Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:37 PM

Ye gods and little fishes Iains, that's really scrapping the barrel even by your standards. Steptoe and Son was last produced 45 years ago.

What's that phrase "a week is a long time in polictics, well if that is the case what price 45 years.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:41 PM

You missed my point Nigel "terms that MAY be favourable to the UK"
The current terms are not necessarily as favourable to the UK as the terms of agreements we already enjoy as members of the EU.
To Hell in a hand cart springs to mind.

I didn't "miss your point". You failed to make it.
Both you and I know it will take years to renegotiate new terms with the WTO that MAY be favourable to the UK.
WTO terms are already set. Except for our dealings with the EU, and the protectionist tariffs they set for dealing with other countries, WTO terms are likely to be better than the terms on which we currently deal with the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:44 PM

Which bit of "new terms" do you not understand?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:51 PM

I fully understand "new terms". I just don't believe they are needed to get transactions which are more beneficial to the UK than those which we currently trade under as part of the EU bloc.
Most of the world trades under WTO terms.
If you seriously believe that we benefit from trading as part of a bloc which bases its rules on protecting the French and Italian wine industry, etc. you still aren't understanding the points being made.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:59 PM

I agree with Nigel. No deal is a lot better than a bad deal and, as has been said before, no deal does not mean no deal forever.

Now, at last, we are getting reports that Germany is very afraid of the consequences of no deal to it's own prosperity.

The EU is afraid of giving the UK a good deal in case other members decide to leave as well. Even if that good deal is also a good deal for it's remaining members. To put it another way, the Eu will negotiate to the detriment of it's members in order to follow it's own dogma.

The previous sentence in itself contains all the reasons I would ever need to want to leave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 02:39 PM

, as has been said before, no deal does not mean no deal forever. 

True, but if you remember the deal was supposed to be easy because we were fully aligned. Since the intention is to diverge, a future deal would have to take that divergence into account, so is likely to be more difficult than now.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 03:01 PM

The deal is supposed to be easy because we are fully aligned. The easy deal would be a good deal for the UK and for the members of the EU. However the EU puts it's dogma before the interests of both it's members and it's ex-member.

Divergence is possible, not certain. Potential for divergence could be infinite. Why not wait until it is specific and matters?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 04:15 PM

Divergence is possible but not certain? Without divergence from the rules and regulations of the EU, what is the point of Brexit? Having control, but never exercising it, for example, would make the whole fandango even madder.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 07:24 PM

Divergence is possible but not certain? Without divergence from the rules and regulations of the EU, what is the point of Brexit? Having control, but never exercising it, for example, would make the whole fandango even madder.
At present we are not 'permitted' to diverge from the EU plans.
Regaining the right to choose whether to diverge (or not) puts us back in control of our own future, and free to diverge if we wish. However, I am fairly sure we will diverge once we no longer need to align ourselves with import tariffs intended to protect markets in which we are not major suppliers (such as wine). This does not mean we will have to divulge in all areas.
The comment about 'making the whole fandango even madder' suggests that you believe that the majority of the voting public have made a 'mad' decision. Clearly you do not believe in democracy. The 'remain' voters can hardly claim to be the only sane group in the UK. If their vote was based on the forecasts made by the remain campaign, then their views have already been proved to be false. How much longer will remainers continue to claim we're "going to hell in a handcart"? We were told (by the remain campaign) that voting to leave would cause immediate job losses in the hundreds of thousands, and a 'massive' black hole in the budget. have you not yet noticed that this didn't happen?
Why do you assume that the current prophesies of major calamity (if we eventually leave) are accurate, based on past performance?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 02:02 AM

I said nothing about diverging in all areas. My point was that each divergence is something that makes setting up a new deal more difficult. That is all. Nothing in that requires us to change everything.

I am sorry you object so much to my statement about making the project even madder. It is my view that to embark on a major change without clearly understanding the implications is mad. That is a normal colloquellism about lack of wisdom, not mental health. Even so, how would you characterise it if after all this we decided having regained control we never exercised it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 02:24 AM

Clearly you do not believe in democracy.

Whether a policy is wise is nothing to do with how many people vote for it. Should there be a general election which Labour won, I am fairly confident you would agree.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 03:13 AM

Even within the mighty EU continental block there is unhappiness. The march to federalism is leaving more and more behind.
OH HAPPY DAYS!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1031269/EU-citizens-poll-Brexit-Juncker-Tusk-anti-EU-protest

The EU's road to hell is paved with mad pretensions!
But sanity is prevailing. Merkel has been hammered in the polls.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1031397/bavaria-election-2018-results-exit-polls-germany-AFD-Angela-Merkel-CSU

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 03:17 AM

"The comment about 'making the whole fandango even madder' suggests that you believe that the majority of the voting public have made a 'mad' decision. Clearly you do not believe in democracy."

