Jump to content
PaulAA

May's Brexit Plan

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, David Butterworth said:

Read somewhere yesterday that the backstop was illegal, did anyone else hear that?

Dave

Dave

It would be helpful to have a link.  Can you oblige?

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Butterworth said:

And did any of the BS that was spread by the remainders come true? We won't know until after the 29th March

Well indeed..... though some of it shows signs of becoming true.  UK car industry in 5 years anyone?  And even the government seems to believe some of it as they are busy wasting our money on "measures" to put out the fires they will have started......

Leavers lies however, already proven BS - pretty much all of them.....  So he who lies most wins??  Sad world.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PaulAA said:

Dave

It would be helpful to have a link.  Can you oblige?

Paul

Paul I went onto one of the EU news sites that gave another link but if I read it correctly someone who was in the legal profession said it. I'll see if I can find it.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nick Jones said:

A few sensible ground rules on the first one would have helped avoid this mess!

If only

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, PaulAA said:

Dave

It would be helpful to have a link.  Can you oblige?

Paul

Hi Paul. This is best I can do at the moment, try  herbertsmithfreehills.com. Making the backstop terminable 4th of February 2019. 

Also Lord Trimble who was involved with the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement is saying that the backstop is illegal (if I've read his input correctly) you'll have to google that. Must go now, you understand... will catch up tomorrow.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Butterworth said:

Hi Paul. This is best I can do at the moment, try  herbertsmithfreehills.com. Making the backstop terminable 4th of February 2019. 

Also Lord Trimble who was involved with the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement is saying that the backstop is illegal (if I've read his input correctly) you'll have to google that. Must go now, you understand... will catch up tomorrow.

Dave

David,

Link posted above.

On Lord Trimble, it is true that he believes the backstop is illegal and is seeking a 'Judicial Review' (not taking the Govt to Court, as widely reported).  The problem he has with this approach, as I understand it, is that the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Backstop, would have to pass into Law before a Judicial Review could be considered.  I may have this wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This appeared on  a Dutch news website. Translation is done by Translate Google. Grammarly and Translate do not recognise the word 'ocaze'. It's from the Dutch word (borrowed from the Russians) 'Oekaze' and stands for: The last and final word of the Emperor.

Quote

The EU demands a solution that does not exist according to its own logic.

 

The insult of Donald Tusk was carefully timed. Just like Juncker's earlier insult. It is a filthy tactic where brutal domination is shown, and the other party is forced to first waste energy on normalization of political relations. Violent Goliath versus diplomatic David. It is characteristic of the climate in Brussels.

 

The EU took it even further, with a targeted campaign on British youth. A Brexit may give more expensive European data roaming. The EU also offered mutual visa-free travel, even with a strong Brexit. That sounds fun, but means that the UK must allow unlimited and uncontrolled migrants with fresh papers in the hope that they will leave again.

 

The negotiations had the same line. The EU unilaterally stated in 2017 that it was first necessary to negotiate an exit agreement, and then a trade agreement. That ocaze now gives a huge problem. Because the trade relationship is not known, it is unknown what kind of border is needed. This stalemate comes from the sleeve of Brussels politics.

 

The demand from the EU sounded noble: No hard boundary between the Ireland and Northern Ireland. It made less difference for the warring parties in 1998 whether they were part of the UK or Ireland, because it became a gray area as part of the EU. Twenty years later the knives are still sharpened, and it can go wrong again.

 

 

The first proposal from the EU was that the UK would pay 100 billion. Even more brutal was the proposal that only Great Britain would really leave the EU, and Northern Ireland would stay behind in the single market. A hard line between the EU and the rest of the UK on the Irish Sea. Here the EU draws stripes through countries, such as colonial rulers that did in Africa.

 

This step from the EU was part of a broader divide and conquer campaign in response to the Brexit. Gibraltar must go to Spain, and the EU immediately flirted with the government of Scotland. When the Catalans wanted to divorce, it was condemned and treated as a domestic issue, but parts of the UK can be removed again.

