Galactor wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I entirely agree. If you are definitely leaving you should have no say over the future of the club.

The CENTA troubles are just typical of what will happen with any agreement made with the UK. It has taken 7 years to get within 5 cms of the winning line and one local government throws a spanner in the works. I hope the UK now realises what problems it will have to get any agreement especially with so many hostile countries to speak to. At least in CENTA everybody wanted to work for the agreement. The stupid Wallonians wanted to get the last drop out of the bottom out of the can but now they have the got the lid on their nose (an old Dutch saying).

Surely you can argue just as easily that the chance of a UK-Canada agreement foundering would be extremely unlikely and would have succeeded! From which you can argue that the EU is a monolithic trading block that can be hamstrung by minorities within. People like David Davies will be crowing about how much easier it will be for Britain to negotiate with countries like Canada, far more quickly and with far less chance of failure.

Sure, it is feasible that "stupid" minorities in the EU will veto agreements with the UK in which case they will indeed be cutting off their noses to spite their faces while - as a Brexiteer will no doubt argue - the UK can get on forging agreements with other nations in a faster tempo and with less chance of breakdown.

I'm not sure Scot Dutchy has made any real case for the difficulties of Brexit.

No? If it takes willing participants 7 years to get as far as it gone how long do you think it will take to negotiate with hostile ones? It is quite obvious.
What would a England-Canada agreement be worth to Canada? What would England be trading with? I am saying England as opposed to the UK because that will be the only country left in the UK.
What other countries? America with a TTIP type agreement. Good luck with that.

No chance of England getting any option on immigration and living here should know that if you read Dutch news and comments.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Galactor wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I entirely agree. If you are definitely leaving you should have no say over the future of the club.

The CENTA troubles are just typical of what will happen with any agreement made with the UK. It has taken 7 years to get within 5 cms of the winning line and one local government throws a spanner in the works. I hope the UK now realises what problems it will have to get any agreement especially with so many hostile countries to speak to. At least in CENTA everybody wanted to work for the agreement. The stupid Wallonians wanted to get the last drop out of the bottom out of the can but now they have the got the lid on their nose (an old Dutch saying).

Surely you can argue just as easily that the chance of a UK-Canada agreement foundering would be extremely unlikely and would have succeeded! From which you can argue that the EU is a monolithic trading block that can be hamstrung by minorities within. People like David Davies will be crowing about how much easier it will be for Britain to negotiate with countries like Canada, far more quickly and with far less chance of failure.

Sure, it is feasible that "stupid" minorities in the EU will veto agreements with the UK in which case they will indeed be cutting off their noses to spite their faces while - as a Brexiteer will no doubt argue - the UK can get on forging agreements with other nations in a faster tempo and with less chance of breakdown.

I'm not sure Scot Dutchy has made any real case for the difficulties of Brexit.

No? If it takes willing participants 7 years to get as far as it gone how long do you think it will take to negotiate with hostile ones? It is quite obvious.
What would a England-Canada agreement be worth to Canada? What would England be trading with? I am saying England as opposed to the UK because that will be the only country left in the UK.
What other countries? America with a TTIP type agreement. Good luck with that.

Once again Scot Dutchy makes no points of any worth, relevance or pertinence.

He seems to think I am arguing for or against something whereas I am merely pointing out that the arguments he made in support of the notion of how difficult it is for the EU to consolidate a trade deal with a country like Canada - and therefore how impossible it will be for the UK - can be easily formed to contradict the thrust of what he writes.

What would a England-Canada agreement be worth to Canada? What would England be trading with? I am saying England as opposed to the UK because that will be the only country left in the UK.

What has this got to do with what I wrote?

The point remains: so what if it takes seven years for an organisation as large as the EU to negotiate a deal? Why isn't it feasible to point out that a sovereign country like the UK would become, post Brexit, with deep ties to another country like Canada, with a definite need for expediency, with no concerns about what "stupid" Wallonians might think, might be able to cut a deal in a fraction of the time?

