Org Mobile Site
Thread: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
@Elephantine, if YOU are here for meaningful debate play the ball, not the man. You have just arrived and you are not entitled to judge Greyblades', or anyone else's intelligence or integrity.
Saw no such thing really
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
@Elephantine, if YOU are here for meaningful debate play the ball, not the man. You have just arrived and you are not entitled to judge Greyblades', or anyone else's intelligence or integrity.
Wow, he didn't even say such a thing and you're bullying him for being new...@Elephantine, if YOU are here for meaningful debate play the ball, not the man. You have just arrived and you are not entitled to judge Greyblades', or anyone else's intelligence or integrity.
You can't even know whether he did or didn't read the forums for a longer time before he signed up and started posting.
Not to forget that you defended people in the past who made far worse allegations about other posters.
Like calling someone a nazi? Wait that was you, how could I forget.
Something with stones and casting I forgot the correct order
Something with stones and casting I forgot the correct order
Originally Posted by Husar:
Wow, he didn't even say such a thing and you're bullying him for being new...
You can't even know whether he did or didn't read the forums for a longer time before he signed up and started posting.
Not to forget that you defended people in the past who made far worse allegations about other posters.
Asking someone to mind their manners is not bullying them.Wow, he didn't even say such a thing and you're bullying him for being new...
You can't even know whether he did or didn't read the forums for a longer time before he signed up and started posting.
Not to forget that you defended people in the past who made far worse allegations about other posters.
He has made less than half a dozen posts and each one has included a scornful comment, one he responded to me with was just a scornful comment. He should be disabused of the impression that sort of thing is acceptable now rather than later.
He probably thinks it's the way we do things here because of the way we speak to each other without realising we've mostly known each other for the better part of a decade.
There is, frankly, no need to make so many personal asides in a debate about Brexit
I really don't see them, nothing that goes beyond larking a bit. Sometimes it goes too far, yes you hösebrucke I want my edelweis, pick it, mountain ^ Not saying that to you by the way, who's adressed gets it
I'd agree that he came on rather strongly for a newcomer, but there wasn't anything in his posts that could be considered a breach of rules.
What's this 'newcommer' stuff, people are right about the backroom being a very unwelcomming place if we are so rigid. This place should be open to neo-nazi's, jihadis and RAF types as long as they can keep it civil
Just to clear up any potential misunderstandings, Elephantine is a previously banned user.
A curious take on Brexit and English football: the lower is a team's current ranking, the more its fans voted for Brexit (with some exceptions).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...e-how-10073642
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...e-how-10073642
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Just to clear up any potential misunderstandings, Elephantine is a previously banned user.
Well, none of this lot would believe he would have been fired just for displeasing me.Just to clear up any potential misunderstandings, Elephantine is a previously banned user.
at least I hope not.
So, Brexit.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Aren't you a Corbyn fan? ISTR you posting some of their echo chamber arguments in the Labour thread, to counter primary sources that I'd posted.
I was a fan, in that I thought the reputation for simple honesty would make him a good opposition leader, if never a Prime Minister, and that the rebellion against him was the dying breath of the blairites.Aren't you a Corbyn fan? ISTR you posting some of their echo chamber arguments in the Labour thread, to counter primary sources that I'd posted.
That was two years ago, what I have seen since has disabused me of the notion.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
what do i think:
1. We'll make permanent the status of EU migrants in respective countries.
> Something equivalent to an automatic declaration of permanent residency for eu citizens who've been in-country for more than five years.
> The automatic right to stay in-country and achieve the five year permanent residency under the old regime if you arrived prior to Art50.
> The qualified right to achieve five year permanent residency under the stricter non-eu regime as per the RoW if you arrived after Art50.
2. The Brexit bill will end up being counted in the single figure billions once debts and assets are divvied up.
> I doubt there will even be a payment for the balance as such, it will simply be massaged into long term transfers and interest payments.
> We'll not pull out our 'investment' in the EIB.
> We'll pay our dues, because that is what we do. Simply that the dues agreed won't be as apocalyptic as some imagine.
3. The EU:Ukraine DCFTA will be the template upon which the free-trade agreement is built.
> It is purpose designed for an 'association' state, not an accession state. Which is exactly what we'll be.
