Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 08:45 PM

Glad to see stories in the media suggesting that a Norway style Brexit might be on the cards. Strikes me that could be fine by me. Solves the Irish border problem, and preserves the right of freedom of travel within Europe. And remember, the only thing on that referendum ballot paper was leaving the EU, nothing about any of the other stuff that's been tied into it since then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 09:02 PM

That requires freedom of movement. I'd love it, but it ain't gonna happen!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 02:13 AM

"There was no crime,therefore nothing to be exonerated."
Outrageous nonsense
The police may decide they cannot or do not want to prosecute hate posting but this does not make it hate posting and it dosen't alter one iota the fact that hate crimes have increased sharply and have been linked directly to Brexit
You may think it clever to dismiss everything that doesn't suit you out of hand - but it isn't it's stupid, it's immoral and in the cse of the hate thtat leads us back to the porld of Paki bashing and the pouring of inflammatory substances through letter-boxes, it's inhuman to the extent of killing and maiming people
That's what racism is about

I wish you people would take it elsewhere

"but you fool no one."
You obviously need reminding that your little band are very much in the minority here - it's you who are not fooling anybody
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 03:51 AM

"Outrageous nonsense"

More literary coprolites from the resident fossil.The police do not have authority to prosecute. Do try and get your facts right!

You are up to your usual trick of introducing multiple irrelevancies to pad out your nonsense.

What has the (p)orld of Paki bashing and the pouring of inflammatory substances through letter-boxes, it's inhuman to the extent of killing and maiming people got to do with brexit?
Do you seriously expect anyone to pay any attention to your waffling?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 05:26 AM

Brexit was sold on a arcist ticket which has led to a rise in racist incidents, which include attacks on non nationals - simple as that and totally indisprab[e
One more time
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racist-hate-crimes-surge-to-record-high-after-brexit-vote-new-figures-reveal-a7829551.html

All your crapping around with semantincs does not alter a single syllable of what I wrote
"Do you seriously expect anyone to pay any attention to your waffling?"
You are the only one disputing it - it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if you are claiming to speak for everybody here
Wake up pal - you and yours are very much in the minority here
How about some real evidence instead of your insulting denials - you've been given enough to show it is you who is talking crap
If you are incapable of debating intelligently, why are you here ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 05:47 AM

Pointing out your gross factual errors is hardly semantics. I will say again, the police do not have the power to prosecute. Your powers of debate are on a par with your spelling. Why not use spellcheck snd spare us the misery of trying to interpret your constant abuse of the english language.Most of your scribbling above makes no sense at all. Is it a version of jimmie's esperanto or just the usual incoherence? We need to know these things.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:04 AM

Racial violence and the Brexit state
Jon Burnett First Published April 4, 2017 Research Article

Abstract
Research by the Institute of Race Relations into over one hundred incidents of racial violence reported in the mass media in the month after the EU referendum indicates that the ‘spike’ in such attacks has to be understood in terms of the racist climate created not just during the clearly nativist referendum debate, but also in the divisive policies and programmes of successive governments preceding it. The politicians and police chiefs, who have recently condemned the violence, analyse it in terms of already given media frameworks about ‘hate crime’: bigoted individuals are to blame; this is a law-and-order issue not a socially based problem – thus avoiding any responsibility for the creation of state racism. The research also reveals the central role of the police, at the expense of community groups’ or victims’ voices, when the media decides an attack is newsworthy.