 

The latest proposal regulates eighty-year EU imprisonment through a transitional period including backstop. The UK may only withdraw from it after full EU consent. During all these negotiations, the UK is parked as a dairy cow in the single market, including free movement of people, without voting rights or direct influence in Brussels. The vassal state scenario.

 

Even the question of reducing this period a little bit was not supported by Juncker and Tusk, because a border on Ireland can never come. The EU makes all kinds of nice commitments about fast and fair negotiations, but does not want a clear deadline, or the possibility to build that this period may be terminated unilaterally with a shorter notice period.

 

All in stark contrast to the article 50 procedure. It was unilateral to start, and lasts no more than two years. The question now is whether the British House of Commons wants to hand over all control. After years of extremely difficult negotiations without any result or movement, after some vague words there must suddenly be confidence in a quick good outcome.

 

 

The EU has repeatedly and grotesque indicated not to deviate from its vision, now and never. Actually, that is already a direct denial of Brexit. A country that leaves a union will set a limit unless there is complete free movement of goods, services and persons from a free trade agreement. Legal retirement is allowed, practical retirement is not allowed.

 

The EU will never want to break through its single market through a free trade agreement with a former member. A free trade agreement that does not need a border on Ireland will never come, without the same treaty requiring that the UK, as an EU member, remains part of the single-market. The EU demands a solution that does not exist according to its own logic.

 

On the other hand, the British will never agree to treaties that definitively lock the UK into a customs union, without the possibility of establishing free trade agreements or conducting an immigration policy independently. That would be an unconditional capitulation, breaking down the main advantages of a Brexit.

 

Jeremy Corbyn offered this customs union, just as Labor campaigned for a Brexit with access to the single market. The EU then requires free movement of persons and no trade agreements, so that there is hardly any leftover of sovereignty or a Brexit. Just like the call for new elections or a new referendum, it only creates more uncertainty.

 

Juncker and Tusk demand a solution that does not lead to a hard limit on the island of Ireland, but forget that the border through a hard Brexit can be there within a few months. Faster than through any other diplomatic path. The EU is negotiating hard to achieve something, while they will lose it that way in the first place. So something completely different. This is not about Ireland.

 

There will also be a vote on the Brexit for some time to postpone, to make some time to come to an agreement. Something like that only makes sense if the parties come together slowly. The UK and the EU have been in this stalemate for years, within completely buried positions. Both parties have interests that they can never let go for the benefit of the other.

 

Postponement only gives time for a repeat of moves. Speeding up or slowing down this process does not improve her outcome. The continuous uncertainty slows growth in the UK and the EU. A hard Brexit is already called a humanitarian disaster. That is quite offensive to victims of real disasters in Yemen or Venezuela.

 

If it does not go as it should, then it should be as it goes.

 

 

10

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MennoR said:

This appeared on  a Dutch news website. Translation is done by Translate Google. Grammarly and Translate do not recognise the word 'ocaze'. It's from the Dutch word (borrowed from the Russians) 'Oekaze' and stands for: The last and final word of the Emperor.

 

It seems that it is not just in the UK that cynicism regarding the methods of the Eu big boys, who have a lot to lose with the collapse of the experiment.

Not surprising really

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Menno,

Thank you for that insight into European thinking.  However, I fear it misses the most important factor on the "Irish Question", that both sides of that border are terrified of what will happen if there are customs posts along it.      Their abscence since the Good Friday Agreement has been a useful way for Ireland to ignore the whole Question of Irish autonomy.     Despite different currencies and a political system that clearly doesn't work in Northen Ireland, there is peace on both sides, or was until recent events triggered terrorist bombs again.      The Republic is determined not to allow a hard border to be rebuilt, no doubt from republican  sentiment but more so from political expediance.    

