By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 20:12 - Mar 1 by AnotherJohn
Yes, I scrubbed my swimming pool example before I saw your post,, I must admit that you held your end up well. I still think though that the point about the concentration of disinfectants is valid. Water mains for example are cleaned out with high concentrations of chlorine.
In any event the animal welfare angle is the main point.
[Post edited 1 Mar 2018 20:13]
As it happens, it's the animal welfare I'm more bothered by as well.
But there are a few things in American food standards I'd rather we didn't adopt. This is one. GMO is another.
There are things here I'd rather we didn't allow as well. The massive use of palm oil is an example. I check the backs and if food contains it I don't buy it. But I'm fortunate to be able to make that choice.
0
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 08:33 - Mar 2 with 1854 views
The point of whether chlorinated chicken is safe or not is largely irrelevant. The practice of breeding and preparing this way is currently illegal in the EU. If we decide to relax our laws post brexit on this or many other agricultural issues post brexit, we will no longer have “full regulatory aligngmnet” with the EU and then there will need to be a border in Ireland.
The only way we can avoid a border with Ireland is that we have a free trade agreement with the EU/SG membership, and comply with the majority of their rules and regs, but. I longer have a say on any of them, which defeats the point of Brexit. But then I guess we never had a say in them anyway if you believe the hard liners.
0
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 08:17 - Mar 3 with 1779 views
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 08:33 - Mar 2 by Batterseajack
The point of whether chlorinated chicken is safe or not is largely irrelevant. The practice of breeding and preparing this way is currently illegal in the EU. If we decide to relax our laws post brexit on this or many other agricultural issues post brexit, we will no longer have “full regulatory aligngmnet” with the EU and then there will need to be a border in Ireland.
The only way we can avoid a border with Ireland is that we have a free trade agreement with the EU/SG membership, and comply with the majority of their rules and regs, but. I longer have a say on any of them, which defeats the point of Brexit. But then I guess we never had a say in them anyway if you believe the hard liners.
Or agree to have a referendum in Ulster over the reunification of Ireland. That will please the DUP ðŸ˜
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
0
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 11:44 - Mar 3 with 1737 views
The EU is making a decent Brexit impossible — but Britain won't tame as easily as Greece
Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator; the over-reach of his threat to breakup the United Kingdom has shocked even Remainers Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator; the over-reach of his threat to breakup the United Kingdom has shocked even Remainers How can Brussels imagine there is any good outcome to destabilising Europe's second largest economy?
When Yanis Varoufakis was appointed finance minister in the first weeks of Syriza’s radical Left government in Greece, it was not just for his neo-Marxist views, but also because of his supposed expertise in game theory. These skills would be vital, it was thought, in negotiating with the EU and the International Monetary Fund over debt forgiveness.
The sensible, economically rational and humane thing to have done with Greece’s mountainous debts would have been to cancel them, as occurs in any normal bankruptcy, not confine the country to the fiscal imprisonment of repayment. It was not to be. As Varoufakis discovered, there is no such thing as a genuine two-way negotiation, aimed at a mutually beneficial outcome, when it comes to the EU.
If you cannot imagine walking out of a negotiation, you should never enter it.Yanis Varoufakis Brussels adopted a take it or leave it approach; given the potentially calamitous economic costs of the “leave it” option, Greece quickly capitulated. Game theory dictates that, to succeed, the other side has to believe you are serious about your threats. The EU never thought Greece would quit the single currency, and in any case had taken steps to insulate itself from the fallout even if it did. Greece found itself with no cards to play.
Exactly the same strategy is being adopted by the EU over Brexit. For Varoufakis, the main lesson from his own confrontation with the EU is to avoid at all costs being drawn into a negotiation about the right to negotiate. That is precisely the trap that Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, finds herself in. As a result, the terms of Britain’s departure — if it happens at all — are ever more likely to be dictated by Brussels, with only marginal input from London.
Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis smells a rose during the 43rd annual Fete de la Rose political meeting on August 23, 2015 in Frangy-en-Bresse Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis Credit: Jean-Philippe Ksiazek/AFP As someone who backed Remain — albeit with some reluctance — I take no pleasure in pointing out that the current, increasingly fraught state of affairs was both predictable and predicted. The bespoke “cake and eat it” relationship with Europe that Britain seeks was never going to be on offer, even though from an economic perspective it is the approach which would best suit not just Britain but Europe.
