Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafemuddy

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


Brexit #2

Raggytash 01 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM
Dave the Gnome 01 Aug 18 - 10:48 AM
JP2 01 Aug 18 - 10:57 AM
SPB-Cooperator 01 Aug 18 - 11:02 AM
Nigel Parsons 01 Aug 18 - 11:30 AM
Iains 01 Aug 18 - 11:40 AM
Raggytash 01 Aug 18 - 11:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Aug 18 - 11:59 AM
Iains 01 Aug 18 - 12:04 PM
Raggytash 01 Aug 18 - 12:11 PM
Raggytash 01 Aug 18 - 12:17 PM
Dave the Gnome 01 Aug 18 - 12:36 PM
DMcG 01 Aug 18 - 12:45 PM
Iains 01 Aug 18 - 01:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Aug 18 - 01:40 PM
Dave the Gnome 01 Aug 18 - 01:42 PM
Dave the Gnome 01 Aug 18 - 01:47 PM
DMcG 01 Aug 18 - 01:59 PM
Iains 01 Aug 18 - 02:03 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Aug 18 - 02:15 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Aug 18 - 02:31 PM
David Carter (UK) 01 Aug 18 - 03:06 PM
peteaberdeen 01 Aug 18 - 03:12 PM
Dave the Gnome 01 Aug 18 - 03:22 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Aug 18 - 06:03 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Aug 18 - 06:06 PM
Raggytash 01 Aug 18 - 06:28 PM
Nigel Parsons 01 Aug 18 - 07:25 PM
DMcG 02 Aug 18 - 01:58 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Aug 18 - 02:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Aug 18 - 03:09 AM
David Carter (UK) 02 Aug 18 - 04:12 AM
peteaberdeen 02 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Aug 18 - 04:29 AM
Iains 02 Aug 18 - 04:33 AM
Nigel Parsons 02 Aug 18 - 04:36 AM
peteaberdeen 02 Aug 18 - 04:43 AM
David Carter (UK) 02 Aug 18 - 04:49 AM
Thompson 02 Aug 18 - 05:03 AM
peteaberdeen 02 Aug 18 - 05:11 AM
DMcG 02 Aug 18 - 05:17 AM
DMcG 02 Aug 18 - 05:18 AM
Thompson 02 Aug 18 - 05:40 AM
Iains 02 Aug 18 - 05:45 AM
Thompson 02 Aug 18 - 05:55 AM
Iains 02 Aug 18 - 05:58 AM
Thompson 02 Aug 18 - 06:00 AM
peteaberdeen 02 Aug 18 - 06:17 AM
Iains 02 Aug 18 - 08:45 AM
Thompson 02 Aug 18 - 09:21 AM
SPB-Cooperator 02 Aug 18 - 09:58 AM
Thompson 02 Aug 18 - 10:40 AM
Iains 02 Aug 18 - 11:37 AM
Thompson 02 Aug 18 - 11:53 AM
Iains 02 Aug 18 - 01:16 PM
Dave the Gnome 02 Aug 18 - 02:57 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Aug 18 - 05:00 PM
Iains 02 Aug 18 - 05:09 PM
Big Al Whittle 02 Aug 18 - 06:05 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Aug 18 - 06:21 PM
Big Al Whittle 02 Aug 18 - 10:05 PM
Dave the Gnome 03 Aug 18 - 03:14 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Aug 18 - 03:30 AM
Iains 03 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM
David Carter (UK) 03 Aug 18 - 03:56 AM
The Sandman 03 Aug 18 - 04:04 AM
Iains 03 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM
Iains 03 Aug 18 - 04:52 AM
Nigel Parsons 03 Aug 18 - 05:16 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 18 - 07:53 AM
Big Al Whittle 03 Aug 18 - 08:30 AM
Nigel Parsons 03 Aug 18 - 08:50 AM
Iains 03 Aug 18 - 09:05 AM
Stanron 03 Aug 18 - 09:09 AM
Dave the Gnome 03 Aug 18 - 09:20 AM
Dave the Gnome 03 Aug 18 - 09:21 AM
Stanron 03 Aug 18 - 09:24 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 18 - 09:31 AM
Thompson 03 Aug 18 - 09:33 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 18 - 09:33 AM
Dave the Gnome 03 Aug 18 - 09:35 AM
Dave the Gnome 03 Aug 18 - 09:37 AM
Nigel Parsons 03 Aug 18 - 09:40 AM
Nigel Parsons 03 Aug 18 - 09:54 AM
Big Al Whittle 03 Aug 18 - 09:59 AM
peteaberdeen 03 Aug 18 - 10:03 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM
Dave the Gnome 03 Aug 18 - 10:11 AM
Stanron 03 Aug 18 - 10:12 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 18 - 10:14 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 18 - 10:16 AM
Iains 03 Aug 18 - 10:21 AM
DMcG 03 Aug 18 - 11:01 AM
Nigel Parsons 03 Aug 18 - 11:24 AM
DMcG 03 Aug 18 - 11:34 AM
Nigel Parsons 03 Aug 18 - 11:46 AM
Iains 03 Aug 18 - 11:57 AM
DMcG 03 Aug 18 - 11:58 AM
Raggytash 03 Aug 18 - 12:06 PM
Nigel Parsons 03 Aug 18 - 12:15 PM
DMcG 03 Aug 18 - 12:25 PM
DMcG 03 Aug 18 - 12:40 PM
Iains 03 Aug 18 - 01:49 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 18 - 01:53 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 18 - 01:55 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Aug 18 - 01:57 PM
David Carter (UK) 03 Aug 18 - 02:35 PM
Dave the Gnome 03 Aug 18 - 02:45 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Aug 18 - 02:56 PM
Backwoodsman 03 Aug 18 - 03:24 PM
Thompson 03 Aug 18 - 03:58 PM
Iains 03 Aug 18 - 04:48 PM
Thompson 03 Aug 18 - 05:11 PM
Backwoodsman 03 Aug 18 - 05:51 PM
Stanron 03 Aug 18 - 06:07 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 18 - 08:11 PM
Big Al Whittle 03 Aug 18 - 08:27 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 18 - 09:21 PM
j0_77 03 Aug 18 - 11:10 PM
Big Al Whittle 04 Aug 18 - 12:10 AM
DMcG 04 Aug 18 - 02:01 AM
DMcG 04 Aug 18 - 02:20 AM
David Carter (UK) 04 Aug 18 - 03:32 AM
The Sandman 04 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM
Dave the Gnome 04 Aug 18 - 04:13 AM
Dave the Gnome 04 Aug 18 - 04:16 AM
David Carter (UK) 04 Aug 18 - 04:17 AM
The Sandman 04 Aug 18 - 04:32 AM
The Sandman 04 Aug 18 - 04:41 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Aug 18 - 04:57 AM
Big Al Whittle 04 Aug 18 - 05:01 AM
The Sandman 04 Aug 18 - 06:06 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Aug 18 - 06:18 AM
Big Al Whittle 04 Aug 18 - 06:26 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Aug 18 - 07:33 AM
Dave the Gnome 04 Aug 18 - 07:47 AM
Big Al Whittle 04 Aug 18 - 08:03 AM
The Sandman 04 Aug 18 - 09:03 AM
Backwoodsman 04 Aug 18 - 09:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Aug 18 - 09:24 AM
Big Al Whittle 04 Aug 18 - 09:38 AM
Stanron 04 Aug 18 - 09:46 AM
Backwoodsman 04 Aug 18 - 10:12 AM
MikeL2 04 Aug 18 - 10:42 AM
David Carter (UK) 04 Aug 18 - 12:45 PM
The Sandman 04 Aug 18 - 01:10 PM
Raggytash 04 Aug 18 - 01:18 PM
David Carter (UK) 04 Aug 18 - 02:05 PM
The Sandman 04 Aug 18 - 02:55 PM
peteaberdeen 04 Aug 18 - 03:05 PM
Nigel Parsons 04 Aug 18 - 03:16 PM
The Sandman 04 Aug 18 - 04:48 PM
Backwoodsman 04 Aug 18 - 04:59 PM
David Carter (UK) 04 Aug 18 - 05:13 PM
David Carter (UK) 04 Aug 18 - 05:15 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Aug 18 - 07:46 PM
Jim Carroll 04 Aug 18 - 08:18 PM
Big Al Whittle 05 Aug 18 - 12:22 AM
DMcG 05 Aug 18 - 01:34 AM
The Sandman 05 Aug 18 - 02:32 AM
DMcG 05 Aug 18 - 02:43 AM
BobL 05 Aug 18 - 03:15 AM
The Sandman 05 Aug 18 - 03:21 AM
David Carter (UK) 05 Aug 18 - 03:28 AM
DMcG 05 Aug 18 - 03:31 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Aug 18 - 03:48 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Aug 18 - 04:23 AM
The Sandman 05 Aug 18 - 04:59 AM
Thompson 05 Aug 18 - 05:05 AM
David Carter (UK) 05 Aug 18 - 08:35 AM
David Carter (UK) 05 Aug 18 - 08:37 AM
David Carter (UK) 05 Aug 18 - 08:42 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Aug 18 - 09:58 AM
peteaberdeen 05 Aug 18 - 11:06 AM
The Sandman 05 Aug 18 - 11:18 AM
j0_77 05 Aug 18 - 12:24 PM
Raggytash 05 Aug 18 - 12:34 PM
SPB-Cooperator 05 Aug 18 - 12:59 PM
Big Al Whittle 05 Aug 18 - 01:13 PM
peteaberdeen 05 Aug 18 - 01:25 PM
Big Al Whittle 05 Aug 18 - 02:53 PM
Nigel Parsons 05 Aug 18 - 07:00 PM
j0_77 05 Aug 18 - 10:55 PM
DMcG 06 Aug 18 - 07:07 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Aug 18 - 07:27 AM
Nigel Parsons 06 Aug 18 - 09:28 AM
The Sandman 06 Aug 18 - 10:00 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM
Nigel Parsons 06 Aug 18 - 10:27 AM
Backwoodsman 06 Aug 18 - 12:00 PM
Backwoodsman 06 Aug 18 - 12:03 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Aug 18 - 12:28 PM
Nigel Parsons 06 Aug 18 - 04:42 PM
Dave the Gnome 06 Aug 18 - 06:19 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 18 - 07:26 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 18 - 07:55 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Aug 18 - 08:16 PM
The Sandman 07 Aug 18 - 02:31 AM
The Sandman 07 Aug 18 - 02:35 AM
The Sandman 07 Aug 18 - 02:39 AM
The Sandman 07 Aug 18 - 03:30 AM
David Carter (UK) 07 Aug 18 - 03:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Aug 18 - 03:44 AM
DMcG 07 Aug 18 - 03:46 AM
Nigel Parsons 07 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM
David Carter (UK) 07 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM
Nigel Parsons 07 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM
David Carter (UK) 07 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Aug 18 - 04:23 AM
Nigel Parsons 07 Aug 18 - 04:37 AM
The Sandman 07 Aug 18 - 04:40 AM
DMcG 07 Aug 18 - 04:45 AM
The Sandman 07 Aug 18 - 04:49 AM
Nigel Parsons 07 Aug 18 - 04:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Aug 18 - 05:05 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Aug 18 - 05:51 AM
David Carter (UK) 07 Aug 18 - 05:51 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Aug 18 - 06:32 AM
The Sandman 07 Aug 18 - 10:13 AM
Nigel Parsons 07 Aug 18 - 10:30 AM
peteaberdeen 07 Aug 18 - 10:56 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Aug 18 - 10:58 AM
j0_77 07 Aug 18 - 12:09 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Aug 18 - 06:41 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 18 - 06:24 AM
MikeL2 09 Aug 18 - 10:08 AM
j0_77 09 Aug 18 - 11:19 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Aug 18 - 11:28 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 18 - 01:36 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 18 - 01:45 PM
Raggytash 09 Aug 18 - 03:10 PM
Dave the Gnome 09 Aug 18 - 04:17 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 18 - 04:19 PM
DMcG 10 Aug 18 - 02:06 AM
Nigel Parsons 10 Aug 18 - 05:20 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Aug 18 - 05:46 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Aug 18 - 06:16 AM
Raggytash 10 Aug 18 - 06:42 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Aug 18 - 09:17 AM
David Carter (UK) 10 Aug 18 - 09:47 AM
Nigel Parsons 10 Aug 18 - 09:52 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Aug 18 - 09:59 AM
Backwoodsman 10 Aug 18 - 10:11 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Aug 18 - 12:22 PM
Nigel Parsons 10 Aug 18 - 12:38 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Aug 18 - 01:28 PM
Jim Carroll 10 Aug 18 - 01:32 PM
David Carter (UK) 10 Aug 18 - 02:20 PM
peteaberdeen 10 Aug 18 - 03:08 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Aug 18 - 07:08 PM
Backwoodsman 11 Aug 18 - 12:18 PM
Jim Carroll 11 Aug 18 - 12:52 PM
Backwoodsman 11 Aug 18 - 05:22 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Aug 18 - 03:07 AM
Backwoodsman 12 Aug 18 - 04:50 AM
j0_77 12 Aug 18 - 11:23 AM
Raggytash 13 Aug 18 - 08:07 AM
Raggytash 13 Aug 18 - 08:12 AM
Nigel Parsons 13 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 18 - 10:29 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 18 - 12:52 PM
Nigel Parsons 13 Aug 18 - 07:20 PM
j0_77 13 Aug 18 - 08:30 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 18 - 08:51 PM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM

OK Can we now have a discussion about Brexit without personal attacks, without name calling and one that sticks to the topic, without deviation or picking up on spelling or perceptions of the use of words.

We are all supposed to be adult and have a modicum of intelligence, hopefully that will remain to be the case.

In todays Guardian Jeremy Hunt, the Home Secretary, has suggested that the possibility of a "no deal situation" outcome is growing by the day. He suggested that this "is a huge geo-strategic mistake".

Could someone kindly provide a link to the article.

PS I will ask the Moderators to delete any post that contains even a slight personal attacks on anybody no matter which side they support.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:48 AM

Foreign secretary surely Raggy?

Anyway, as I kept saying elsewhere, we all know what people mean so it doesn't really matter ;-)

Here you go.

D.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: JP2
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:57 AM

Completely agree Nick,but,and it's a big but,I'm not holding my breath!

I voted to remain in 1974 and the same again last time and nothing that I've heard in the last two years about leaving has made me sanguine about the future.

I've always taken the view that if the European Adventure has done nothing else it has meant that nobody in my family has been forced to put on a uniform,pick up a gun and fight in a European war since 1945.

There,I did that without being rude or offensive to anyone!!

JP2.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:02 AM

I concur - this is potentially the most far reaching event in UK and Europe for decades which could have an impact on more than half a billion peoples lives, and a greater impact on over 60 million lives in the UK, and when we hear, now almost on a daily basis, potential problems - the latest being continuation of an open skies and aviation safety deal if the UK refuses to recognise the ECJ as an overarching regulator. I will continue to voice my concerns on these matters and say why I am concerned, and respect the right of those who hold opposing views to explain why there is no cause for concern. Also I respect the right of some to say that they are not bothered about how things may impact on other peoples lives, as long as they are honest enough to say they don't care less and own that view rather than profess to be speaking on behalf of the UK electorate, and comments like 'they are only saying that because they want to remain, are traitors, it is all fake news is singularly unhelpful in progressing the debate and providing the reassurances that people are looking for.

