It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Europe's 'unfair' Apple tax ruling sparks US anger
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37226101
http://newsthump.com/2016/07/13/boris-johnson-demands-meeting-with-mi6s-james-bond/
What kind of BREXIT do YOU want?
Personally speaking, I want as hard and fast a Brexit as is humanly possible without of course at the same time harming the peoples, economy and industry of the United Kingdom. I just hope that PM Theresa May can deliver in 2017. 2017 needs to be the Year of Delivery in fact, and "Brexit means Brexit" is no longer enough. We'll really see what Mrs May is made of this year as decisions on triggering Article 50 need to be taken. The Supreme Court in the UK will this month rule on the so-called Brexit case and it will be interesting to read their judgment on whether the UK Parliament must have a say in he triggering of Article 50 and Brexit, or not.
I agree completely. I want us out of the EU with all speed and no half measures. Also if the EU want to charge us for access to the single market then the same charges should apply to the EU in order it have access to the UK market.
As soft as possible from the perspective of an open-minded, international Brit.
As hard as possible from the perspective of a very pro-EU minded citizen.
In my personal opinion, I support everything Frenchman Michel Barnier will be doing as negotiatore for all EU interests and all remaining sovereign EU nations. Barnier is also a so-called 'Charles-de-Gaulle'-negotiator, since he was always sceptical of the British intentions to join the EU.
As far as he is concerned, this time the UK should be completely 'deleted from EU-existence'. That means he will firmly negotiate a full, hard Brexit in which there won't be a giant, simple independent trade deal, Norway-style. Because this would also create a legal precedent for other non-EU nations like Ukraine, who also like to have a similar Norway-style trade deal. And that is something many EU-nations dislike (Look at the recent Ukraine-trade deal referendum in The Netherlands).
Most likely Barnier will oppose any future trade deal directly with the EU, since it's the very EU that the British opposed during their Brexit referendum. So if I were Barnier I would try to ignore/oppose any of such preferences from UK-side as part of the Brexit negotiations. Instead I would be adament to refer them to another possibility: Make the British force to negotiate trade deals with each and every independent European nation (both EU and non-EU).
Because if you wish to become protectionist in your trade policies, then be prepared for other protectionist counter measures. And that's what Brexit supporters really want these days no? Trade wars. Each and everyone for themselves again. Going back to 19th century trading.
Do not dare to force out a pro-EU/pro-Norway-style trade deal during these Brexit-negotiations in which you sneekily 'acknowledge' the EU as an entity to support your own flawed, protectionist trade agenda. And if Michael Barnier, who is a nice snake, is succesful, then I do think other European nations, both EU and non-EU, should create aggressive tax incentives, so that companies in the UK will be forced to relocate to countries like Germany, Luxemburg, Belgium and The Netherlands.
In any case, I wish the Brits good luck :-)!
Ooowh I agree. There's a big difference though. It won't be 1 nation against 1 EU. It will be 1 nation against 27 other sovereign EU-nations. So please charge 'us' heavily, so that it becomes difficult for those other European nations to enter your market. It's already an incentive to create 'tax decrease aggression'. Once companies from the UK are relocating to the mainland, the economic weight will move entirely to the 'Germany-Netherlands-Belgium-Luxemburg'-block. And that's already taking place.
Good for them ! :D
Exactly :-). From now on the UK's role in Europe will slowly diminish. But hey, that's what they want :-). It will become more difficult forr them to dictate politics....and negotiations though.
Just because you content yourself to live with the EU (I'm guessing you've never known different) doesn't mean everyone has to. You and others are so used to breastfeeding on the beast that the very thought of striking out on your own to connect with the rest of the world scares you beyond words.
The UK's role in Europe will slowly diminish? Good! that's what I and millions of others voted for! Our influence on the other hand..................
I'm not trying to be arsey :-). I try to defend the (protectionist) wishes of all the remaining European nations (both EU and non-EU), sans UK. That's how I see things :-). No need to be so sensitive. But you do need to understand that from my perspective, as a Dutchman, it would help the economy if we 'milk' out the UK by relocating banks and companies to The Netherlands. That's not intentional 'anger', that's sheer realism. That's the realism of protectionism :-). Those are the consequences of breaking up the EU.
We Swiss have a good laugh watching how the EU destroys itself out of stupidity.
You bet we can.
