Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[fcbforever]

The problem with that is that national sovereignties would shift to Brussels, that's a huge step to take and accept. The EU is currently a cooperation and what you are suggesting would basically transform it into a federation, in theory I agree that it's the most natural outcome because it's the most efficient one but that's a huge step and I don't think that we are ready for it.

The council would still have it's veto right. I would merely suggest the country losing their veto rights when it comes to political procedure to reduce the possibility to hold the Union hostage, as Poland tried when it came to Tusks re-election earlier this year.

 

[Drifter]

Britain is £490bn poorer than thought, reveals ONS

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...xit-talks-position-revision-gdp-a8002871.html

 

[I Believe]

The veto power of single countries is way too big and should be reduced in certain parts, being replaced by a 2/3rd's majority. The apparatus should be reduced. Going for Straßburg and Brüssels just to please the French was a dumb idea, reversing that would reduce said apparatus a lot. Also, stop giving every single country it's own commisioner so that everyone feels "represented", although it's pretty much just inventing bullshit fields of politics at this point with 28 countries wanting their own little kingdom in Brussels. Oettinger is commisioner for budget and "human resources", what the feck is that even supposed to be for example. Why don't you rotate that stuff like we do other things?
Also, the power of the European council and thus the individual heads of state should be reduced and given to the people Europeans actually elected: the parliament. It would do a great deal to legitimize the EU as a political body when not everything is done behind closed doors by France, Germany and Italy.


Things we can't reverse anymore:
Letting the UK in with the exemptions they've got was a mistake. Letting Greece into the Euro was a mistake. Probably, at least the 2007 extension also came too soon.

The former things would make the EU more efficient, would mean it would have more legitimacy and closer to the people it represents. Also, it would reduce the time it needs to find solutions on a European level.

Thank you that is very honest of you. I would agree with that, also from my own experience, to settle fears elsewhere, the EU does really need to have regular audits from completely independent auditors, not those drawn from its own Court of Auditors, as now.

I would argue that from the above it should be recognised that Britain does not 'fit in' with these, simply because a great many of them will never be rectified, e.g. the reason for the Strasburg/Brussels move is apparently written up it the original treaty of Rome, this apparently cannot be altered and there is no mechanism in the EU for revisiting treaties and making amendments (don't know it that's true but its what I've been told). Apparently only new treaty's can be developed, but they seem now with 28 countries involved to take forever. Ironically there was no provision for such things as Brexit, until Britain actually wrote one..what irony!
We could soldier on together, but there will come a time when even with all its opt outs, Britain would need to give up the pound sterling and submit its complete sovereignty to the new USE, something it is not in anyone's foreseeable future to predict.

As I've argued elsewhere the EU if it is going to become a USE needs to get on a pace, it needs one country at least probably Germany, (or France) to drive it hard towards that goal, if it is to have any chance of competing effectively with the US and more specifically China towards the end of this century. Britain presents a 'roadblock' to this political union, there needs to be a fair Brexit deal between the EU and Britain that allows both to part amicably and thereafter operate as they wish, but to come together on security and other matters as and when required and support in trade terms each others main products/services.

At the moment given all the rhetoric on both sides, its looks hopeless and both sides will crash out over the cliff edge. Lets all pray that our leaders stand up, recognise reality and come to an agreement! However, not holding my breath, especially as May and Merkel are now 'weaker' respectively than they were, in their own countries and Macron has a massive job on his hands introducing his reforms in France. These three however will decide the EU and Britain's fate.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Britain is £490bn poorer than thought, reveals ONS

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...xit-talks-position-revision-gdp-a8002871.html

It would be interesting to know whether these types of outflows are cyclical. On the face of it, this sounds alarming, like a vote of no confidence in the country.

 

[fcbforever]

Thank you that is very honest of you. I would agree with that, also from my own experience, to settle fears elsewhere, the EU does really need to have regular audits from completely independent auditors, not those drawn from its own Court of Auditors, as now.

I would argue that from the above it should be recognised that Britain does not 'fit in' with these, simply because a great many of them will never be rectified, e.g. the reason for the Strasburg/Brussels move is apparently written up it the original treaty of Rome, this apparently cannot be altered and there is no mechanism in the EU for revisiting treaties and making amendments (don't know it that's true but its what I've been told). Apparently only new treaty's can be developed, but they seem now with 28 countries involved to take forever. Ironically there was no provision for such things as Brexit, until Britain actually wrote one..what irony!
We could soldier on together, but there will come a time when even with all its opt outs, Britain would need to give up the pound sterling and submit its complete sovereignty to the new USE, something it is not in anyone's foreseeable future to predict.

