatekeepers? So long as we remain aware they are there, we can hopefully mitigate their effects.

[winseer]

chrisdalott:

Juddian:
:twisted:

■■■■ it up ladies, Brexit is coming and all the wailing in your soup isn’t going to change a thing , if the conlab traitors in parl think they can bluster and stall leaving indefinately in the hope we give up and resume voting for the dead parties they are sorely mistaken, they’ll simply be replaced by the Brexit Party come the next election… all starting Thursday in Peterborough…who will do the job for them.

Brexit party fail yet again in Peterborough just like ukip have
Splitting the right wing vote like this should result in a labour victory, at the head of SNP and liberal coalition

■■■■ it up ladies

I would imagine a lot of PAYE folk like myself - would be seeking to go Self-Employed under a future labour government - so we can get out of paying Corbyns ramped-up taxes! He’d then have to ramp them up again and again - on the “reducing returns” spiral, and would quickly lose control of the country. He’s laid out no plans to deliver or complete Brexit - so we must assume that he’s the EU’s man all along, and has no intention of “negoatiating” anything other than "Wots it wurf Commissioner?" should he make into that hallowed door stretching the new Home Secretary’s counting digits to the limit…!

I reckon the EU would gladly extend ECB credit for all of Corbyn’s initial spending plans - providing he revokes article 50 on the spot. Would there be riots? - Yes and no. There would be peaceful demos by disenfranchised Brexiteers, but no doubt Rent-a-mob Antifa would turn up, and turn the whole thing INTO a riot at THAT point.

Can’t see Corbyn getting anyone in the armed forces to shoot at their own friends and family “on demand”. The country would soon fall into Chaos, especially when his own party wets - vote down McDonnell’s first budget…

[rjan]

Winseer:

chrisdalott:
…

I would imagine a lot of PAYE folk like myself - would be seeking to go Self-Employed under a future labour government - so we can get out of paying Corbyns ramped-up taxes! He’d then have to ramp them up again and again - on the “reducing returns” spiral, and would quickly lose control of the country.

Or he could take away the choice, simply for the purpose of fiddling tax, of whether you deem yourself employed or not.

Although, I hardly think there are any drivers likely to be affected by the increase in income tax on the slice of earnings above £80k a year.

He’s laid out no plans to deliver or complete Brexit

What plans do any have? The Tory right may talk tough, but they have no more a coherent plan than anybody else.

It’s the same with immigration. The Tories talked tough, but in the end all they did over several years of power was victimise a couple of thousand people who’d spent their lives here, whilst letting in tens of thousands a year more of fresh immigrants.

We must assume that he’s the EU’s man all along

The square that must be circled is that, in the open market, the EU (and its trading partners) is where a substantial amount of our export custom lays.

I reckon the EU would gladly extend ECB credit for all of Corbyn’s initial spending plans - providing he revokes article 50 on the spot.

Corbyn doesn’t really need new sources of “credit” for his “spending” plans. Although it is worth noting in passing that a large proportion of Corbyn’s manifesto is not based on increased “spending”, but on increased economic investment and on increased redistribution (through, for example, higher wages for workers, paid for by bosses in the payroll, not by the state via taxes).

If the Brexiteers themselves are to be believed, Britain is a powerful nation with huge industrial potential, so if you accept that then Corbyn isn’t going to have any economic problems with his manifesto. The beef with the EU is that they might try to inflict legal obstacles on Corbyn’s manifesto.

Can’t see Corbyn getting anyone in the armed forces to shoot at their own friends and family “on demand”. The country would soon fall into Chaos, especially when his own party wets - vote down McDonnell’s first budget…

Provided the support is there for the manifesto, then if Corbyn faced internal opponents he could simply go to the country again and elect new more cooperative MPs.

That’s the main problem the Tories face with their hard Brexit. There isn’t actually sufficient support for their executing a hard Brexit, because even people who strongly want to leave the EU know that the Tories are going to shaft them in the process if they are in charge of it.