As with Greece, the European Commission continues to put its own self-preservation above the interests of the ordinary citizens it is meant to serve. Ask not what the EU can do for you, only what you can do for the EU.
In my experience, there is nothing inherently evil about those who run the EU; on the whole they are smart and relatively well-meaning people. But they are also prisoners of assumed institutional destiny. Perversely, this leads them to reject a mutually advantageous arrangement for fear that it might encourage others to ask for the same.
The integrity, not to say sanctity, of the single market must therefore be defended at all costs, like some deity whose original purpose has long since been forgotten. Such niceties as economic advancement must take second place. This was true with the eurozone debt crisis; it’s now true of Brexit.
Even those who were never part of the EU are subjected to the same thumbscrew. Switzerland, with its multitude of bilateral treaties, is sometimes cited as a potential model for Brexit Britain, but in truth suffers many of the same dilemmas as now confront the UK.
Tusk: frictionless trade after Brexit is impossible outside a customs union
h
In order to preserve current arrangements, the Swiss parliament has in effect been forced to repudiate the referendum of four years ago which resulted in a vote for immigration controls. For many years prior to this vote, Switzerland was able to co-exist with the EU as a kind of forgotten parasite on the pig’s belly. Brexit has brought an unwelcome degree of attention, undermining the exceptionalism Switzerland enjoyed by virtue of history and relatively small size; determined to stop the supposed cherry picking, Brussels is clamping down hard.
Slowly but surely, the Alpine realm is being drawn into the EU’s embrace. In effect, it is already an example of the vassal state hardline Brexiteers fear for the UK if forced to stay in the single market and customs union, conforming to an acquis communautaire it has no say in creating.
Consciously or otherwise, the EU is making it impossible for Britain to leave on decent terms, increasing the chances of a messy exit that will be damaging to all. It beggars belief that otherwise sane policymakers such as Michel Barnier could think that destabilising Europe’s second largest economy, with powerful spillover effects into Europe itself, the right way of approaching the British mutiny.
The Irish border issue provides the latest example of overreach. Has the Commission no understanding of Northern Ireland’s poisonous history? Does it honestly believe that the peacekeeping purpose of the Good Friday Agreement will be furthered by imposing a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? By what right does it threaten the breakup of a sovereign nation?
Barnier and his puppet masters play a dangerous game in gambling that May will be forced to abandon her red lines. Britain is not Greece, Norway or Switzerland. It cannot so easily be swatted away. As the two sides dig in, the risks of a bad outcome grow steadily higher.
1
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 12:59 - Mar 3 with 1709 views
The EU is making a decent Brexit impossible — but Britain won't tame as easily as Greece
Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator; the over-reach of his threat to breakup the United Kingdom has shocked even Remainers Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator; the over-reach of his threat to breakup the United Kingdom has shocked even Remainers How can Brussels imagine there is any good outcome to destabilising Europe's second largest economy?
When Yanis Varoufakis was appointed finance minister in the first weeks of Syriza’s radical Left government in Greece, it was not just for his neo-Marxist views, but also because of his supposed expertise in game theory. These skills would be vital, it was thought, in negotiating with the EU and the International Monetary Fund over debt forgiveness.
The sensible, economically rational and humane thing to have done with Greece’s mountainous debts would have been to cancel them, as occurs in any normal bankruptcy, not confine the country to the fiscal imprisonment of repayment. It was not to be. As Varoufakis discovered, there is no such thing as a genuine two-way negotiation, aimed at a mutually beneficial outcome, when it comes to the EU.
If you cannot imagine walking out of a negotiation, you should never enter it.Yanis Varoufakis Brussels adopted a take it or leave it approach; given the potentially calamitous economic costs of the “leave it” option, Greece quickly capitulated. Game theory dictates that, to succeed, the other side has to believe you are serious about your threats. The EU never thought Greece would quit the single currency, and in any case had taken steps to insulate itself from the fallout even if it did. Greece found itself with no cards to play.
Exactly the same strategy is being adopted by the EU over Brexit. For Varoufakis, the main lesson from his own confrontation with the EU is to avoid at all costs being drawn into a negotiation about the right to negotiate. That is precisely the trap that Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, finds herself in. As a result, the terms of Britain’s departure — if it happens at all — are ever more likely to be dictated by Brussels, with only marginal input from London.
Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis smells a rose during the 43rd annual Fete de la Rose political meeting on August 23, 2015 in Frangy-en-Bresse Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis Credit: Jean-Philippe Ksiazek/AFP As someone who backed Remain — albeit with some reluctance — I take no pleasure in pointing out that the current, increasingly fraught state of affairs was both predictable and predicted. The bespoke “cake and eat it” relationship with Europe that Britain seeks was never going to be on offer, even though from an economic perspective it is the approach which would best suit not just Britain but Europe.
As with Greece, the European Commission continues to put its own self-preservation above the interests of the ordinary citizens it is meant to serve. Ask not what the EU can do for you, only what you can do for the EU.
In my experience, there is nothing inherently evil about those who run the EU; on the whole they are smart and relatively well-meaning people. But they are also prisoners of assumed institutional destiny. Perversely, this leads them to reject a mutually advantageous arrangement for fear that it might encourage others to ask for the same.
The integrity, not to say sanctity, of the single market must therefore be defended at all costs, like some deity whose original purpose has long since been forgotten. Such niceties as economic advancement must take second place. This was true with the eurozone debt crisis; it’s now true of Brexit.
Even those who were never part of the EU are subjected to the same thumbscrew. Switzerland, with its multitude of bilateral treaties, is sometimes cited as a potential model for Brexit Britain, but in truth suffers many of the same dilemmas as now confront the UK.
Tusk: frictionless trade after Brexit is impossible outside a customs union
h
In order to preserve current arrangements, the Swiss parliament has in effect been forced to repudiate the referendum of four years ago which resulted in a vote for immigration controls. For many years prior to this vote, Switzerland was able to co-exist with the EU as a kind of forgotten parasite on the pig’s belly. Brexit has brought an unwelcome degree of attention, undermining the exceptionalism Switzerland enjoyed by virtue of history and relatively small size; determined to stop the supposed cherry picking, Brussels is clamping down hard.
Slowly but surely, the Alpine realm is being drawn into the EU’s embrace. In effect, it is already an example of the vassal state hardline Brexiteers fear for the UK if forced to stay in the single market and customs union, conforming to an acquis communautaire it has no say in creating.
Consciously or otherwise, the EU is making it impossible for Britain to leave on decent terms, increasing the chances of a messy exit that will be damaging to all. It beggars belief that otherwise sane policymakers such as Michel Barnier could think that destabilising Europe’s second largest economy, with powerful spillover effects into Europe itself, the right way of approaching the British mutiny.
The Irish border issue provides the latest example of overreach. Has the Commission no understanding of Northern Ireland’s poisonous history? Does it honestly believe that the peacekeeping purpose of the Good Friday Agreement will be furthered by imposing a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? By what right does it threaten the breakup of a sovereign nation?
Barnier and his puppet masters play a dangerous game in gambling that May will be forced to abandon her red lines. Britain is not Greece, Norway or Switzerland. It cannot so easily be swatted away. As the two sides dig in, the risks of a bad outcome grow steadily higher.
Funnily enough, I read that this morning and thought it was a very poor article that completely fails to reflect the reality of the situation May finds herself in.
She will be forced to abandon some of her red lines. Because she doesn't have the votes in the Commons to do anything else. The EU is not gambling but understanding the way the numbers play out. Ironically, May herself anticipated that being the problem which is why she called the general election. The issue is that it backfired and left her in the no man's land she currently occupies (hence the non speech again yesterday). The one thing that was required for the whole negotiation to fall into the chaos it currently occupies is Labour persuading Corbyn and the rest of his anti EU cohort to abandon his supposed principles and agitate for continued membership of the customs union. Now he's done that (as his principles in reality were quickly tossed aside on the hint of power), the EU hold every single card.
The right wing press can agitate as much as they want, no one in Brussels cares.
0
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 13:51 - Mar 3 with 1688 views
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 12:59 - Mar 3 by londonlisa2001
Funnily enough, I read that this morning and thought it was a very poor article that completely fails to reflect the reality of the situation May finds herself in.