As I've argued elsewhere the EU if it is going to become a USE needs to get on a pace, it needs one country at least probably Germany, (or France) to drive it hard towards that goal, if it is to have any chance of competing effectively with the US and more specifically China towards the end of this century. Britain presents a 'roadblock' to this political union, there needs to be a fair Brexit deal between the EU and Britain that allows both to part amicably and thereafter operate as they wish, but to come together on security and other matters as and when required and support in trade terms each others main products/services.

At the moment given all the rhetoric on both sides, its looks hopeless and both sides will crash out over the cliff edge. Lets all pray that our leaders stand up, recognise reality and come to an agreement! However, not holding my breath, especially as May and Merkel are now 'weaker' respectively than they were, in their own countries and Macron has a massive job on his hands introducing his reforms in France. These three however will decide the EU and Britain's fate.

Few things wrong here.

"its looks hopeless and both sides will crash out over the cliff edge."

Due to the nature of each economies size, Britain is facing a cliff edge while the EU is merely sliding of a hill. Even if no agreement on tarrifs is reached, you will still have to abide to our regulations when it comes to trade because we are just the way bigger market. Example for you: if suddenly, the EU decides 22 inch alloy wheels are mandatory, every single UK manufacturer will follow although it is not part of the EU legislation anymore. And its like that everywhere.

"but to come together on security"

Only on a NATO-level. UK's interests are too closely tied to the US to be relied upon. Honestly, if the EU should go forward towards a much more integrated military, the UK should be excluded as much as possible to secure it's effectiveness.

"and when required and support in trade terms each others main products/services."

To a certain degree. When you are not part of the EU anymore or leave the common market, you are a competitor and should be treated as such. Everything else would just be stupid. The EU has to have it's own people interest in mind, as the British chose to not be included anymore. Live with the consequences and don't constantly moan that the EU should give in to your demands. Why would we any further than it suits our very own interest.

And this:

"(don't know it that's true but its what I've been told)."

Just sums up Brexit perfectly. Amendments to these treaties can be made, although yes, every member has to agree. On singular matters this isn't hard though and happens all the time. Every single treaty we have seen since Rome is simply an amendment to the treaty of Rome. Just because you don't understand the naming conventions that doesn't mean it can't and hasn't been changed before.
Also, the division between Brüssel and Straßburg was itself an amendment and not finalized until 1992.

 

[C3Pique]

We could soldier on together, but there will come a time when even with all its opt outs, Britain would need to give up the pound sterling and submit its complete sovereignty to the new USE, something it is not in anyone's foreseeable future to predict.

This is conjecture, Project Fear if you will. As long as we remain in the EU, we have the veto to moderate it. However when our house of cards collapses we may have no option but to join the Euro - every Brexiter' s dream!

 

[marktan]

IMO a big part of the problem with the Brexit vote was that it came at the exact same time of the backdrop of the huge numbers of EU migrants. The vote suddenly became partially about 'do you want to allow loads of random muslim immigrants into the EU, and by extension into the UK' in the eyes of many. You see that reflected now in the elections in France, Germany and now Austria, where right wing anti-immigration parties have made large gains. The whole vote was stupid on behalf of everyone involved - Britain for underestimating the vote and doing a terrible job of presenting the pros/cons and consequences to the public; and the EU/UK for negotiating paper-thin concessions for probably the similar reason of believing the leave vote was unlikely.