We’ve already had Donald Trump telling us which public services he wants carved up as the condition of any trade deal - which is another way of saying he’s lodging a demand for a cut of British taxpayer’s money, the taxes we are supposed to pay to support our own public services, not to provide a ready source profit to the American speculator.

[ovlov_jay]

We will only get a free trade deal with the u.s if we get a free trade deal with the EU. So there will be no need for any chlorinated chicken (even though we currently eat home grown chicken, I’ll allow that scaremongering story for the purpose of debate) as we will carry on our trade in the same way as we currently do with the EU

[franglais]

OVLOV JAY:
We will only get a free trade deal with the u.s if we get a free trade deal with the EU. So there will be no need for any chlorinated chicken (even though we currently eat home grown chicken, I’ll allow that scaremongering story for the purpose of debate) as we will carry on our trade in the same way as we currently do with the EU

The problem with the chicken isn’t that it’s chlorine washed. Some of our supermarket salads are chlorine washed, no problems.
The chlorine washing is needed for US chicken, but not our chicken because of differences in raising, slaughtering, and butchering.
US chickens are raised much more intensively than in the EU and UK. They are not butchered as carefully as here.
For these reasons it’s necessary to wash the US carcases. That isn’t necessary here.
There is controversy over whether or not there is more food poisonings there or here.
But ignoring safety (!) the US methods produce cheaper chicken meat. By using lower welfare cages for the birds, and differing slaughterhouse standards they can undercut UK farmers.
That is the problem: should we allow birds raised in conditions illegal here into our market? Should US farmers put our farmers out of business because they use what we mostly think of as unacceptably cruel and unhygenic methods?
Is it ok to contaminate meat with faeces so long as it’s washed off?
.
And in a Free Trade deal they will be free to send all their chickens here…
If not it ain’t Free Trade is it?

[ovlov_jay]

You miss the point Franglais, we will only get a trade deal with the yanks if we have one with the EU. So we will have no need to eat yank chicken, like we don’t now. I can’t see how an exit from the EU is going to increase Norfolk chicken to the point it’s cheaper from the states anyway

[franglais]

OVLOV JAY:
You miss the point Franglais, we will only get a trade deal with the yanks if we have one with the EU. So we will have no need to eat yank chicken, like we don’t now. I can’t see how an exit from the EU is going to increase Norfolk chicken to the point it’s cheaper from the states anyway

I am missing what you’re saying.

1. Assuming we leave the EU totally, a hard Brexit-
   We revert to WTO rules unless we make Free Trade Deals don’t we?
   We can then make bi-lateral deals, as available or not.
2. Assuming we’re tied into the EU, a soft Brexit, then we may be on the same deal with the US as the EU is.
   .
   I don’t see that we
   “only get a deal with the Yanks if we have one with the EU”?
   Sorry, I don’t understand that bit

[ovlov_jay]

Franglais:

OVLOV JAY:
You miss the point Franglais, we will only get a trade deal with the yanks if we have one with the EU. So we will have no need to eat yank chicken, like we don’t now. I can’t see how an exit from the EU is going to increase Norfolk chicken to the point it’s cheaper from the states anyway

I am missing what you’re saying.

1. Assuming we leave the EU totally, a hard Brexit-
   We revert to WTO rules unless we make Free Trade Deals don’t we?
   We can then make bi-lateral deals, as available or not.
2. Assuming we’re tied into the EU, a soft Brexit, then we may be on the same deal with the US as the EU is.
   .
   I don’t see that we
   “only get a deal with the Yanks if we have one with the EU”?
   Sorry, I don’t understand that bit

You mean you clever remainers don’t understand something that a thick Brexiteer can see is glaringly obvious? The EU trades with the US on WTO terms. If we get a free trade deal with the EU, the US will want one with us. Then every US company that trades with the EU, will set up UK subsidiaries. They will ship their products here, then ship later into the EU, tariff free despite not having a trade deal! This will be replicated by China, India, and any other country selling into the EU on WTO terms. This is the sunny uplands of a Brexit Britain, the so called unicorns. Alas, we will never get a free trade agreement from the EU, as that will be financial suicide on their part, as they will lose Millions every week in tariffs. And it’s for that reason it’s highly unlikely the states will want a free trade agreement with us imo. We’re not a massive market for American consumer goods

[franglais]

OVLOV JAY:

Franglais:

OVLOV JAY:
You miss the point Franglais, we will only get a trade deal with the yanks if we have one with the EU. So we will have no need to eat yank chicken, like we don’t now. I can’t see how an exit from the EU is going to increase Norfolk chicken to the point it’s cheaper from the states anyway

I am missing what you’re saying.