Which "EU big boys" do you have in mind, Janner?     The City knows well how to make a profit from 'selling short' and the response of commerce has been marked by the concern of industry, not by banks warning of the consequencies of our politicians' incompetence.

JOhn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over here, we simply don't know what to think. On one hand, it will bring logistic companies into trouble (is the idea, no-one knows exactly when and how). On the other hand, newspapers' headlines are "Brexit will be a gold mine for us!" British companies moving to Holland = jobs, houses to build etc.

Having said that: in 2018, data was issued about the number of companies and employees that had gone over to us. One newspaper wrote: "Meager result, only a handful companies made the crossing" (crossing referring to the '39-'45 period when Dutch citizens crossed the North Sea in small boats to England). The other newspaper wrote: "Hundreds of new jobs due to the UK companies settling here!" Both articles were written on the same day using the same data...

It's nearly impossible to get a good picture of the whole situation.

I have not enough knowledge about the Irish border question to say anything useful about that. I only think that when that problem hadn't been a problem (for whatever reason), the EU would have turned to the Gibraltar/Spain issue as an issue to discuss. (Don't get me wrong. Not bagatalising the Irish / Northern Irish issues here - I used it as an example ).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MennoR said:

This appeared on  a Dutch news website. Translation is done by Translate Google. Grammarly and Translate do not recognise the word 'ocaze'. It's from the Dutch word (borrowed from the Russians) 'Oekaze' and stands for: The last and final word of the Emperor.

 

Menno

Could you identify the source of the extract?  Maybe it's Google Translate's fault, but the tone seems a little partisan to me.

There seems to be a broadly held opinion that the UK should have the right to dictate the terms of departure, or at least have the right of veto on any terms or conditions it considers unacceptable from the EU.  It really seems that the fact that this is a unilateral decision is being lost in translation.

"The EU is being harsh",  "it is undemocratic", "it is being rude."  What infantile nonsense - the UK is a member of an organisation that has always made clear that it neither welcomes descent nor encourages individualism.  Did the UK expect the EU to be fair and reasonable?  Is the UK being fair and reasonable in its position?  I'm not defending the EU's approach or conduct, but the UK has presented some of history's least competent negotiators over the last two+ years and the country is surprised that, at the eleventh hour, they have still achieved precious little in breaking down the cliff face of Brussels' requirements.

It is quite possible that aspects of the EU's position are untenable, but since they have barely changed in eighteen months, why is it only now that the UK is waking up to their fallibility?  How is it possible for May, Davis, Fox and all the other myriad nincompoops and also-rans to be a month-and-a-half away from B-Day and still with almost nothing in hand?

I'm sorry to be a turncoat on this, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only real options are either (i) to stay, shake hands and move on or (ii) cease negotiations, leave as planned, but with no 'deal'.  And right now, it appears to me that there is a well of pent-up aggression on the leave side and stepping back from the brink will only achieve the very civil unrest forecast for an unruly departure.

So leave, but on your own terms.  Be hard, be complete and really, truly start afresh.  Inhabit that ring of hell.  Anything else is a compromise that will suit nobody - a fudge that perpetuates the worst aspects of membership and brings none of the supposed benefits of leaving.  At least with the no deal exit, 30% of the 'adult' population will have no excuse not to be satisfied with the outcome and the situation will be so dire that it will indeed pull the country together into a pseudo Dunkirk Spirit, recriminations notwithstanding.  Frankly, there will be no other option.  Just be aware that you are being manipulated by forces visible and invisible, for whom the chaos of Brexit is a financial godsend.

Then, one day, when the fog lifts and there is an understanding of the gravity of what the country has done to itself, the perpetrators will be called to account and their real reasons (for there are many and none of them are altruistic) will be exposed.  Truth will return, as it usually does where democracy has been misrepresented and the common good held to ransom.

Paul

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote Menno, " (crossing referring to the '39-'45 period when Dutch citizens crossed the North Sea in small boats to England)" when they were welcomed with open arms (I hope).

