tim... wrote:
[....]
Post by tim...Post by Altroy1I do have family in Australia and regularly read the Australian news
online. My impression is that there is some residual good will left
for Britain (and Ireland to a lesser extent) both contributing
significantly to the foundation of Australia's political, legal and
cultural system. But Julie Bishop, a Minister of the governing Liberal
Party, (Liberal <--> UK Conservative ) is fairly clear she is not
supporting a retreat to nationalism. So Australia will be happy to
sign up to a mutually beneficial deal with the UK,
why on earth do you think we would expect otherwise
If I read rightly Foreign Minister Bishop's statements, - she is happy to trade
with the UK AND Ireland AND the EU. The UK will be treated sympathetically but
the desire by the "no deal Brextremists" to turn their back on 40 years of
shared values with 27 of its closest neighbours will NOT be seen so
sympathetically other than by Australia's isolationists and regulation-lite
paradise believers who admittedly do have influence in the current government.
Post by tim...Post by Altroy1one not overly tempered by favouritism based on past historical ties.
and what on earth could that possible mean?
Well, I was thinking of Daniel J Hannan's toadying speech to America's CPAC
where after praising "the most sublime constitution devised by human
intelligence" then went on to say:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846097/posts
Never be afraid to speak to and for the soul of this nation, of
which by good fortune and God's grace you are privileged to be a
part. God bless you, my friends, God bless America, and God
bless the alliance of the free English speaking nations. Thank you.
I'm fairly sure that even the most starstruck CPAC groupies could see through
that sycophantic speech and would have gone on to celebrate the 4th of July with
ever more gusto.
Anyway what I read from the Australian Foreign Minister's speeches is yes there
is sympathy on offer to the UK particularly if led by a government that disavows
isolationist low regulation to hell with employment rights sentiments. The
automatic presumption that speaking English, so apparently dear to Daniel J
Hannan's heart, will lead to extra trade-deal kudos to a government for example
led by the likes of Patel, Boris or Fox might not be so on offer.
Post by tim...Post by Altroy1Australia and NZ will expect the UK to play fair with respect to WTO
quotas and so on. And the UK turning its back on 40+ years of close
relationship with 27 of its closest trading partners
um no it's not
We want to leave its aspirations for a political union.
What you wish or I wish is less important that what very powerful people like
Liam Fox want. They are apparently perfectly happy with Ever Closer Union. Ever
Closer Union™ with Make America Great Again that is. Here is the perhaps much
mocked George Monbiot's take:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/sovereignty-corporations-liam-fox-eu
George Monbiot Wednesday 27 July 2016 06.00 BST
What does it mean to love your country? What does it mean to
defend its sovereignty? For some of the leaders of the Brexit
campaign, it means reducing the United Kingdom to a franchise of
corporate capital, governed from head offices overseas. They will
take us out of Europe to deliver us into the arms of other powers.
No one embodies this contradiction as much as the man now charged
with determining the scope of our sovereignty: the new
international trade secretary, Liam Fox. He explained his
enthusiasm for leaving Europe thus: "We'll be able to make our own
laws unhindered by anyone else, and our democratic parliament will
not be overruled by a European court." But of all the people
Theresa May could have appointed to this post, he seems to me the
most likely to ensure that our parliament and laws are overruled by
foreign bodies.
Fox looks to me like a corporate sleeper cell implanted in
government. In 2011, he resigned his post as defence secretary
in disgrace after his extracurricular interests were exposed. He
had set up an organisation called Atlantic Bridge, financed in
large part by a hedge fund owner. It formed a partnership with a
corporate lobbying group called the American Legislative
Exchange Council, which is funded by tobacco, pharmaceutical and
oil companies. Before it was struck off by the Charity
Commission, it began assembling a transatlantic conclave of
people who wished to see public services privatised and
corporations released from regulation.
Anyway the UK was given an opt-out from ever closer union. Contrary to the
claims of the Europhobes, Britain was (and still is for the time being) an
influential EU member negotiating many opt-outs over the years including the
Social Chapter [until Tony Blair was elected who was happy to sign up].
Post by tim...I don't count that as turning our back on them
There is already afoot apparent lobbying by the Get us out Now!™ crowd upset
about the current proposals instead they want to flee to WTO rules. As far as
they are concerned WTO is just fine and the EU "can go whistle" for any exit
payments.
Post by tim...There are dozens of other areas where we are still keen to co-operate.
It is the EU putting up the barriers to that.
Just a soundbite implying its all the EU's fault and none of the Eurosceptics
fault. The EU is not about to make a deal which will fuel separatism from Geert
Wilders, Marine Le Pen or in places like Catalonia, Lombardy, Flemish Belgium &
other places.