Editor's Blog1 min ago
Gibraltexit?
34 Answers
http://
would leaving the EU with no trade deal be an acceptable price to pay to retain sovereignty of Gibraltar? or is it time for the UK to let go of this colonial age anachronism?
would leaving the EU with no trade deal be an acceptable price to pay to retain sovereignty of Gibraltar? or is it time for the UK to let go of this colonial age anachronism?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
not so, TTT - the EU have granted Spain a power of veto....
http://
http://
-- answer removed --
“The people of Gibraltar want to stay under British rule, do they not?”
Yes they do. Or at least they did. In 2002 more than 98% (of an 88% turnout) voted against a proposal that sovereignty of the Rock should be shared between the UK and Spain. However, they also wanted to remain in the EU. They had their own referendum on June 23rd and the result was fed into the South West England count in the main referendum. Just under 96% of the 83% who voted ticked the “Remain” box. Unfortunately, unless they want to become a province of southern Spain, the Gibraltarians are stuck with the result. On reflection, perhaps this is the answer to Scotland’s quandary. They could break away from the UK and become a province of, say, Denmark or Holland. If they chose Denmark at least they would not have to adopt the euro.
This, as with most of the gumpf that has emerged in the last few days, is very much “handbags at dawn”. Both the UK and the EU will bluster and fluster stating their opening positions in the negotiations. Personally I think we should simply leave (and take Gibraltar with us) and just conduct business with the EU in the same way as any normal country does. There is far too much emphasis placed on the necessity for a trade agreement post Brexit and the blackmail that may ensue should one not be concluded. The EU has never managed to strike a trading agreement with any major nation and I see the UK being no different in that respect. But the bloc still trades perfectly well with other major economies. By all means get the status of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU formalised, sort out the air travel threat and one or two other matters. As for trade, we should simply revert to WTO terms (which will benefit the UK far more than it will the rest of the EU).
Yes they do. Or at least they did. In 2002 more than 98% (of an 88% turnout) voted against a proposal that sovereignty of the Rock should be shared between the UK and Spain. However, they also wanted to remain in the EU. They had their own referendum on June 23rd and the result was fed into the South West England count in the main referendum. Just under 96% of the 83% who voted ticked the “Remain” box. Unfortunately, unless they want to become a province of southern Spain, the Gibraltarians are stuck with the result. On reflection, perhaps this is the answer to Scotland’s quandary. They could break away from the UK and become a province of, say, Denmark or Holland. If they chose Denmark at least they would not have to adopt the euro.
This, as with most of the gumpf that has emerged in the last few days, is very much “handbags at dawn”. Both the UK and the EU will bluster and fluster stating their opening positions in the negotiations. Personally I think we should simply leave (and take Gibraltar with us) and just conduct business with the EU in the same way as any normal country does. There is far too much emphasis placed on the necessity for a trade agreement post Brexit and the blackmail that may ensue should one not be concluded. The EU has never managed to strike a trading agreement with any major nation and I see the UK being no different in that respect. But the bloc still trades perfectly well with other major economies. By all means get the status of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU formalised, sort out the air travel threat and one or two other matters. As for trade, we should simply revert to WTO terms (which will benefit the UK far more than it will the rest of the EU).
NJ, I hear what you and others are saying regarding walking away and sorting out agreements afterwards, and it might be the right move. However, I don’t know if you have every managed a major project, but you just wouldn’t make that move because if it isn’t the right move the effect could be catastrophic. I am afraid that you have to err on the side of caution in such situations.
There would not be any agreements to sort out afterwards.
Our first (and last) gambit should be this:
- We’re leaving. (And we could leave immediately. The Lisbon Treaty makes no mention of a notice period, only of a period during which “negotiations” must be concluded).
- We’re paying no more money into the EU’s coffers.
- If you want to strike a trade agreement with us we’ll willingly negotiate that, but in the light of the EU’s spectacular failure to do likewise with any other major nation throughout its existence, we’ll not hold our breath. Meantime we’ll trade with the remaining 27 nations on WTO terms.
The only things that need sorting beforehand are the status of EU citizens here and that of UK citizens in other EU countries and perhaps the “open skies” arrangement (the EU suggests that there may be no flights between the UK and the 27 after 29/3/19 – yeah right). Apart from that (and perhaps a few other matters) there is no need for either side to hold the other to ransom with threats and blackmail. There will be no “legislation gap” because all EU legislation will be subsumed into EU law (with the hope that >95% of it will eventually be ditched).
I know my simplistic view seems naive. It’s deliberately meant to be so because far too much emphasis is being placed on the need to agree terms almost at any cost. About eight times as many nations are outside the EU than are in it. None of them have agreed any special terms with the EU. Many of them trade perfectly well with the EU; many of them run flights and ships to and from the EU; tourism between them and the EU succeeds perfectly well; incredible as it may seem telephone services operate between them; virtually all of them have enjoyed reasonable growth in recent years (in contrast to the EU's – and in particular the eurozone’s – stagnation). All this has been achieved without any specific “deals” and all of it has been achieved under existing international treaties. There is nothing unusual about being a non-EU nation. On the contrary it is far more unusual (and indeed abnormal) to be an EU member. The UK needs, as its negotiating foundation, to maintain that it will become a usual and normal nation. It cannot do that whilst it remains under even the slightest influence of the EU because the EU does not permit "normal" nations in its fold.
Our first (and last) gambit should be this:
- We’re leaving. (And we could leave immediately. The Lisbon Treaty makes no mention of a notice period, only of a period during which “negotiations” must be concluded).
- We’re paying no more money into the EU’s coffers.
- If you want to strike a trade agreement with us we’ll willingly negotiate that, but in the light of the EU’s spectacular failure to do likewise with any other major nation throughout its existence, we’ll not hold our breath. Meantime we’ll trade with the remaining 27 nations on WTO terms.
The only things that need sorting beforehand are the status of EU citizens here and that of UK citizens in other EU countries and perhaps the “open skies” arrangement (the EU suggests that there may be no flights between the UK and the 27 after 29/3/19 – yeah right). Apart from that (and perhaps a few other matters) there is no need for either side to hold the other to ransom with threats and blackmail. There will be no “legislation gap” because all EU legislation will be subsumed into EU law (with the hope that >95% of it will eventually be ditched).
I know my simplistic view seems naive. It’s deliberately meant to be so because far too much emphasis is being placed on the need to agree terms almost at any cost. About eight times as many nations are outside the EU than are in it. None of them have agreed any special terms with the EU. Many of them trade perfectly well with the EU; many of them run flights and ships to and from the EU; tourism between them and the EU succeeds perfectly well; incredible as it may seem telephone services operate between them; virtually all of them have enjoyed reasonable growth in recent years (in contrast to the EU's – and in particular the eurozone’s – stagnation). All this has been achieved without any specific “deals” and all of it has been achieved under existing international treaties. There is nothing unusual about being a non-EU nation. On the contrary it is far more unusual (and indeed abnormal) to be an EU member. The UK needs, as its negotiating foundation, to maintain that it will become a usual and normal nation. It cannot do that whilst it remains under even the slightest influence of the EU because the EU does not permit "normal" nations in its fold.
Your comments on non-EU countries trading and travelling to Europe are true, NJ, but none of them have left the band to pursue a solo career causing consternation among management and fans alike.
We will be punished for our dissent by the popinjays and mountebanks at the head of the cartel, regardless of their public pronouncements to the contrary and our inept political leaders will just have to put up with it.
We will be punished for our dissent by the popinjays and mountebanks at the head of the cartel, regardless of their public pronouncements to the contrary and our inept political leaders will just have to put up with it.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.