False equivalency, Nigel. A person's belief that a bad decision has been made in a vote in no way reflects their belief in democracy. Think about it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 03:44 AM

"We were told (by the remain campaign) that voting to leave would cause immediate job losses in the hundreds of thousands, and a 'massive' black hole in the budget. have you not yet noticed that this didn't happen?"

In the event we leave(???) the only black hole is within the EU. The UK will no longer contribute to the EU equivalent of danegeld. Furthermore the EU will also have a huge bill in compensation for the various projects they threaten to blank us from.
From their intransigence it is clear they are scared that after Britain departs other "rats" will flee the sinking edifice.

What else explains their totally irrational negotiating stance?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 03:48 AM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 10 Oct 18 - 12:02 PM
From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:37 PM
Hmmmm!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 10:50 AM

Err... except that on Oct 7th at the #Wooferendum hundreds of thousands of dogs peed on photos of Fartage, Johnson, Adolf-Rees-Mogg and the other Caymen Islands / Singapore off shore money laundering thieves which is the heart of #BrokesIt..

Wooferendum

And on October 20th there is to be another public protest against the idiotic self abusive stupid #BrokesIt.

From which I deduce that not all is well for Britain destroying looney #BrokesIt ....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 03:47 PM

Ford joins other car makers with no-deal worries

Ford employs some 14,000 in the UK so to a first approximation 7,000 voted leave. I hope they are all as sanguine as Nigel at the prospect.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:10 AM

As the Praying Mantis goes off to Brussels to make herself, and the entire United Kingdom, look stupid once again, here's something for the Brexiteers to think about... at least, for those whose ability to think goes beyond 'Taking Are Cuntry Back'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:47 AM

Good article, John. I particularly like one of the PSs.

International law doesn’t care about feelings, belief, positivity, optimism, or patriotism. It just is. Anyone who says that “Brexit is failing because you don’t believe in it enough” might as well be talking about fairies at the bottom of the garden, for all that their comment relates to the reality of our situation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 06:46 AM

Basically it seems to be saying much the same as the arguments being put forward by the Remain supporters on this site, although, in some cases, not as eloquently.
I love the bit at the end of page 3 about a "vote of no conference". It also suggests that this (the vote of 'no conference') could happen (future tense) and that it 'precipitated' a general Election (past tense). Clearly not the sharpest pin in the box!

But, if it supports your entrenched viewpoint (and yes, I accept that mine is also entrenched) feel free to quote it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 07:15 AM

So, Nigs, instead of doing the usual thing BrexShitters do when presented with realities which run contrary to their 'hopes' - merely waving it off - how about an item-by-item criticism of the piece? You know, taking each of the points it makes, explaining why those points are wrong, and giving us the hopeful, fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden, a-personal-unicorn-for-everybody, view from your own entrenched position?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 10:31 AM

Going through the whole thing line by line would be an almost pointless exercise. There is so much repetition, and personal opinion, that it would take too long.

But as I said, if in supports your viewpoint, feel free to quote from it.

If you choose a particular comment, I may argue it, or I may let it stand, but life is too short to dissect it line by line.

For example, he quotes all the benefits he believes are conferred by membership, and fails to mention any disadvantages of membership.
His idea that it is a conveyor belt, leading to a pool of sharks, is his personal opinion. I prefer to see it as a moving walkway taking us to a freer existence outside of the EU.

His idea that all EU treaties automatically cease (to apply to UK) exactly 2 years after invoking Article 50 is also inaccurate. He says it is from section three of Article 50. That Article actually says:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
So, if the EU had actually negotiated, instead of stonewalling, we could already have been out. Also, if agreed by all parties, the date can be extended.
So it could be 29th March, or it could be earlier (unlikely now) or it could be later (equally unlikely I hope).
So much for the 'facts' he's trying to put across.

You are, of course welcome to believe what he says, just as you appear to believe in unicorns.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 11:16 AM

Later would be better. Much, much later, say January 1st 2039.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 11:19 AM

"So, Nigs, instead of doing the usual thing BrexShitters do when presented with realities which run contrary to their 'hopes' - merely waving it off - how about an item-by-item criticism of the piece?"