She will be forced to abandon some of her red lines. Because she doesn't have the votes in the Commons to do anything else. The EU is not gambling but understanding the way the numbers play out. Ironically, May herself anticipated that being the problem which is why she called the general election. The issue is that it backfired and left her in the no man's land she currently occupies (hence the non speech again yesterday). The one thing that was required for the whole negotiation to fall into the chaos it currently occupies is Labour persuading Corbyn and the rest of his anti EU cohort to abandon his supposed principles and agitate for continued membership of the customs union. Now he's done that (as his principles in reality were quickly tossed aside on the hint of power), the EU hold every single card.
The right wing press can agitate as much as they want, no one in Brussels cares.
It does come back to what John Major was saying about us not having a good bargaining position, unlike when Thatcher negotiated the rebate. As you say, it’s no surprise sadly.
I think in the UK we also overplay the EU itself being the sole villain of the peace: they’ve very quickly received the concensus and backing of the remaining Member States. Of course I don’t know what pressure the Commission have exerted on them, but they seem pretty united.
0
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 21:19 - Mar 3 with 1615 views
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 13:51 - Mar 3 by LeonWasGod
It does come back to what John Major was saying about us not having a good bargaining position, unlike when Thatcher negotiated the rebate. As you say, it’s no surprise sadly.
I think in the UK we also overplay the EU itself being the sole villain of the peace: they’ve very quickly received the concensus and backing of the remaining Member States. Of course I don’t know what pressure the Commission have exerted on them, but they seem pretty united.
Can't agree, Britain has more bargaining power than some people want us to believe, the problem we have is the europhiles within.
The EU is making a decent Brexit impossible — but Britain won't tame as easily as Greece
Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator; the over-reach of his threat to breakup the United Kingdom has shocked even Remainers Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator; the over-reach of his threat to breakup the United Kingdom has shocked even Remainers How can Brussels imagine there is any good outcome to destabilising Europe's second largest economy?
When Yanis Varoufakis was appointed finance minister in the first weeks of Syriza’s radical Left government in Greece, it was not just for his neo-Marxist views, but also because of his supposed expertise in game theory. These skills would be vital, it was thought, in negotiating with the EU and the International Monetary Fund over debt forgiveness.
The sensible, economically rational and humane thing to have done with Greece’s mountainous debts would have been to cancel them, as occurs in any normal bankruptcy, not confine the country to the fiscal imprisonment of repayment. It was not to be. As Varoufakis discovered, there is no such thing as a genuine two-way negotiation, aimed at a mutually beneficial outcome, when it comes to the EU.
If you cannot imagine walking out of a negotiation, you should never enter it.Yanis Varoufakis Brussels adopted a take it or leave it approach; given the potentially calamitous economic costs of the “leave it” option, Greece quickly capitulated. Game theory dictates that, to succeed, the other side has to believe you are serious about your threats. The EU never thought Greece would quit the single currency, and in any case had taken steps to insulate itself from the fallout even if it did. Greece found itself with no cards to play.
Exactly the same strategy is being adopted by the EU over Brexit. For Varoufakis, the main lesson from his own confrontation with the EU is to avoid at all costs being drawn into a negotiation about the right to negotiate. That is precisely the trap that Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, finds herself in. As a result, the terms of Britain’s departure — if it happens at all — are ever more likely to be dictated by Brussels, with only marginal input from London.
Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis smells a rose during the 43rd annual Fete de la Rose political meeting on August 23, 2015 in Frangy-en-Bresse Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis Credit: Jean-Philippe Ksiazek/AFP As someone who backed Remain — albeit with some reluctance — I take no pleasure in pointing out that the current, increasingly fraught state of affairs was both predictable and predicted. The bespoke “cake and eat it” relationship with Europe that Britain seeks was never going to be on offer, even though from an economic perspective it is the approach which would best suit not just Britain but Europe.
As with Greece, the European Commission continues to put its own self-preservation above the interests of the ordinary citizens it is meant to serve. Ask not what the EU can do for you, only what you can do for the EU.
In my experience, there is nothing inherently evil about those who run the EU; on the whole they are smart and relatively well-meaning people. But they are also prisoners of assumed institutional destiny. Perversely, this leads them to reject a mutually advantageous arrangement for fear that it might encourage others to ask for the same.
The integrity, not to say sanctity, of the single market must therefore be defended at all costs, like some deity whose original purpose has long since been forgotten. Such niceties as economic advancement must take second place. This was true with the eurozone debt crisis; it’s now true of Brexit.