So unlike the zenophobic rants that feature in Brexit propaganda!

I can't read the datelines on all these redtop (the Telegraph counts) headlines, but they are typical.  Our parents were a more generous, as well as braver generation.

John

image.png.c1d5f9a99dfe88dc95d7347dd6febdff.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnD said:

Menno,

Thank you for that insight into European thinking.  However, I fear it misses the most important factor on the "Irish Question", that both sides of that border are terrified of what will happen if there are customs posts along it.      Their abscence since the Good Friday Agreement has been a useful way for Ireland to ignore the whole Question of Irish autonomy.     Despite different currencies and a political system that clearly doesn't work in Northen Ireland, there is peace on both sides, or was until recent events triggered terrorist bombs again.      The Republic is determined not to allow a hard border to be rebuilt, no doubt from republican  sentiment but more so from political expediance.    

Which "EU big boys" do you have in mind, Janner?     The City knows well how to make a profit from 'selling short' and the response of commerce has been marked by the concern of industry, not by banks warning of the consequencies of our politicians' incompetence.

JOhn

John

Hi

Question

Could you clarify what the recent events are, that have triggered recent bombings please?

 

Big boys?

Junker, Timmermans, Tusk, Draghi, Schltz to name 5, there are many more

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnD said:

Quote Menno, " (crossing referring to the '39-'45 period when Dutch citizens crossed the North Sea in small boats to England)" when they were welcomed with open arms (I hope).

So unlike the zenophobic rants that feature in Brexit propaganda!

I can't read the datelines on all these redtop (the Telegraph counts) headlines, but they are typical.  Our parents were a more generous, as well as braver generation.

John

image.png.c1d5f9a99dfe88dc95d7347dd6febdff.png

John

Hi again

Don't you think, in all honesty, Brexit has been a boon for the news media, they are making hay, whilst the sun shines.

Was it a Sun editor who claimed to make up the news?

A quote from Murdoch from years back;

Godfrey Hodgson of The Sunday Times interviewed Murdoch at this time and expressed a positive view of the rival's "Mirrorscope" supplement. "If you think we're going to have any of that upmarket shit in our paper," Murdoch replied dropping a sample copy into a bin, "you're very much mistaken".

I don't think many people take the newspapers seriously, you don't appear to and I certainly don't 

If it appears in a newspaper, I generally suspect it's reality 

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Quote Menno, " (crossing referring to the '39-'45 period when Dutch citizens crossed the North Sea in small boats to England)" when they were welcomed with open arms (I hope).

So unlike the zenophobic rants that feature in Brexit propaganda!

I can't read the datelines on all these redtop (the Telegraph counts) headlines, but they are typical.  Our parents were a more generous, as well as braver generation.

John

image.png.c1d5f9a99dfe88dc95d7347dd6febdff.png

The Dutch have great memories of the welcome they received from the Brits. No doubt about that! (In fact, there's a musical about one of the 'Engelandvaarders' (one single word as in: 'Those who went to England'). That guy later became Adjudant to the Dutch Queen Wilhelmina who stayed in London during the war. His real life turned into a Ian Fleming saga and the musical runs since 2010, 6 days/week. That 'warm welcome' is very much alive in Dutch modern history! Therefore, when people from the UK come over to Holland (or better: The Netherlands), there's a 100% warm welcome. My wife has 5 British men working at her office. They've even invested in 'hardware' for 'cups of tea'. The only downfall is the fact that those guys want to use a different sort of milk for the tea than is sold over here. Her rule about Brexit-related conversations: 'only between noon and 1 PM (lunchtime).'

In case of a Brexit, every Brit here in Holland gets 15 months (and probably more) time to make up his mind what he/she wants to do. Stay/leave/ask for a permanent work-permit like the US, Can and South Koreans or become a Dutch citizen. 