> The Services section (chapter 6) will be arbitrated under a joint panel, not the ECJ as is the case with Ukraine.
> There will be fewer exceptions in the negative list of reserved areas than is the case with Ukraine.
4. The UK will remain outside the EEA (obviously, given the above), and thus removed from the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ.
> There is no way the UK is being a rule-taker across broad swathes of its economy. The model will be equivalence.
> That said, I've little doubt there will be areas where equivalence is not available, and a limited sector based passport is agreed.
> Further, that there will remain some limited areas of legislation where it is sensible to remain under EU regulation (and thus the ECJ). Fine.
5. That we will remain outside [the] customs union and free to conclude our own trade agreements.
> Having said that specific integrated supply chains will be included in the envelope of [a] customs union.
> We will quickly pickup existing eu trade agreements, because we are willing to provide better terms (fewer protected areas).
> Individual FTA's with Canada, Oz and Nz will eventually become a CANZUK trade zone.
6. Security cooperation will be maintained, and in fact deepen in some areas.
> We will have a formal agreement for participation in the nordic defense union, as well as the Visegrad group.
> We'll keep on providing a security guarentee to europe, as well as supplying intelligence, and europe will continue being grateful.
> NATO will weaken, rather than fail, and that will make us more important as a bridge to those for whom defence matters.
It will probably require a transition period beyond Art50 to set in place the passports, equivalence regime, and arbitration.
Broadly, i think this benign view of events will come about due to mutual self-interest:
When 80% of FDI arrives through london, hard-brexit is calamitous stupidity to nations with negative interest rates, 10% unemployment, and weak growth.The next cyclical downturn is coming, u ready yet?
Whatever the UK gets will be 'inferior' to EU membership. But that's fine, because it will mainly involve the EU keeping things we don't value very much, and the UK gaining things that the EU doesn't rate very highly. This is after all why we are leaving, because there was a mismatch between the perceived benefits and tradeoffs.
Oh, and security for trade is definitely a thing.
#1 is looking pretty good, let's see if the rest of them pan out likewise.what do i think:
1. We'll make permanent the status of EU migrants in respective countries.
> Something equivalent to an automatic declaration of permanent residency for eu citizens who've been in-country for more than five years.
> The automatic right to stay in-country and achieve the five year permanent residency under the old regime if you arrived prior to Art50.
> The qualified right to achieve five year permanent residency under the stricter non-eu regime as per the RoW if you arrived after Art50.
2. The Brexit bill will end up being counted in the single figure billions once debts and assets are divvied up.
> I doubt there will even be a payment for the balance as such, it will simply be massaged into long term transfers and interest payments.
> We'll not pull out our 'investment' in the EIB.
> We'll pay our dues, because that is what we do. Simply that the dues agreed won't be as apocalyptic as some imagine.
3. The EU:Ukraine DCFTA will be the template upon which the free-trade agreement is built.
> It is purpose designed for an 'association' state, not an accession state. Which is exactly what we'll be.
> The Services section (chapter 6) will be arbitrated under a joint panel, not the ECJ as is the case with Ukraine.
> There will be fewer exceptions in the negative list of reserved areas than is the case with Ukraine.
4. The UK will remain outside the EEA (obviously, given the above), and thus removed from the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ.
> There is no way the UK is being a rule-taker across broad swathes of its economy. The model will be equivalence.
> That said, I've little doubt there will be areas where equivalence is not available, and a limited sector based passport is agreed.
> Further, that there will remain some limited areas of legislation where it is sensible to remain under EU regulation (and thus the ECJ). Fine.
5. That we will remain outside [the] customs union and free to conclude our own trade agreements.
> Having said that specific integrated supply chains will be included in the envelope of [a] customs union.
> We will quickly pickup existing eu trade agreements, because we are willing to provide better terms (fewer protected areas).
> Individual FTA's with Canada, Oz and Nz will eventually become a CANZUK trade zone.
6. Security cooperation will be maintained, and in fact deepen in some areas.
> We will have a formal agreement for participation in the nordic defense union, as well as the Visegrad group.
> We'll keep on providing a security guarentee to europe, as well as supplying intelligence, and europe will continue being grateful.