So yes, lets ask the questions that need to be answered, lets hear both sides opinions about what is likely to happen, and why they think that, lets try to avoid thread drift into endlessly repeating polarised views on sub-topics, and above all, not engage in insulting language directed at other mudcatters (though I would suggest that politicians could be fair game).

Anyway, that is my two-pennorthworth of ground rules.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:30 AM

SPB: What is this problem with 'open skies and aviation safety'?
Where can I read about it to see whether you viewpoint is valid?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:40 AM

In todays Guardian Jeremy Hunt, the Home Secretary, has suggested that the possibility of a "no deal situation" outcome is growing by the day. He suggested that this "is a huge geo-strategic mistake".

In today's Express "THE EUROPEAN Union is finally accepting Brussels needs to “fudge” crucial Brexit negotiations and offer the UK a vague blueprint for future ties with the bloc as tensions surrounding the divorce deal increase."
The Daily Wail:Just 5,000 jobs are expected to go in the City because of Brexit - despite earlier forecasts of 200,000 cuts

So who to believe?

So far all we are getting is progressively more hysterical exaggerations from both sides, in a world where nothing is agreed until all is agreed.
A lot of posturing and nonsense from both sides I suspect.
With no deal, both sides end up losers. Every upside has a downdside.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:50 AM

Iains, I think we all understand that the discussion has two sides.

What I and other people have asked for is some indication of what good bits the UK can expect. To date almost every single report I have read has been in the negative.

I honestly would like to believe that some good could result of us leaving the EU but to date I have seen none.

Therein lies the fundemental problem.

And now we have a situation where a senior member of the cabinet is clearly expressing his concerns.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:59 AM

DMcG,
So far all we are getting is progressively more hysterical exaggerations from both sides,

There has been no hysterical exaggeration from Leave side.

Rag,
To date almost every single report I have read has been in the negative.

That is because Guardian only prints negative reports, and you only read the Guardian.

The problem here is that Remainers worry about everything and believe every scare story, while Leavers only worry that Brexit will not not be delivered because the establishment is trying to subvert the process.

That is the whole discussion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:04 PM

Raggy I suspect how a person voted was driven by their perception of what the EU was morphing into, today, tomorrow, 5,10,20 years down the road. No matter how much TPTB dodge the issue, I feel it is all about destroying the nation state, constucting a US of Europe with all power financial, economic and planning being tighly grasped by centrists.
This is not the world signed up for in 1973. The Bilderbergs and globalists of the world may embrace the idea. I do not and never will.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:11 PM

Keith you do not know which newspapers or other media sources I access.

I link to the Guardian because, in the main, it echoes my own opinions which I arrive at after having read many sources.

You have now posted twice with attacks upon people who favour the remain site and have not, as yet addressed the subject.

If you continue to do so, I will have no other option than to ask the moderators to delete your posts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:17 PM

Iains, I can understand your concerns in that regard, however, whether you or I like the fact, the world is changing and the ideals that you and I held thirty, forty, or fifty years ago are history.

We have to deal with the now, and we have to deal with the future and the ever growing globalisation of the world.

The fundemental question is whether to be a part of a big organisation or be a very little fish in a very big pond, and as you and I both know little fish invariably get eaten.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:36 PM

Whether Jeremy Hunt is a reliable source of not be is still a senior member of the cabinet. If senior members of the cabinet, who have access to information we are denied, are voicing concerns, then I think it is a worry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:45 PM

Why was a quote made by Iains put in my name?
This thread is an attempt to keep things civil and calm. Misattributions don't help.

On the other thread I attempted for quite a while to distinguish between Leavers and Brexiteers, though in the end I gave up. A leaver may well have voted to leave as a matter of balance: some who voted remain or leave will not have finally decided until they had the pencil on their hand. Others will have mixed feelings, liking some of the leave arguments but not others. Only a comparatively small number are likely to have been leave at any cost Brexiteers. Equally, remainers also cover a spectrum of views. Can I then suggest we try to avoid terms like Brexiteer except for those towards the very end of the spectrum?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:26 PM

Whether Jeremy Hunt is a reliable source of not be is still a senior member of the cabinet.

But the problem with both he and many other mp's is, are they for or against Brexit? Their party colours ain't necessarily their batting colours. This adds further complexity in trying to puzzle out who and what can be believed or nor believed. How many MPs are trying to forward Brexit, and how many to frustrate it.

Is May a passionate Leaver or a traitor? The jury has largely made it's mind (in my case)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:40 PM

Rag,
Keith you do not know which newspapers or other media sources I access.

I have read all your posts on this and you have only ever linked to or quoted Guardian articles.
If you had read any Leave papers how could you claim, "To date almost every single report I have read has been in the negative."

You have now posted twice with attacks upon people who favour the remain site and have not, as yet addressed the subject.

I have not. I have only disagreed with them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:42 PM

I don't think many politicians could be trusted with the TV remote let alone the country but the fact still remains that they are privy to information we do not get and have a host of people qualified to advise them. Yes, he will have an agenda. So do those who want a hard brexit, including the media barons who are using their power to convince people to let them use the UK as a tax haven.

Who do we believe? Jeremy Hunt? Nigel Farage? Rupert Murdoch? None of of them?

Up to you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:47 PM

It is quite simple for anyone wishing to prove that there is as many reports for leave as there is against. Post links to them. Over and over again we have asked for any positive forecasts and over and over again the silence has been deafening.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:59 PM


Is May a passionate Leaver or a traitor? 

I think there are quite a few other possibilities than those.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 02:03 PM

But those other possibilities encompass a lukewarm brexit. i.e. All the shackles and no place at the top table. Rather a silly place to end up!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 02:15 PM

It is quite simple for anyone wishing to prove that there is as many reports for leave as there is against. Post links to them

All the reports you have linked to have been opinion pieces from pro-Remain papers.
Doing that is not discussion.
Do you really doubt that the Leave press does not carry such pieces?
They do every day, but it is not discussion to just copy or link to the opinions of others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 02:31 PM

What Hunt actually said,
"Britain will prosper and succeed whatever the outcomes of these talks because we are that kind of country."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45033344


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 03:06 PM

If he said that last bit Keith he is wrong. And he seemed to be blaming the EU negotiators for being inflexible, and asking France and Germany to lean on them, when he would be better served leaning on his own party leader to face down Rees Mogg and his brownshirts, and to relax the red lines that she has drawn.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 03:12 PM

well, that's alright then, cheers jeremy . i was getting a bit worried for a while. in all the 1,000s of posts in another place i have seen many comments on trade prospects and intricate details of various opinions on most aspects of the problem, but it's the human aspect that most concerns me. on a personal scale i have 2 children in estonia and italy with no idea of how things will turn out (and another 3 who are also furious about this brexit thing) at a national level there seems to be very little concern about insulting our neighbours and disregarding the peace that's been maintained for decades. in these troubled times - surely this can't be the time to walk away from this. and how can we be so uncornerned about the loss of our rights? i'm hoping we will avoid some of the more scary predictions but a lot of damage has already been done and peoples' lives needlessly messed about.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 03:22 PM

The implication is that if May is not a "passionate leaver" she must be a traitor, DMcG. Difficult to address such invective without going beyond the spirit requested but I shall try.

I agree, there are plenty other options and somewhere amongst them will be a number of sensible ones. Trouble is, they will all involve compromise and that will be seen by some as either weakness or treason. I don't know how to fix that but, surprisingly, I do wish May, Hunt and co every success with finding that compromise. If it involves retaining at least some of the benefits of being in the EU, it will be good for us all. Unfortunately, while some are prepared to accept compromise, the more vociferous leave supporters only seem to be interested in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

In my opinion of course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 06:03 PM

Any views of the result of a survey which suggests that Brexit with cost the British People £800 per person?
Maybe it isn't important to those who can afford it !!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

THERE YOU GO


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 06:28 PM

Jim, As I have already posted prior to today, I have seen my food bill, my utlitity bills and my fuel costs rise over and above the rate of inflation. (which while not ideal is the normal state of affairs.)

I am in the fortunate position that to date I have been able to absorb these.

However, I also know many people who are now struggling because of these additional costs.

For example my food bill in the past two years has increased by around 17-18%. It is not that our diet has changed but that imports have risen in price due in no small part to the fall in the value of Sterling.

I cannot foresee that our leaving the EU will address this problem and no-one has as yet submitted any article or news report that counters my increasing fears.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 07:25 PM

I cannot foresee that our leaving the EU will address this problem and no-one has as yet submitted any article or news report that counters my increasing fears.
I thought I had submitted something in the previous discussion. But as you haven't seen it, here is another:
how we could see lower prices after Brexit


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 01:58 AM

I have said before that I think Leavers put too much focus on tariffs, without looking at the wider ramifications. While that article does consider the CAP for example, tariffs are still a central theme.

The home-grown food has always relied heavily on cheap, seasonal labour. It is not an EU thing - it long preceded it. The changes to mobility look likely - nothing is certain yet - to reduce that. So the local growers either have to find an alternative source of cheap, efficient labour (no price change), or pay the pickers more (increased price), or as is happening in some places, pick less(increased prices through scarcity).

So even if tariffs come down the effects on prices will be complex: some will go up, some down. That is made more complicated because we eat foods in different amounts, so for one individual the prices of what they currently eat will go up, and another down. Then there is a third effect: especially for the poorest what they eat will change to seek out the cheapest foods, so they might see a reduction in price.

End of story? No. In the article it mentions a few example high tariff foods, and one is sugar at 33%. And we know that cheap food is often high fat and high sugar. This runs the risk - not certain, but an increased risk - that sugar consumption will rise. Which impacts obesity. Which impacts diabetes and other health risks and so the NHS costs. Which in its turn puts pressure on taxation and/or how taxes are allocated.

The real world is a complex, inter-related web. Change one bit and the ramifications spread far and wide. It cannot easily be represented adequately by a tariff rate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Nigel
Your link is based on so-called "European protectionism" - yet Brexit is based on an extreme form of just that - isolationism, euphmised as "standing on our own two feet".
Britain hasn't got feet any more - it no longer has an industrial base so has nothing to export and is incapable of producing goods to become delf sustainable
Agriculture at home is in severe decline
FROM ONE OF YOUR OWN
We are going to be at the mercy of the most protectionist, isolationist and most self-serving nation on the Planet - you have put us in hock to Trump's America
I was mildly amused when I spotted the headline next to your article reading "If only we had a leader like Trump" - sums up the whole farce really
Far from having an plan of how Britain is "going to stand on its own two feet", so far it has been unable to devise one on how we are going to leave Europe in 8 months time yet.
It seems this decision has no only naused up the lives of the present generation but has also placed a huge shadow of theod of the next one
And you still wave your little Union Jacks and sing rule Britannia
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 03:09 AM

If he said that last bit Keith he is wrong. And he seemed to be blaming the EU negotiators for being inflexible

He did. I have never had much confidence in the man, but as Dave said, "Whether Jeremy Hunt is a reliable source or not he is still a senior member of the cabinet. If senior members of the cabinet, who have access to information we are denied....."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:12 AM

Hunt may be a senior member of cabinet, but that doesn't make him a judge of what kind of a country Britain is. Indeed the very concept of a country being a certain kind of country is meaningless. People are certain kinds of people. And people change.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM

ok. how do people think brexit will impact on our disastrously depleted local services? a few years back the EU wanted to commit 22 million euros to support our food banks. the government blocked this money as not appropriate.

at present 40% of EU spending goes on agricultural subsidies. our farmers are having a terrible time with drought and worries about how brexit will affect their trade and their subsidies.

as the current government is committed to huge cuts in public expenditure - what hope for farmers after brexit?

there are very many things in our country that are badly in need of spending and a fresh approach away from privatisation and cost cutting. what fresh initiatives can we expect for social policy once EU subsidies have been removed?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:29 AM

what fresh initiatives can we expect for social policy once EU subsidies have been removed?

Once EU subsidies have been removed we will have more money to spend not less.
They just give us back a little of our own money and call it a subsidy.
They also decide what it must be spent on. Post Brexit we can decide.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:33 AM

" In the article it mentions a few example high tariff foods, and one is sugar at 33%."
FACT
Boosted by the end of sugar quotas in 2017, EU sugar production is estimated to grow significantly for 2017/18. The EU is the largest producer of beet sugar in the world. Sugar prices are expected to drop across the EU. There is no tariff on internal distribution.
Perhaps you meant cane sugar?

"!it no longer has an industrial base so has nothing to export and is incapable of producing goods to become delf sustainable"
FACT
The UK produces 40% of goods imported into Ireland in the agri-food sector
and to name but one sector.
In 2016 the value of UK defence exports was. £5.9 billion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:36 AM

As for continued support for farming, promises have already been made. See Farmers Guardian

In a roundtable with farmers and agricultural organisations including the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society, Farmers Union Wales, NFU Cymru and the CLA, the Prime Minister will also reiterate her commitment to maintaining current funding levels until the end of this Parliament to ensure farmers have the certainty they need to plan for their business.

Prime Minister Theresa May said: “This Government is committed to supporting the half a million people who work in agriculture and growing our world leading food and drinks sector, which contributes over £100 billion to the UK economy. But we also need to protect the farmed environment for future generations.

“Leaving the EU presents us with a unique opportunity to transform our food, farming and environmental policies so we can have a healthy and prosperous agricultural industry that is fit for the future, and helps us to leave the environment in a better place than we found it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:43 AM

nigel - 'promises have already been made' - does that really reassure you these days? how about 'i am not going to call another general election' 'windrush generation are british citizens' 'if scotland wants to remain a member of the EU it must vote no to independence' etc etc etc etc....

really, if you were ...say, a cumbrian hill farmer would you feel safe?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:49 AM

Promises made by a tory are not worth the paper they are written on, even if its used bog paper.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:03 AM

Anyone I've talked to who is passionately pro-Brexit, and who voted for Brexit, did so for one main reason: "Too many immigrants".

But the immigrants into the UK they objected to were mostly from Britain's former colonies in the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East and Africa. Brown people, like. Brexit won't stop this immigration.

To me it seems a reckless action to leave a strong trading bloc. The UK's politicians are trying to convince their voters that they can bully this trading bloc into giving the UK a privileged trading position even after it leaves the bloc, an idea that seems pretty much away-with-the-fairies.

By the way, does the UK actually produce 40% of agrifoods imported into Ireland, or is it that the UK is used for shipping these goods to Ireland?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:11 AM

that sounds like a straightforward and very fair assessment of the situation, thompson. without our fear and mistrust of the 'other' (provoked and encouraged by some very unsavoury and dangerous far-right people and press) and (here, i am entirely guilty) dislike of change, then i'm certain we wouldn't be having this crazy discussion about how best to leave a club that has many benefits for us- not least to encourage peace among nations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:17 AM

ACT
Boosted by the end of sugar quotas in 2017, EU sugar production is estimated to grow significantly for 2017/18. The EU is the largest producer of beet sugar in the world. Sugar prices are expected to drop across the EU. There is no tariff on internal distribution.
Perhaps you meant cane sugar?