The EU has to adjust. And listen to what democracy is doing. If you organize a referendum about the UK leaving the UK, then by definition to me it is NOT a referendum on destroying the EU. Like you say so blatantly. Yes, you should take into account the emotions behind all this and the fact that many Brits were/are dissatisfied with the EU. I agree with that.
What I disagree with is the fact that we should let our decisions run by emotions. I'm merely talking about Brexit here, and what every EVERY sovereign nation's stake is in all this, both EU and non-EU. And by definition you are emotional, by taking the whole EU into this discussion and wishing it to be destroyed completely. If you say that you want the EU to be destroyed, then by definition you also call for the destruction of each and individual sovereign nation on the mainland.
And I just hope that's not your intention.
By the way, you completely forget long-term prospects here. If you think the UK will flourish the upcoming years because of this, then you're entirely naive.
On top of that, everyone in here tends to forget that not 80% or 90% of the British people voted for Brexit -an outcome that's more normal in anti-democratic nations like Russia-, but not more than 52% (opposite 48% supporting the EU). You might be a bit friendlier towards those people as well, instead of initiating a cultural war out here. People laugh at me for using the 'nuance'-word, but hey, you don't even know what it means.
The remainers are the ones that still try to topple a democratic vote or force the parliament to ignore it. They are the ones that divide the country instead of accepting the vote and try to help PM May to quickly engage the Brexit.
What bullocks. You and Trump are dividers too. Or do YOU pretend to be a unifier. The fact that there are two topics about US politics, one slightly more pro Trump, and the other slightly more anti-Trump, shows that you're calling the kettle black too.
Or.....do you really believe there shouldn't be some kind of compromise, and instead the anti-EU voices should win in a revolutionary way, regardless of the percentage of the vote.
Okay thing is for sure. There would be more compromise, more unification, and less polarization and radicalism, if there would have been a much fiercer pro-Brexit vote. Let's say 76% instead of a meager 52%. And that's a fact, that real Democrats should not ignore so blatantly.
We have many outcomes like 5x point something results or even as close as 50.xx something. Do the ones on the losing end ever whine about it. No, the next day our media and the people analyse the result and then it goes to the parliamentary who will flesh out the law and rules. Our leaders listen to the population and go to work.
I am highly allergic against people who can't accept a vote result. Trump was elected, deal with it. Brexit was votes yes, deal with it.
I don't have to agree with the results but I have to accept them and I do.
It's not about the numbers, a yes remains a yes no matter how large the margin is.
Again, in the case of Brexit it was only one side that tried and tries to negate the vote and is trying to divide the population. I know a lot of Brits, and most have accepted the result by now or will learn to live with it. It's a loud, prominent little minority that still tries to undo a democratic vote.
There is no "soft" exit, UK will leave the EU, it's that simple. The EU autocrats make it complicated and try to punish the British for not voting like the EU expected.
Some voters are protest voters (as they get called) and the underclass or lower middle class are the people suffering the most from globalisation. That's something the arrogant elite club in Brussels just ignores.
Saving again financial institutes, in Italy this time with the taxpayer's money seems more important than to care for its own people.
Such behaviour had to backfire eventually. In Switzerland we voted for controlled immigration with limits. Many just voted yes to give the government a lesson and did not think or care for the implications that will have on the Swiss economy (our population is made of over 20% foreigners without a Swiss passport). Our economy needs foreigners as workers also in many high profile professions where it is not easy to find people.
Still, after the vote, even while quite shocked at the outcome, it got accepted, it was a democratic vote. Now the laws are being made which takes roughly a year and a half until it passes and gets activated.
I think even Trump may have been elected out of frustration of the "little people" who feel abandoned by the elitist Democrats.
Maybe Trump and Brexit are actually a Godsend. It may force the politicians to think over their ways concerning treating the working class with disrespect or how to do something for the middle classes again for a change.
There's a difference between the decades old representative democracy western nations prospered upon....and the kind of destructive direct democracy you are proposing, in which every month a referendum needs to be held to satisfy the electorate of right-wing populists. A huge difference.
I don't believe binding referendums are the solution to better western societies. Especially now, when most of voting outcomes are based on anger and emotional outburst, and are actually ignoring the actual content of referendums (for example: the non-binding Ukraine-referendum in The Netherlands. Factually it was about a frikkin' trade treaty with Ukraine, but in essence it was nothing more than an anti-EU referendum in which only 35% of all Dutch people showed up no less!)