> NATO will weaken, rather than fail, and that will make us more important as a bridge to those for whom defence matters.
It will probably require a transition period beyond Art50 to set in place the passports, equivalence regime, and arbitration.
Broadly, i think this benign view of events will come about due to mutual self-interest:
When 80% of FDI arrives through london, hard-brexit is calamitous stupidity to nations with negative interest rates, 10% unemployment, and weak growth.The next cyclical downturn is coming, u ready yet?
Whatever the UK gets will be 'inferior' to EU membership. But that's fine, because it will mainly involve the EU keeping things we don't value very much, and the UK gaining things that the EU doesn't rate very highly. This is after all why we are leaving, because there was a mismatch between the perceived benefits and tradeoffs.
Oh, and security for trade is definitely a thing.
Chagos legal status sent to international court by UN
Originally Posted by :
A dispute between the UK and Mauritius over disputed island territory in the Indian Ocean is to be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The UN General Assembly voted by 94 countries to 15 that The Hague should examine the legal status of the Chagos Islands.
The former British colony used to be part of Mauritius but was detached in 1965 and is now home to a US airbase.
The Foreign Office said it would be an "inappropriate" use of the ICJ.
"This is a disappointing outcome," a Foreign Office spokesman said: "Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory is clearly a matter for the UK and Mauritius to resolve ourselves.
"Taking this dispute to the International Court of Justice is an inappropriate use of the ICJ mechanism."
Mauritius, which gained independence from Britain in 1968, argues that the UK broke international law when it separated off the islands before granting Mauritius its independence.
A dispute between the UK and Mauritius over disputed island territory in the Indian Ocean is to be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The UN General Assembly voted by 94 countries to 15 that The Hague should examine the legal status of the Chagos Islands.
The former British colony used to be part of Mauritius but was detached in 1965 and is now home to a US airbase.
The Foreign Office said it would be an "inappropriate" use of the ICJ.
"This is a disappointing outcome," a Foreign Office spokesman said: "Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory is clearly a matter for the UK and Mauritius to resolve ourselves.
"Taking this dispute to the International Court of Justice is an inappropriate use of the ICJ mechanism."
Mauritius, which gained independence from Britain in 1968, argues that the UK broke international law when it separated off the islands before granting Mauritius its independence.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Chagos legal status sent to international court by UN
A stain on British honour and a cankor on public life that occasionally flares to life - we should have used an out years ago to downscale the Airbase and let the Islanders come back.Chagos legal status sent to international court by UN
At the least.
And if the UN does decide to do something... Then what? Eventually the USA would baldly stay they're not moving - I doubt the Cubans want them there.
I don't really follow the Brexit debate in the UK, but I just came across this article that talks about a myriad of issues if the Brexit goes through without the UK staying in a whole lot of EU institutions that are under EU jurisdiction.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7858586.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7858586.html
Originally Posted by :
Did anybody realise that the work needed to establish a new customs IT system was unlikely to be done in time, and what that would mean?
Was everyone already aware that UK airlines like easyJet would need to set up in the EU27 and Ryanair might move its planes to EU27 countries due to the UK leaving the Open Skies Agreement?
[...]
How will the UK remain in the EU’s internal energy market post-Brexit as it looks to import more energy from the EU, and what are the implications if it doesn’t? What about the Emissions Trading System? Patents and intellectual property rights? Food standards? Medicine approvals? Europol? The list goes on and on.
Of course those are just excerpts from the excerpts of issues mentioned in the article, it sounds a lot like there are a whole lot of issues to solve and the current government seems to have no real plan. It sounds a lot like the UK might leave and the next day the lights go out in half the country.The embedded radio interview from James O'Brien is just the cherry on the top. I guess the next two years could be quite interesting in the UK.Did anybody realise that the work needed to establish a new customs IT system was unlikely to be done in time, and what that would mean?
Was everyone already aware that UK airlines like easyJet would need to set up in the EU27 and Ryanair might move its planes to EU27 countries due to the UK leaving the Open Skies Agreement?
[...]