Even those who were never part of the EU are subjected to the same thumbscrew. Switzerland, with its multitude of bilateral treaties, is sometimes cited as a potential model for Brexit Britain, but in truth suffers many of the same dilemmas as now confront the UK.
Tusk: frictionless trade after Brexit is impossible outside a customs union
h
In order to preserve current arrangements, the Swiss parliament has in effect been forced to repudiate the referendum of four years ago which resulted in a vote for immigration controls. For many years prior to this vote, Switzerland was able to co-exist with the EU as a kind of forgotten parasite on the pig’s belly. Brexit has brought an unwelcome degree of attention, undermining the exceptionalism Switzerland enjoyed by virtue of history and relatively small size; determined to stop the supposed cherry picking, Brussels is clamping down hard.
Slowly but surely, the Alpine realm is being drawn into the EU’s embrace. In effect, it is already an example of the vassal state hardline Brexiteers fear for the UK if forced to stay in the single market and customs union, conforming to an acquis communautaire it has no say in creating.
Consciously or otherwise, the EU is making it impossible for Britain to leave on decent terms, increasing the chances of a messy exit that will be damaging to all. It beggars belief that otherwise sane policymakers such as Michel Barnier could think that destabilising Europe’s second largest economy, with powerful spillover effects into Europe itself, the right way of approaching the British mutiny.
The Irish border issue provides the latest example of overreach. Has the Commission no understanding of Northern Ireland’s poisonous history? Does it honestly believe that the peacekeeping purpose of the Good Friday Agreement will be furthered by imposing a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? By what right does it threaten the breakup of a sovereign nation?
Barnier and his puppet masters play a dangerous game in gambling that May will be forced to abandon her red lines. Britain is not Greece, Norway or Switzerland. It cannot so easily be swatted away. As the two sides dig in, the risks of a bad outcome grow steadily higher.
The way the Greeks have been treated by the EU is absolutely scandalous. They genuinely don't give a flying shyte about the Greek people.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 12:59 - Mar 3 by londonlisa2001
Funnily enough, I read that this morning and thought it was a very poor article that completely fails to reflect the reality of the situation May finds herself in.
She will be forced to abandon some of her red lines. Because she doesn't have the votes in the Commons to do anything else. The EU is not gambling but understanding the way the numbers play out. Ironically, May herself anticipated that being the problem which is why she called the general election. The issue is that it backfired and left her in the no man's land she currently occupies (hence the non speech again yesterday). The one thing that was required for the whole negotiation to fall into the chaos it currently occupies is Labour persuading Corbyn and the rest of his anti EU cohort to abandon his supposed principles and agitate for continued membership of the customs union. Now he's done that (as his principles in reality were quickly tossed aside on the hint of power), the EU hold every single card.
The right wing press can agitate as much as they want, no one in Brussels cares.
Jermey Warner has been a big Remainer- take a look at his articles running up to the referendum. The FT which is part of the right wing press also wants to Remain.
Corbyn isn't proposing continued membership of the customs union.
“We are not going to be in ‘the customs union’ but a ‘customs union’.
So he is proposing a different type of customer union which the EU will not accept.
To also quote from Anthony Hilton in the Standard (another party of the right wing press who is also a big Remainer)
"Part of the Labour Party agenda for government is the nationalisation of various public businesses and utilities, coupled with government doing more to foster research, development and investment and taking a much more interventionist stance.
The rules of the European Union are very much against state participation in business on the grounds that it creates unfair competition. The logic is simple enough – the state sector has almost unlimited resources and this allows it to outgun any private sector rival. This philosophy and the rigid application of these rules by the European Commission would severely curtail any Labour government’s freedom of action in pursuing its nationalisation agenda. Taking back control, therefore, has real meaning and real point for Corbyn. "
0
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 14:28 - Mar 4 with 1447 views
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 13:26 - Mar 4 by Nookiejack
Jermey Warner has been a big Remainer- take a look at his articles running up to the referendum. The FT which is part of the right wing press also wants to Remain.
Corbyn isn't proposing continued membership of the customs union.
“We are not going to be in ‘the customs union’ but a ‘customs union’.
So he is proposing a different type of customer union which the EU will not accept.
To also quote from Anthony Hilton in the Standard (another party of the right wing press who is also a big Remainer)
"Part of the Labour Party agenda for government is the nationalisation of various public businesses and utilities, coupled with government doing more to foster research, development and investment and taking a much more interventionist stance.