I meant that the article Nigel linked two talked about the tariff on sugar. They may have meant cane sugar, but I made no claim about the type of sugar and nor did they.

I did make a mistake though. They said 31% which I misremembered and put 33%.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:18 AM

Fact, not act. And to, not two. Sorry about those.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:40 AM

Odd, that. Ireland's beet sugar business was shut down by the EU (or by the withdrawal of EU grants supporting it) on the basis that its support was unfair competition with impoverished cane sugar growers. Which seemed fair enough to me; why should we compete with some of the poorest people in the world, who are producing a healthy, high-quality product?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:45 AM

By the way, does the UK actually produce 40% of agrifoods imported into Ireland, or is it that the UK is used for shipping these goods to Ireland?
https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2018/BrexitFactsheetJan2018290118.pdf

https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/statisticalpublications/Brexit.pdf    (page 27)(page 32)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:55 AM

Mm. But "produce" is an odd variable. Ireland is the largest producer of bananas in the world (not grown in the well-known banana plantations of Finglas, but packaged and re-exported).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:58 AM

The story about the Irish sugar beet factory dates back to 2005. The end of EU sugar quotas was last year. 13 years is a long time in politics!

Why the EU deliberately impoverishes third world farmers (as shown in the link below) is a question you would be better off asking them!



https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/oct/11/eu-agriculture-hurts-developing-countries


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:00 AM

Not just the EU, also the US - agricultural giants clearing jungles for factory farming and putting small family farms out of business. It's always the way with big biz.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:17 AM

no disrespect, iain but quoting a 2011 article about irish sugar beet or whatever sort of typifies the way i'm feeling today. reel back say, 5 years, in your wildest imaginings did you ever think you would be doing such a thing - did any of us imagining we would be following such fabulously obscure (6.000plus) posts?

really, it's crazy, innit? maybe we should all allow ourselves to laugh about it. it's all we have sometimes


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 08:45 AM

"no disrespect, iain but quoting a 2011 article about irish sugar beet"
Actually the thrust of the article was dating from 2005, where the comment was made that " Ireland's beet sugar business was shut down by the EU (or by the withdrawal of EU grants supporting it) on the basis that its support was unfair competition with impoverished cane sugar growers"

But as I pointed out The EU abolished sugar quotas last year. As result this current year has seen bumper crops of beet planted, thereby exacerbating the situation highlighted by the original post. That is why comments need to be given both a context and a date.

" But "produce" is an odd variable. Ireland is the largest producer of bananas in the world (not grown in the well-known banana plantations of Finglas, but packaged and re-exported)."
NAFTA "producer" means a person who grows, mines, harvests, fishes, traps, hunts, manufactures, processes or assembles a good;

To define the redistribution and repackaging of bananas as   production is perhaps a stretch too far.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 09:21 AM

From the Central Statistics Office figures for last year:

The EU accounted for €5,472 million (56%) of total goods exports in December 2017, of which €1,621 million went to Belgium and €1,131 million to Great Britain.

The EU accounted for €4,038 (63%) of the value of goods imports in December 2017, with €1,562 million (24%) of total imports coming from Great Britain.

The thing about goods being identified as coming from a specific country is that "added value" often means goods are described as belonging to a particular country, so that if, for instance, broad beans are flash frozen in Spain but then packaged for sale in Britain, they may legitimately (if not quite honestly) be described as "British", and ditto for other countries.

It will of course be necessary for the fruit, vegetables, cheese, meat, etc imported to Ireland from Europe to come via France or the Netherlands rather than through the UK after Brexit, because otherwise these imports would be hit by two lots of tariffs - one to bring them into the UK from Europe, the second to reimport them into Ireland (ie Europe again) from the UK.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 09:58 AM

That is another thing I haven't got clear in my head - If companies currently use UK as a point of entry for import for distribution across EU27, will they want to incur two levels of tariffs in the future? How would this impact on ports. Would exporters want to do thorough the hassle of shipping to both UK and EU 27? As 88% of the market would be mainland Europe in the event of a drop in trade going through UK ports, where the money be found to maintain the employment levels of dock workers?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 10:40 AM

As I understand it, importers and exporters are currently looking to make new arrangements.

Dock workers? Not many of them left, now that so much is automated. Truckers and delivery drivers will be hit, though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 11:37 AM

"It will of course be necessary for the fruit, vegetables, cheese, meat, etc imported to Ireland from Europe to come via France or the Netherlands rather than through the UK after Brexit, because otherwise these imports would be hit by two lots of tariffs - one to bring them into the UK from Europe, the second to reimport them into Ireland (ie Europe again) from the UK."

WHY?

The Convention on International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention) is a multilateral treaty that was concluded at Geneva on 14 November 1975 to simplify and harmonise the administrative formalities of international road transport. (TIR stands for "Transports Internationaux Routiers" or "International Road Transports".) The 1975 convention replaced the TIR Convention of 1959, which itself replaced the 1949 TIR Agreement between a number of European countries. The conventions were adopted under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). As of January 2018, there are 73 parties to the Convention, including 72 states and the European Union.

The TIR Convention establishes an international customs transit system with maximum facility to move goods:


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 11:53 AM

Isn't the TIR convention mainly so that containers, etc, don't have to be opened up when passing through countries on the way to other countries? (I was baffled in my youth to see that many lorries bore the word "TIR", meaning "Country" in Irish, and a trucker explained this to me.

I don't think TIR means duties don't have to be paid by exporters, which is how Britain is treating these goods at the moment (as far as I know).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 01:16 PM

Thompson. If in transit from one eu country to another via the uk, then under the TIR convention, no duties would be paid entering or exiting the uk.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 02:57 PM

Genuine question here about no duties being paid. If the UK cannot charge a anything for goods crossing the UK on transit to the EU does that mean that roads and infrastructure can be used but we get no benefit from it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:00 PM

That is the current situation Dave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:09 PM

The subject seems a little confusing
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564827/EU-court-threat-UK-foreign-trucks-levy-Brussels-officials-claim-10-day-toll-unfa


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2593608/Foreign-juggernauts-pay-drive-UK-roads.html

Post brexit I would envisage the playing field being leveled even more.
It seems very uneven at present.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:05 PM

I was against going into the Common market in 1974.

I voted for Brexit.

For many reasons.

I don't think Brexit will happen in any meaningful way. None of the nobs believe in it.

A couple of days ago the national news gave up their entire mid day broadcast to scare stories. Very reminiscent of the millennium bollocks - planes would fall out of the sky, every computer would stop, life as we know it would cease.

The people in charge simply don't believe in Brexit. Its not going to happen. The arguments are for nothing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:21 PM

"The people in charge simply don't believe in Brexit. Its not going to happen. "
I wish I could believe you Al - do you really think the destruction of a country's economy and the welfare of it's people are more important than saving face after this fiasco?
And besides, there are only so many terrorist linked parties to be bribed ans o many £Billions of the taxpayers money to bribe them with   
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 10:05 PM

we'll see.

I think they'll tell the people its happened. perhaps on paper it will have.

But the EU will still screw us up with regulations, whilst ignoring them themselves and practicing protectionism under various guises. The Spanish will still be out there doing to our fishing waters what they did to their own years ago.

Its a bit like services led economic recovery, some daft sods will believe its happened despite all evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think its a bit like the permissive society. I never felt permitted to do anything much. Same old shit, with a new label.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:14 AM

But the EU will still screw us up with regulations, whilst ignoring them themselves

I am not sure what you mean by that, Al. The EU is made up of its members, of which we are currently one. If the EU apply regulations they have to be approved by the UK as well. I am not at all sure if any country has approved regulations and then ignored them. The 'them and us' does not apply as we are one of them anyway!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:30 AM

"But the EU will still screw us up with regulations, whilst ignoring them themselves"
I'm afraid that sums up the British approach to the E.U. from day one
Rather than treating it as an organisation they became part of it was always "them and us"
If the E.U. was "screwing Britain" - it was Britain screwing herself.
Ireland did extremely well out of the E.U. because they considered herself part of it - it was the predatory bankers who ******* up the booming economy not Europe.
In Britain, you can add the corrupt and inept politicians with their bogus claims for expenses for their Duck Palaces.
The E.U. is now doing its level best to prevent threat of a slide back to the days of 'The Troubles' and further economic chaos that British narrow-minded bigotry has put back on the agenda
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Ireland, the country doing so well that they import much of their food from UK manufacturers, yet threaten to close their airspace to the UK post brexit.
Does anyone else see a fatal flaw in this blatant attempt at blackmail?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:56 AM

Ireland can bring in food from other sources. You seem to have no idea of the weakness of the UK position. Hopefully the government can be persuaded to see sense and make the concessions which the EU rightly demand.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:04 AM

I think it will be unpredictable, other than those with little money will still have little money, property prices possibly might fall in Ireland for a short while


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM

David Carter. Yes they can. Providing they can find the suppliers, shipping, distribution, and customers willing to pay the increased costs.As yet Ireland has very little direct trade with Europe. Most of the trade is with north west europe, and I believe I am correct in saying, as yet zero direct links exist.
I do not envisage seeing too many happy bunnies when they study the resultant inflation added to their food bill.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:52 AM

David Carter. not just my thinking.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/unique-brexit-exposure-could-cost-ireland-billions-each-year-467105.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 05:16 AM

Of course, if Brexit is going to cost Ireland 'Billions more', presumably the EU will help them out with this, as their intransigence over the border issues will be a major part of the cause. Although the EU coffers will already have been severely depleted by the loss of a major contributor.
Perhaps Ireland will take it as a glimpse of their future relations with the EU.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 07:53 AM

"Intransigence over the border issues?" There WAS no border issue until the UK took a unilateral and silly decision to cause a border issue by voting for brexit without giving a thought to that border. We were all a bit too obsessed by the "fact" that we were being swamped by foreigners and by reading fake numbers on the side of a bus to bother our little heads with trivia such as that border, and that attitude went right to the top. So now you want the EU and the Irish to sort out the mess, and you call them "intransigent" when WE can't come up with a resolution. Odd.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 08:30 AM

well to be honest, i think there are those of us who have done business in Europe and know the actuality of the EU, and those who are repelled by the racism of the EDL.

I sympathise with both points of view.

I've stopped responding to all the shit calling me a narrow minded little Englander racist on facebook.

I think rational debate went out of the window a long time ago. The EU isn't a bad idea, but its run by crooks. Why wouldn't it be, they're politicians. As Dennis Skinner says, at least outside the EU, we'll only have our own lot of crooks to deal with.

But like I say, it won't happen. There'll be some sort of flummery to appease the referendum voters, but the fix is in. Theresa May did not and does not believe in Brexit. Why would she, tory constituencies never felt the chill winds. Tories Thatcher, Major, Cameron, Blair weren't daft - they took care of voters they needed. Blair wasn't a tory - but he needed the marginal seats.

To compare an economy like Ireland, horse racing and dancing at the crossroads, with an economy of England is daft. Paul MacCartney could afford to buy everyone in Ireland a drink and an ice cream. If he had to buy everyone in England a drink, he'd keep his wallet in his pocket.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 08:50 AM

The only reason the UK/Irish border is a problem is that the EU chose to make it one.
So now you want the EU and the Irish to sort out the mess, and you call them "intransigent" when WE can't come up with a resolution
The UK have come up with answers, but they were not acceptable to the EU.
The EU seem to consider this a good negotiating tool. But so far, as with so many other subjects, they have not come up with their own ideas, nor accepted any of those put forward by UK.
So 'intransigence' is exactly the word I would use.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:05 AM

There WAS no border issue until the UK took a unilateral and silly decision to cause a border issue by voting for brexit without giving a thought to that border.

I think labeling all those that voted for brexit as being stupid does nothing to take the argument forward, besides being extremely insulting.
Britain and Ireland had free movement of nationals of the two countries since 1923details here
There is no reason for this to change. Random checks have been carried out on all incoming people since 1997, contrary to the view held by some on this forum.
If the EU and Ireland cannot come up with a solution then they have to swallow some major expenditure, and Ireland the loss of a massive import/export market. Eventually that will cause the intransigence to evaporate. Should that not happen the Irish people will be most unimpressed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:09 AM

The EU intransigence predates the referendum. Remember David Cameron sat in a row boat with Merkel et al? He went to get reforms from the EU to present to the UK referendum voters and got nothing. Even he could not spin what he got as reform.

The EU is like a stuck record. You can't have a conversation with a stuck record.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:20 AM

As I said earlier, the EU is just the sum of its component countries, including the UK. If the UK were negotiating with the EU they were negotiating with themselves as well. OK, the others could outvote the UK but at least inside the EU we also got to veto any laws they propose if required. Once outside the EU we will have no such control and if we wish to deal with the EU, which we undoubtedly will, we will still have to conform to their rules but this time we will have no say what those rules are.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:21 AM

...or to put it a little more crudely, I would rather have them in the tent pissing out that outside pissing in. (LBJ on Hoover?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:24 AM

So nobody saw us as being inside the tent, and getting pissed on?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:31 AM

Stanron, that was nothing to do with the border issue. Whatever other EU intransigence issue you're referring to, there was no EU intransigence over the border before the referendum as there was no border issue. Cameron went off to get concessions from the EU full of hubris and, quite rightly, he was told where to get off. Negotiating with a tough and much larger partner isn't like falling out on Mudcat where certain persons may be given to calling you far worse things than "intransigent" just because they disagree with you. You have to play the game, which may involve smiling sweetly through gritted teeth. If you end up calling EU negotiators intransigent because you can't get your way, you're in severe danger of, er, making them intransigent.

The referendum was extremely ill-advised and the campaign was all heat and very little light. In those circumstances the only safe thing to do was vote for the status quo and throw the bloody thing back to the politicians to think again. So it was silly (the word I used, by the way, not "stupid") to vote leave, and it isn't just leave voters who will get the come-uppance they deserve, unfortunately.

And being silly is a very human thing. After all, billions of people believe in God.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:33 AM

Ireland isn't making any threats. The airspace rules are part of international agreements, as is the border question.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:33 AM

Was the hoover inside or outside the tent when LBJ pissed on it, Dave? I hope it wasn't plugged in. Very dangerous!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:35 AM

I really don't know how I can put this any differently. The UK are (for now) part of the EU. If you saw it as the EU pissing on us then we were also pissing on ourselves. We are a major and integral part of the EU and if you want to blame the EU for anything then our representatives in that organisation are equally to blame and, ultimately, so are we for voting them in. It is not an us and them situation, It is an us and us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:37 AM

I dunno where you could plug a Hoover in a tent anyway! (Sorry Raggy - Can we be allowed a few asides? :-) )


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:40 AM

but at least inside the EU we also got to veto any laws they propose if required.
No, we had a veto in a few, limited, areas.

In the special legislative procedure:
The assent procedure is used to approve certain key decisions such as the accession of new member states, and the approval of Commissioners.
Assent requires an absolute majority of MEPs to approve a decision.