How will the UK remain in the EU’s internal energy market post-Brexit as it looks to import more energy from the EU, and what are the implications if it doesn’t? What about the Emissions Trading System? Patents and intellectual property rights? Food standards? Medicine approvals? Europol? The list goes on and on.
Originally Posted by Husar:
I don't really follow the Brexit debate in the UK, but I just came across this article that talks about a myriad of issues if the Brexit goes through without the UK staying in a whole lot of EU institutions that are under EU jurisdiction.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7858586.html
Of course those are just excerpts from the excerpts of issues mentioned in the article, it sounds a lot like there are a whole lot of issues to solve and the current government seems to have no real plan. It sounds a lot like the UK might leave and the next day the lights go out in half the country.The embedded radio interview from James O'Brien is just the cherry on the top. I guess the next two years could be quite interesting in the UK.
A certain amount of that is hyperbole.I don't really follow the Brexit debate in the UK, but I just came across this article that talks about a myriad of issues if the Brexit goes through without the UK staying in a whole lot of EU institutions that are under EU jurisdiction.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7858586.html
Of course those are just excerpts from the excerpts of issues mentioned in the article, it sounds a lot like there are a whole lot of issues to solve and the current government seems to have no real plan. It sounds a lot like the UK might leave and the next day the lights go out in half the country.The embedded radio interview from James O'Brien is just the cherry on the top. I guess the next two years could be quite interesting in the UK.
Things like Food Standards etc. are not likely to be affected - the Government has already committed to transferring all existing EU regulation directly into British Law. That Statute of "inheritance" will provide for stability in the immediate aftermath. Europol is a framework for co-operation and exiting it is not going to cause Law and Order to collapse.
The Energy market will be more of an issue, and it's not the only one, but the situation is much less apocalyptic than alarmists make out.
Meanwhile, the EU is making noises about effectively suspending Poland for its Judicial Reforms which are an internal matter for member countries.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Meanwhile, the EU is making noises about effectively suspending Poland for its Judicial Reforms which are an internal matter for member countries.
If going fascist is merely an internal matter, we might as well let Turkey join. Meanwhile, the EU is making noises about effectively suspending Poland for its Judicial Reforms which are an internal matter for member countries.
What would people have said had Obama just dismissed the SCOTUS to replace it with a court more aligned with his government?
Even the President of Poland agrees that it's a bad idea, not to forget the protesters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-p...-idUSKBN1A915E
Originally Posted by :
Duda, an ally of the ruling right-wing, eurosceptic Law and Justice (PiS) party, said while he agreed with the government on the need for an overhaul of the judiciary, the proposed measures were not in line with the constitution.
[...]
The overhaul of the judiciary, coupled with a drive by PiS to expand its powers in other areas, including control of media, has provoked a crisis in relations with the European Union and sparked one of the biggest political conflicts since Poland overthrew communism in 1989.
Why is it that all these "eurosceptic" parties turn out to be some fascist brood that wants to silence the media and increase the power of the executive and then get some form of support from the UK right wing?Duda, an ally of the ruling right-wing, eurosceptic Law and Justice (PiS) party, said while he agreed with the government on the need for an overhaul of the judiciary, the proposed measures were not in line with the constitution.
[...]
The overhaul of the judiciary, coupled with a drive by PiS to expand its powers in other areas, including control of media, has provoked a crisis in relations with the European Union and sparked one of the biggest political conflicts since Poland overthrew communism in 1989.
The EU has rules that require member states to uphold certain standards regarding democracy, the death sentence, human rights and some others. Internal matters cease to be such once they cross one of those lines.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-...iciary-reforms
Originally Posted by :
Lawmakers in the lower house of parliament, which is controlled by the ruling far-right Law and Justice Party (PiS), have passed a bill that would force 83 of the nation’s top judges to resign and will give the governing party control over who replaces them.
In Poland, the Supreme Court is not only the final court of appeal for all criminal and civil cases, but also the body that rules on the validity of elections — which is exactly what concerns the EU and political opponents.
Christian Davies, who reports for The Guardian in Warsaw, says the proposed laws makes judges dependent on the patronage of the ruling part.
“When the ruling party can choose who can sit on each case ... then, you no longer have proper separation of powers,” says Davies. “That has very worrying implications for human rights and democracy and the rule of law.”