What does annoy me though is the constant doom mongering from some people. Yes, we get it, the process is tough. It's easy to sit around and moan that things are going to go bad, less so easy to put forward reasonable solutions to difficult processes. Personally I'm hopeful that the trade talks can be unlocked an a reasonable solution can be arrived at for both sides. I can see a lot of people in this thread disingenuously liking the thought of Britain loosing xyz trade (particularly in Finance, which is very realistic), but the far more reasonable line to take is that both sides have a lot to gain from a sensible trade deal. You can say that the EU's bigger so they should have the balance of power, or that the UK are net importers from the EU so it should be them, but either way I really hope the people around the negotiating table can be grown up about the process and come to a deal. If that means having to compromise on things like the 'divorce bill' and us giving more then we'd like then I'd do that, I'd much rather a deal be reached then not. People sometimes I feel underestimate what a fragile world we still live in, most likely due to the longest period of peace-time between western nations in modern history, but small disputes can escalate very quickly - the rise of the anti-immigrant right in Europe, Brexit, Trump etc show how things become negatives even through democratic processes. I'm not saying war will break out with a botched Brexit, but an acrimonious split can have consequences. People need to remember that Brexit wasn't a slight from the UK against the EU, nor the EU against the UK, rather more so a really poorly executed vote whose result was fairly evenly split. I'm not really sure how diplomatic and giving the current Conservative government are willing to be, Cameron at least seemed like a fairly reasonable person so would've preferred if he was still here, and Barnier/Guy whatshisface/Juncker don't seem like the very giving type of people, but I'm still hopeful a reasonable deal can be reached and everyone can move forward.

Of course, there's a lot of chest-beating going on from some members of both the UK and the EU, as to how only they stand to benefit from this, which does dampen my optimism a little. If the worst case does happen I hope that at least it recognises the need for and spurs on some heavy investment and focus in the UK on business, especially sectors like my own in tech and biosciences. I see a lot of solid talent and ideas, especially around the big universities here, but the ecosystem for developing those industries isn't anywhere near as strong as it is in the USA. We're still around the 5th largest economy in the world, and I really feel some heavy government focus and initiatives in particularly those two sectors (tech / life sciences) could see some great companies spring up and the VC sector thrive like it has done in the USA. We do have some success stories like ARM and a few others but for the talent that exist at a lot of the top universities here we should be doing a lot more. Personally I know loads of people from my course went onto well paying tech jobs in banks, which isn't bad, but given they're all smart people who studied tech they really should've had opportunities to go into tech companies working here on great products - it just happens that the bulk of these dev teams are situated in America. We do have some great companies currently but we really could do with a step up to the next level, the current environment particularly cost-wise for startups just isn't that favourable, especially in London. I feel if we are to really lose out on a deal with the EU then we should really focus on our own strengths and building the ecosystem for great businesses in those areas. Oxford and Cambridge have some solid research and companies springing up, but I feel places like Bristol, London, Edinburgh etc could use help in their ecosystems given the depth of talent and research in those place. Anyhow bit of a random tangent, but tldr; really hope a deal is reached, if not I hope that the government adopts an aggressive approach to producing more business in finance/tech/sciences, at least that's what I'd do. Would be hard, but I'm hoping the mentality is to recognise the need for a deal, and if that doesn't work, recognise the deal to focus heavily on industries given that the talent is there.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Re the post above, if, as the government of a country of 60 million people, you are going to propose a radical departure from the status quo (with all the risk that entails), you should have convincing, readily demonstrable reasons for doing so. I have yet to hear any. The issues you cite are not really linked to EU membership. The refugee crisis will still be there due to the poverty and instability of Europe's neighbours, and, the UK could take steps to reset its imbalanced economy while staying in the EU.

 

[JPRouve]

@marktan What do you mean by a reasonable deal?

 

[I Believe]

Few things wrong here.

"its looks hopeless and both sides will crash out over the cliff edge."

What is wrong with that statement, at present both sides have talked about the possibility of no deal and again to quote Tusk, no winners only losers?

you will still have to abide to our regulations when it comes to trade because we are just the way bigger market

So even if we have no trade deal with you, i.e. we trade nothing, zilch, with the EU we still have to abide by EU regulations..? give us a break son, no wonder Britain wants to get out. Is this the jackboot mentality in evidence?

"but to come together on security"

Only on a NATO-level.

Seriously, you are saying The EU would not want any help from Britain,except as part of the Nato Alliance, do you understand what that means?

"and when required and support in trade terms each others main products/services."

To a certain degree

What degree would that be then?

Amendments to these treaties can be made, although yes, every member has to agree. On singular matters this isn't hard though and happens all the time

So why has the singular nonsense of moving from Strasbourg to Brussels not been sorted out then, should be simple should it? If they can't sort that one out, what chance anything more complicated?

 

[I Believe]

As long as we remain in the EU, we have the veto to moderate it

Read fcbforever post #18880 at 16.26

List one of the failures of the EU:

The veto power of single countries is way too big and should be reduced in certain parts, being replaced by a 2/3rd's majority

Watch Britain veto that one!