Defintion: Realities    the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Remainers seem unable to differentiate between past, present and future and resort to dogma when the true outcome, as of now, is still uncertainty

The realities of future events cannot be categorized until they have actually occurred. Until such time such theoretical constructs can only be a statement of opinion.

This confusion between fact and fiction is a common failing of the left, and frequently demonstrated on this forum. The presented argument is frequently fatuous so it is beefed up by the addition of ridicule and insult.

Responding to such a confused view of the world is a considerable challenge. Logic fighting entrenched dogma and ideology is something of a lost cause.
The consolation is that the passage of time clearly outlines the consistant failures of the above and logic prevails.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 02:25 PM

That is a somewhat limited definition. It is also a reality that major roadworks take a long time, which is why work has started on preparing the M26 to be a lorry park in the event of a no-deal. It may not be needed, but it is sensible to mitigate the risks. It would be foolish indeed to wait until no-deal was 'a reality' and only begin to take action then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 02:37 PM

It is also extremely foolish to select a limited possibility from a plethora of possible outcomes and present it as fact. English offers a vast vocabulary enabling a precision to be given to statements. Why does the left never avail themselves of this facility?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 03:32 PM

Very good opinion piece by John Major

I don't expect any response to the points he makes, naturally.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 03:49 PM

Not much point in responding to his OPINIONS. You may dance upon a pin if you wish, I prefer facts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:09 PM

It's interesting (to a point) that you prefer FACTS Iains.

So tell me what FACTS did you have when you chose to vote leave, what FACTS did you have about the future of the UK.

What FACTS did you have about the prosperity of our country.

What FACTS did you have about a whole plethora of issues that have been raised by Brexit.

Speaking for myself I didn't have any facts, I listened to both sides of the discussion and after much deliberation I decided on the information available at the time that we would be better off, as a nation, to stay within the EU.

Nothing has been shown since that time to dissuade me from that position, if anything the more details of the repercussions of us leaving are revealed, the more I think that I made the correct choice.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:11 PM

Oh that cheered me up. John Major, who was so good for the Conservative party that he led to Tony Blair's landslide victory and thirteen years of Labour Party ineptness. And we are supposed to take anything he says seriously! Wonderful.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:11 PM

I suppose there is another alternative ireland joins the common wealth, unlikely, mean while if sinn fein took their seats at westminst the uk might have a governmentnew

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:17 PM

The EU wants Northern Ireland to leave the UK and stay in the EU. It makes as much, if not more, sense for the Irish Republic to leave the EU and join the UK. Look where the trade goes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:18 PM

No one in the real world - including Iains - just uses facts. They use facts, and balance of probabilities, and judgement of risks, and considered opinions. It would be impossible to drive, for example, without continually assessing the risks whether a pedestrian is about to step into the road. Waiting until that becomes a fact would guarantee an accident.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:19 PM

How would Ireland being in the commonwealth change anything?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:27 PM

Raggytash presumably you voted. Let us see you answer your own questions.

The only facts I needed was the proven intransigence of the EU and the headlong rush to federalism. We needed to take back control of our country

Note the correct spelling of country.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:32 PM

From the John Major link:
For centuries, our state schemed and plotted to prevent all Europe uniting against us. Now, we have chosen to turn our back on all Europe. A long line of former statesmen will be turning in their graves.

No, there was never a 'united Europe' looking to oppose England/UK. There were dictators (would be European leaders) such as Napoleon & Hitler who were only stopped from unifying (by force) the countries of Europe, who found England/UK (together with others) were standing against them. The EU, as a political force, seems to be unifying Europe (To the disadvantage of some of its members e.g. Greece) but the people (majority of the electorate who could be bothered to vote) of UK have, by referendum, decided that that is not something which the UK should be part of.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:38 PM

Oh, and the heading of the John Major bit:
I have made no false promises on Brexit – I’m free to tell you the truth

Despite that, at no time does he actually claim to be telling us the truth. He is just pushing his own opinions. But some people will read the headline, and assume that everything he says is incontrovertible truth.

I think Lincoln got it right:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:47 PM

You can certainly fool Brexit voters - all it took was a few slogans and a red bus.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 02:12 AM


The EU wants Northern Ireland to leave the UK and stay in the EU.

No it doesn't. It says the best way of avoiding a hard border is to work to the same rules on goods, but it is not proposing any change to the governance, or that NI should make payments to the EU, or that it must have free movement or anything else about the EU. It would not be part of the EU if the proposal was adopted.