A 'majority' does not mean unanimity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:54 AM

I really don't know how I can put this any differently. The UK are (for now) part of the EU. If you saw it as the EU pissing on us then we were also pissing on ourselves. We are a major and integral part of the EU and if you want to blame the EU for anything then our representatives in that organisation are equally to blame and, ultimately, so are we for voting them in. It is not an us and them situation, It is an us and us.

Once again, NO!.
Since issuing article 50 many decisions are being taken by "The 27" and we are already being excluded.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:59 AM

We shouldn't be in Ireland.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:03 AM

are we being excluded? i thought we had chosen to leave. maybe they are kindly letting the UK know how to get used to not having a say in decisions that effect us. the scots, of course, know all about that


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM

The sad thing is that the leave side has successfully misrepresented the EU and the UK as chronically adversarial. In general, EU laws and regulations are drafted after massive consultation intended to avoid conflict and dissent, and the UK is one of the most influential partners. Taking suggested new policies as far as a vote is the uncommon exception, not the rule, and, as a major partner, we have a big say in whether important new laws are passed. In some cases we have a veto on our own, in some cases we can team up with just a handful of other countries to say no. In some cases our population size is taken into account, not the fact that we are one in 28. Rarely do we have laws imposed on us, even more rarely anything incredibly significant, and NEVER by "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."   There is no point in having 28 countries enduring various levels of discontent all the time over regulations, in fact the EU would rapidly fall apart were that to be the case. Even though the UK has recently been the most argumentative partner, our huge influence has ensured that almost all EU law is agreeable to this country. There really is no argument here. If you really want to make a Big Thing about "taking back control of our laws," you'd better be ready with some substantial areas of current disagreement to put forward in support. And don't think that the size of duck eggs or the straightness of cucumbers will cut it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:11 AM

OK Nigel, we WERE part of the EU until article 50. The rest of the statement still stands. Will you stop nitpicking now before the thread gets closed again?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:12 AM

Steve Shaw appears to be saying that because the EU was not intransigent over the border when the border was not an issue, it's intransigence since, or before on other issues is irrelevant. This does not follow. The EU is being intransigent over the Irish border. The EU has been intransigent over other issues in the past. The EU's inability to be flexible on any issue causes problems for the UK and the EU. Once we are out of the EU we will be free from some of the problems that come from EU intransigence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:14 AM

Well said, Pete.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:16 AM

Well you didn't clarify that earlier, Stanron. We were actually talking about the border but you chose to widen it. Still, you've clarified your opinion now. I don't agree with you, but cheers anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:21 AM

Project fear goes into warpspeed as Governor of the BofE becomes blatantly political with his speeches. I look forward to seeing him fired!


https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/9625-gbp-to-eur-and-usd-fresh-blow-from-governor-carney


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:01 AM

I didn't find much iin Mark Carney's speech particularly political. It is part of his job to set out the prospect for the economy over the next year or two, and since March 2019 falls in that period he had to mention the prospect of leaving and outline what the expect the effects to be. In fact, he would be amiss not to.

The only really political comment was that the prospect of a no deal is 'uncomfortably close' - I accept that is not a 'it is close, let's all whoop and cheer' stance. But it is no different, really, to Raab's "risk of a no deal by accident" or May trying to get a deal. It is fully in line with the government position, I would say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:24 AM

I thought it was a bit political:
Carney also revealed the Bank of England recently ran a Brexit no deal exercise that saw property prices plummet by a third, interest rates go up to 4%, unemployment up to 9%, and a full blown recession

The Governor also refuses to say the 21 month transition period will be long enough to adjust the economy for Brexit, "we’ll take the two years. We’ll make it enough".


In view of the predictions he was making before the referendum, which failed to come true, I thought he might have learned to keep quiet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:34 AM

But if they did run those models which showed that, what should Carney say?

"I am not telling your predictions for the economy of the next two years" - I reckon that would start a panic.

Or say "We have run no models"? That's the same, but adding in that no one would believe him which would make people things were even worse than they could imagine. Result: an even bigger panic.

No, I reckon the best thing is to report what the model found. Then people can decide for themselves whether to believe the results of the model. And, of course, they should also accept their responsibility whatever decisions they take opposing it, should the model prove to be more or less right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:46 AM

And should the model prove more or less totally wrong, how many more times should he be allowed to discuss forecasts?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:57 AM

Mystic Meg is allowed to make off the wall forecasts, because they are of no consequence.
However Forecasts from the Governor of the Bof E have real time impacts and consequences. If public forecasts were part of his job description no doubt he would be a leading light at the BBC, like his flyweight brother in arms Lineker. But his job carries responsibilities to all of us. Time to give him his cards and repatriate him back to the land of Trump.

We would all be better off if he shut his mouth and got on with his day job.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:58 AM

The model is based on a "no deal" scenario. With luck, we will never get to find out if it was right or not. Otherwise we will have a no " deal" and know within a year whether the model is looking close or not. But I see that while you accept there may be a period where the country suffers for a period just after a no deal, I think we are still missing any sort of indication from the Leavers how deep and how long this could be. Like Carney's model, we recognise the uncertainties and caveats needed. But some indication would be welcome. And then we can see if that is closer in the same timescales.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:06 PM

Nigel, Carney is the Governor of the Bank of England. As such it falls to him to forecast the projected future of the value of the pound and the possible impacts of various changes which affect it.

It would be incredibly remiss of him not to inform the country of the possible outcomes of a no deal, soft or hard Brexit.

I have noticed the fairly recent increasing usage of the term "project fear" which I interpret as a cover for items leavers would rather consider we didn't think about or discuss.

It smacks of "la la la, I didn't hear that, I want to believe in unicorns and fairies at the bottom of the garden."

Many of us continue to have very serious concerns about the future of our country, the future of ourselves, and the future of our children and grandchildren.

It is Mark Carneys job to warn us of potential pitfalls.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:15 PM

No, 'Project Fear' relates to the catastrophe which was forecast would follow immediately if we voted leave.
We voted leave and the forecasts proved to be almost totally wrong.

The same type of forecasts are being made again now, and are being described as 'Project Fear', or 'Project Fear mark2' on the basis that the original was so inaccurate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:25 PM

Then give us better forecasts, Nigel. Or at least alternative ones.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:40 PM

Perhaps it is also necessary to remind people that every business of any size has forecasting as a fundamental part of its business plan, despite the inherent uncertainty in any forecast. The alternative, in business terms, is a shop ordering a pile of clothes to be produced without making any attempt to estimate how many they will sell. You may be wrong, but you make the estimate. Every business does it, even if it a local café deciding how many loaves to order.


We know what forecasting is, and its uncertainities. These uncertainties are no justification for walking blindly by refusing to make any estimate at all. You make a your forecast and state what assumptions you are making and where you think the risk of errors is greatest. It is a well trodden path.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 01:49 PM

The reality is that positive or negative, the forecast cannot escape being a political statement. It's negativity not only puts the BOE firmly in the remainer camp but is having a negative impact on exchange rates as well.
What is done as an inhouse study should stay inhouse given the previous track record of the man's accuracy.
It is inescapeable that putting such a study in the public domain is a political stance, not economic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 01:53 PM

I'm scratching my head here as to why anyone not shit-scared of brexit, as several here purport to not be so not shit-scared*, should be campaigning to get Mark Carney to shut up, etc. The same people who want that have nothing to say about nincompoops such as Rees-Mogg and Irritable Dowel Syndrome, who, compared to Carney, know bugger all about economics. Personally, I'd like to hear a bit more of the measured voice of Carney and a LOT less from those two ideologues, thank you. But let none of them actually shut up.

(*though I actually think they're just as shit-scared as everyone else deep down).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 01:55 PM

"What is done as an inhouse study should stay inhouse given the previous track record of the man's accuracy.
It is inescapeable that putting such a study in the public domain is a political stance, not economic."

So you're against free speech...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 01:57 PM

"Does anyone else see a fatal flaw in this blatant attempt at blackmail?"
SIMPLISTIC NONSENSE AS REPORTED BY THE SUN
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 02:35 PM

Of course we are shit scared. We lose our right of freedom of movement. We lose tariff free access to QUALITY EU produce, rather than the polluted shit that the USA would force feed to our children. We lose EURATOM. Horizon2020, Erasmus, EHIC, and visa free travel to 23 countries. Its a complete disaster. And thats before you factor in the economic downsides.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 02:45 PM

Sadly, this it where it all comes apart. Again.

Anything negative predicted by qualified economists and business leaders is dismissed as project fear. Any optimistic forecast put forward by the unqualified and ill-informed is believed and embraced. People who want to remain are remoaners while those wishing to leave see themselves as patriots. There is no point in even discussing this in such a hostile environment.

It was a good try, Raggy, but while most people are happy to stick to your requests, there are those who will always want to deride others, nitpick and try to win trivial points.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 02:56 PM

Our economy is based entirely on forecasts - from buying shares to producing budgets
The predictions of the economists on the likelihood of Brexit damaging our economy has so fa proved to be spot-on
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:24 PM

Carney can't be 'repatriated' to the land of Trump. He's a Canadian, born in Fort Smith, NT.

You know I'm right! :-)

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/repatriate


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:58 PM

I have long campaigned for Ireland to be moved to the corner between France and Spain…


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:48 PM

The words of Carney's chief economist Andy Haldane, explaining why the experts had got their economic forecasts so wrong during the referendum:

    “Fair cop. If you look at how the consumer performed during the course of the last year it’s almost as though the referendum had not taken place. In terms of the real things like pay and jobs not very much happened during the course of last year. It’s pretty much business as usual. The spending power in people’s pockets was not materially dented… Maybe some of the scarier stories politically will be seen to be just that – scare stories.”


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 05:11 PM

Deleted? Really? I'm surprised. I wouldn't expect civil and thoughtful posts to be deleted.

I think the English - won't say British on this one - went a bit nuts with the 'leave' vote, but I think in a lot of cases it was a protest vote, by people who didn't expect 'leave' to mean leave.

But this is my own view; I'm quite willing and eager to hear other views and consider them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 05:51 PM

I don't find it in the least bit surprising that the estimates and economic forecasts have proved over-pessimistic. It's standard practice in the financial world to take a 'prudent' view when forecasting - which means that you generally present a near-worst-case-scenario. This is on the basis, of course, that if things turn out better than forecast, your pessimism will be readily forgiven whereas, if you're over-optimistic and things go tits-up, you're up for a slaughtering from the critics.

Regarding the forecasts for the social and economic future of the U.K. after Brexit, only time will tell how accurate they are/have been.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 06:07 PM

Hi Thompson. Just for the record I voted leave and I meant leave. I would be very happy if we 'crash out' with 'No Deal'. It's important to point out that 'No Deal' is not 'No Deal for ever'. No Deal means we start from a point where we are not a part of the EU. We don't owe them any money and they can't fish in our waters.

If the EU wants to do a deal on the Germans selling their cars to us, ie evading World Trade tariffs, then we can do a deal on that, assuming reciprocal stuff for cars produced in the UK. If the French, Spanish and Germans wish to sell us their wine and food produce on better terms than the WTO rules, we can do a deal on that as well. Mrs May lacks courage and conviction. Most remainiacs appear similarly doubtful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 08:11 PM

"They can't fish in our waters."

Well yes. The thing is that our coastline is pretty close to the coastlines of several EU countries, and fish stocks are notoriously migratory, so, er, who do they actually belong to? The Icelandic cod wars were far simpler in a way. They have an island hundreds of miles from everyone else. Then there's those Russian super ships hoovering up our fish... if the EU was simply about agriculture and fisheries, not only would I have voted brexit but I'd have fish-bombed and cabbage-bombed Brussels years ago. Those sectors are disastrous, but are still just a very small part of EU business. Whilst I'm not a fisherman meself, here in Bude I'm mates with several of them. The situation is disastrous. Thousands of tons of fish are thrown back dead every week. Over-quota or undersized. Sand eels, a crucial part of the marine ecosystem, are being removed wholesale to be rendered into fertiliser. What a world. Animosity between our lads and the lads from EU countries runs high. There's hardly any mackerel left to fish and nearly all lobsters have to be thrown back undersized. I can't help feeling that it'll be a bloody long time before we get reasonable deals on fishing, by which time we'll be feasting just on Pacific tuna.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 08:27 PM

Well Steve, I don't think you've given any consideration at all to the point of view expressed by Stanron.

To be honest, I don't think you give any consideration to the bare facts.

In 1974, both Morris and Renault were producing crap cars - the Renault 4, the apalling Renault Dauphin and the Marina.

Renault is still there - still producing shit cars. All our industries have gone because they said we were illegally subsidising our industries, which was just the way we did things.

The last smack in the kisser was the Skoda story- an entire 3rd world economy, we are asked to believe restored to health without subsidy, without unprecedented tax breaks.

The point is they don't adhere to the rules, We are stupid,   and we do.

We simply can't go on like this - running the economy on Russian gangsters buying football clubs and real estate. We have to get the wealth of the country back to work - reviving our industry.

We will never do it inside the EU. What ever the cost we have to get out, and sort ourselves out. No one else will do this for us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:21 PM

Stanron, like yerself, is a leaver by ideology. I have to make that my starting position when it comes to thinking about what you're saying. Until ten or twelve years ago I was an avid leaver. I know all the arguments about foreigners taking our jobs, overwhelming the NHS and filling our streets with foreign tongues (and fixing our electrics and plumbing and teeth and bad backs when we didn't have enough of our own...). But I've changed my mind. Not about fisheries, agriculture and the euro. Disasters all, but, for the UK, very little disasters. Fisheries are a basket case largely, but not entirely, of our own making, agriculture represents less than one percent of our GDP, and we very wisely stayed out of the euro. Nothing at all professed by the leave campaign was actually true, that's the problem. It was all hopeful noise, devoid of reality, peppered with xenophobia. No-one, from Cameron down, knew what leave meant. And when you're in that position you either play safe and opt for the status quo until something better comes up or you're basically insane. Not you personally. But there was an insane mode afoot in the country the day of the vote. Euphoric nonsense. You can bollock me all you like for saying that. But in nine months' time or less you'll see the light. Actually, the darkness. Guaranteed. And I think you know it, deep down. Nothing in this thread proposed by leavers is anything other than threadbare hope-mongering. You'll see.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:10 PM

Not in Europe so I am sitting on the fence. Yet having read a lot of yall's thoughts on this I find myself logging in to say I best like Steve Shaw's summary and conclusions.

For my part I was in the UK when the 1st referendum happened, and yes most of us at the time said 'yes' to the EEC.

But as I see on Quora some now call it "BrokesIt" because this horrid mess is ruining Britain by breaking it into bits. Sad!

Reminds me of the 70's when us young Engineering types tried to save the great British Bike makers by renovating and showing off our AJS, BSA, Matchless, Velocette motorcycles.

As if there was much hope. We later had Maggie blankety blank Thatcher closing down the Black Country mills and mines. While long lines filled the Post Office for passports for those lucky enough to be able to emigrate to Australia, Maggie was busy filling their empty little houses with Pakis she brought in by the boat load. Please don't take offense but I was so mad at the time I near lost my peace.