"I will say again, the police do not have the power to prosecute."
The term "police prosecution" is common in our language usage - you are hising behind it because you are unable to answer the points made - jus as you are returning to your old abusive self in an attempt to talk down people - doesn't work
Of course my scribblings make no sense to a racist - very litle does to bears with very small brains
Flinging interminable blogs bty criminal bloggers is not debating

Lets see how you get on with the statement from the Institute for Race Relations - probably a 'leftie' extremist group

If you are good at debating - how about dealing with that one (denial doesn't count as debate)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:19 AM

Sorry - should have written Institute OF Race relations'
Don't want to give you another back door to sneak out of
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:34 AM

The CPS was formed in 1985. The police have not prosecuted since then.
As you are a fossil police prosecution may be common parlance for you, but not for the rest of humanity it most assuredly is not.
Of course my scribblings make no sense to a racist - very litle does to bears with very small brains ????? Oh Dear! He knoweth not what he says!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:42 AM

No response - just semantic bullshit
No intention of getting this thread closed - I'm off -
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:16 AM

"Why not use a spellcheck and spare us all our abuse of the english language."

A question with no question mark, and the word English written without an initial capital. Hoist with his own petard, perhaps?

Given that Trump regards May's Brexit deal as a threat to a US/UK trade deal, I'm warming to it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:25 AM

Ironically, they are saying that 'services' won't be kept within the customs union. Now that seems to be one of our main exports, so in terms of being able to strike deals outside of the UE customs union. May's deal seems to have achieved something.

It isn't a 'bombshell' from Washington either; Trump's dislike of Europe is well-known. So is his protectionism.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:32 AM

"So is his protectionism."
It Remains to be seen if this will impinge on relations with Brexit Britain
He has a nasty habit of threatening to cut trade if you don't jump through his hoops - Britain isn't actually flush with bargaining chips
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:39 AM

"Why not use spellcheck snd spare us the misery of trying to interpret your constant abuse of the english language.More..."

A short extract there (from a post intending, without irony, to excoriate someone else over their use of English) that contains five blatant solecisms. Physician, heal thyself.

Yep, very nice of Trump to chuck a spanner in the works. May has survived remarkably well, considering, but she's rapidly running out of road. Now Fallon has put his oar in and the beloved ECJ is considering whether we can unilaterally ditch Article 50 if we want to. I reckon that it wouldn't need to be unilateral. The EU would bite our hand off.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:40 AM

Perhaps our resident pedant can point out to little jimmie the difference between semantics and veracity. The poor lad seems to be struggling a little.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:46 AM

Before Ian decides to make this an issue (he obviously has little else to offer)
I spend 99/9 hours a day at the computer - largely working on indexing, annotating and transcribing our very large collection of traditional music recordings - Mudcat is something I involve myself in when I need a breather and have time.
I have never had a spelling problem, nor one of grammar - I have written masses for lecturing and for publication.
I don't use a spellcheck very much, because I don't need to
I'm not particularly good at multi-tasking, nor am I adept at typing at speed
Add to this a keyboard that suits my sound editing, but is not one I would choose for writing
During my time here, I have noticed that some of the best contributions have come from people who are not particularly good at expressing themselves in writing, but who have something to say of importance - that's what public fora should should be about as far as I'm concerned
In life outside the Mudcat greenhouse, in my experience, some of the most articulate and often poetic people have come from the non or pre-literate communities, like the despised (by some here) Travellers - they also display far more humanity than many of the educated elite - evidence that education does not mean intelligence
The last person I would look to for literary criticism is one who believe the Irish live in bogs, who think those who can't vote should not be allowed to post and who rely in a semi-literate extremist for their political information
Nuff said on that particular subject, I think
Jim Carroll
"Perhaps our resident pedant can point out to little jimmie the difference between semantics and veracity. The poor lad seems to be struggling a little."
See what I mean??

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:49 AM

Whoops another typo to hide behind - should read 8 to 9 hours of the day
Never mind - save him actually responding to what has been said
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 10:07 AM

very nice of Trump to chuck a spanner in the works

Er, Steve, that's what - or more properly ALL - the man does, in both domestic & foreign affairs.

Looks as though Obama was a bit more prescient than folks thought, eh?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 12:43 PM

According to the Independent:

===
Warehouses to stockpile food for a no-deal Brexit may be empty because they have been snapped up by Amazon to pounce on the UK market, an inquiry by MPs has been told.
The Food and Drink Federation warned that all available frozen and chilled space had been taken – but no one knew who had taken it and whether there was anything in it.