Lawmakers in the lower house of parliament, which is controlled by the ruling far-right Law and Justice Party (PiS), have passed a bill that would force 83 of the nation’s top judges to resign and will give the governing party control over who replaces them.
In Poland, the Supreme Court is not only the final court of appeal for all criminal and civil cases, but also the body that rules on the validity of elections — which is exactly what concerns the EU and political opponents.
Christian Davies, who reports for The Guardian in Warsaw, says the proposed laws makes judges dependent on the patronage of the ruling part.
“When the ruling party can choose who can sit on each case ... then, you no longer have proper separation of powers,” says Davies. “That has very worrying implications for human rights and democracy and the rule of law.”
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
A certain amount of that is hyperbole.
Things like Food Standards etc. are not likely to be affected - the Government has already committed to transferring all existing EU regulation directly into British Law. That Statute of "inheritance" will provide for stability in the immediate aftermath. Europol is a framework for co-operation and exiting it is not going to cause Law and Order to collapse.
The Energy market will be more of an issue, and it's not the only one, but the situation is much less apocalyptic than alarmists make out.
Meanwhile, the EU is making noises about effectively suspending Poland for its Judicial Reforms which are an internal matter for member countries.
Who gets a bigger say in cabinet, Liam Fox or Michael Gove? Because they've been directly contradicting each other on the matter of food safety standards. Gove says there's a line drawn in the sand, Fox says such lines are nonsense.A certain amount of that is hyperbole.
Things like Food Standards etc. are not likely to be affected - the Government has already committed to transferring all existing EU regulation directly into British Law. That Statute of "inheritance" will provide for stability in the immediate aftermath. Europol is a framework for co-operation and exiting it is not going to cause Law and Order to collapse.
The Energy market will be more of an issue, and it's not the only one, but the situation is much less apocalyptic than alarmists make out.
Meanwhile, the EU is making noises about effectively suspending Poland for its Judicial Reforms which are an internal matter for member countries.
Conservative government stole an EU law and made out they came up with it and say they own it. (Credit Card transaction fees)
How is that stealing. You Brits should take pleassure in knowing that you can completily destroy something that is trying to intimidate you. More will come, all Visagrad countries at least. Not sure about the Netherlands but maybe
Originally Posted by Fragony:
How is that stealing. You Brits should take pleassure in knowing that you can completily destroy something that is trying to intimidate you. More will come, all Visagrad countries at least. Not sure about the Netherlands but maybe
Actually, most of the internal ministers are doing their best to keep whatever the EU has built, as people appreciate their high standard of living. Hence the red line drawn by Gove over lax US agricultural standards, that the EU standards will be the UK's minimum.How is that stealing. You Brits should take pleassure in knowing that you can completily destroy something that is trying to intimidate you. More will come, all Visagrad countries at least. Not sure about the Netherlands but maybe
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Actually, most of the internal ministers are doing their best to keep whatever the EU has built, as people appreciate their high standard of living. Hence the red line drawn by Gove over lax US agricultural standards, that the EU standards will be the UK's minimum.
I know I won't ever be convicence that the EU isn't incredibly dangerousActually, most of the internal ministers are doing their best to keep whatever the EU has built, as people appreciate their high standard of living. Hence the red line drawn by Gove over lax US agricultural standards, that the EU standards will be the UK's minimum.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I know I won't ever be convicence that the EU isn't incredibly dangerous
So when are you coming over to live permanently in the UK, outside the EU? You've been incredibly enthusiastic about Brexit all along, so come over and share the joy. Or are you only enthusiastic about political change when you don't have to experience it, but can pontificate about it from a distance?I know I won't ever be convicence that the EU isn't incredibly dangerous
Originally Posted by Fragony:
How is that stealing. You Brits should take pleassure in knowing that you can completily destroy something that is trying to intimidate you. More will come, all Visagrad countries at least. Not sure about the Netherlands but maybe
Well, they came out implying they thought up with it and are enacting it, opposed to it being an EU thing they hijacked. You know, because the EU is apparently really dirty with dirty Europeans trying to suppress British superiority.How is that stealing. You Brits should take pleassure in knowing that you can completily destroy something that is trying to intimidate you. More will come, all Visagrad countries at least. Not sure about the Netherlands but maybe
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Well, they came out implying they thought up with it and are enacting it, opposed to it being an EU thing they hijacked. You know, because the EU is apparently really dirty with dirty Europeans trying to suppress British superiority.