About the pic of the newspapers... Those newspapers headlines are unthinkable here. Saying loud what's written on the pic above is close to discrimination and racism according to Dutch law (not: general opinion!). Interestingly - and it springs to mind when writing this- NONE of those British workers for British companies is seen as economic refugees! Whereas people from the 'sub-Sahara countries' are often seen as economic refugees. 

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Chris W said:

I think this is what he is referring to:

https://sites-herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/20/19043/landing-pages/a-view-from-brussels-february-2018-briefing(2).pdf

As ever, with a lawyer's briefing, it isn't conclusive, just exploring possible grounds.

 

 

Hi Chris. Thanks for the link, it was what I found. I go onto links which then has another link which then snowballs, then I forget how l got there.... life's complicated sometimes.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those papers are for Brexit, so selective. Most of those headlines are true IMO and we are fortunate to live in a country with freedom of speech, although I admit it gets close to the knuckle sometimes.

Dave

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one, lifted and translated from a Dutch paper today:

Quote

Why do the British choose the leap from the cliff? Because it is a sublime choice.

 

In the discussion about the question of whether the British will go on the cliff with a no deal on March 29, it is often assumed that people do not like jumping from cliffs.

 

That assumption is incorrect. He is also dangerous - especially now that we have ended up in a situation where the opponents of a no deal brexit seem to underestimate the enthusiasm for such a cliff jump, while the proponents play down the height of the cliff. Many of the people in and around the House of Commons try to put a stop to a no deal brexit believe that they only have to prove that an abrupt departure is actually a cliff to a large part of those well-tempered fools on the abyss to let their steps return.

 

From Davos Tony Blair says that 'the only sensible thing Great Britain can do is: think again.' Right-wing Brexiteers for their part argue that there is no cliff, that we might end up in 'unknown territory', but that the consequences of a no deal brexit will be noticeable. As Nigel Farage says: "No deal? No problem! "

 

With a brexit, the UK chooses a situation in which it will be worse off than before - the only question is how much worse.

 

It is by no means impossible that both groups are right for exactly the wrong reason. Everything indicates that a no deal brexit is indeed a jump from a cliff - as the opponents argue. But the proponents of a no-deal brexit may well be right with their statement that the enthusiasm for an abrupt departure is much greater than the softies and the remainers presuppose. In other words, it is quite possible that jumping from a cliff is exactly what a significant number of the British are after. And that with the judgment of these willing people is little wrong: that they know very well that this cliff is not just a quay hour but at least as high as that at Dover.

 

It is of course only a metaphor, that cliff image, but that makes the four ingredients that make up the metaphor no less real: the outcome is uncertain, the 'amount of change' that the decision will bring about is great, the risk that the living conditions will be short and medium term decline is considerable and, fourthly, the change will happen from one moment to the next. The first three ingredients will occur in any case. In a report released last month, the UK Treasury Department predicted that all of these options generate uncertainty, bring about major changes and lead to a decline in GNP.

 

The latter is in itself a unique fact: the United Kingdom chooses with a brexit for a situation in which it will in any case be worse off than before - the only question is how much worse.

 

Historically unique

I do not know of any other example from a history of a country that opted for loss of welfare with open eyes and wished so little for it. Of course, the decline in prosperity in the past also occurred in the past - for example, if a country decided to collapse in a war - but never for such a regressive reason as the need to withdraw from it. And the fourth ingredient of the cliff metaphor, the willingness not to implement it gradually, but in one dizzying leap, is already quite a raised middle finger to the 'well-understood self-interest'.

 

The prevailing theories about the way in which people make decisions are, in the case of Brexit, grossly inadequate. According to these theories, choice behavior is determined by either the prospect of 'profit' (however defined) or the fear of 'loss'. Numerous studies show that the tendency to avoid losing weight (loss aversion) normally prevails over the tendency to maximize profits.