In this BBC article, we see the type of problem that the UK won't have to face. A small quote:

How does the EU look now?
The failure to clinch the EU-Canada Ceta deal is an embarrassment, writes Laurence Peter, the BBC website's EU analyst.
The European Commission insists Ceta is not over but it also refuses to unpick the massive text.
Chances of any EU free trade deals with the US, China or India now look remote. Anti-globalisation groups, anxious to protect Europe's welfare and environmental standards, may feel they are winning the argument.

And in Scot Dutchy's mind: if it's impossible for the EU, then it's even more impossible for the UK! If it took seven years for the monolithic EU, then it will take just as long for the UK! Because he says so! Even though you can easily form~hypothetical arguments otherwise!

Where does he get this nonsense?

Scot Dutchy probably thinks I am pro-Brexit. I am not actually. I am against the sort of nonsense that extrapolates arguments ex-rectum though.

Scot Dutchy wrote:No chance of England getting any option on immigration and living here should know that if you read Dutch news and comments.

Could you provide any references as to how precarious it will be for Britons to remain after Brexit?

news and comments?

Comments! Oooh, comments!

Scot Dutchy wrote:
What would a England-Canada agreement be worth to Canada? What would England be trading with?

At this government site we can see what nonsense Scot Dutchy posts.

Canada is the UK’s 16th largest export market for goods. Canada has cultural, historic, and linguistic links with the UK. The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) will help strengthen trade between Canada and the UK.

He just spouts nonsense all of the time.

Of course, it is possible to argue that the collapse of CETA is going to be a threat to the UK. But then we could argue it's an opportunity!

Scot Dutchy KNOWS that it's a threat of course. To England.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I am saying England as opposed to the UK because that will be the only country left in the UK. What other countries? America with a TTIP type agreement. Good luck with that.

Yeah! Wales is going to secede! And Northern Ireland too! And Scot Dutchy KNOWS that Scotland is leaving the union! He can read the future!

Scot Dutchy wrote:

No? If it takes willing participants 7 years to get as far as it gone how long do you think it will take to negotiate with hostile ones?

Yeah, Canada is really hostile to the UK!

From the link I posted:

Canada has cultural, historic, and linguistic links with the UK

Really hostile!

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is quite obvious.

In your warped mind it might be!

If we take a look at a supposed hostile land like Russia, I can imagine, given the fact that the UK would no longer be bound to EU sanctions, knowing politicians for their expediency and knowing the Russians would fall over backwards to cut a deal - even just for the political coup of doing so, that a trade deal with them would be done and dusted in a very, very short space of time. It's obvious!

Galactor wrote: ...we can see what nonsense Scot Dutchy posts.

Galactor wrote:He just spouts nonsense all of the time.

The arguments aside, is there some reason you're referring to Scot in the third person, speaking about him rather than at him?

ronmcd wrote:

Galactor wrote: ...we can see what nonsense Scot Dutchy posts.

Galactor wrote:He just spouts nonsense all of the time.

The arguments aside, is there some reason you're referring to Scot in the third person, speaking about him rather than at him?

I tend to find, when I've had an exchange with brilliant minds like Scot Dutchy's, a need to address those who might have a modicum of sense.

Galactor wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Galactor wrote: ...we can see what nonsense Scot Dutchy posts.

Galactor wrote:He just spouts nonsense all of the time.

The arguments aside, is there some reason you're referring to Scot in the third person, speaking about him rather than at him?

I tend to find, when I've had an exchange with brilliant minds like Scot Dutchy's, a need to address those who might have a modicum of sense.

But you are talking to him.

ronmcd wrote:Hahahaha. To quote Pete Wishart SNP MP: "As well as taking us out against our will they want to put in place a scorched earth policy so we can't stay in"

THE UK Government might seek to block any second Scottish independence referendum taking place until after the UK leaves the European Union in 2019, Whitehall sources have suggested.

They have said that it would be “a nightmare” for Theresa May and her ministers to have to negotiate the multiple complexities of Brexit with Brussels and simultaneously fight another Scottish campaign and, if there were a Yes vote, then conduct a whole raft of complicated negotiations with Edinburgh.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1481 ... l_sources/

Transaltion: "We are not capable of dealing with all of the consequences of our government's actions at once."

