The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

The EU is now threatening a year long delay over UK brexit negotiations stance= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/eu-threatens-year-long-delay-in-brexit-talks-over-uks-negotiating-stance

The EU is now threatening a year long delay over UK brexit negotiations stance= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/eu-threatens-year-long-delay-in-brexit-talks-over-uks-negotiating-stance

Best get your act together then,and quick.

The EU is now threatening a year long delay over UK brexit negotiations stance= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/eu-threatens-year-long-delay-in-brexit-talks-over-uks-negotiating-stance

Sounds ok.

We all know that 'no deal' would be disastrous.

Let's get it right

The EU is now threatening a year long delay over UK brexit negotiations stance= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/eu-threatens-year-long-delay-in-brexit-talks-over-uks-negotiating-stance

The EU has told May & Co. for months, that an EU-UK trade deal won't get negotiated in parallel with the Brexit bill, reciprocal personal rights and NI border issues.

A consequence of May's electoral disaster, is increasing the risk that the UK will still come to the table next week, pushing hard to do everything in parallel.

So the EU is just reminding her (and the UK political class), in a timely manner, of the time cost of trying that one on. The EU's stance hasn't changed one bit.

Meanwhile, tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc, and you can hardly accuse the EU of procrastinating here: they've been waiting on the UK for close to 12 months.

You've been told lengthways and sideways, time and time again: once the Article 50 timescale is triggered, the clock plays for the EU, not for the UK.

The UK isn't having its cake and eating it. Better get used to the notion soon, or you might not last to March 2019.

So it's good that the people who vote do the deciding- i.e. rather than the secret cabal whom you describe as having some sort of veto.

Do you think the public would ever get a vote on closing down tax havens?

Both sides in the referendum said that it we vote to leave then we would have to leave the single market. Like many other people I don't understand what a soft or hard brexit means. We voted to leave end of story. I voted to remain but fully except the decision to leave.

My favourite thread has been reignited

Do you think the public would ever get a vote on closing down tax havens?

Some would and they'd vote to keep them.

Consider a small island with very low corporate and personal tax rates. They'd attract so many companies that do just enough to count as resident for tax purposes and funnel all their profits through the island to benefit from the low tax rates that, even with the very low tax rates, the island's government would still get enough money to provide decent public services. Voting to stop being a tax haven would mean personal tax rates would have to increase and the public would pay more. This particular public have a vested interest in staying as tax haven.

I'm not sure why Jeffrey seems to think such people would choose to join the UK and pay more tax.

European nurses registering with the Nursery & Midwifery Council down by 96% since last year (data is reported to be from a FoI by the Health Foundation).

Oh well. I suppose some things never change: it's better to be "young, rich, good looking and healthy" than "old, poor, ugly and sickly"

Both sides in the referendum said that it we vote to leave then we would have to leave the single market. Like many other people I don't understand what a soft or hard brexit means. We voted to leave end of story. I voted to remain but fully except the decision to leave.

The leave side said that we could stay in the single market.