Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 10 Sep 18 - 09:43 AM Careful, DMcG, Nitpicker Nigs has his beady, nitpicking eye on you...!! |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: DMcG Date: 10 Sep 18 - 02:05 AM Argh, the 29th, not 19th! |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: DMcG Date: 10 Sep 18 - 02:04 AM Ok Nigel, we will go with june 19th. I made the classic march-april-may slip up, but you are right, three elapsed months does take us to June. Do I take it then that you agree with Keith that none of the things I listed will be a problem by June 29th? If not, what is you deginituon of 'short term' in 'a short term problem' when all these things will be resolved? |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 10 Sep 18 - 02:02 AM And don't even try to pass this of as "nit picking", Errrrmmm...it's off! Dead easy, this childish nit picking, innit? And before you start trying to be a clever-cunt, I'm well aware it should be 'isn't it?'. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 10 Sep 18 - 01:56 AM And the accepted standard date format in the U.K. is the chronological order of day-month-year. So 'Brexit Day' is (the) 29th (day of) May, 2019. Dead easy, this childish nit-picking, innit? |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Nigel Parsons Date: 09 Sep 18 - 07:07 PM From: DMcG - PM Date: 09 Sep 18 - 11:09 AM Let's make sure we are in agreement with the tests! We are talking about the position 3 months after Brexit day, i.e. on May 29th, 2019 Just to be clear, "Brexit Day" is March 29th, not May 29th. If you mean "three months after Brexit Day" that would be June 29th. Where May 29th comes into the reckoning I don't know. Which date were you actually referring to? And don't even try to pass this of as "nit picking", it seems to be a major part of your argument, based on a date which has nothing to do with Brexit. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Sep 18 - 03:01 PM Remind me again Keith, which of our ports is not facing an EU country? Possibly Lerwick, but thats about all. The container ports, the three biggest of which are Felixstowe, London Gateway, and Southampton. The major difference between these ports and Dover is that more than 90% of the goods passing through are going to or from non-EU countries. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: David Carter (UK) Date: 09 Sep 18 - 11:36 AM Remind me again Keith, which of our ports is not facing an EU country? Possibly Lerwick, but thats about all. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: DMcG Date: 09 Sep 18 - 11:31 AM Oops, ONS, not OCD! |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: DMcG Date: 09 Sep 18 - 11:09 AM Let's make sure we are in agreement with the tests! We are talking about the position 3 months after Brexit day, i.e. on May 29th, 2019. I am also assuming have not we agreed a transition in which the UK is still subject to all EU rules and regulations. I consider 'a traffic jam at the ports' to be present if Operation Brock is in place to the extext that one or more lanes of the motorways near the ports are not available for the ordinary driver. [Note, Dover is not the only port!] I consider "a shortage to be in place" if at least one of the items in the Consumer Price Index 2017 basket of goods, Annex A has increased in price by 10% more than overall inflation. Since there is unlikely to be an OCD report on that date, we will have to make an informal assessment, pending the next OCD report. I also consider a shortage to be in place if a major manufacturer is having problems satisfying its 'Just in Time' deliveries. As for legal and funding matters, the test will be based on comments the relevant bodies are making. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Sep 18 - 08:11 AM 3 months after Brexit. Ok, if I am still around. Remember half our trade already comes from outside EU. No traffic jams at those ports Why would there be any significant shortages? Why would any supplier withhold their products from sale? |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: DMcG Date: 09 Sep 18 - 04:57 AM Really? There will be no ongoing legal issues, traffic jams, unresolved funding agreements with universities or business contracts? Nor any significant shortages? All will be sorted after "a few weeks"? I'll be generous and let three months go by before I remind you of that statement. And feel free to do the same to me if there are no such issues remain. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Sep 18 - 04:45 AM "Problems" will be sorted within weeks. What will take longer is the increased prosperity that will come with freer trade and full independence. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: DMcG Date: 09 Sep 18 - 03:30 AM It looks as if no Brexiteer here is prepared to say whether, for example, some problem still going on after ten years can reasonably continue to be labelled 'short term'? Or twenty? Or five? Or indeed put any upper limit - and hence any meaning - to 'short term'. Meanwhile, today's BBC news has Boris claiming that the December 2017 on Northern Ireland has opened us up to perpetual blackmail. I may well be wrong, but I don't remember him saying that at the time. In fact, again according the the BBC report when the agreement was signed, 'Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson tweeted: "Congratulations to PM for her determination in getting today's deal."' |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Sep 18 - 03:07 PM No. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Sep 18 - 02:42 PM Jacob ("Call Me Jake") Rees-Mong said fifty years, didn't he? |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: DMcG Date: 05 Sep 18 - 02:29 PM No-one has ever denied there will be short term costs No Brexiteer has ever, as far as I know, said how long 'short term' is, or how heavy the total short term cost will be. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Sep 18 - 12:35 PM Then you failed to follow it Rag. That is just the annual amount we now have to give them. The full benefit is long term. Clearly and obviously there will be short term costs. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Sep 18 - 10:30 AM That was just a joke, Raggy - Haddock-Face admitted they never meant it! |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Raggytash Date: 05 Sep 18 - 10:27 AM I see to recall that one of the basic tenets of the leave argument was that we would be #350,000,000 a week better off! |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Sep 18 - 03:44 AM Even the resident brexiteers on here are now saying things will be worse. No-one has ever denied there will be short term costs. Makes you realise that there is no real point in discussing it. You have a choice Dave. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Sep 18 - 03:10 AM He is pretty spot on with that analysis, BWM. Even the resident brexiteers on here are now saying things will be worse. Makes you realise that there is no real point in discussing it. After all, what is the point of trying to reason with turkeys who vote for Christmas? |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Sep 18 - 02:46 AM James O'Brien summing up the Brexiteers' idiocy pretty well, as usual. Still waiting for Brexit-Drivellers to come up with some good news about Brexit... |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Sep 18 - 04:15 AM You said you believed it. That is "a view" by any reckoning of those who adhere to the normal use of the English language No. When I was diagnosed I believed the doctors, but it was their view not mine. I was not qualified to form such a view, but they had all the knowledge needed to interpret the evidence before them. It was their opinion not mine. They knew all about it and I did not. Why would I not believe them? |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Jack Campin Date: 03 Sep 18 - 01:07 PM I took my and my wife's prescription repeat forms in to the chemist this week. Between us we have about 10 items that matter. Of those, all are made in the EU but outwith the UK, with the sole exception of English-made microdose aspirin. We're stockpiling. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Sep 18 - 12:43 PM Oh well. That one might as well go too, along with my thumbs-up one. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Sep 18 - 12:42 PM You said you believed it. That is "a view" by any reckoning of those who adhere to the normal use of the English language. Of course, you've demonstrated that you don't always adhere so, for example with your Wheatcroft fiasco, when you said, more or less, that black was white. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Sep 18 - 06:02 AM Excellent point if I may say so, John. Thumbs up from me. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Sep 18 - 04:33 AM The WTO does not prevent countries from applying no tariff to a commodity. That is a fact. Tariffs are import taxes. We do not tax food in this country. That is why I am confident we would not apply tariffs to say rice and bananas as we have to now. That has also been a central plank of the Leave case. Our elected government can now choose which products require tariffs. David said, " It is the loss of imports from the EU which worries me far more than the loss of exports. " He was totally wrong to claim there is any danger of EU withholding goods from us. Who to believe, real economists or Keith? Its a hard one. You are the one making false claims Dave. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: David Carter (UK) Date: 03 Sep 18 - 02:48 AM The think tank UK in a Changing Europe say that the UK would be forced to apply tariffs under WTO rules, not just allowed to. Who to believe, real economists or Keith? Its a hard one. But they also point out the more serious problem which is disruption to the supply chain. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 02 Sep 18 - 03:53 PM "There will be no tariffs on foods from anywhere. EU foods will cost the same and non EU foods will be cheaper" And your evidence is.....?? "WTO allows no tariffs provided you do not discriminate between countries, and we would not. We would only apply tarrifs for those very few products where our farmers need protecting." And your evidence is....?? Without evidence, "you just made it up". |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Sep 18 - 02:55 PM WTO rules does not mean no tariffs. WTO allows no tariffs provided you do not discriminate between countries, and we would not. We would only apply tarrifs for those very few products where our farmers need protecting. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: David Carter (UK) Date: 02 Sep 18 - 02:39 PM You are joking aren't you Keith. Of course there will be tariffs. WTO rules does not mean no tariffs. If there are no tariffs, and no EU support then UK food production is finished. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Sep 18 - 02:35 PM There will be no tariffs on foods from anywhere. EU foods will cost the same and non-EU foods will be cheaper. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: David Carter (UK) Date: 02 Sep 18 - 01:43 PM No they will not apply tariffs to EU produce. That will be a decision of the British government. Why should my hard earned money be used to subsidise a British government which is pursuing a far right agenda. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Sep 18 - 12:06 PM Whether we get a good deal, a bad deal or no deal, the EU will still be willing to sell us anything we want. They may choose not to buy our stuff, or apply tariffs, but their producers will always be willing to sell their produce to us and their governments have no say in that. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Sep 18 - 12:02 PM Need? |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: David Carter (UK) Date: 02 Sep 18 - 11:21 AM Neither produce the quality foodstuffs we need, such as the range of French cheeses, Spanish and Italian cured meats, Belgian pate, Polish sausages. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: The Sandman Date: 02 Sep 18 - 10:04 AM more important than Zimbasbwe is Zambia which seems to have replaced zimbabwe as the breadbasket of africa |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: David Carter (UK) Date: 02 Sep 18 - 09:38 AM So what can we sell to Africa, and, more important, what can we buy? South African wine obviously. Beans from Zimbabwe. What else. It is the loss of imports from the EU which worries me far more than the loss of exports. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: DMcG Date: 02 Sep 18 - 09:07 AM So I did not infer it. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Sep 18 - 08:49 AM You were not intended to infer that May's decision followed from the poll result. |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 02 Sep 18 - 07:48 AM It's called 'Spin', DMcG - but you know that already! ;-) |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: DMcG Date: 02 Sep 18 - 06:22 AM I had to laugh at this Express headline: "Theresa May vows to STOP second Brexit vote as poll shows 90 percent would vote the SAME" So 90% would vote the SAME? So you mean 10% would not? I am not claiming all these would switch in the same direction, but a swing of up to 10% could reverse the result, you know... |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Sep 18 - 04:55 AM Rattling a begging bowl? Uk is second only to US in investment in Africa. BBC, "In a speech in Cape Town, she pledged £4bn in support for African economies, to create jobs for young people. She also pledged a "fundamental shift" in aid spending to focus on long-term economic and security challenges rather than short-term poverty reduction. She will also visit Nigeria and Kenya during the three-day trade mission." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45325701 What is your objection BWM? |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 31 Aug 18 - 05:04 PM "May seems to be rattling her begging bowl in places like Nigeria, asking for a share of their finance industry. Which seems as I remember to consist of people running 419 scams." Oh, she seems to be doing OK! :-) :-) |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Raggytash Date: 31 Aug 18 - 08:29 AM I will not be surprised if this is not the tip of the iceberg. The last paragraph of the article says a lot more: "Japan is a major investor in the UK, where more than 800 Japanese companies employ more than 100,000 people. However, financial firms including Nomura, Sumitomo Mitsui and Daiwa have already said they will no longer maintain their EU headquarters in London." |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 31 Aug 18 - 08:22 AM Here's something he can't claim I 'made up'... Panasonic announcing they are to move their European HQ from the U.K. to Amsterdam, in order to avoid problems following Brexit. Any good news about Brexit? |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Raggytash Date: 31 Aug 18 - 05:38 AM May I refer people back to the opening post when my intentions were made quite clear. "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." |
Subject: RE: Brexit #2 From: Backwoodsman Date: 31 Aug 18 - 05:20 AM No request for deletion from me. I'd far prefer it if your utter stupidity was left in full view for everyone to see. |
Share Thread: |