Yet today we see DJT here saving our Mills for the very same reason in revere that the old crow did. Personal gain.

Please let not this 'BrokesIt' drive out yet another entire community of native British people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 12:10 AM

Well the thing is I grew up in the town of Boston. The kids I went to school were - many of their parents were fishermen. And I have tell you - there was nothing of the basket case about the fishing industry or (like the mining industry) there was an chandelry industry servicing the British trawlers and shrimping boats. As for it being a mini disater - look at England. The industry stretched the entire fucking coast line. I was in Looe one half term, and the bank had foreclosed on every single fishing boat in the harbour. This nonsense is what the EU does to our banking system.

To be honest its you Steve who is counselling do nothing and everything will be all right.

The wealth and stable society that we have and we share with immigrants is predicated on wealth creation and the industry of our population.

Just leave it to speculators and they will asset strip us, and the stable society will go.

I see the road to darkness as one we embarked on back in 1974, and we're a fair way down it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 02:01 AM

I must say I thought the last few posts were excellent. People from both sides presenting why they voted as they did with reasons and no personal insults - and no assumption the future will all be wonderful either. Both looking at the problems of the past and seeking for ways it could better. I think they set a standard for the thread we could aim at.

In my view peteaberdeen is right in suggesting we need to keep looking at how all this affects the ordinary person in the street. The 1% will make money any way this falls out: all that changes is the amount they make and what restrictions they have on future deals. The rest of us will just have to cope with whatever happens.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 02:20 AM

Having said that, I suppose I need to set out my own position a bit more. At the time of the vote I was 'Remain', but by no means as strongly for remain as I am now. In fact, if you could be bothered to search for it, you would see that I have posted that the way the EU treated Greece made me consider voting Leave. Greece had major problems, no doubt, but the EU solution was basically the asset stripping that Al referred to, and in a way that overrode the earlier democratic votes. That's a dangerous attitude, and one I wanted no part of it. So were that the extent of the issues, I would have voted leave. But it isn't. The EU is basically two projects interwoven - a financial one and a social one, and there were enough risks when you considered both to put me on the "Remain" side.

What has put me much further on the "Remain" side is that, by striving, I believe it would have been possible to agree with the EU a good working relationship. What has hardened my view is the totally unpreparedness of the UK position, and an unwillingness to consider options and consequences adequately. I remember the photo from the very first negotiation, where everyone from the EU side had several folders in front of them, and our side didn't have a side of A4 between them. That has typified our stance ever since.

I do not, by the way, think leaving will be as disastrous as the more extreme shroud waving of some remainers in the press. Nor will it be the sunny uplands. But on that spectrum, I think we will be much closer to the disaster end.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 03:32 AM

I don't think that you can hanker after jobs or a lifestyle which has gone. My grandfather was a coal miner. The coal mines in his area were closing long, long before Thatcher. So he crossed the country looking for work, and found it first as a market gardener, then as an electrician. My father maybe could have had a university education but for poverty and later the war. He was a fairly senior local government officer in the end. But both my father and my grandfather emphasised to me that I should take up any educational opportunities on offer, and forge my own future, and not hanker after their past. Which is why the EU has been a fabulous benefit for people of the UK, particularly young, ambitious people, who have had opportunities that they never would have had without it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM

Countries have to be self sufficent energy wise,and less wasteful. Most Empires in the past have invaded other countries to steal energy resources. Every empire[ including the european empire] only has a limited time span. in the short to medium term western europe will [i think] have more poverty
The european empire IS A CURATES EGG.
it seems to be benefit principally The International Banks, then its foremost adminstrators GERMANY AND FRANCE,
GREECE has been punished too severely, likewise Ireland.
Meanwhile we are ignoring, China a country that bans winnie the pooh, and is intent on controlling everyone by CCTV,
We are all going to have a hard time over the next few years, but maybe nothing like Greece has suffered


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:13 AM

My first contracting position was in Belgium over 20 years ago and I have worked in Europe a couple of times since. It would have been a lot more difficult to work there as an independent consultant had it not been for EU employment legislation. Luckily for me my working days are nearly through but I am sad that my children and grandchildren will not have the same opportunities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:16 AM

Dick, is it going to affect you or are you now an Irish citizen?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:17 AM

Nonsense Dick, the EU benefits its people, and the people including in Greece would be far worse off without the EU. Without the Eurozone bailout they would not be able to heat their homes, as Greece most definitely is not self sufficient in energy. What you say is in part true, and is the reason for countries amalgamating in blocs which are large enough to be self sufficient in energy and food. The UK on its own clearly isn't quite self sufficient in either, as demands and expectations have increased. We are no longer content with a diet of gruel and turnips. We want, indeed now need, mangetout, Jamon Serrano and fine wines.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:32 AM

Bollocks David, I can grow mange tout anytime i like, we do not need Jason or fine wines, the consumer society tells us we need jason and mcdonalds and other shit including wine with added chemicals ,but we do not NEED them.
Greece would be worse off?
how do you know this , of course you do not, neither do I.
EVERY COUNTRY NEED TO THINK ABOUT BEING MORE SELF SUFFICENT ENERGY WISE.
Why did GERMANY invade Poland at the start of the second world war ..COAL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:41 AM

Generally speaking Colonisation wars and invasion of other countries has been about stealing raw materials, we need to stop wasting our resources and start atempting to be more self sufficent energy wise.
Creating a European bloc does not solve the problem, neither does the UK leaving, solve that problem, the whole business is a red herring, there are more important issues.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:57 AM

David, you can not compare fishing to coalmining.
Deep mining is in trouble everywhere because there is much cheaper coal readily available.
There is still a huge demand for fish and our fishing industry has been all but destroyed by nothing other than the EU.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 05:01 AM

This is what I don't get.

People worked and travelled in Europe before 1974.

People seem to think they will be forbidden from travelling. You could get a tourist passport for 7/6d from the post office - for an entire family.

Working in Europe is still very dodgy. When I was gigging there a few years back. the situation was far from straightforward. All sorts of protectionism were common. To this day - you'll find Spanish acts keep the front for themselves - the English work the cafes in the back streets.

Record royalties and download fees and performance right fees are just as fucked up as everywhere else. The dual tax agreements are administered by somnolent offices - you get the feeling most people just ignore them.. They seem to resent being reminded that they exist.

To be honest the Remain scare stories - they seem weird . Like the millennium ones.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 06:06 AM

There is still a huge demand for fish and our fishing industry has been all but destroyed by nothing other than the EU.
Correct.
The EU could have spent money more wisely in Ireland, in my opinion instead of building a few new roads[ and in one case destroying a natural heritage site] they should have spent money repairing the water mains infrastructure, an infra structure that leaks badly and is a hangover from the Victorian British Empire,.
Water is one of Irelands assets, something that possibly could contribute to future energy demands, without water there is no life.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 06:18 AM

"To be honest its you Steve who is counselling do nothing and everything will be all right."

Nowhere in any post have I ever counselled "doing nothing." Don't assume that remain voters think that all will be well if we just stay in and do nothing. In this thread I've criticised EU fishery and agricultural policies as disasters and said that the euro was a big, big mistake, and I also agree with what's been said about Greece. The EU needs root and branch reform. But that doesn't mean I think it's bad enough to abandon. We live in a world increasingly dominated by huge, fiercely protectionist trading blocs. If we leave our bloc we will be a little country in big trouble. We are not the manufacturing powerhouse we once were. No-one is queueing up to give us amazing deals and the world can manage quite well without our stuff. We have a good deal of influence in the EU but we have forgotten how to be a constructive partner, a deficiency started by Thatcher. Harking back to a past mythical golden age (mythical? We were the sick man of Europe when we joined. We seem to have done OK since...) is useless. Better to stay in the community and be a friendly but firmly-argumentative partner fighting for reform. That does not mean doing nothing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 06:26 AM

I don't think we were sicker than anywhere else.

My Renault Kangoo was as shit as any Austin Maestro.

It was written off after going through a deep puddle.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 07:33 AM

I borrowed a Maestro for a year and could sit there on a quiet afternoon and watch it rust from underneath in a cancerous fashion. Remember Maggie getting in one outside Number Ten, lauding it as the best of British? Heheh. My next-door neighbour got a brand-new Marina as a firm's car (!). We found rust in the seams on the day it was delivered. After eighteen months it was incredibly shabby, on its way out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 07:47 AM

I had a Montego 7 seater estate that was full of rust after 12 months. Shame really as it was a lovely car otherwise.

As one who has worked in both Europe and elsewhere I can assure you that going to work in the EU is far easier and cheaper than having to get a work permit as you need to in many other places. Unless we come up with some sort of deal, Al, anyone going to get paid work in the EU will find it more difficult than it is now. No scare story, just a comparison between areas that you need a work permit for and ones that you don't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 08:03 AM

Well the usual thing the agent told me was if the customs people stop you with a PA in the back - they will send you back. So tell them you're playing at a friend's wedding, a private do. That sometimes works apparently.

That's an agent who's putting gigging acts all over the EU. So they aren't that bloody wonderful.

The subject has been a lead story in The Stage several times.

The reality gap between actuality, and the wide open spaces of the EU as described by Remainers is a constant source of puzzlement to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 09:03 AM

Better to stay in the community and be a friendly but firmly-argumentative partner fighting for reform
but it seems to have achieved nothing as regards the fishing community.
I agree the UK was privileged to kaep its own currency.
LIKE MOST BUREAUCRATIC EMPIRES SUCH AS THE SOVIET UNION IT IS DOOMED TO EVENTUAL FAILURE ,WHAT IS SAD IS THAT IN THE MEANTIME PEOPLE IN GREECE HAVE EXPERIENCED EXTREME HARDSHIP.
I think that in the next two years people in the uk and ireland will suffer which is sad and not something that I am happy about.
However relentless consumerism and the idea we NEED fine wine or mcdonalds shit needs to be adressed seriously


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 09:10 AM

I had three BL-built company cars in the '80s - an Allegro (a.k.a. 'All-aggro'), an Ital (successor of the Marina) and a Rover 200. I had each for three years and, by the end of the three years they were rust-buckets - wings, sills, bonnet-edges, boot-lids, all rotting to a greater or lesser degree.

It wasn't the EU that destroyed our motor industry, it was our own industry's poor designs, cheapskate materials, and shoddy workmanship. Utter rubbish that got what it deserved. And saying otherwise, blaming the EU, is typical of the 'everything is somebody else's fault' attitude so rife in society nowadays.

And it makes me smile to hear people bewailing the fate of our fishing industry, and complaining about 'Spanish fishermen plundering our waters'. I didn't hear them speaking out in support of Iceland when our own large fleet was plundering Icelandic waters. Funny how, when the boot's on the other foot, it's somehow 'different'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 09:24 AM

Our fleet was not plundering, it was fishing sustainably in international waters which Iceland suddenly claimed as its own.

A two hundred mile limit is now an accepted institution for a sovreign state such as we hope to be soon, and other fleets will have to respect that just as we accept Iceland's 200 mile limit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 09:38 AM

The maestro...Steve, wasn't that the one that talked. I often wondered what it found to say....

I had a 2nd hand marina. but the handles were very attractive to thieves. Someone nicked our tent from the car , smashing off the handles - outside Stirling University, it was.

Afterwards my father in law who was a fitter at the pit, did a 'pit job' and stuck some homemade handles on with pop rivets.

As they say in Worksop, John, it really looked a bugger.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 09:46 AM

I think you are getting it all out of proportion, kind of rewriting history. Don't forget that in those days the modus operandi was ' built in obsolescence'. We did that really well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 10:12 AM

"Our fleet was not plundering, it was fishing sustainably in international waters which Iceland suddenly claimed as its own"

That's not how the Icelandic government saw it. Nor, eventually, the way Nato and the UN saw it, who both backed Iceland's position on their declared fishing limits (as did, for reasons of national security, the US). I remember very well how we all cheered when the Icelandic gunboats tried to ram our trawlers and our crews' superb seamanship won the day - "That'll teach those rotten foreigners a lesson!". But the U.K. eventually had to accept the 50-nm, and subsequently 200-nm, limits.

Iceland was acting to preserve its own fishing industry, which played a far, far larger part in their economy than ours has done in the UK economy, and the UK was the interloper and, as far as Iceland was concerned, the aggressor. As I said earlier, it's very amusing to see how different people's reactions are when the boot's on the other foot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: MikeL2
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 10:42 AM

hi Al

" I don't think we were sicker than anywhere else."

I agree entirely

I had a Fiat 124 from new. Became a "rust bucket" in no time at all.

At the time I was working on an important project and for my sins I was I was seen as the best man for the job. it meant commuting from Manchester to London 5 days every week.

I have to say that the hard working engine was fantastic as I flogged it severely.

Mind you I made a lot of money out of it as I negotiated a great deal on traveling expenses. I sold it and bought a Ford 1600 E. Fantastic motor.

Some of the european cars were crap. And then there was the Lada !!!

Cheers

Mike


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 12:45 PM

The UK fishing industry has been all but destroyed by overfishing by British fishermen. The EU has attempted to conserve stocks. If the British fishermen are let loose again there will be no fish left in the North Sea within 10 years.

And Dick, what the hell is Jason. I wrote Jamon Serrano, and if you don't know what it is don't pontificate on whether we need it or not. As for mangetout, there are about 2 months of the year when you can grow it in Britain, and even then it isn't the same quality as imported. As for Macdonalds, what has that to do with anything, I wouldn't touch Macdonalds with a bargepole. We need quality food, and that means European producers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 01:10 PM

DAVID, you understood my point jamon or jason,
I can grow mange tout for five months and with cloches or polytunnels all the year round, and the quality is better than imported ,free of any chemicals.
" As for Macdonalds, what has that to do with anything," it has much to do with it my point was about Consumerism
" We want, indeed now need, mangetout, Jamon Serrano and fine wines."
we do not all want or need any of that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 01:18 PM

I think the point David is trying to make is that at the moment we can, if we wish, buy these items freely. Post Brexit this may change due to delays at customs, costs, etc etc.

The fact that you do not want or need such things is basically irrelevant to Davids point. For instance in the UK access to plots for growing is difficult, my garden is tiny, two/three inches of soil then solid clay. I waited 9 years to get an allotment.

If you have the land to grow on, good luck to you, next time I'm down your way I'll come and have a look if I may.

Cheers


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 02:05 PM

Dick, if I understand it, you live in Ireland. So you are actually insulated from the problems that brexit will cause for us poor brits. So actually Raggy, Dick will still be able to buy these things freely.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 02:55 PM

Of course I am not insulated , we will all be affected, not quite sure how badly, but both countries will be poorer with the exception of people like REES MOGG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 03:05 PM

jeez, i just tried to read 'the animals' by john berger. it's difficult, innit? however john berger is one of the things i love about my country - although his 'country' was indefinable, he didn't care much for borders and lived much of his life in rural eastern france/switzerland. i'd love to hear him talk about the little englanders and their precious brexit - or come to that the tommy robinson's of our times. by the way, i feel a list coming on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 03:16 PM

From: David Carter (UK) - PM
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 12:45 PM

The UK fishing industry has been all but destroyed by overfishing by British fishermen. The EU has attempted to conserve stocks. If the British fishermen are let loose again there will be no fish left in the North Sea within 10 years.

