SoylentNews

PM Theresa May: UK Must Leave the EU Single Market

posted by takyon on Tuesday January 17 2017, @12:42PM   

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has given a major speech calling for a clean break from the EU:

Theresa May has said the UK "cannot possibly" remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean "not leaving the EU at all". But the prime minister promised to push for the "greatest possible" access to the single market following Brexit. In a long-awaited speech, she also announced Parliament would get a vote on the final deal agreed between the UK and the European Union. And Mrs May promised an end to "vast contributions" to the European Union.

Live updates at BBC.

Previously: Brexit: The Focus is on the EU Single Market

• Re:how it will end up Re:how it will end up (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:12AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:12AM (#455164)

  Here's some more fun factoids:

  Don't provide links if you don't want people to read them. From your own NATO link section on Indirect Funding where you are trying to school me in a very patronizing manner:

  Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organisation, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.

  Note the deft use of language to split hairs. They're saying "this does not mean the US pays 73 percent of things covered by Direct Funding, but they do pay for 73 percent of Indirect Funding for things like intelligence, etc., etc., etc."

  Your 22 percent number, incidentally, is the cost-sharing amount set for the US for Direct Funding. That is based upon a formula taking into account the GDP of each country. However, the US does pay the "lions share" of the indirect funding. So the US pays 22 percent into keeping NATO running and alive, but it pays 73 percent when it actually does something.

  You also ignore the fact that out of 28 member nations, only five have met the 2-percent contribution level (US, Britain, Poland, Greece, and Estonia). However, in defense of NATO on this point, their response now is basically "well, now that Putin is rolling tanks into other countries, we're going to start throwing in some more money in the pot."

  Parent

• Re:how it will end up Re:how it will end up (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:14AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:14AM (#455166)

  Crap, sorry, forgot to add a condescending tag at the end to tell people how stupid you are:

  Facts [your own NATO links], yes, indeed, the internet is great for that.

  Parent

  • Re:how it will end up (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:52PM (#455356)

    It clearly isn't great for reading comprehension, though I stand corrected: replace the 77 percent I mentioned with 73 percent, and we're all good. No?

    Parent