You are implying things here that are not true. I fully accept the outcome of the Brexit-referendum. So there's nothing to be allergic at. The thing I did say however, was that I fully support a hard Brexit instead of a soft Brexit. You're simply not reading.
But a hard Brexit to me also means: No soft EU-membership! And sadly, at times it seems the current UK government wants to head into that direction. To me Brexit means Brexit, and not suddenly accepting the EU as a sovereign entity in which you suddenly want to have a Norway-esque trade deal with, with similar EU tarifs as is now the case with the current EU-membership.
I want the UK to negotiate seperate trade deals with every European nation independently. Only that would truly 'breathe' a worthy hard Brexit. So I do not know what suddenly you and others attack me for. I WANT Brexit now, I fully support the outcome.
But it's simply not that simple anymore to 'leave'. Just look at all the negotiations that need to be done. If the UK would leave the EU and suddenly says "we don't need trade deals", then the UK is fucked. So Again, you're completely wrong here. I fully support democracy. But I support a representative democracy. One that I think we can still have, as long as politicians tend to stand up much better for the people, act more as 'instruments' of the people, and are willing to transform the anger of the people in more complex solutions. Sooner or later protests need to result in workeable and realistic policy solutions. Protests for the sake of protests will only polarize society more.
The fact that direct-style referendums in Switzerland worked all the time, was the fact that there was relative democratic stability all over Europe. And most importantly, you act like Switzerland is completely independent, but that's bullocks. For most consumer goods Switzerland enjoys exactly the same low tarifs as is the case with the European Union: A free market in which goods (and services) can be imported and exported with streamlined and consistently lower tarifs.
And frankly, the Swiss themselves were begging for a large EU-style trade deal some decades ago when they didn't jumped the EU-bandwagon. In essence it means Switzerland is a 'soft-EU-member'. Because if they didn't have the old higher tarifs, it would hurt the Swiss economy. You can ignore that, but that's the truth.
Today however we live in a more uncertain, more angry society. And that's never good for democracies in the first place. Democracies prosper during prosperous times, but they die during economical, political and 'psychological' hardships. Which is the case right now.
So slamming me as an anti-democrat who completely ignores outcomes from referendums, is nothing more than a blatant lie. I think I only cause you 'allergies' because you don't really read what I have to say. If we really want to change western society, then perhaps we should expect a bit less from our politicians in the first place, apply a bit more self-criticism and respect the fact that we have elections every 4 or 5 years. And not every month!! The latter will only speed up the destruction of democracy, how weird and contradictory that may sound to some (deaf) ears.
Your Swiss referendums worked perfectly 20 to 30 years ago amidst the stability of representative democracy. But it falters completely in a divided Europe were suddenly every country uses a referendum as a protest instrument.
Boris Johnson has treated the UK as his plaything for a purely personal motive. "Brexit" was a non-issue made into an issue by Boris, who simply wanted to be PM and needed a catalyst. It backfired on him... big-time. He never really wanted it. Nobody wants it. It makes no logical sense. Theresa May has no plan. The EU ambassador just resigned because he's frustrated with being given no direction from Whitehall. The GBP has tanked - great news for me so I can buy Ian Fleming first editions from EBay for a fraction of the price.
What I want to see is the blackmail material they threatened Boris with in the 30 minutes before he pulled the plug on his leadership bid.
What do you threaten a man with to get him to abandon his lifelong ambition in 30 minutes? he had the bunting up and everything, ready to announce... and then..?
Unfortunately the only point to the above post is to demonstrate the writers absolute ignorance on the subject.
What does an exit do for the country, and who was clamouring for one?
52% of the UK was clamouring to leave the EU before Boris started raising it as an issue?
A little hard to swallow!
This was a personal power play between two Bullingdon old boys that went sour. Good thing Cameron has all his fortune stashed in offshore tax shelters to avoid the economic fallout of his terrible decision.
Speaking of which - has there ever been a departed political figure less mourned than Cameron? An absolute ham-faced nobody that will go down as #1 on future rankings of Worst British PMs of All Time :D
I'm no mathematical genius but even by my shaky grip on the subject 52% means a majority?
I suggest you do some reading on the subject. As another poster has - perhaps facetiously - just pointed out 52% of the population was clamouring for it.