And Dick, what the hell is Jason. I wrote Jamon Serrano, and if you don't know what it is don't pontificate on whether we need it or not. As for mangetout, there are about 2 months of the year when you can grow it in Britain, and even then it isn't the same quality as imported. As for Macdonalds, what has that to do with anything, I wouldn't touch Macdonalds with a bargepole. We need quality food, and that means European producers.


Ok. There is a (very) limited season for growing mangetout in UK. For how long can it be grown in EU? (probably not for a much longer season)
A quick google search suggests that most of it comes from Kenya. Which means that when we leave the EU we will be able to buy it without the EU import tariffs currently imposed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:48 PM

David Carter, HERE is a quote from McDonalds website, seems like they use european producers
We are proud to source many products and ingredients from Irish suppliers such as beef from over thousands of Irish farms, bacon from Dew Valley, Ballygowan water, Flahavans porridge oats, free range eggs from Greenfield Foods as well as products from Kerry Foods, Leestrand Dairies and Gempack. McDonald’s in Europe is the single largest purchaser of Irish beef by volume and one in every five hamburgers sold in McDonald’s across Europe every year is of Irish origin. The company also exports Irish dairy produce, bacon and eggs into the McDonald’s system internationally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:59 PM

'Mange Bugger-All', if the rumours about food-shortage predictions are to be believed! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 05:13 PM

Other way round Nigel, Kenya and other EAC countries have preferential access to the UK market at present, but the UK government are refusing to say whether that will continue when and if the UK leaves the EU.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 05:15 PM

Dick, you seem to have an obsession with Macdonalds. I care not where they get their food from, since I would never be seen dead in there. They may use fine Irish raw materials, but they still turn them into shite food.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 07:46 PM

"The UK fishing industry has been all but destroyed by overfishing by British fishermen. The EU has attempted to conserve stocks. If the British fishermen are let loose again there will be no fish left in the North Sea within 10 years.

And Dick, what the hell is Jason. I wrote Jamon Serrano, and if you don't know what it is don't pontificate on whether we need it or not. As for mangetout, there are about 2 months of the year when you can grow it in Britain, and even then it isn't the same quality as imported. As for Macdonalds, what has that to do with anything, I wouldn't touch Macdonalds with a bargepole. We need quality food, and that means European producers."

Amen to all that, David. It's the tradition to paint the EU as the sinners and us as the saints. One of my Bude mates is a lifelong fisherman who knows ten times more about fishing than any bloody bureaucrat. You want to hear what he says about the EU. But, when pressed, he'll tell you what you probably don't want to hear about British fishermen too. Farming's the same. Until someone cries foul, farmers will degrade the soil until the taxpayer has to stump up for dredging (Somerset Levels flooding a couple of years ago - entirely due to terrible farming practices). They will devastate wildlife until someone passes a law. Neonicotinoids are destroying insect life in this country but farmers will keep on using it until someone bans them. Same old story.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 08:18 PM

An "Empire" is a gathering of countries ruled by a single state Dick - Europe is a conglomeration of States that have assembled to reach mutual understanding on certain major issues
Thirty or forty years ago I might have told them all Britain, The U.S.. the European countries to go to their own chosen hells in their own handcarts - the reality of the situation has made me think twice on this one.
The E.U. is an attempt to fend off the inevitable collapse of the present system by Capitalist Countries
Should that collapse happen in a disorganised random fashion, there is an inevitability that several countries will swing to the extreme right to solve their problems - we already have a rise in the fortunes of the neo-Nazi parties in Europe - Austria narrowly escaped a Nazi leadership a couple of years ago - Hungary has such a leadership at present
Brexit was carried though by drawing on the British people's xenophobic fears
I was appalled at the way Greece was treated during its economic crisis, but last time anything like that happened there The Colonels moved in and massacred and tortured their opponents
It is notable that the most vociferous opponents of the E.U. come from the Extremist right of Europe and America
The E.U. may not be perfect but until another "spectre comes to haunt Europe", it'll do for now
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 12:22 AM

I should have thought Brexit would be just what the doctor ordered for Irish Unity.. the Irish want in the EU, the English clearly want out.

Surely the EU should be a great rallying point for Irish people. One subject, they can be united about telling England to bugger off, once and for all.

Sod off England! We want to be in Europe!

No.....?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 01:34 AM

In the Sunday Times today:

Britain is odds-on to crash out of the European Union without a deal, Liam Fox warns today.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, the international trade secretary put the chances of a no deal departure at "60-40", squarely blaming the "intransigence" of the European Commission.

Fox accused Eurocrats of harbouring a "theological obsession" with EU rules rather than "economic wellbeing", which would lead to “only one outcome”.


As I have said many times, the more extreme leavers completely fail to understand that the EU is about economic, political and social interests, not just economic. Any approach that concentrates just on the economic is extremely likely to fail. So what Liam Fox puts down to EU intransigence is actually the inability of one Liam Fox to recognise what the EU concerns are. Understanding what the other team wants is a vital part of any negotiation, and it looks like Liam Fox is failing dismally in that. Unless, of course, his only objective is to put the blame for anything that does go wrong on the EU, but surely not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 02:32 AM

David Carter Ianswered your question about Quality European producers, as you Admit McDONALDS ARE A EUROPEAN PRODUCER AND THEY ARE NOT QUALITY. you have proved your quote was nonsense
We lose tariff free access to QUALITY EU produce
We need quality food, and that means European producers.
I probably will be worse of and so will most people apart from the rich
The real enemy is the system whether it be european or uk, The european version has imposed poverty on Greece and to a lesser extent Ireland by imposing draconiasn financial debt, after encouraging unwise loans etc , so that the multi national large investors and bankers get repaid, and you honestly think the Europeans will be kinder Capitalists you live in cloud cuckoo land.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 02:43 AM

and you honestly think the Europeans will be kinder Capitalists

This is the point of the social aspect of the EU. I admit, as with Greece, when it comes to it the capitalist interests usually win out, but the social side imposes limits on what the capitalist wing does. Hence the working hours directive and similar workers rights. Parliament explicitly excluded incorporation of workers rights derived from EU law in the Withdrawal agreement, you will recall.

So yes, the Europeans capitalists will be kinder. Not because they want to, but they do not have as free a hand as the ones in the UK are seeking.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: BobL
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 03:15 AM

I think I was born at just the right time. I missed WW2, but was around for the period of optimism and rebuilding that followed, for the Festival of Britain, for the Coronation, for the Swinging Sixties. Early computers - with 1KB memory, and on which an hour's time cost about a programmer's weekly wage - were a perfect match for my particular skills, leading me into a successful if unspectacular career. And I expect to be gone before the collapse of civilisation due to Brexit, Trumpism, religious extremism and global climate change.

And BTW, if you fitted a Rover engine into an Allegro, would you have Allegover?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 03:21 AM

ha ha,we will see.
in the past the EU HAS BEEN PROTECTIONIST , LARGE WINE LAKES AND BUTTER MOUNTAINS HAVE BEEN HOARDED.France has had its wine market protect4d, does anyone deny this
It seems we did not need these fine wines and fine EU produce of wine butter and milk[DavidCarter take note]
very shortly we will all have to consrve energy, consume less, and start where we can, being more self sufficient,unless the two brexit sides stop posturing we must prepare for being worse off, i hope it does not get too bad. but it is no point pretending that incompetent politicians can sort things out, most of the politicians seem concerned only with having a job and getting votes ,very little long term strategy
, i hope they do sort out trade deals benficial to both sides ,but I am preparing for the worst, the kind capitalists of the
EU DID NOT HAND OUT FREE MILK TO THE GREEKS
milk lake   

   

Milk cartons being transported on a conveyor belt in the Candia milk plant in Awoingt, northern France | Philippe Huguen/AFP via Getty Images
Europe’s hidden milk lake threatens fragile market

https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-hidden-milk-price-lake-threatens-fragile-market-eu-commission/

Brussels bought up a huge amount of milk to try to boost prices. The danger is that these stocks are now forcing prices down.

By Emmet Livingstone        

1

HERSTAL, Belgium — Milk lakes and butter mountains were meant to be a relic of Europe’s past.

Massive EU intervention in the dairy market is back, however, and its price-distorting effects are coming in for some of the same scathing criticism as in the 1970s and 1980s, when Brussels became a byword for reckless intervention.

In an attempt to prop up prices in the teeth of a dairy crisis, Brussels has been buying up milk since 2015. A lot of milk. The European Commission has used public money to buy some 380,000 metric tons of skim milk powder. That’s slightly more than a big dairy powerhouse like France produced in 2016, for example.

Stockpiled in warehouses — mostly in France, Germany and Belgium — the sacks of milk powder conspicuously failed to stop the price hemorrhage. In fact, the EU strategy is in danger of doing exactly the opposite. Milk farmers and traders fear that the very existence of these quantities is already dragging down prices, in the expectation that they will one day be sold back.

“This powder is the problem,” said Romuald Schaber, chairman of the German dairy association. “It’s the sword of Damocles hanging over us all.”

. . . .


Stop with the huge cut-and-paste, Dick. I've posted the link after a brief introduction. We only allow long cut-and-paste for stories we want to preserve in the music section. ---mudelf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 03:28 AM

Dick, do you live in some parallel universe? McDonalds are American, not European.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 03:31 AM

I was not saying the EU capitalist are kind, Sandman. I was saying their unkindness is constrained in some directions by rules the UK Parliament voted to remove, so the UK capitalists are likely to be still less kind.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 03:48 AM

Backwoodsman,
"Our fleet was not plundering, it was fishing sustainably in international waters which Iceland suddenly claimed as its own"
That's not how the Icelandic government saw it.


They did not accuse us of "plundering." They just wanted to extend their territorial waters from the then accepted 50 miles to 200 miles in order to expand their own fleet and increase their catch.

David,
The UK fishing industry has been all but destroyed by overfishing by British fishermen. The EU has attempted to conserve stocks. If the British fishermen are let loose again there will be no fish left in the North Sea within 10 years.

I disagree. I do not believe that statement can be justified.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 04:23 AM

The North Sea was overfished of herring at the time MacColl was making 'Singing the Fishing' at the beginning of the sixties
The fishermen the team recorded said that over and over again and commented bitterly on the effect it had had on the East Coast fishing towns
Parallel Universe about sums it up
Maybe the E.U. started W.W.1 - wouldn't put it past them!!
Dick
Your large, randomly gathered cut-'n-pastes are meaningless as they represent the views only of an unknown reporter working for a little known American publication with links to Europe's main opponent, Wall Street
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 04:59 AM

Jim meaningless to you but not to Dairy farmers, are you denying that there was a winelake or butter mountain asnd now an over production of milk.
David, stop being silly McDonalds say they use european producers, do you also deny there was a wine lake?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 05:05 AM

To my mind the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU has been very bad for fish stocks and conservation. If shores were treated like land and each country could fish its own shores it would be a lot easier to conserve fish because you could see who's responsible if a particular area's stocks went down.

Policies like the quotas that ended up with fishermen throwing tons of dead fish back into the sea are just disgusting and have ruined Atlantic fisheries.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 08:35 AM

McDonalds use producers from everywhere they operate, which is just about everywhere. I havn't a clue what point you are trying to make.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 08:37 AM

Thompson, your proposal might make sense, were it not for the fact that fish can swim across the boundary between different country's territorial waters. And they can't read signs telling them when they are about to swim into the waters of a rapacious country which does not adhere to the common fisheries policy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 08:42 AM

Big Al says:

"Surely the EU should be a great rallying point for Irish people. One subject, they can be united about telling England to bugger off, once and for all.

Sod off England! We want to be in Europe!"

It would be even better were they to say that English people who want to be in Europe can come and live there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 09:58 AM

Ironically, it appears that Brexit is the straw the broke the camel's back for Northern Ireland
The gap between those who wish to continue to be part of Britain and those who want a United Ireland has shrunk to an unbelievable extent, turning a long-held wish into a distinct possibility
Even former leader of the DUP, PETER ROBINSON has said that his party need to discuss Unity
It seems that the predictions that Brexit could lead to the break-up of the U.K. had some foundation
That is a major problem for May's "Conservative and Unionist Party" as without the D.U.Ps support they can't survive in Government
It's an ill wind.... as they say
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 11:06 AM

scotland too, will not be around for long. iain mcwhirter in the herald recently described the situation for the scottish parliament as 'like being chained to a lunatic' it won't be easy to get away though, the forces of unionism on both sides of the irish sea are strong and aggressive.

for those of us left after brexit in what's left of the UK it doesn't look good. i've always been a socialist and just despair of the current political scene. what hope is there for peace and progressive politics these days?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 11:18 AM

Yes it does not look good, bullshit on both sides , a new uk government in my opinion would be an improvement. but time will tell


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 12:24 PM

Re: David Carter (UK). "It would be even better were they to say that English people who want to be in Europe can come and live there."

Well they did, and they do! I have many a time met folks who moved, especially after the Maggie blankety blank Thatcher assault on the Black Country.

A great example is Katie Taylor, you should read her life story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Taylor#Education


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 12:34 PM

Jo77, "they did and they do"

the question is really "will they" post Brexit

Some of us have concerns that they might say "bugger off"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 12:59 PM

So j0_77, are you going to give me a legally binding document which will entitle me to move when I retire in 8-9 years?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 01:13 PM

'chained to a maniac'.....I like that!

a pleasing image!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 01:25 PM

even when the maniac has the power.....and suicidal tendencies?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 02:53 PM

that's the only kind of maniac to be chained to....

who wants to be chained to a maniac who eats his sprouts, remembers your birthday, and shows his wild streak by drinking Earl Grey during The Antiques Road Show.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 07:00 PM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 09:58 AM
Ironically, it appears that Brexit is the straw the broke the camel's back for Northern Ireland
The gap between those who wish to continue to be part of Britain and those who want a United Ireland has shrunk to an unbelievable extent, turning a long-held wish into a distinct possibility


Fine, give the people of Northern Ireland a vote on whether they wish to continue as part of the UK, or seek to become part of the Republic of Ireland (assuming the Republic want to accept them).
But make it a 'one off' vote, which will commit them for an extended period, and don't allow for a second vote if things don't go the way the EU would like.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 10:55 PM

@Raggytash and SBP-Cooperator
Well I have no idea, but suspect that it will work out in the usual inter British way, just like it was back in the day. Used be a joke that there is a border between the UK and ROI, because in effect the only thing they stopped travelers for was liquor and tobacco. No passports or any of that sort of silly thing. They were, for most of us, happy times.

But there is enormous changes to property value in the ROI. Some cities are as expensive as UK, so be ready to dosh up a lot of loot if buying a home. Yet there remain bargains in the countryside just like you'll find in the UK.

Retiring there is somewhat of an industry as lots go from here, and Australia etc. I suspect Co. Clare prices are a bit of a shock, - music business and so on- but then who wants to move to a cosmopolitan community even if in Ireland? I certainly would not want that.