 

[Kentonio]

So even if we have no trade deal with you, i.e. we trade nothing, zilch, with the EU we still have to abide by EU regulations..? give us a break son, no wonder Britain wants to get out. Is this the jackboot mentality in evidence?

Not having a trade deal doesn't mean we trade nothing for christs sake..

 

[I Believe]

Not having a trade deal doesn't mean we trade nothing for christs sake..

Oh so we can trade without a trade deal, gee that's helpful, let fcbforever know, he seems to think we can't!

 

[Kentonio]

Oh so we can trade without a trade deal, gee that's helpful, let fcbforever know, he seems to think we can't!

No, he's pointing out that even without a trade deal our manufacturers will still follow EU regulations, to ensure they can sell their products within the EU. You know, that vast market right on our doorstep that you chaps are so cavalier about.

 

[fcbforever]

What is wrong with that statement, at present both sides have talked about the possibility of no deal and again to quote Tusk, no winners only losers?



So even if we have no trade deal with you, i.e. we trade nothing, zilch, with the EU we still have to abide by EU regulations..? give us a break son, no wonder Britain wants to get out. Is this the jackboot mentality in evidence?

Seriously, you are saying The EU would not want any help from Britain,except as part of the Nato Alliance, do you understand what that means?



What degree would that be then?



So why has the singular nonsense of moving from Strasbourg to Brussels not been sorted out then, should be simple should it? If they can't sort that one out, what chance anything more complicated?

Nobody tried with the parliament for the while. It would cause more confusion short term, which really isn't something we need at the moment.

And yes, I understand what it means to exclude GB from any European defense agreement. It is exactly what I want. No integrated units, no shared defense projects. None of that. NATO and that's it. You are the US lapdog and thus an enormous liability, since Europes security policy is vastly different to the American.

And it is no "jackboot mentality". Also, trade sure as hell won't stop. That's such a stupid thing to say. So if you want to sell to a market you either abide to their rules or don't sell there. Easy. Remember the times European car makers attached those stupid bumpers to cars they exported to the US because of their safety regulations, compromising design and ride quality? They sure as hell didn't want to but still did. Just the same thing. That's basic knowledge. If we say all butter exported to the EU is meant to be packaged in blue paper, you will either do that or don't import here. You won't be forced by the EU, we can't, that's right. Necessity will though.

That's also why the EU is facing a hill and the UK a cliff. 55% of the UKs exports go to the EU. 16% of EU goods exported outside of the EU go to GB. The number for individual members is naturally way lower, as most exports happen inside the EU. You see the disparity?
Let's say the introduction of tarfs leads to a 10% dip in trade between the parties. That's 20 billion dollar in losses for the UK, 5% of overall exports. Germany? 9 billion in losses, but only 0,6% of exports.


I'm sorry when the numbers don't fit your own reality.

 

[The Outsider]

I doubt the UK will get a reasonable deal as the EU is trying to protect it's cohesiveness and if one leaves and prospers others will get itchy feet.
I can only see a hard Brexit as the EU's terms will be too onerous to be politically acceptable.

 

[The Outsider]

Nobody tried with the parliament for the while. It would cause more confusion short term, which really isn't something we need at the moment.

And yes, I understand what it means to exclude GB from any European defense agreement. It is exactly what I want. No integrated units, no shared defense projects. None of that. NATO and that's it. You are the US lapdog and thus an enormous liability, since Europes security policy is vastly different to the American.



That's also why the EU is facing a hill and the UK a cliff. 55% of the UKs exports go to the EU. 16% of EU goods exported outside of the EU go to GB. The number for individual members is naturally way lower, as most exports happen inside the EU. You see the disparity?
Let's say the introduction of tarfs leads to a 10% dip in trade between the parties. That's 20 billion dollar in losses for the UK, 5% of overall exports. Germany? 9 billion in losses, but only 0,6% of exports.

Firstly the US has bases all over Western Europe and Western Europe got the Marshall plan not the UK, so I would say we are all lapdogs to some extent.
With the EU supporting Ukraine that is a policy the US approves of so it is not completely different.
With tariffs sure some trade will fall and there will be changes like more food production in the UK.

