Very few can retire comfortably as far as I can make out BUT at least in France it truly is cheaper to live on a lower budget than in places like the UK - at least from what I read! Key factor as ever is ownership of your own property free and clear. SEcond in my case is having a LIDL store within easy reach!
Interesting point but surprisingly in my limited but āin situeā experiences of East European countries - notably Hungary and the Baltic States, peopleās viewpoint was āwe donāt have much, but we are all the sameā This is not to minimise their problems, but the alien Control of the Soviet Union on local freedom of speech appeared to be the majpr bone of contention.
Tis of course was reality, as opposed to the objections of Brexiteers towards the EU.
There seems to be a new mixture of Leavers.
Remain will need to run a better campaign.
I have heard many people saying just get on with it despite the co sequences.
Obviuosly food poisoning doesnāt matter to them, to continue the metaphor.
Somehow I doubt that there will be a second referendum as it would not suit Theresa Mayās agenda. I suspect that she considers the appeal of the combination of Boris Johnsonās charisma, Jacob Rees Moggās calm delivery of logic, and Nigel Farageās passion, as being far too risky, and remembers very well what happened when David Cameron thought he was onto a sure fire winner.
There has to be a reason behind her apparently pointless continued trips to Brussels, and perhaps the logic runs thus:
A. āRun down the clockā as much as possible to reduce the time between the voting down of the Withdrawal Deal and March 29th to a minimum.
Then, as Parliament will have scuppered the Govtās deal, throw the whole thing back at Parliament with a choice of leaving with no deal whatsoever, or cancelling Article 50 and not leaving the EU at all, whilst knowing that there is no appetite for a no deal Brexit on either side of the house.
In this way the objective of not leaving the EU is achieved, but the blame can be put on Parliament as a whole rather than the Conservative Party.
or B. If by some miracle Parliament were to actually approve the proposed withdrawal deal, then effectively the UK stays in the EU by just calling things by different names.
Either way the EU would be happy to help by declining to extend the March 29th deadline, as in the case of scenario B they continue to receive the UKās money without having to put up with troublesome UK representation within the decision making bodies, and in scenario A they also continue to receive the UKās money and can arrange to side line the UKās representatives by increased use of qualified majority voting, thus creating a situation where in future they could simply say to the UK ------ āWell if you donāt like our rules you could always leaveā Ha Ha Ha.
The long term aim of the Conservative Party is simply to remain in power, and in scenario A they can claim that it was Parliament and not themselves that stopped Brexit, and in scenario B, that they delivered Brexit in the best way possible. Either way, the Tories get the best shot in the circumstances of keeping Labour out of power, the EU is happy to have the UKās money, and the golden rule (that those who have the gold make the rules) is perpetuated.
Iām not saying that any of the above is something that I would like to see, but I think that one has to be pragmatic about things.
The main looser will be democracy itself.
An American friend of mine recently politely expressed a view that whilst the election of Donald Trump exposed the basic failings of the American political system, the way that Brexit is being handled exposes the UK political system as a whole as being somewhat less than perfect.
A nail struck squarely on the head perhaps.
TM has just criticised Tony Blair for his championing of a Peoplesā Vote.
I think she has just painted herself into a corner and is refusing to acknowledge that there is a coming together of the middle ground against her Deal.
The ādealā that the UK and the EU have agreed suits no-one and in reality was never going to as the country and parliament is so divided. TM is completely stuck with no options left and is simply playing for time in the hope parliament gives in which it wonāt, time for Corbyn to stop dithering and force a āno confidenceā vote with the support of the other parties.
I listened very intently to TBs speech and whilst in the past I had not been a fan of his, he spoke wise words in a statesman like manner.
The Parliamentary arithmetic is not there for Labour to win a vote to move towards a GE and if it did and won the election, what would it (could) it achieve?
Best outcome: cancel Art50.
1 Like
She has certainly given that particular red line a fresh coat of paint.
I doubt that she would call a referendum unless it is somehow forced upon her but sheās been adamant about other stuff before changing her mind at the last minute on previous occasions.
If nothing else she has proved that she is stubborn and willing, where necessary to carry a lame duck forward. My fear is that she will stick to the āno referendum under any circumstancesā because she said it once and is either unable to appreciate, or unwilling to see change.
That is the exact word I used to describe the speech - it is difficult to argue with any of his points.
She has certainly been willing to change her mind in the past. She campaigned for and, presumably, voted to remain and gave some very persuasive arguments to remain. See her speech below, itās a bit long but worth a look.
Yet she now argues, with apparent conviction, to leave.
I think sheās working a double bluff and is waiting for panic to set in so that parliament will take over and either agree a 2nd referendum or revoke Article 50.
1 Like
I must admit Iād forgotten that small change of mind. 
1 Like
Itās incredible what people will do to achieve their ambition to be Prime Minister.
2 Likes
I think sheās working a double bluff and is waiting for panic to set in so that parliament will take over and either agree a 2nd referendum or revoke Article 50.
Machiavellian May? That may be giving her much too much credit.
- Companies who want to trade with EU Companies have to follow EU and universal(?) rules & regulations.
- Trading with other countries that already trade with EU might not want new specifications on materials etc. So trading will pretty much follow EU rules & regulations. Unless it is about skipping safety, quality.
- I am guessing former colonies donāt want any more glas pearls, nor any other country either. Again EU and Universal rules will dominate(?).
So much for taking back control.
I worked 19 years for a multinational company.
Universal(?) laws regulate that the company had to have documents, drawings, part numbers and supplier info on all components on every machine they ever build going back to 1950s.
What do brexiters mean with taking back control?
āWhat do brexiters mean with taking back control?ā
I donāt think they know what they mean, or what they want, or what is even possible.
2 Likes
What they really mean is that want the rest of us to follow their bigoted, isolationist point of view, despite what is the best for the national interest or economy.
4 Likes
ā¦ and the UK could certainly do better than having US chlorine washed chicken adorning their platesā¦
1 Like
I was listening to a question and answer programme from rural England late last night on Radio 4. One of the first people that spoke was a businessman who said very confidently that his firm will thrive after Brexit. He went onto explain how they already traded with EVERY country in the world and straight away I was interested to know just how much trade he did with North Korea and Cuba but he carried on rambling. He then dropped back to Earth and explained how he actually did most of his trade with the USA and Australia, ācos they speak English, donāt they. He went on to explain how he would be on the up and up once meddling Europe was taken out of his way. The next speaker politely pointed out that every trade deal that he carried out at the moment had been arranged through the EU on favourable terms agreed because of the EUās global bargaining power. They went on to explain how the WTO rules would be less favourable and although in the future better terms than those might be negotiated it was unlikely that any would be as good as are now available. Unfortunately they didnāt go back to the first speaker to hear his response.
3 Likes
Iād like to think that the fact that Boris set out arguments for each side then chose one path from the two suggests that he chose what he felt was best for the nation after careful and thorough consideration.
Sadly I suspect that he pre-prepared arguments for both sides then chose the path that seemed best for Boris Johnson.
James OāBrien did a great analysis of his motivation.
2 Likes