Yet I think this BrokesIt will bring folks to their senses and get a better deal for the UK than is now on the table, including retaining the relaxed UK / ROI relationship, so nothing will change for retiring from there to the wee green island.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 07:07 AM

Peter Hoskins has tweeted:

Pound hits 11 month low against the U.S. dollar after Liam Fox’s warning of a no-deal Brexit.
Wonder if the Telegraph will do a front page like they did on Mark Carney, when sterling was pretty much unchanged? 


We can't control what the Telegraph does, but we can wonder if the people who were critical of Carney will be equally crutical of Liam Fox.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 07:27 AM

"(assuming the Republic want to accept them)"
That's now the majority wish#
A second vote is not in question -
THe second vote over Brexit has been called for because of the shamblic handling of the negotiations, the revelations of the damage that is likely to be done to Britain and the extremist xenophobic policy that a significant enough minority of the British people were persuaded to vote to leave.
Given all these factors, it would be totally undemocratic not to allow a second vote on Brexit - if Governments can change their mind - why not the voters
None of these factors are comparable in any way to a national group being given the right to vote for full independence of their own country
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 09:28 AM

Re-unification of Ireland: That's now the majority wish#

An easy claim to make, but virtually impossible to back up without a referendum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 10:00 AM

re unification of ireland would solve the border problem


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM

"An easy claim to make, but virtually impossible to back up without a referendum."
The subject has been surveyed constantly over the last few years
It was estimated nine years ago that only 11% of the Northern Irish people wanted a United Ireland - a survey two years ago indicated that this had leapt up to 48%
A recent survey has now suggested that a hard Brexit would increase that to 58%
An indication of the accuracy of this is that the DUP no longer have aan overll majority and could be outvoted by the three other parties gareeing to vote against them
Last yra in The Republic the figure for a United Ireland had leapt from around 25% to a little under half the population - more recent reports suggest that something like 65% of the Irish people enthusiastically support the idea
Brexit has done a wonderful job in this respect
The main beneficiaries of the Brexit fiasco in both the North and the South have been Sinn Fein, who are now serious Government contenders
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 10:27 AM

Yes, and surveys showed that UK would vote to remain in EU, and Trump would not be president.
You can no longer trust polls (if you ever could) to give an accurate position on events.
Either people mislead the polls, or they are not set up to query a representative minority.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 12:00 PM

Isn't it rather telling that, when a second referendum is mooted, these BrexShiteers never react by saying, "Bring it on, we won before, and we'll win again!"?

They're bricking it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 12:03 PM

Apologies, 'second referendum' should have been 'a further referendum on whether to accept the deal the government and EU have agreed on, or a 'hard Brexit' with no deal'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 12:28 PM

"Yes, and surveys showed that UK would vote to remain in EU, and Trump would not be president."
That was before people got a chance to see the results of Britain leaving Europe
Don't suppose you'd like to place a bert on the result now
As far as Ireland is concerned - there has always been a desire to unite - Why wouldn't there be, Ireland is Ireland whatever the Empire chose to call it?
In the North, the population shift alone has made unity a forgone conclusion - now it's only the diehards that wish to remain part of Britain and even they are now realising the implications of doing so - business and the economy is alredy feeling the effects of this idiocy
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 04:42 PM

From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 12:28
Don't suppose you'd like to place a bet on the result now
As far as Ireland is concerned - there has always been a desire to unite -


According to an earlier post there has not always been a desire for unification (in the North at least).

From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM
"An easy claim to make, but virtually impossible to back up without a referendum."
The subject has been surveyed constantly over the last few years
It was estimated nine years ago that only 11% of the Northern Irish people wanted a United Ireland


I fully accept that your knowledge of the Irish peoples is greater than mine, but your comments don't always appear to be consistent.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 06:19 PM

Both Australia and America are now saying they will only do a deal to supply the UK with food if we drop out standards. Well done brexiteers. Hormone laden beef and chlorinated chicken from now on I suppose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 07:26 PM

"Apologies, 'second referendum' should have been 'a further referendum on whether to accept the deal the government and EU have agreed on, or a 'hard Brexit' with no deal'."

It wouldn't even be that, John. We've already had a second referendum, on 23 June 2016. That was forced on us by people who have never accepted the result of the first referendum. Of course, they'll pretend that it's all to do with "ever-closer union" and "United States of Europe" bollocks. But that isn't at all where they're coming from. They've been at it since the mid-70s, way before any of that arose. Yet the self-same people, the ones who agitated for forty-odd years for a second referendum, will tell you that we are being undemocratic in calling for a rethink. Yet they called for a rethink even after we remainers won a two-thirds majority. They won by a wafer-thin margin in 2016, unlike us in the seventies, yet according to them it's us who are "undemocratic" in calling for reconsideration. Of course, they will tell you how much things changed over those forty-odd years. Well I'll tell you summat. Things have changed a damn sight more than that in the last two years. But the brexiteers are scared shitless of a rethink, and they're sacred shitless of what's going to happen to this country. In that, I suppose, there's common ground with us remainers, if nowt else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 07:55 PM

"Sacred shitless" sounds like the deification of a bad bout of constipation. Actually I think I'd be scared shitless of a bout of sacred shitlessness. I'll have a rethink and let you know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 08:16 PM

"but your comments don't always appear to be consistent."
Not really Nigel
The underlying intention of Ireland has always been to remove a partition that was forced upon them- pride of nation is part of the psyche of the Irish people
Since Independence (of sorts) in 1922 the Irish have been dependent on friendly nations with its nearest neighbour, mainly as a plane to emigrate to with a practial chance of returning home easily, so they adopted a 'don't rock the boat' pragmatism
An example of this is the fact that up to twenty years ago there has only been one major work Ireland's greatest disaster - the Famine, which was written in the 1960s by an Englishwoman - no point of rubing our neighbour's noses in what they did
The blossoming of the Irish Economy - 'The Celtic Tiger' (thanks to the E.U.) largely removed that dependency (the 150th anniversary saw a landslide of serious and uncomfortably frank books on Irish history under British rule.
These things are never straightforward
Now Brexit has made Britain a liability - hence the return to the old dream of a United Ireland
I am in no way a nationalist, but I hope I live to see that one
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 02:31 AM

Both Australia and America are now saying they will only do a deal to supply the UK with food if we drop out standards. Well done brexiteers. Hormone laden beef and chlorinated chicken from now on I suppose."
A strong argument for not eating meat, you are right we should have a right to decnt quality food , and my impression of Germany is that it insists on high standrds of food as much as it can throughout Europe, i
I am not happy to trust Trump or mny other country to insist on as high a standard, it is ridiculous to suggest that everything about Europe is bad.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 02:35 AM

We do not have to go very far back in time, to remember the BSE beef scandal, The one people I would trust to be thorough in maintaining reasonable quality of food are the Germans


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 02:39 AM

As a nation they seem to be meticulous in their thouroughness.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:30 AM

in case we forget, March 27, 1996
The European Commission imposes a world wide ban on all British beef exports.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:35 AM

Correctly so Dick, the reason was to prevent the transmission of CJD, and to prevent the presence of CJD in British beef undermining confidence in other European products, including British products.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:44 AM

AUGUST 1999
The official end of the export ban is celebrated by farmers as the first consignments of animals due for export are prepared for slaughter and a marketing drive - centred on France - begins.
The farmers are subsequently angered when France and Germany announce they will not lift their bans on British beef because they have further questions over their safety.

NOVEMBER 1999
EU food safety commissioner David Byrne announces the start of legal action against France for refusing to lift the ban.


DECEMBER 1999
French PM Lionel Jospin says his country will not lift the ban and threatens to take the EU to court for trying to force it to take British beef.

FEBRUARY 2000
The European Commission begins legal action against Germany for its failure to lift its ban.

MARCH 2000
Germany agrees to lift its ban but France maintains it will not. Legal action against Paris goes ahead.


The ban on British beef by EU was not lifted until March 2006!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4785610.stm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:46 AM

And it is interesting to think what would happen post Brexit. Would the UK impose a ban on its own products? Possible, but I think unlikely. So each importer would choose whether and when to impose a ban on importing, and then we have a long exercise afterwards convincing each of them to drop the ban. I haven't checked but as far as I remember I think there was some EU support and limited compensation for the UK farmers when cattle were destroyed. If so, would the UK government do the same?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM

"but your comments don't always appear to be consistent."
Not really Nigel
The underlying intention of Ireland has always been to remove a partition that was forced upon them- pride of nation is part of the psyche of the Irish people

But that 'intention' must be in the view of the people of the Republic of Ireland.
You have stated yourself that even within the last decade only 11% of people in Northern Ireland wanted unification.

This is like claiming that there is a clear wish for unification between Spain and Gibraltar, as it's the wish of the majority. That would only be true because of the much larger population in Spain compared with Gibraltar. Gibraltarians overwhelmingly wish to remain part of UK.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM

Not true Keith, the EU ban on British boneless beef exports was lifted in 1999. What remained until 2006 was a ban on the export of live cattle. And possibly on beef on the bone, which is reasonable, we certainly weren't eating beef on the bone for a long time after the ban on general beef products was lifted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM

It wouldn't even be that, John. We've already had a second referendum, on 23 June 2016. That was forced on us by people who have never accepted the result of the first referendum. Of course, they'll pretend that it's all to do with "ever-closer union" and "United States of Europe" bollocks. But that isn't at all where they're coming from. They've been at it since the mid-70s, way before any of that arose. Yet the self-same people, the ones who agitated for forty-odd years for a second referendum, will tell you that we are being undemocratic in calling for a rethink. Yet they called for a rethink even after we remainers won a two-thirds majority. They won by a wafer-thin margin in 2016, unlike us in the seventies, yet according to them it's us who are "undemocratic" in calling for reconsideration.

So, as the leavers have had to wait forty years for a reconsideration, why do remainers expect one almost immediately?

Thank you for confirming how long there have been calls for a referendum on leaving. That fact may surprise those who keep insisting that the only motivation is reducing immigration.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM

What we need is a government of National Unity, maybe led by Ken Clarke, with the more rational wing of the tory party, LAbour, Lib Dems, SNP, Green, and, if the will come on board, Sinn Fein, to put a stop to this nonsense and put the country back on the right road.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:23 AM

"But that 'intention' must be in the view of the people of the Republic of Ireland."
The "people" had a bloody Civil War over partition - it was only ever accepted because of war fatigue - the famine - the evictions - the forced emigrations - the Land Wars - an Imperialist War - a War for Independence, The Civil War, then permanent immigration...
By 1922, the Irish people had had enough and accepted partition on the understanding it would be a temporary measure
The sectarian repression in the North led to bloody violence in which the British establishment carefully chose its side and became an extension of Northern sectarian oppression takes us right up to our recent lifetimes

Voting on whether a single country and culture should be a single entity has always been utter and very dangerous nonsense - partition guarantees a legacy of body-bags for future generations - it always has
What would be oyur reaction if Devon and Cornwall (or more likely Liverpool and The Wirral!) suddenly made a U.D.I.
Would you debate it in terms of breaking England up into pieces or would you describe it as utter nonsense?
Of course dividin a country up into political or religious pieces is an outrageous action
The Spain/Gibraltar issue is a hangover from Empire as was the farcical Falklands War
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:37 AM

Voting on whether a single country and culture should be a single entity has always been utter and very dangerous nonsense - partition guarantees a legacy of body-bags for future generations - it always has
What would be oyur reaction if Devon and Cornwall (or more likely Liverpool and The Wirral!) suddenly made a U.D.I.
Would you debate it in terms of breaking England up into pieces or would you describe it as utter nonsense?


You seem to forget we've recently had just that. There was a claim that Scotland wanted to be independent. If the referendum that they held had shown the claim to be true, they would have become independent.
And before you say that you were speaking about England, not The UK, my interests are in the UK, not in England.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:40 AM

The ban on British beef by EU was not lifted until March 2006!
That give me faith in the integrity of maintaining food quality and concern of the German administrators of Europe, I have crticisms of Europe, but I would rather have the Germans in charge of food than anybody else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:45 AM

And before you say that you were speaking about England, not The UK, my interests are in the UK, not in England.
To an extent, Nigel. Don't forget that over on the other thread you said that if it came to it and the only way to achieve Brexit was to break up the UK, you would support a break up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:49 AM

Why not have a second referendum


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:58 AM

And before you say that you were speaking about England, not The UK, my interests are in the UK, not in England.
To an extent, Nigel. Don't forget that over on the other thread you said that if it came to it and the only way to achieve Brexit was to break up the UK, you would support a break up.


I don't recall the comment, but I would imagine it related to the Scottish referendum, and that I favour Brexit. If The Scots would only remain part of UK if the UK remained part of EU then I would be in support of their wish for independence.

Of course, I may have stated it exactly as you show above if the discussion had become heated at that time. But I don't remember that precise quote.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 05:05 AM

David,
Not true Keith, the EU ban on British boneless beef exports was lifted in 1999.

The EU lifted the ban but Germany and France continued with it anyway.
The EU found they were acting illegally and when France persisted it was fined, though obviously it never paid.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 05:51 AM

"So, as the leavers have had to wait forty years for a reconsideration, why do remainers expect one almost immediately?"

Two things. Remain won by miles in the seventies, effectively putting the thing to bed. But you lot just wouldn't shut up (as is your right, of course, a right that some of you leavers would now deny the rest of us). By dint of that you've caused discontent both in this country and in the EU for decades, refusing to become a constructive partner. You won by a sliver in 2016, splitting the country down the middle in the most divisive political manoeuvre this country has seen since the war. I'd call that a significant difference. Second, as I've said, more has changed in the last two years than in the last forty. China now has a dictator for life, Putin is a hooligan and a protectionist moron has been installed in the White House. I can't think of a better time to reaffirm our membership of the EU. David Carter has the best solution. We need a coalition of the willing to restore sanity and ditch this bloody stupid and suicidal project. Sod referendums.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 05:51 AM

Correct, the EU, as in many instances, was fighting our corner.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 06:32 AM

"You seem to forget we've recently had just that. "
No I do not
Scotland acquiesced to British rule - Ireland never has - the Scots Gaelic culture was more or less killed off - the Irish never has been
Acceptance of English domination has been a part of Scottish life for many centuries - Irish history is full of wars for independence
Scotland became part of Britain via the deliberate and extremely brutal destruction of its national and cultural identity
I believe Scotland to be equally a separate country won by conquest and I should hope that one day it will decide to break with England but that will take more time and will depend on something more than a referendum
There are signs that Brexit has made enormous steps to doing that
You might have mentioned Wales of course
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:13 AM

Wales, now there is somewhere to talk about


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:30 AM

Wales, now there is somewhere to talk about

We already are. See the music section for Eisteddfod


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:56 AM

we don't need another referendum, we need another general election with a labour party showing as much commitment to remaining as they , quite rightly, do to the destruction of our country's public services. for me , the latter is much more important to our future. if we looked after everyone in our countries and not just the wealthy, then we wouldn't be in this ridiculous brexit mess


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:58 AM

A friend crossing with us from Stranraer to Larne with a boatload of raucous Welsh Rugby supporters commented wryly and loudly "The feller who did most damage to British culture was the one who persuaded the Welsh that they could sing"
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 12:09 PM

Well because Steve Shaw has again hit the nail on the head, I am voting for him to be the next Prime Minister of everything!