Your trade figures don't take into account the UK removing its EU budget contributions which would have an impact too.
The other factor is we will find other trading partners though I accept we may be the net loser on these.

 

[I Believe]

No, he's pointing out that even without a trade deal our manufacturers will still follow EU regulations, to ensure they can sell their products within the EU. You know, that vast market right on our doorstep that you chaps are so cavalier about.

Why would they follow regulations of a market they can't sell into? Unless perhaps they can somehow come to an arrangement, that isn't quite a trade deal, but allows trade.. 'under the counter' may be, or via a third party, or they sell to another country who has a trade deal with the EU.. the mind boggles!

 

[Stanley Road]

No, he's pointing out that even without a trade deal our manufacturers will still follow EU regulations, to ensure they can sell their products within the EU.

Isn't that bog standard in other developed countries world wide?

 

[I Believe]

NATO and that's it

I asked again do you know what that i.e. NATO means as far as the Western Defence of Europe is concerned? I suspect you don't!

Also, trade sure as hell won't stop. That's such a stupid thing to say

Better tell your remainer/remoaner friends in Britain, they think it does mean we will stop trading, that's their definition of a cliff edge!

16% of EU goods exported outside of the EU go to GB

So we are out already are we? Make sense lad!

Germany? 9 billion in losses,

I'm sure they can't wait to incur such losses, Mrs Merkel will be the darling of Germany industry, still she needs a boost just now!

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Isn't that bog standard in other developed countries world wide?

Yes but whoever you sell to, wherever in the world and whether there is trade agreement in place or not, whatever product you are selling has to conform to the regulations set by that country, it's just basic simple knowledge for anyone who trades.
Clearly certain people are totally clueless about such subjects (and many other subjects).

 

[4bars]

No, he's pointing out that even without a trade deal our manufacturers will still follow EU regulations, to ensure they can sell their products within the EU. You know, that vast market right on our doorstep that you chaps are so cavalier about.

The problem will come when little by little, regulations in UK will change and manufacturers will have extracost if some of the UK regulations goes against in the slightest with EU regulations, making them do to lines of products or adding/subtracting parts

 

[Kentonio]

Why would they follow regulations of a market they can't sell into? Unless perhaps they can somehow come to an arrangement, that isn't quite a trade deal, but allows trade.. 'under the counter' may be, or via a third party, or they sell to another country who has a trade deal with the EU.. the mind boggles!

No-one has ever said they couldn't trade ffs, but without a trade deal they will be dealing with tariffs, custom checks and regulatory issues. As 4bars points out, that means even if they copy EU regulations to allow them to continue to sell as smoothly as possible, any conflicting UK regulations means they'll end up having even more work setting up separate production lines/regulatory compliance systems to allow them to sell at home and also to export within the EU. The whole thing is a frikkin nightmare.

 

[4bars]

Specially in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, etc...Lots of products can be banned just for a small substance in it. Tariffs as well, but yes, some products are banned, so it could happen no trading at all in some of them.

That does not mean that UK will not thrive, just it will make it more difficult

 

[Stanley Road]

Yes but whoever you sell to, wherever in the world and whether there is trade agreement in place or not, whatever product you are selling has to conform to the regulations set by that country, it's just basic simple knowledge for anyone who trades.
Clearly certain people are totally clueless about such subjects (and many other subjects).

Hate to say it but, yeah and? We dont accept dolls from china put together with nails or fireworks that explode in your face. Simple really.

 

[Cheesy]

Hate to say it but, yeah and? We dont accept dolls from china put together with nails or fireworks that explode in your face. Simple really.

It isn't simple at all though.

 

[Stanley Road]

It isn't simple at all though.

It is tho. Are you katherine tate tho?

 

[Cheesy]

It is tho. Are you katherine tate tho?

He's pointing out that regulations will have to conform to those of another country. It's not as simple as saying "this product's clearly shit" and moving on from there.

 

[Wibble]

What does annoy me though is the constant doom mongering from some people.

Because unless it doesn't happen it is the worst decision in the history of appallingly bad decisions. The best case scenario is that we take a huge economic hit for a few years until we have to beg to get back in on far worse terms than we have now.

 

[Wibble]

Better tell your remainer/remoaner friends in Britain, they think it does mean we will stop trading, that's their definition of a cliff edge!

Nobody thinks that. As you well know.

Cliff edge=leaving the EU=economic disaster.