Response, surely, from all sides: "Clearly. So what? Not our problem."

Galactor wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

No? If it takes willing participants 7 years to get as far as it gone how long do you think it will take to negotiate with hostile ones?

Yeah, Canada is really hostile to the UK!

From the link I posted:

Canada has cultural, historic, and linguistic links with the UK

Really hostile!

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is quite obvious.

In your warped mind it might be!

If we take a look at a supposed hostile land like Russia, I can imagine, given the fact that the UK would no longer be bound to EU sanctions, knowing politicians for their expediency and knowing the Russians would fall over backwards to cut a deal - even just for the political coup of doing so, that a trade deal with them would be done and dusted in a very, very short space of time. It's obvious!

Just for reference a lot of people here have been talking about trade agreements with UK when they leave. Specifically because it'll be easier without the EU for both parties.

Acetone wrote:
Just for reference a lot of people here have been talking about trade agreements with UK when they leave. Specifically because it'll be easier without the EU for both parties.

True, the danger from UK's point of view is Canada will presumably be much more concerned with getting the EU deal sorted first before a completely new negotiation over UK, as EU without UK is a larger market. Who knows though, maybe the EU deal will come before then.

ronmcd wrote:

Acetone wrote:
Just for reference a lot of people here have been talking about trade agreements with UK when they leave. Specifically because it'll be easier without the EU for both parties.

True, the danger from UK's point of view is Canada will presumably be much more concerned with getting the EU deal sorted first before a completely new negotiation over UK, as EU without UK is a larger market. Who knows though, maybe the EU deal will come before then.

Not to mention Canada holding all the cards: for Brexit Britain, every trade deal's essential; for Canada, it's a nice extra. Little wonder Canada and Australia wanna get in on the action: it's the ultimate sellers' market. The Three Stooges are careful to deflect attention away from the fact that bad trade deals can be even worse than no trade deals.

THIS IS FINE. It's fine. Really.

Brexit: leading banks set to pull out of UK early next year

Britain’s biggest banks are preparing to relocate out of the UK in the first few months of 2017 amid growing fears over the impending Brexit negotiations, while smaller banks are making plans to get out before Christmas.

Idiots.

Just finished building my underground bunker. Now I'm filling my storage tunnels with tinned food and reading Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" for survival tips.

I'm looking forward to seeing how they're going to try to spin this.

mcgruff wrote:Just finished building my underground bunker. Now I'm filling my storage tunnels with tinned food and reading Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" for survival tips.

Who knew Doomsday Preppers would be revision!

Acetone wrote:
Just for reference a lot of people here have been talking about trade agreements with UK when they leave. Specifically because it'll be easier without the EU for both parties.

I suspect it will be a lot easier than people seem to be thinking for the UK to do all sorts of deals with the rest of the world. Not that this will end up with the UK being some financial mega-power. Much of it might end up being with "hostile" countries whose praises we will sing. Much of it may end up with the UK being out-competed.

It seems to me reasonable that it will take the UK less time than it will Canada to arrange deals with the EU although the potential problem seems to be how reliable the negotiation would be. That's what the EU's weakness is.

It seems reasonable too that negotiating with other nations once Britain has left the EU will be more efficient.

Galactor wrote:

Acetone wrote:
Just for reference a lot of people here have been talking about trade agreements with UK when they leave. Specifically because it'll be easier without the EU for both parties.

I suspect it will be a lot easier than people seem to be thinking for the UK to do all sorts of deals with the rest of the world. Not that this will end up with the UK being some financial mega-power. Much of it might end up being with "hostile" countries whose praises we will sing. Much of it may end up with the UK being out-competed.

It seems to me reasonable that it will take the UK less time than it will Canada to arrange deals with the EU although the potential problem seems to be how reliable the negotiation would be. That's what the EU's weakness is.

It seems reasonable too that negotiating with other nations once Britain has left the EU will be more efficient.

WTF has that go to do with the price of milk.