Superiority has nothing to do with it, are you even, but the credibility of the EU does suffer, the UK isn't leaving Europe because Europe is simply a continent and tnat's going to be just fine, the EU is nothing but overhead and that's what you are leaving. They know that you guys will be fine. The ECB also knows that you will be fine. What use is an overhead that isn't needed? Like every organism/organisation it prefers to exist even if it has no reason to be existingWell, they came out implying they thought up with it and are enacting it, opposed to it being an EU thing they hijacked. You know, because the EU is apparently really dirty with dirty Europeans trying to suppress British superiority.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
You Brits should take pleassure in knowing that you can completily destroy something that is trying to intimidate you.
You mean French cuisine?You Brits should take pleassure in knowing that you can completily destroy something that is trying to intimidate you.
There are many facets of leaving the EU that should be extremely easy if the EU had intrinsic value:
Free trade deal? Of course. Why not? Canada has one. South Korea has one. Japan has one.
Irish border? Surely it is what is best for the Irish, and not trying to force solutions.
Citizens who remain in the UK? As all other citizens are treated - they can become dual nationalities if they want in time or are treated like people staying from (e.g.) the USA. The EU court overseeing a foreign sovereign power? Of course not!
Trade in Euros outside the EU? The USA allows trade in the dollar - and even China allows it! What sort of backward, protectionist state would try to ban it?
Placing barriers and demands for money to help ensure the gravy train continues just shows the EU's inherent weakness - people are not clamouring to join, but being forced to remain.
Free trade deal? Of course. Why not? Canada has one. South Korea has one. Japan has one.
Irish border? Surely it is what is best for the Irish, and not trying to force solutions.
Citizens who remain in the UK? As all other citizens are treated - they can become dual nationalities if they want in time or are treated like people staying from (e.g.) the USA. The EU court overseeing a foreign sovereign power? Of course not!
Trade in Euros outside the EU? The USA allows trade in the dollar - and even China allows it! What sort of backward, protectionist state would try to ban it?
Placing barriers and demands for money to help ensure the gravy train continues just shows the EU's inherent weakness - people are not clamouring to join, but being forced to remain.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
There are many facets of leaving the EU that should be extremely easy if the EU had intrinsic value:
Free trade deal? Of course. Why not? Canada has one. South Korea has one. Japan has one.
Irish border? Surely it is what is best for the Irish, and not trying to force solutions.
Citizens who remain in the UK? As all other citizens are treated - they can become dual nationalities if they want in time or are treated like people staying from (e.g.) the USA. The EU court overseeing a foreign sovereign power? Of course not!
Trade in Euros outside the EU? The USA allows trade in the dollar - and even China allows it! What sort of backward, protectionist state would try to ban it?
Placing barriers and demands for money to help ensure the gravy train continues just shows the EU's inherent weakness - people are not clamouring to join, but being forced to remain.
Define intrinsic value in this context? What is the intrinsic value of the UK? Why can't Scotland leave it and keep all the benefits and cooperation? Canada, Australia and the US did that of sorts, didn't they? Shouldn't that be easy if the UK had intrinsic value? There are many facets of leaving the EU that should be extremely easy if the EU had intrinsic value:
Free trade deal? Of course. Why not? Canada has one. South Korea has one. Japan has one.
Irish border? Surely it is what is best for the Irish, and not trying to force solutions.
Citizens who remain in the UK? As all other citizens are treated - they can become dual nationalities if they want in time or are treated like people staying from (e.g.) the USA. The EU court overseeing a foreign sovereign power? Of course not!
Trade in Euros outside the EU? The USA allows trade in the dollar - and even China allows it! What sort of backward, protectionist state would try to ban it?
Placing barriers and demands for money to help ensure the gravy train continues just shows the EU's inherent weakness - people are not clamouring to join, but being forced to remain.
Why don't other countries want to be in the UK?Single Sign On provided by vBSSO