We are voluntarily seriously damaging trade between ourselves and our main trading partner. Sheer idiocy when there are no gains elsewhere worth the economic damage.

 

[Stanley Road]

He's pointing out that regulations will have to conform to those of another country. It's not as simple as saying "this product's clearly shit" and moving on from there.

Yes, i was simplifying it for the hard of understanding

 

[devilish]

Specially in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, etc...Lots of products can be banned just for a small substance in it. Tariffs as well, but yes, some products are banned, so it could happen no trading at all in some of them.

That does not mean that UK will not thrive, just it will make it more difficult

Which of course, will be well within the EU interest to do, thus undermining the non Eu competition coming from the UK.

 

[I Believe]

No-one has ever said they couldn't trade ffs

That has been implied, by some remainers/remoaners that Britain will be shut out as a 'punishment' for daring to leave the EU. All our regulations and laws currently meet EU requirements for trading and unless there is some political moves to prevent it these will all be incorporated into British law. So if I understand correctly, providing we keep up with EU requirements, we can still trade into the EU, but may be denied a trade deal, as such?
Presumably the result of not granting a Trade deal, is that Britain will be forced to pay tariffs to sell to the EU and the EU pays tariffs to sell into the UK market. Hence the 'punishment' is administered to both sides, yes.. of course, it sounds like typical EU thinking to me! Can't wait to get out!

 

[Stanley Road]

Presumably the result of not granting a Trade deal, is that Britain will be forced to pay tariffs to sell to the EU and the EU pays tariffs to sell into the UK market

For years I never understood why there were roaming charges for data. I go to the UK and get charged 10$ for using BT as guest network, someone from the UK comes to Holland and uses 10$ for using T-Mobile, both companies bill each other for a tenner which is passed on to the customer. Thank feck they got rid of that

 

[Massive Spanner]

For years I never understood why there were roaming charges for data. I go to the UK and get charged 10$ for using BT as guest network, someone from the UK comes to Holland and uses 10$ for using T-Mobile, both companies bill each other for a tenner which is passed on to the customer. Thank feck they got rid of that

hate to break it to you, but when brexit happens, your tariffs are back.

 

[Kentonio]

That has been implied, by some remainers/remoaners that Britain will be shut out as a 'punishment' for daring to leave the EU. All our regulations and laws currently meet EU requirements for trading and unless there is some political moves to prevent it these will all be incorporated into British law. So if I understand correctly, providing we keep up with EU requirements, we can still trade into the EU, but may be denied a trade deal, as such?
Presumably the result of not granting a Trade deal, is that Britain will be forced to pay tariffs to sell to the EU and the EU pays tariffs to sell into the UK market. Hence the 'punishment' is administered to both sides, yes.. of course, it sounds like typical EU thinking to me! Can't wait to get out!

So in other words we'll have to keep up with EU regulations but not have any say in what those regulations actually are. Great work there, hope you enjoy all this new 'control' you're getting back.

 

[Stanley Road]

hate to break it to you, but when brexit happens, your tariffs are back.

Why were they ever in place re the data scam?

 

[Massive Spanner]

Why were they ever in place re the data scam?

Money, obviously.

it's only due to E.U. regulations that they're gone, in E.U countries.

Britain goes bye bye, your data roaming comes back.

Along with paying for hospital care when you travel to E.U. countries.

Good times.

 

[sun_tzu]

Money, obviously.

it's only due to E.U. regulations that they're gone, in E.U countries.

Britain goes bye bye, your data roaming comes back.

Along with paying for hospital care when you travel to E.U. countries.

Good times.

data roaming it could come back- probably wont though I think three have already said they wont charge customers no matter what the brexit outcome is https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...-roaming-charges-banned-europe-15-june-brexit -

Plus Wifi is much more prevalent as is the use of watsapp and skype so to be fair that will somewhat mitigate the impact even if some charges do return (no doubt you will still get some idiot try to stream a 4k box set over 4g though and rack up a stuipd bill)

as for the hospital care i guess people will just have to ensure they have travel insurance in place when visiting the EU as people will when visiting the UK... most likley to have a problem I guess are those elderly people who spend several months in france or spain in the winter - and well I suspect they wont get that much sympathy in the grand scheme of things.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Pretty funny e-mail 'debate' re: Brexit in this weeks Big Issue between Malcolm Tucker and Alan Partridge.