 

According to the book, the British would have had to vote against the overthrow of the status quo, even if there had been a chance that they would go forward with a brexit. Both the anticipated loss of prosperity and the created insecurity count as 'loss' - no sensible person would start it.

 

“Sometimes people have to close their eyes and take the plunge.”

The fact that something can not theoretically does not mean that it does not happen. It may be a historical uniqueness to deliberately choose for loss of wealth, examples of countries, cultures and people who at crucial moments did not have a message to loss aversion and dared to leap into the dark, is certainly no shortage. In which I note that these moments only became crucial by ignoring the decision-making principle that the prevention of loss must outweigh the chance of progressing.

 

'Being a bit wild'

The Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo said on the eve of the attack on Pearl Harbor: "Sometimes people have to close their eyes and take the plunge." Helmut Kohl decided to introduce the euro with the words "the most important thing is that it is clear that what we do is irreversible. On the road to political unity we now cross the Rubicon. There is no way back. "And of course Donald Trumps classic:" Sometimes it pays to be a bit wild. "

 

Historians call events where rational calculation makes way for the willingness to take a leap into the dark 'sublime historical events'.

 

That 'sublime' is not a value judgment but a category derived from aesthetics: it is a combination of horror and fascination, attraction and repulsion.

 

The most famous example is Trump. He is sublime both in the way we devour the news he figures in and in the way people in the voting booth, 'God Blessing the Hold', muttered and cast their vote on him.

 

In a sublime historical event, a semi-conscious aversion to the status quo makes it difficult to act against the equally semi-conscious urge. In a sublime historical event, the urge to enter cleanness leaping - as the poet Rupert Brooke described the beginning of the First World War - becomes too powerful for us.

 

Different thinking window

I now go beyond the fact that such 'leaps forward' are invariably legitimized as attempts to revert to something behind us. What I am concerned with here is that in the current Brexit situation two decision models are active. On the one hand, a considerable part of the brexit buckets wants to plunge with a sublime clean break from the cliff, while on the other hand the right-minded people in the parliament, the establishment and the remain camp try to limit the damage as much as possible with the help of rational choice theory.

 

There is a complete lack of understanding between these two camps. In fact, neither camp is aware that the opposing party has a different frame of mind. The cliff-jumpers are annoyed by the mess that makes the thinking in their attempts to make something of it - which only strengthens their willingness to take the plunge. Interviewers who give them a microphone, hear texts like 'It must be over now', 'We just have to get out' and 'They're just watching'. For their part, the right-minded people do not understand that all the new information about the consequences of a hard brexit does not bring the cliff springs to mind.

 

The situation is complicated by the fact that we are now in phase 2 of the Brexit Revolution. It should be clear that the choice of the British to opt for a brexit in the 2016 referendum was sublime moment number 1. The result was then managed according to the classic principles of loss limitation and profit maximization. The mantra of Theresa May, that it is her job to deliver on the brexit, is exactly that: an attempt to translate the sublime people's will into a calculated deal.

 

Rebirth

But now that the quadrature of the circle with which May hoped to pull the House of Commons over the line last month, so the television genius has been voted out, the British are again faced with the question: are we going backwards or are we farther ahead? Anyone who is somewhat of a good thought advocates the first - and opts for postponement or a second referendum. Tony Blair: "It is only reasonable, a second referendum."

 

Reasonable, yes indeed, but history shows that people who have the taste of the sublime are barely susceptible to reason and have an irresistible urge to have a new one on the first somersault. See the cascade of accomplished facts that together form the French Revolution and the escalation orgy that started the First World War in August 1914.

 

Who wants to assess what is happening around the brexit, must realize that in the House of Commons the calculators are far in the majority - only the 5 to 7 percent of the members who are included in the lunatic fringe of the hard brexiteers are prepared to a sublime leap in the dark. Or, as their foreman Jacob Rees-Mogg puts it, a 'rebirth'.