It makes as much, if not more, sense for the Irish Republic to leave the EU and join the UK. Look where the trade goes

The Republic is a self governing independent country within the EU that will do what it thinks is in its own best interests. Having fought to gain that independence from the UK it is hardly likely to give it up to help Brexiteers out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 04:31 AM

You can certainly fool Brexit voters - all it took was a few slogans and a red bus.

Cheerfully ignoring the fact that many people were calling for us to leave the EU long before the slogans were written, or the big red bus even thought about.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 04:40 AM

Not just the economic effects.

For those who think that this will only affect the economy, a pretty good summary by Melvyn Bragg in the House of Lords the other day. It is a direct link to the Hansard record and the rest of the debate follows. I have only skimmed the rest but what I have seen does not seem to allay fears in any meaningful way.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:08 AM

"Cheerfully ignoring the fact that many people were calling for us to leave the EU long before the slogans were written, or the big red bus even thought about."

Ah, you're right, I'd forgotten about the lengthy propaganda campaign in the Express, Torygraph, and The Daily Heil, fighting the corner for their immensely wealthy, tax-avoiding owners.

And there's nothing 'cheerful' about the utter debacle we've been landed with by the Leave voters.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:30 AM

Until we have some signed agreements with the EU, both sides are going to post more and more scary scenarios in order to attempt to change and enforce Mp's opinion to their particular stance. It is hard to discuss potential outcomes until negotiations have made some progress and tangible outcomes can be given some kind of precision. Until that time the argument swings back and forth with no progress. One thing we can be sure of, It will not be a land of milk and honey on one side nor off to hell in a handcart on the other. The outcomes so far discussed are but possibilities.

The referendum was a simple cross to one of two questions:
The ballot paper which will allow voters to cast their vote on the future of the UK's relationship with the EU has been published by the government. It asks people if they would like to remain or leave the European Union and to choose their option by placing a cross in one of two boxes

It seemed pretty unambiguous to me at the time. There was no requirement to justify the vote. There was in my view no degrees of leaving. We were to remain
shackled or not shackled, not partially shackled(as seems a strong
possibility)

My feeling is that the democratic vote will be betrayed yet again by our weasel mps. Where this will lead is anybodies guess. The fact we have been/are fighting wars in several countries without public discussion of consent admirably demonstrates the utter contempt Mps have for their electorate and their opinions.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:36 AM

The ambiguity was all in the destination after voting leave. Many a couple has amicably agreed to go out for the evening then ended up sitting grumpily in front of the TV at home because they could not agree where they would go out *to*. Deciding to leave something or voting for change is easy: the hard part is always agreeing what the change should be.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:37 AM

No more from me folks.
See my chemotherapy thread.
keith.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:44 AM

That's awful news, Keith. I will post to the other thread as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 09:53 AM

This wonderful gem courtesy of Gary Bainbridge:

LEAVER: I want an omelette.

REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs.

LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE]

REMAINER: They’re in the cake.

LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please.

REMAINER: But we voted in 1974 to put them into a cake.

LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it.

REMAINER: Icing is good.

LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote.

DAVID CAMERON ENTERS.

DAVID CAMERON: OK.

DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS.

LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette?

REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake.

LEAVER: Well, get them out.

EU: It’s our cake.

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now.

REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out?

LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette.

REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought?

LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now.

THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it.

REMAINER: How?

THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake.

REMAINER: Yeah, but…

LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like.

EU: It’s our cake.

REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake.

LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible.

REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens.

LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it.

REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake?

LEAVER: You lost, get over it.

THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this.

REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan?

THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election.

REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out?

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe.

EU: It’s our cake.

LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette.

REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like.

LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT.

REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there.

LEAVER: You can’t. We’ve taken your freedom of movement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 11:42 AM

Never mind the eggs that are already consolidated within the cake. I just want to be sure that we've stopped providing ingredients for future cakes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 01:29 PM

There is nothing worse than being eggbound!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 08:54 PM

Eggsactly so.
....

This should be the point in this Monty Python sketch of a Breggsit when someone steps up and says "That's enough. It's getting too silly" and we move on to Something Completely Different.

The Backstop stuff is a silly joke too far. The British government signs up to a backstop solution involving checks on goods from Northern Ireland (with its fingers crossed because it doesn't mean it), so as to be able to keep talking about other stuff, and then declares it is all off, and complains that the EU is refusing to play fair because it wants to stick to what had been agreed nearly a year ago.