Michel Barnier, said the British people need to be educated about the consequences of leaving the single market?
is that because the EU failed to promote itself in the UK ?
It's because large numbers of British people still have no idea about the consequences of leaving the "Single Market" and many who are starting to understand the consequences, particularly for the vital financial services industry, have rejected Theresa May's "hard Brexit" and want to stay in. Not a day passes without a company from that sector moving to Frankfurt, Paris, Dublin and other European financial centres where they are being welcomed with open arms.
If David Cameron hadn't been so complacent he might have made more of an effort to explain the consequences of leaving the "Single Market" but the referendum campaign was characterised by a paucity of factual information.
Of course he should teach us things. After all, we pay his salary.
i can see a very hard brexit looming
It is becoming one big bore. No one is in control of anything.
We should never have deviated away from our representative democracy, far better that intelligent knowledgeable people make these decisions than the general public
The EU probably cannot believe their luck at being able to get rid of the UK and be paid for doing so too. But's that's just a tad too cynical. Certainly the UK electorate were lied to by the Brexit side and not told what they really needed to know by the remain side, lest David Cameron might look like a rat cornered by the anti-EU wing of his Conservative Party.
However, when given the opportunity to cancel Brexit (by voting Lib Dem at the last election) the vast majority couldn't be bothered. Clearly there is one hell of a lot of 're-educating' to be done!
Hi fact is having seen the interview after the so called talks. we still have idiots like david davis wanting an easy ride over brexit well that is not going happen. they are not putting there whole heart and soul into what we need to do. like producing a milk marketing board again like we had before joining the common market. it is going to cost money we will need another agriculture offices and ministry of food and fisheries. take control of our own borders, not this willy nilly ideas of no borders between souther ireland and norther island. the conservative are going to have to employ staff again. with all that is currently done by brussels at least it all be our white hall clerks making decisions and not brussels. what is wrong with britain no back bone.
FYI the majority of brexiters don't care about the damage it will have to the economy. This has been reflected in polls.
we don't care because we need to keep our country safe from foreigners and we have good reasons to.
It is because the UK will now be competing economically against the combined might of the European Continent. The UK no longer has the protections provided by the E.U. Charter that guaranteed them equality when it comes to trade.
It was never the EU's "job" to explain basic economics to ignorant English people (the Welsh & Scots voted overwhelmingly to stay)....so what obligation did Brussels have to "explain" to the dentally-challenged the "consequences"?
Britain has well & truly buggered itself this time!
The Pound Sterling continues to fall;
And 40% or more of multi-nationals based in the UK are already leaving or planning to leave;
Unemployment will steadily rise, just as government revenues steadily fall....if you have ANY way to "get out" and go somewhere else, now would be a great time!
Leaving the EU meant leaving the single market, in order to create our own market. @thatginamiller #Brexit ??????
@jennirsl @ChrisGiles_ You are very strange, 85% of people voted for parties who had leaving the single market and…
#Brexit bill: Barnier gives UK two weeks to clarify key issues - The British people need clarity as well
"Leaving the single market is what we voted for!"
Err, really? #SingleMarket #Brexit
The great @Mike_Fabricant is on #FirstDates, I wonder if he'll be leaving the single market before the UK does ❤️👫
As they were breakfasting, a question of Michel's, relating to
the projectile, provoked rather a curious answer from Barbicane,
which is worth repeating. Michel, supposing it to be roughly
stopped, while still under its formidable initial speed, wished
to know what the consequences of the stoppage would have been.
To avert such a conjuncture by the restoration of peace was
necessarily an object of British policy. More than that, however, was
at stake. The Orders in Council had served their turn. In conjunction
with Napoleon's Continental System, by the misery inflicted upon all
the countries under his control, they had brought about the
desperation of Russia and the resistance of the Czar, who at first had
engaged in the Emperor's policy. Russia and France were at war, and it
was imperative at once to redouble the pressure in the Peninsula, and
to recuperate the financial strength of Great Britain, by opening
every possible avenue of supply and of market to British trade, in
order to bring the whole national power, economical and military, to
bear effectively upon what promised to be a death struggle. The repeal
of the Orders, with the consequent admission of American merchant
ships to every hostile port, except such, few as might be effectively
blockaded in accordance with the accepted principles of International
Law, was the price offered for the preservation of peace, and for
readmission to the American market, closed to British manufacturers
and merchants by the Non-Importation Acts. This extension of British
commerce, now loudly demanded by the British people, was an object to
be accomplished by the same means that should prevent the American
people from constituting themselves virtually the allies of Napoleon
by going to war. Should this dreaded alternative, however, come to
pass, not only would British trade again miss the market, the loss of
which had already caused widespread suffering, but, in common with it,
British navigation, British shipping, the chief handmaid of commerce,
would be exposed in a remote quarter, most difficult to guard, to the
privateering activity of a people whose aptitude for such occupation
had been demonstrated in the fight for independence and the old French
wars. Half a century before, in the years 1756-58, there had been
fitted out in the single port of New York, for war against the French,
forty-eight privateers, carrying six hundred and ninety-five guns and
manned by over five thousand men.