"What we don’t know is whether there is actual product in those places," said Ian Wright, the federation's chief executive.


And he added: "There is some gossip, and I can't stand this up, that quite a lot of this has been booked by Amazon for their entry into the food market at some point over the next few months"

===

Well, what a surprise: Of course there will be a shortage - the famed 'market forces' make the supply of space more or less match the demand, so if there is a sudden sharp rise in demand there will inevitably be a shortage. Nor is much more space likely to appear, unless suppliers are convinced this is not a short term effect, because none of them want to end up with lots of unbought space when the short term demand passes.

I doubt if it is Amazon, in particular. Every single potential purchaser is in competition with the rest for space, and Amazon just happens to be one with the resources to do what it wants. That's how it works. I do not claim Amazon are deliberately targeting the others - it is simply doing what it needs for its business plan, and that's that.

I am reminded of an event in about 1980. A friend was sent by his company on one of those teamwork and management courses. There were some six teams and they each had to build a bridge out of straws, paper, paper clips, sellotape and so on. Instead, he bought up the entire supply of straws and thereby prevented everyone else from completing the task unless they were prepared to pay his exorbitant prices. When the course leader and the other teams claimed he was cheating, he simply replied that's how capitalism works.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 12:50 PM

I posted about this few days ago DMcG, the article I linked to suggested that to develop a new refrigerated site for 10,000 pallets would take about 2-3 years. A site for 100,000 pallets would take 4-5 years. *

* My figures may not be strictly accurate but they were of that magnitude.

That all available site are fully booked for the next few months which is normally (according to the article) a quiet time for this industry should set alarm bells ringing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 01:04 PM

Thanks for that, Raggy. So that gives some guidance on how long "short term" could be in that area, a term that few Brexiteers are willing to give much clarity to. I noticed on Newsnight last night the phrase being bandied about and no one have to sit to say "what do you mean by that?". I found the vicar especially annoying, since he was prepared to put up with any impact however severe - he put up his hand when that absurd question was asked. I wonder how he makes the case to his parishioners some of whom are probably struggling as it is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 01:07 PM

'have to sit' was supposed to be 'having the with. Apologies.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 01:11 PM

Wit, not with. Blooming autotext. This is why I turn it off for long periods. I may still make typos, and I do, but at least they are mine not some computer changing things further from what I mean.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:01 PM

A coprolite by any other name would smell as sweet.

Brexit is finally starting to become a reasonable product.
Whats to worry about?
Now Parliment can iron out the final wrinkles.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:30 PM

Yes the Norway Deal would imply a degree of freedom of movement, but there was nothing in the wording of the referendum about stopping that. It would deliver on leaving Brexit, which was all that was on that ballot paper.

The way that freedom of movement was interpreted within the UK was significantly different from the way it is interpreted in many countries in the EU and also in Norway Iceland and Switzerland, and there is plenty of scope for a version that would be less open to abuse, but that would avoid the drastic devaluation of British passports that is looming.

We're all just spectators in this farce, but I suspect that there is more chance of a majority in the Commons for this deal than for any other.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:34 PM

I thought the vicar on Newsnight that got up DMcG's nose was actually a lady vicar. No matter, either way an extremely irritating cleric.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 03:06 AM

'Freedom of Movement' would have been considerably less 'open to abuse' during our membership of the EU if successive UK governments had not chosen to ignore the EU's own system of controls, and enacted the recording/registration of arriving EU citizens, monitoring them during their stay, and ensuring that any who, after three months, did not have accommodation and employment, were sent back whence they came.

Uncontrolled immigration from the EU has not been the fault of the EU, but of our own governments. The means of controlling EU immigrants have always been there, but our own governments have chosen not to enact them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:35 AM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:46 AM ............