'"Sacred shitless" sounds like the deification of a bad bout of constipation. Actually I think I'd be scared shitless of a bout of sacred shitlessness. I'll have a rethink and let you know.' Steve Shaw Mudcat August 18 2018.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 06:41 PM

"I am voting for him to be the next Prime Minister of everything!"

Why, that's very grapefruit of you and you'll never see what I'll buy you!

"Steve Shaw Mudcat August 18 2018."

Unfortunately, you may have to wait a while for my thoughts on the 18th. You never know, I may have become a rampant Nigelesque or Keefie clone by then. We all have our nightmares, you know... ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 06:24 AM

I see that the pound has soared down to its lowest level against the euro and dollar in a year over fears of a no-deal Brexit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: MikeL2
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 10:08 AM

hi

Has anyone investigated what it will cost us if we decide to stay at this late hour?? I suspect that it could cost us more than if we walk away?.

Just thinking...

Cheers

Mike


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 11:19 AM

Well MikeL2 since #LyingNigelFartage with his nasty filthy mouth peed off mostly everybody in the EU, they are unlikely to want the UK back in. And that is quite a shame. How could one POS get away with what he did/still does, while most people in the UK are neutral towards it?

Then there is the #LyingUKIP and its minions to consider. On Quora Russian trolls pretend to be those and continue the nastiness with more new lies.

When I reflect on the needless murder of MP Cox, I think it best the UK and the EU to part ways in order that #LyingNigelFartage gets what's coming to him. A more despicable dirt bag there isn't this side of hell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 11:28 AM

Then of course the the cost of cleaning the egg of the faces of the Brexiteers!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 01:36 PM

Correction: lowest level THIS year. I misread a headline. Sorry!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 01:45 PM

There's a bit of a difference between deciding to stay in at this late stage (very desirable and a solution the EU would be certain to happily embrace) and trying to get back in once we're out. For a start it would take years, if not decades, of bureaucratic wrangling and extremely divisive domestic politics. Second, the UK would have rapidly become severely damaged goods by dint of our disastrous exit and would be a far less attractive addition. The new Greece. In other words, once we're out, we're out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 03:10 PM

MikeL re your post

"Has anyone investigated what it will cost us if we decide to stay at this late hour?? I suspect that it could cost us more than if we walk away?."

This is the first time I have heard this mentioned and to be honest not something I had considered.

I am curious to know why you think this situation may arise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 04:17 PM

So, now it seems that Russia funded the LeaveEU campaign.

Russian deal offered to Arron Banks in Brexit run-up

Happy with that chaps? Or we going see spin the likes of which has not been seen before?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 04:19 PM

Why would it cost us anything if we ditched brexit right now? Everybody would be happy, we wouldn't have to pay the forty billion, there'd be no fines to pay... OK, all that backslapping and the consequent redness of skin could mean increased expenditure on pots of E45...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 02:06 AM

Everybody would be happy, Steve? You may be forgetting one or two people, there.

Joking aside, I think the biggest costs would be due to civil unrest, financially and more important politically.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 05:20 AM

Why would it cost us anything if we ditched brexit right now? Everybody would be happy, we wouldn't have to pay the forty billion, there'd be no fines to pay... OK, all that backslapping and the consequent redness of skin could mean increased expenditure on pots of E45...

But then we wouldn't be paying the 40 billion to EU, instead we would be bankrolling it (or a large part of it) for evermore.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 05:46 AM

" we would be bankrolling it "
We certainly wouldn't be using it to replace our lost industries necessery for our "standing on our own two feet"
There is no plan whatever to forge a new Britain, just a scrabble around to find who were will depend on next
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 06:16 AM

Interesting piece of information from this morning’s Iris Times
Bexit at any price eh?
Jim Carroll

UK URGED GOVERNMENT NOT TO FOCUS ON BREXIT RISK TO PEACE
London asked Dublin to reduce emphasis on potential threat to Belfast Agreement
Request came in meeting between figures from the two governments
FIACH KELLY
Deputy Political Editor

The British government asked Ireland to ease off on its emphasis on peace in Northern Ireland as one of the main issues at stake in the Brexit talks.
The request, from representatives of the UK administration, was made in recent months because British prime minister Theresa May was said to be hurt and concerned her credentials as a guarantor of the Belfast Agreement were not being taken seriously, sources disclosed.
However, Dublin did not accede to the call because of a view that the peace process should remain central to the Brexit negotiations.
The revelation comes as Ms May steps up preparations for the UK leaving the bloc without a deal. She is reported to have instructed her officials to make contingencies in such a scenario to ensure the Border is free of customs checks and police.
It is understood the request came in meetings between figures from the Irish and UK governments as Ms May was preparing to secure the backing of her Cabinet for her vision of a future relationship with the European Union after Brexit.

PREFERRED RELATIONSHIP
The UK government published its White Paper on its preferred future relationship last month, which set out a common customs area between the EU and UK, as well as Britain remaining aligned to the European single market for goods.
However, its key measures have been met with opposition from the EU. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has also said that
the integrity of the EU single market - and the accompanying commitment to the free movement of goods, services, people and capital - must be respected.
On the message from the British government on the emphasis on peace and the Irish Border, a source said: “Successive Irish and British governments have protected a hard-won peace in Northern Ireland and we need to make sure that continues, regardless of Brexit.” This includes a need for no hard border.
Another Dublin figure said the UK government felt that the peace process and Irish Border were being seen as mostly of concern to “nationalists, Dublin and the EU”, but were equally a concern of unionists and Ms May’s minority Conservative administration, which has a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).
Stepping up preparations
In a letter to members of the Conservative Party in recent days, Ms May said she “remained clear that no deal is better than a bad deal - and we are stepping up our ‘no deal’ preparations”.
Among her commitments, Ms May said: “There will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We will remain one United Kingdom with a single internal market.”
She said the two options on offer from the EU - a “standard” free trade agreement “with Northern Ireland staying in the customs union and parts of the single market” or UK membership of the customs union and. single market - are “unacceptable”.
The wording of the so-called backstop arrangement - which would guarantee no hard border even in a no deal Brexit scenario - is one of the main sticking points in EU-UK talks, which Ms May said have reached an “im-passe”.
The EU has said that without a backstop, there can be no withdrawal agreement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 06:42 AM

An interesting article on the BBC webpages today showing how the Brexit vote varied between the differing age groups. Well worth a read.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45098550


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:17 AM

So Nigel thinks that there's a forty billion pot sitting around waiting to be reallocated when we crash out in economic disarray. Well I really have heard it all now.

DMcG, I really do think that most leavers would be, if not deliriously happy, deliriously secretly relieved if brexit failed to happen, but they'd never admit it, of course. They know deep down how bad things are going to be. All they currently have is Project Pie-In-The-Sky. We're going to reach a point in the next few months at which we'll be able to conclude that only the truly insane still support brexit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:47 AM

What really irks me about Nigel's position, and that of similar people, is his use of "we". By "we" he means British people, all British people, and no other people. But this is a wholly artificial grouping. No possible "we" includes both me and Nigel. I pay money in taxes, and some is reallocated by the UK government, and a much smaller amount goes to the EU. The EU allocates a far higher proportion to people I have an affinity with than the UK government. And those people have various nationalities, the thing they have in common with me is that they have, or they aspire to, an education. Nationality doesn't come into it. In my view people should be able to choose their own nationalities on the basis of shared values.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:52 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:17 AM

So Nigel thinks that there's a forty billion pot sitting around waiting to be reallocated when we crash out in economic disarray. Well I really have heard it all now.


No, I didn't say that. I only stated that we wouldn't be paying out forty billion pounds, but we would pay much more due to our continued membership, if we do not leave.

My response was to a comment (which I quoted) about the results if we ditched Brexit (so NOT crashing out).

Please try to read what I say before giving your own totally misconstrued view of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:59 AM

Surely, now the implications of Brexit have now becom obvious, it would be the democratic thing to ask the minority of the population to ask to vote again thereby not only giving them a chance to decide whether they had made a mistake, but possibly encouraging those who didn't vote to decide whether they would like a second chance to do so.
That way, the Brexiteers really could claim that this is the will of the people rather than dragging a dead horse over the finishing line
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 10:11 AM

The Brexiters would never agree to another vote because, as I pointed out elsewhere, they're bricking it that, now everyone can see the complete donkey's breakfast that the government are making of the negotiations, they'd lose. For god's sake, they don't even like parliament being given debate and a vote!

When the Cowardly Bullingdon Boy abandoned his responsibilities and ran away, and was replaced by Theresa May - a leading member of the Remain campaign - I told my wife that I didn't believe Brexit would ever happen, that she would engineer a situation whereby we would remain in the EU. The closer and closer we get to 29/3/19, the more I think my prediction could come true.

Please God, make it happen and save us from The Insanity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 12:22 PM

Er, Nigel, you said that we'd be able to bankroll the forty billion, etc. That does appear to assume that the forty billion pot is actually there to bankroll. You appear to have misconstrued your own post. :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 12:38 PM

No, we would continue bankrolling the EU. The 'it' referred to the EU.
Maybe I should have said "EU" instead of "it", but I thought the context would make that clear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 01:28 PM

Oh well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 01:32 PM

"No, we would continue bankrolling the EU. The 'it' referred to the EU."
If leaving, with all its pitfalls, was something that was fit for the electorate to decide, why shouldn't "bankrolling the E.U." be equally a voting matter
Maybe you are afraid that that is not the way the electorate will see it?
It seems to me that you now want to decide on behalf of the people
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 02:20 PM

I am bankrolling Trident, HS2, the damned military adventures abroad that politicians of all stripes seem to keen on. Where is my referendum on that?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteaberdeen
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 03:08 PM

scotland is in the same as yersel' david. forced to pay for things they never vote for. hopefully, they will soon have a chance to absent themselves from the madness of tory rule. unless we move, we don't have that opportunity


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 07:08 PM

And Saudi are bankrolling us by buying our fighter jets by the dozen. Unfortunately, that trade doesn't civilise them into not chopping off people's heads by the hundred per annum in public squares, or bombing the living shite out of Yemeni civilians. Oh, and a couple of dozen kids were legit targets because those damn rebels "used them as human shields..." Yes, we know how to bankroll all the wrong things. Whatever we bankroll in the EU is chicken feed in comparison, and at least it does some good...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Aug 18 - 12:18 PM

A very interesting article here from Gavin Esler, a former Leave supporter, on why he's now changed his mind and supports Remain.

I'm sure even the most rabid Brexiteer should be able to understand the incontestable logic and truth of Mr. Esler's piece.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 18 - 12:52 PM

"And Saudi are bankrolling us by buying our fighter jets by the dozen"
All to help the SAUDIS the BRITS AND ISRAEL keep the peace
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Aug 18 - 05:22 PM

It's been pointed out to me that I mis-read the opening paragraph in Gavin Esler's piece - he was not. Leave supporter, he was a Remainer but, following the referendum, he accepted the result without demur. However, he has now changed his mind and no longer accepts the result - his piece sets out the reasons for this change.

Just thought I'd put this admission of my own error 'out there' in order to 'head off at the pass' anyone who might come along being a smart-arse and pointing it out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 18 - 03:07 AM

Very good article, BWM. Thanks for the link.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Aug 18 - 04:50 AM

Thanks Dave, I thought so too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 12 Aug 18 - 11:23 AM

From Quora

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-British-politicians-slow-in-completing-Brexit-as-the-GBP-is-suffering

"Why are British politicians slow in completing Brexit, as the GBP is suffering?


Answered Fri

Because a small cadre of the #LyingUKIP, the news group “The Exres", “The Telegraph” etc are heavily invested in shorting the British pound. It will continue to fall until March 19th 2019. Then on the next day it well rebound and those #LyingUKIP and their chums will be making a killing on the backs of the chumps that actually have to pay them for #BrokesIt, IOW the average person in the UK is PAYING for the whole self destructive catastrophe.

Hope that helps"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:07 AM

Yet another unintended consequence of Brexit has been raised (again) today.

"The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the number of applicants per vacancy had fallen since last summer across all levels of skilled jobs, and said shortages were forcing many companies to raise wages."

Any good news yet?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/13/companies-brexit-supply-shock-fewer-eu-citizens-arrive-uk


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:12 AM

It would seem that more and more people are having such serious concerns about Brexit that they are no changing their minds on which way they would vote if a referendum was held today.

This is not at all surprising as we learn more and more about the potential negative impacts that Brexit may have.

The report suggests that up to 100 constituencies have now changed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM

From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:07 AM
Yet another unintended consequence of Brexit has been raised (again) today.
"The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the number of applicants per vacancy had fallen since last summer across all levels of skilled jobs, and said shortages were forcing many companies to raise wages."


If Brexit is causing a rise in wages, how do you square that with the insistence that membership of the EU, and EU immigration was not supressing wages?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 10:29 AM

Logical fallacy, Nigel. Post hoc ergo proper hoc.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 12:52 PM

Propter hoc. My iPad "corrected" propter to an English word and I didn't have my reading specs on. There is no obligation to put Latin phrases in italics. That's one hundred percent my choice. Anyway, logical fallacy, Nigel. You're not getting away with it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 07:20 PM

Not a logical fallacy at all. Although there may be a phrase which might describe the possibility of it being one.

Yet another unintended consequence of Brexit has been raised (again) today.
"The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the number of applicants per vacancy had fallen since last summer across all levels of skilled jobs, and said shortages were forcing many companies to raise wages."

If Brexit is causing a rise in wages, how do you square that with the insistence that membership of the EU, and EU immigration was not supressing wages?


The only logic required is the logic of the marketplace, of supply and demand.
Looking at available labour being the commodity supplied, if there is a shortage of available labour, and demand is constant, the cost of the labour will rise.
If there is a glut of available labour, and demand is constant, the cost of labour will fall (Although it can be propped up by 'minimum wage' rules).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:30 PM

My gears are squealing again!

CIPD is picking and choosing which jobs it claims lack applicants. Typically these sort of numpty professions lack applicants EVERYWHERE, including China, Russia, Africa, oh and the rest of the world. It's a BS call, again sourced in the fake news sphere resting somewhere in the east ... hint hint.

I will not let #LyingUKIP sugar coat their lies onto unsuspecting good people, and I shall at every opportunity debunk the St Petersburg Russian lie factory whenever I see it.

Including here on Mudcat.

Because I have dozens of close family living in the UK and the ROI.

Now! as BrokesIt is the Law there is nothing that can be done, this side of Parliamentary action, to stop it. Best I can hope for is that Britain survives the outcome whole and undamaged, even if it results in Ire-brokesIt as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:51 PM

There are various facets to your logical fallacy, Nigel, but the main one is that we haven't had brexit yet, as far as I know. :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
  Share Thread:
More...


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 17 August 12:24 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.