1. Assuming we leave the EU totally, a hard Brexit-
   We revert to WTO rules unless we make Free Trade Deals don’t we?
   We can then make bi-lateral deals, as available or not.
2. Assuming we’re tied into the EU, a soft Brexit, then we may be on the same deal with the US as the EU is.
   .
   I don’t see that we
   “only get a deal with the Yanks if we have one with the EU”?
   Sorry, I don’t understand that bit

You mean you clever remainers don’t understand something that a thick Brexiteer can see is glaringly obvious? The EU trades with the US on WTO terms. If we get a free trade deal with the EU, the US will want one with us. Then every US company that trades with the EU, will set up UK subsidiaries. They will ship their products here, then ship later into the EU, tariff free despite not having a trade deal! This will be replicated by China, India, and any other country selling into the EU on WTO terms. This is the sunny uplands of a Brexit Britain, the so called unicorns. Alas, we will never get a free trade agreement from the EU, as that will be financial suicide on their part, as they will lose Millions every week in tariffs. And it’s for that reason it’s highly unlikely the states will want a free trade agreement with us imo. We’re not a massive market for American consumer goods

There are several points there I think are mistaken. The rate I type it’ll take a while so I’ll try and give decent reply later.
Quickly noting though
TTIP, currently stalled but still there.
Free Trade Agreements are not blank rule books where everything goes they are more ‘rules different than WTO which suit two parties’.
.
PS. Plus the NI and Eire border arguments are about this.

[ovlov_jay]

Yes there will be other points within the deal, but the essence is unrestricted, tariff free trade. That’s what the other countries will want access to, essentially seeing us as a back door to Europe

[franglais]

The TTIP talks between the EU and US were going on for 4 years before Trump called them off.
They are not a simple Free Trade, anything goes, deal with a few rules tacked on.

It is possible to for the UK to get a quick deal with the US after Brexit.
Of course it is, but as a small country with mostly WTO rules, wed be in a weak bargaining position, and would probably get a worse deal than wed get as members of the EU. Its true we wouldnt need to get involved with talks on olive oil production, but we would have more help resisting Trump`s grasp at our Health Care market.

Thinking we can get a Free Trade deal with the EU and with the US, so becoming a gateway is nonsense. In previous talks with the EU they already said we would need to agree to collect taxes due to the EU if US or other imports arrived here. That is why we`d need a border between Eire and N.I.

[ovlov_jay]

Small country? We’re the sixth biggest economy in the world, with a population headed for 70m. Hardly Andorra are we?

And TTIP was called off by Trump because it was a bad deal, that would see them at a financial disadvantage to other “partners”. Much like our position in the EU.

And the Americans won’t need tax harmony, as the companies setting up UK subsidiaries would hold stock here and employ a uk based sales team. By all intents and purposes it would be UK companies selling products into the EU

[winseer]

chrisdalott:

Juddian:
:twisted:

■■■■ it up ladies, Brexit is coming and all the wailing in your soup isn’t going to change a thing , if the conlab traitors in parl think they can bluster and stall leaving indefinately in the hope we give up and resume voting for the dead parties they are sorely mistaken, they’ll simply be replaced by the Brexit Party come the next election… all starting Thursday in Peterborough…who will do the job for them.

Brexit party fail yet again in Peterborough just like ukip have
Splitting the right wing vote like this should result in a labour victory, at the head of SNP and liberal coalition

■■■■ it up ladies

Peterborough, an area voting 60% to leave, strangely splits that 60% across the 5 Remainer parties standing, of which Labour - manage to get a small majority over everyone else.