 

 

Well-understood self-interest

The calculations of the calculating 95 percent lead to divergent, difficult to reconcile outcomes. However, a coalition of Tory backbenchers and Labor filed an amendment to make a no deal brexit impossible, in an effort to turn the brexit into an 'ordinary' rather than a sublime issue. Although the amendment was adopted, it only has an advisory and not a legislative function.

 

How big among the population the support for a no deal cliff hopping is difficult to say. Polls suggest that a small majority would now vote against the brexit. But both the election of Trump and the brexit referendum have shown that the sublime voice does not get caught up in opinion polls and only at the moment suprême - in the voting booth - comes out of the bottle.

 

If it leads to postponement or a second referendum, the fact that the calculators have enforced this will lead to radicalism being pushed in by attempts to push in the plebs what their "well-understood self-interest" is. The face of the British Revolution of 2019 is not a yellow vests throwing stones, but one in the seclusion of the voting booth Tell them again thinking juvenile who votes for no deal because he prefers an uncertain future to the certainty of a marginal existence. 

 

31

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MennoR said:

The Dutch have great memories of the welcome they received from the Brits. No doubt about that! (In fact, there's a musical about one of the 'Engelandvaarders' (one single word as in: 'Those who went to England'). That guy later became Adjudant to the Dutch Queen Wilhelmina who stayed in London during the war. His real life turned into a Ian Fleming saga and the musical runs since 2010, 6 days/week. That 'warm welcome' is very much alive in Dutch modern history! Therefore, when people from the UK come over to Holland (or better: The Netherlands), there's a 100% warm welcome. My wife has 5 British men working at her office. They've even invested in 'hardware' for 'cups of tea'. The only downfall is the fact that those guys want to use a different sort of milk for the tea than is sold over here. Her rule about Brexit-related conversations: 'only between noon and 1 PM (lunchtime).'

In case of a Brexit, every Brit here in Holland gets 15 months (and probably more) time to make up his mind what he/she wants to do. Stay/leave/ask for a permanent work-permit like the US, Can and South Koreans or become a Dutch citizen. 

About the pic of the newspapers... Those newspapers headlines are unthinkable here. Saying loud what's written on the pic above is close to discrimination and racism according to Dutch law (not: general opinion!). Interestingly - and it springs to mind when writing this- NONE of those British workers for British companies is seen as economic refugees! Whereas people from the 'sub-Sahara countries' are often seen as economic refugees. 

 

M

Gosh, Menno, any chance of me becoming a Dutch citizen?      I worked there for six weeks once, long ago, and like the peop!e very much! John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of political refugee you mean? I suppose you can. I have no idea if that's possible when you're not already here. I think that you have to live/work here. 

The sources of both articles: the first is from an online 'paper'. They're often very sceptical about the EU's movements and actions.  The article is written by a law professor who has a weekly column on those pages. The second article is from an old school 'paper'. That newspaper is pro-EU. The second article is written by a historian (also a professor). That historian has written a few very readable essays about 'fake news'. Well, that's where he's known for here in Holland.

Menno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like Dutch people, Menno, very balanced with a dry humour, but I fear I wouldn't qualify.     

The number of British citizens aquiring dual nationality has increased ten times since Brexit.  You only need an Irish great-grandparent to qualify, a German parent, to be French you must be born there.    I've looked it up and you have to take an exam, in Dutch, to acquire Netherlandish naturalisation.   Thanks, Menno, but my language skills just aren't up to it! 

Beste wensen!

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 3:39 AM, GT6MK3 said:

 

 

Norhing to do  with the Irish government threatening Arklow Shipping  with some very intrusive tax audits if they went ahead With the deal, bought a 60% stake and provided two ships then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MennoR said:

Here's another one, lifted and translated from a Dutch paper today:

 

 

The British character is to be bloody minded and do the ‘right’ thing, even for the wrong reasons.

thats why they don't speak Spanish, French or latterly German.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×