The rules of the European Union are very much against state participation in business on the grounds that it creates unfair competition. The logic is simple enough – the state sector has almost unlimited resources and this allows it to outgun any private sector rival. This philosophy and the rigid application of these rules by the European Commission would severely curtail any Labour government’s freedom of action in pursuing its nationalisation agenda. Taking back control, therefore, has real meaning and real point for Corbyn. "
"The FT which is part of the right wing press also wants to Remain"
It backed Labour and Kinnock in 1992 and backed Obama more recently. It's now owned by a Japanese company.
It's pro-EU because it makes financial sense. The name's a clue.
2
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 14:31 - Mar 4 with 1444 views
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 13:01 - Mar 4 by Highjack
The way the Greeks have been treated by the EU is absolutely scandalous. They genuinely don't give a flying shyte about the Greek people.
I'm not sure whether people will have picked up that the austerity measures imposed as a result of the Troika's supplemental loan agreement effectively meant that Greece became the first Western country with a healthcare system that had previously covered virtually everybody to lose universal coverage. After 2011 those who had been unemployed for over a year, plus some self-employed people, lost their right to free or low-cost treatment, and it was only last year that moves were made to reverse that.
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 13:26 - Mar 4 by Nookiejack
Jermey Warner has been a big Remainer- take a look at his articles running up to the referendum. The FT which is part of the right wing press also wants to Remain.
Corbyn isn't proposing continued membership of the customs union.
“We are not going to be in ‘the customs union’ but a ‘customs union’.
So he is proposing a different type of customer union which the EU will not accept.
To also quote from Anthony Hilton in the Standard (another party of the right wing press who is also a big Remainer)
"Part of the Labour Party agenda for government is the nationalisation of various public businesses and utilities, coupled with government doing more to foster research, development and investment and taking a much more interventionist stance.
The rules of the European Union are very much against state participation in business on the grounds that it creates unfair competition. The logic is simple enough – the state sector has almost unlimited resources and this allows it to outgun any private sector rival. This philosophy and the rigid application of these rules by the European Commission would severely curtail any Labour government’s freedom of action in pursuing its nationalisation agenda. Taking back control, therefore, has real meaning and real point for Corbyn. "
Firstly the FT isn't right wing. It's about the most politically ambivalent national there is these days. It varies between political parties according to what it thinks is the best result for business. Hence it is anti Corbyn but very pro EU.
Neither is the Standard. It's right wing economically but spectacularly liberal across the board on all areas of social policy, including immigration. It represents London which is hugely pro remain.
Corbyn is proposing membership of the customs union - he just can't call it that. So it's a bespoke customs union which is identical to the customs union. For the purposes of my earlier point, the difference between the two is irrelevant. He has always been anti EU hence my point on his lack of principles.
As for state ownership, there is huge state ownership in Germany just as one example. Everything from DB to Commerzbank to T-Mobile to DHL to Volkswagen. Large state ownership in France as well. There just have to be regulations in place around price mechanisms etc to ensure that a monopoly can't exist which fixes pricing and prevents competition. The EU have intervened in Germany a few times and some rules get changed.
I'm sure I don't need to point out that one of our biggest banks was nationalised while EU members...
1
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 15:08 - Mar 4 with 1410 views
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 15:08 - Mar 4 by londonlisa2001
It varies. Only cares what's best for business and particularly the City. Hates Corbyn hates Brexit only actually not in that order.
It doesn’t vary that much. It’s supoorted the Conservatives at pretty much every election bar 1992. You’re right though, it’s not a hugely political paper.
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 15:25 - Mar 4 by exiledclaseboy
It doesn’t vary that much. It’s supoorted the Conservatives at pretty much every election bar 1992. You’re right though, it’s not a hugely political paper.
[Post edited 4 Mar 2018 15:26]
Only because the conservatives tend to be best for business.
It has pretty liberal views in most topics. These days, the parties tend to be on the same page with much of that, so it's harder to differentiate.
It HATES people like JRM though. Hard line Brexiteers. Pretty much all the right wing of the Conservative party. Hates Trump.
It's essentially Ken Clarke in paper form.
0
Is the EU trying to give the UK an agreement they can't accept? on 15:35 - Mar 4 with 1373 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