So… with Turnout in this much-publicized by-election anticipated at 72% (same as the referendum) - but only comes in at 48%… Hmm…
That would take about 16,000 votes away from Brexit Party IF 60% of the electorate originally voted for BP/UKIP in this by-election, AND the turnout was the anticipated 72%…

…All it took - was for some postal BP votes to be accidentally deliberately to be sent to some Iron Mountain incinerator - and hey presto!

We have THIS travesty of an election result “no ballot-box stuffing required”.

Those looking for “electoral fraud” - are looking in the wrong place as per usual.
You don’t “produce extra votes” - you get rid of excess votes, when a party is odds-on 1/6 to be winning this by election - and yet faceplants to a candidate who’s already under investigation for Anti Semetism!

This beggars believe of course…

Stalin - got it spot on:

[rjan]

OVLOV JAY:
Small country? We’re the sixth biggest economy in the world, with a population headed for 70m. Hardly Andorra are we?

The problem is if you want to deal with the first biggest which is several times your size. The EU itself contains a number of members whose economies alone are somewhat bigger than ours - as a bloc, it is also several times bigger than us.

Yes, if we want to do a deal with Zimbabwe, or Easter Island, or some other small insignificant place, then we are a big economy who can mostly expect to have benefits skewed in our favour. But if we are expecting to deal with the US, or even the EU on highly confrontational terms, then we are the lesser partner.

The other thing is that, if we are a strong and powerful nation of many, why are people roaming the streets hungry? At the very least, it suggests that any numerical power which could help shape our destiny, is tempered massively by a lack of social solidarity. Are you truly willing to fight, indeed to die, for your politics? What effort and sacrifice will you make to reform things as you wish to see them?

If not then Brexit has more than a shade of latter Rhodesian politics, where you had many people with strong views and high expectations, but very few of them actually willing to risk life and limb for their political views, or even pay the necessary taxes. It’s political stroppiness rather than organised revolution - a small amount of material pressure applied will shatter such anarchic malcontents.

That’s the true nature of Britain’s power that the EU is currently facing.

[ovlov_jay]

Rjan:

OVLOV JAY:
Small country? We’re the sixth biggest economy in the world, with a population headed for 70m. Hardly Andorra are we?

The problem is if you want to deal with the first biggest which is several times your size. The EU itself contains a number of members whose economies alone are somewhat bigger than ours - as a bloc, it is also several times bigger than us.

Yes, if we want to do a deal with Zimbabwe, or Easter Island, or some other small insignificant place, then we are a big economy who can mostly expect to have benefits skewed in our favour. But if we are expecting to deal with the US, or even the EU on highly confrontational terms, then we are the lesser partner.

The other thing is that, if we are a strong and powerful nation of many, why are people roaming the streets hungry? At the very least, it suggests that any numerical power which could help shape our destiny, is tempered massively by a lack of social solidarity. Are you truly willing to fight, indeed to die, for your politics? What effort and sacrifice will you make to reform things as you wish to see them?

If not then Brexit has more than a shade of latter Rhodesian politics, where you had many people with strong views and high expectations, but very few of them actually willing to risk life and limb for their political views, or even pay the necessary taxes. It’s political stroppiness rather than organised revolution - a small amount of material pressure applied will shatter such anarchic malcontents.

That’s the true nature of Britain’s power that the EU is currently facing.

By a number of economies, I presume you mean 1, Germany.

And there is poverty in all leading economies, not just ours. Facts are not subjective, only opinion.

And we’re actually back up to fifth, according to the latest figures.

investopedia.com/insights/w … economies/

[rjan]

OVLOV JAY:

Rjan:
…

By a number of economies, I presume you mean 1, Germany.

And there is poverty in all leading economies, not just ours. Facts are not subjective, only opinion.

And we’re actually back up to fifth, according to the latest figures.

investopedia.com/insights/w … economies/

I thought France was slightly ahead but it doesn’t really bear on the point which is that any one of the largest members meet us on broadly equal terms, and an alliance or union of even a few would be appreciably more powerful economically.

I also doubt the ideological resolve of the Brexit lobby, if that were a substitute for economic power.