I was always taught If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Your bleating for sympathy is totally wasted on me. I have zero interest in how you spend your day.
If you cannot be bothered to check your work why should anyone here take you seriously? A rash of feeble excuses do not hack it, regardless of your domain in a bog.

Anyway to more important things. The daily wail under new management has changed it's political affiliation and is trying to mislead the readership(This probably explains why the Telegraph has had a recent jump in subscriptions)
This info is brought by the man with a finger on the pulse and leading political blogger guido:
https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/

and for those that cannot accept the pearls of wisdom from guido here is the original
https://www.survation.com/public-surveyed-on-the-draft-government-withdrawal-agreement/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:56 AM

Guido again - really !!!!
Nothing to see here lads - move on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:21 AM

I see someone has spectacularly failed to mention that while the poll shows a majority oppose May's deal, there is a very similar majority support staying in the EU...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:35 AM

Bloody marvelous !

Even the Chancellor has now admitted there is no version of leaving the EU that will make the UK more prosperous.

Thank you to all the idiots who voted the leave, you have managed not only to shoot yourselves in the foot, you managed to shoot every single citizen of the UK in the foot **

You have also managed to shoot your children, my child and our grandchildren in the foot.

(** I'm sure a few people will make a nice sum of money out of this)

No chance of increased prosperity

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:42 AM

What's become abundantly clear is that the very best deal this country can possibly have is the one we get right now as a full member of the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:09 AM

INFORMATION HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM

We now have almost 100% of economists, a high majority of business leaders, the treasury and the chancellor saying that leaving the EU is worse for the country than staying in. They back up their forecasts with hard statistics. A handful of brexiteers on here are saying that leaving the EU will benefit the country and, over the course of the last 2.5 years, have not been able to provide any meaningful statistics to justify their optimism.

I wonder who we should believe...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM

Very nice Jim, Tommy was a great fiddle player but I don't think he had owt to do with Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 07:03 AM

Sorry about that
Posted to wrong thread
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 08:14 AM

Just come in
A new Government backed economic survey has estimated that, if May's proposals are accepted, the British economy stands to suffer around a 3% plus reduction.
If no agreement is reached, the figure is likely to be three times that amount
You lose some, you lose some, apparently
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 08:32 AM

Now our resident Brexiteers have always maintained that people knew exactly what they were voting for and that a second referendum is not necessary because "the people have spoken"

Now I wonder do they really believe that 17.4 million people voted "yes please I want to be worse off"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 09:08 AM

It is plain that some Brexiters do not care why people voted for Brexit, as posts on this thread demonstrate.

I personally believe that some Brexiters did believe that some people would be better off: some people imagined that EU workers in Britain would be kicked out, resulting in more jobs being available for British people: I know this because on the day after the referendum I heard a Brexit voter saying this to somebody wearing Asian dress (not logical I know, but it happened).

Some Brexiters believe that at least some business people will make more money after Brexit because the 'red tape' which they see as holding business back can be got rid of, stuff like workers' rights, holiday entitlement, product standards, environmental rules and so on. The Leave means Leave web site mentions pharmaceuticals being hidebound by regulation, which suggests that some pharmaceutical firms want to be selling stuff that doesn't meet EU standards. But of course if you want to sell stuff to the EU it will still have to meet EU standards.

So these economic predictions don't really address the issue of who will be paying the price for UK lower performance as some business people clearly expect to do better. Given the present government my guess is that it will be as usual the lower echelons who will end up paying the lion's share of any price.   

But a lot of the arguments were about 'sovereignty', and 'control', which you cannot really put a price on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 09:14 AM

Personally, I am getting tired of 'Brexit Bombshell' headlines. There aren't really any surprises. The latest 'bombshell' is that EU leaders are planning a No Deal summit: it seems common sense that people should plan ahead for reasonably likely scenarios. Other 'bombshells' seem similarly unsurprising.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 09:43 AM

"But a lot of the arguments were about 'sovereignty', and 'control', which you cannot really put a price on."

