Multi-tasking.Haven't you got anything else to do?
I can stand at the sink, hold a conversation, look out of the window and wash-up at the same time
Multi-tasking.Haven't you got anything else to do?
It shouldn't be hard to disprove a myth then. But what's it got to do with in or out of EU?It has been shown that multi-tasking is a myth.
The EEC no longer exists. It's been succeeded by the EU. All of the countries in the EEC (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. ) are now in the EU and subject to the trading regulations of the EU.Indeed - Do some people think that the U.K. never traded with what were then EEC countries before joining in 1973? Britain would do so again outside of the present EU.I don't believe that should we exit that Europe will refuse to trade with us, they couldn't afford to.
Suppose we voted to leave the EU, then realising we'd made a mistake, we had to renegotiate our way back in again?
Yes, I realize that. I was referring to when the U.K. joined what was then the EEC in 1973.The EEC no longer exists. It's been succeeded by the EU.
Fine sentiment, which is this bigger, more sea-worthy ship that's going to rescue us?Suppose we voted to leave the EU, then realising we'd made a mistake, we had to renegotiate our way back in again?
If you've managed to be rescued off a sinking ship by a much bigger, sea-worthy ship with lots of mod cons, you don't suddenly try and get back onto the sinking ship.
Why? Is every other country in the world which trades with some EU member country also in the EFTA?If we vote to leave the EU and we want to retain the trade with EU, that we now enjoy, we would have to join the EFTA, European Free Trade Association.
Obviously the point about the distances being further is valid, but I think the figures you've picked there are a little skewed. Yes, at the closest point it might be only 22 miles across The Channel from England to France, but how many goods are manufactured in Dover and sold in Calais? In reality, many things travel considerably further, especially if we're now including the easternmost members of the EU. And if you're going to use shortest possible distances for travel to the EU, use shortest possible distances to the U.S.A. as well, which is not 5000 miles.Any trade replacements with EU, instead of travelling 20-50 miles to EU would have to travel 5,000 miles to USA, 10,000 miles to Australia, New Zealand, 6,000 miles to Japan.
But you were referring to the countries that were in the EEC, which are now in the EU:Yes, I realize that. I was referring to when the U.K. joined what was then the EEC in 1973.The EEC no longer exists. It's been succeeded by the EU.
They simply couldn't trade with those countries outside of the EU because those countries are in the EU.Indeed - Do some people think that the U.K. never traded with what were then EEC countries before joining in 1973? Britain would do so again outside of the present EU.
But quite obviously they are, to all intents and purposes, trading with the EU, following all the requirements, etc, of the EU.Why? Is every other country in the world which trades with some EU member country also in the EFTA?If we vote to leave the EU and we want to retain the trade with EU, that we now enjoy, we would have to join the EFTA, European Free Trade Association.
I used 20-50 miles.Obviously the point about the distances being further is valid, but I think the figures you've picked there are a little skewed. Yes, at the closest point it might be only 22 miles across The Channel from England to France,Any trade replacements with EU, instead of travelling 20-50 miles to EU would have to travel 5,000 miles to USA, 10,000 miles to Australia, New Zealand, 6,000 miles to Japan.
Travelling overland from Calais, Rotterdam, etc. Roll on-roll off ferries.but how many goods are manufactured in Dover and sold in Calais? In reality, many things travel considerably further, especially if we're now including the easternmost members of the EU.
Oh OK, 4,500 miles then. The cost difference in transport is evident.And if you're going to use shortest possible distances for travel to the EU, use shortest possible distances to the U.S.A. as well, which is not 5000 miles.
"Import from" - no problem.I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. All I was saying is that the U.K. traded with countries which were in the EEC before the U.K. joined the EEC, and that if the U.K. withdrew from the present EU it would still trade with EU countries.
Fine sentiment, which is this bigger, more sea-worthy ship that's going to rescue us?Suppose we voted to leave the EU, then realising we'd made a mistake, we had to renegotiate our way back in again?
If you've managed to be rescued off a sinking ship by a much bigger, sea-worthy ship with lots of mod cons, you don't suddenly try and get back onto the sinking ship.
I'll dig back a bit (when I have the time) to your comments on our International Aid donations, and compare that with how much we receive in International Aid.Fine sentiment, which is this bigger, more sea-worthy ship that's going to rescue us?Suppose we voted to leave the EU, then realising we'd made a mistake, we had to renegotiate our way back in again?
If you've managed to be rescued off a sinking ship by a much bigger, sea-worthy ship with lots of mod cons, you don't suddenly try and get back onto the sinking ship.
Easy; the rest of the world.
So your analogy is fallacious.BTW, as a nation, we wouldn't need 'rescuing';
Pride doesn't pay the bills. It often comes before the fall.all we hear from 'remainers' is that poor little UK is going to be cast out into the wide world with no-one to hold our hand. Jeeez, is no-one proud of their country anymore?????