And those arguments were, at best, misleading and, at worst, bare-faced lies.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 10:01 AM

But we are taking are cuntry back BWM ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 12:13 PM

The vast majority of our domestic laws and 99% of our GDP have nothing to do with the EU, and, of the laws and regulations we sign up to as members (most of which are arrived at by consensus and which nobody in their right minds argues with), we agree with 97% of them. And no law can ever be put into force by "unelected bureaucrats" in Brussels or anywhere else. EU law has be ratified by elected representatives of the member states, and larger states such as the UK have considerable powers of veto. So much for taking back "sovereignty." The conditionality within future trade deals with the UK's being outside the EU would sacrifice just as much "sovereignty" in any case. Sovereignty is a bogus argument and always was. As for the "control" freaks, what they never tell you is that we can never control people leaving. So after we've made our country unattractive to EU members and positively "hostile" to unskilled workers, be prepared for shortages of doctors, nurses, plumbers and electricians and for our cauliflowers and sprouts to rot in the fields. Of course, we'll have more control of our money (unless we adopt the Norway model, that is). It's just that there'll be, by all the analyses we've seen today, a lot less of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 12:29 PM

Latest government backed figures indicate that in 15 years our economy will be nearly 4% poorer if we adopt the latest deal as against staying in the EU. No deal is even worse with a predicted 9% shrinkage. This is not a pro Europe lobby nor project fear but official research by the people best placed to understand the full implications.

Any good news yet?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 12:39 PM

"The Treasury’s modelling is notoriously dodgy. So dodgy in fact that in 2010 George Osborne set up the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to provide less political analysis than the hyper-political plaything of the chancellor of the day.

Economist Andrew Lilico has pointed out that in its analysis, the Treasury makes three remarkable assumptions.

    Assumes there is no economic gain at all from controlling our own policy compared with the EU doing it.
    Assumes there is no gain from “Future domestic policy choices.”
    Assumes GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of what the EU estimated those gains would be.

These are clearly ludicrous assumptions as no credible economist assumes there are zero economic gains to be made from liberating companies from EU red tape. This further exposes the Treasury as a political tool not a serious economic body.

Guido remembers the Treasury’s bogus analysis during the referendum….

    “Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU, new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor shows.”

In February of this year, Cambridge academics concluded that most of the economic impact assessments before the referendum were “flawed”, and that the Treasury’s analysis was particularly bad.

    “The short-term forecasts of the Treasury and OECD, which have turned out to be wrong, have further damaged the already weak public confidence in economists’ contributions to public debate.”

Wrong then, wrong now…"

I preume the treasury went to the same school of economics as the Abbacus ( The same idiot claiming it is wrong for the police to knock scooter thugs off their wheels. As Camden council leader said:    “Camden has been ground zero for moped muggings – but tough tactics has cut them by 90% in the last year, so it’s outrageous to see Abbott talk down our girls and boys in blue. Labour are tough on crime-fighters and tough on the solutions to crime.”)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:06 PM

The Bank of England has confirmed the predictions of the Government survey and has said that a 'no deal' Brexit will hit Britain harder than the 2008 crash
Northern Ireland is predicted to be hit hardest

"Any good news yet?"
I'm sure Guido the Gobshite will come up with some soon
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:06 PM

I refer back to my post of 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM and ask again. Who do we believe, the legions of economists and business leaders or a right wing convicted criminal blogger and his fan boy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:46 PM

or a right wing convicted criminal blogger and his fan boy?>/I>

Oh dear, we have yet another remainiac unable to differentiate between the message and the messenger! Is the plague contagious?
You know what they say: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink!

https://insight.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2018/treasury-economic-modelling-is-flawed-say-economists-from-the-centre-for-business-research-cb

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:56 PM

So, who do we believe then?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 02:33 PM

"So, who do we believe then?"
There are always the Leprechauns Dave
Our absentee landlord must have heard of them (might even be one)
Jim