Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:43 AM

Juncker et al is what I meant.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:46 AM

What evidence do you have that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you say they say?
I can't believe that after over 2000 posts, many of them linking news items confirming what I say, that you are asking that question but, here goes...

From The Economist
The link does not refer to "almost 100% of economists". It does mention "most economists", which could be as little as 51%

From The Caterer
This page does not give a forecast for Brexit, it details costs already incurred, and plans currently being laid.

From CNN
This page deals (mainly) with the expected results if we follow Mrs May's deal, which does not have much support from those who voted Brexit, as it does not get us 'out'.
It does go on to give forecasts for a 'no-deal' Brexit, but based on the prognostications of the Bank of England. A department which has so far failed to cover itself in glory with its predictions.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such links. I have yet to see any saying we will be better off.
If your hundreds, or thousands, of such links are of the same standard it is hardly worth bothering, as they do not support your statements.
__________________________________________

And yes, I can see the possibility of some hardships following Brexit (assuming it happens) but I view the possible benefits as being of greater long term value. (in answer to DMcG)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:59 AM

And yes, I can see the possibility of some hardships following Brexit (assuming it happens) but I view the possible benefits as being of greater long term value. (in answer to DMcG)

Well that is certainly a start, Nigel, but it is a long way of identifying any personal hardship, staring it in the face, and saying "If needs be, I will pay that." We know the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS has fallen because of Brexit and immigration policies . Are you willing to say to friends and family I know this is delaying your treatment but I think it a price worth paying?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:04 AM

I do have to smile wryly and shake my head when I read someone dismissing the informed forecasts and estimates of recognised and acknowledged sources of business, economic, and political analysis, in favour of their own 'opinions' which appear to be cherry-picked (some might say nit-picked) to suit their personal agenda.

Words like 'cloud', 'cuckoo', and 'land' spring to mind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:04 AM

Sigh. Nitpicking Nigel once again. I would be more than happy to provide as many as you like that do support the view that everyone but you you and your little troupe of verbal acrobats accept but there is little point. They have been linked already over and over again in the past 2300 posts. If I was to provide more you would only ignore them as well.

Now, how about any links whatsoever detailing or even forecasting any of these possible long term benefits that you can see. Or could I borrow your rose tinted specs?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:16 AM

Sigh. Nitpicking Nigel once again. I would be more than happy to provide as many as you like that do support the view that everyone but you you and your little troupe of verbal acrobats accept but there is little point. They have been linked already over and over again in the past 2300 posts. If I was to provide more you would only ignore them as well.
Hardly 'nitpicking'. You selected three links to support your argument, and they do not do so. Some, such as Backwoodsman: "I do have to smile wryly and shake my head when I read someone dismissing the informed forecasts and estimates of recognised and acknowledged sources of business, economic, and political analysis, in favour of their own 'opinions'" might not choose to actually read the links but to assume that they support your argument.
If there are several thousand such links available, why not provide the ones which actually support your contentions?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:34 AM

Nigel, In the past two and half years as Dave has said there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of reports of the probable negative impacts of Brexit.

I presume you read the newspapers, watch the news and listen to the radio so these cannot have escaped your attention.

Yet you ask that you are provided with these again.

You have obviously ignored the warnings first time round and give not sign of changing your mind if we were to repeat them.

You seem to think there is a better world to be had if the UK leaves the EU.

What we have consistently asked for is some backing for your viewpoint. To date you have signally failed to post such.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:52 AM

Nigel, In the past two and half years as Dave has said there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of reports of the probable negative impacts of Brexit.
I presume you read the newspapers, watch the news and listen to the radio so these cannot have escaped your attention.
Yet you ask that you are provided with these again.

Try reading what I wrote. I am not asking to be shown more links to guesses of what might happen when/if we leave the EU. As you rightly say, I can read these anywhere.
What I was asking was that, if links to external articles are used to back up arguments being made here, then they should show support for the argument being made. The three links given by Dave:
Stanron: What evidence do you have that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you say they say?

Dave the Gnome:I can't believe that after over 2000 posts, many of them linking news items confirming what I say, that you are asking that question but, here goes...

Do the links support the viewpoint that: "almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you (Dave) say they say?"

My post was not even showing a pro/anti Brexit bias. It was asking that an honest form of discussion be used when giving links.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:10 PM

The good thing about this thread, including the tone of some of the debate, is that it shows the fractures that exist within the UK, which have been exacerbated, though probably not created, by Cameron's decision to hold a referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:25 PM

Yes they do, Nigel. Now try doing a bit of work yourself and doing a Google search. Better still, provide us with some links that support your optimism.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:28 PM

Oh,and it wasn't an honest form of discussion at all. It was a blatant diversion away from the honest discussion on Btexit in one of your usual attempts to avoid the main issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:30 PM

The welfare state is buggered whatever. It needs taxation, which this government reduces.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:38 PM

It's worse than that, Karen. Not only are they reducing taxation, one of the main drivers for brexit is so their rich puppet masters can use the UK as a tax haven once the EU tightens up avoidance legislation. And the turkeys that voted for Christmas are still trying to justify it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 01:40 PM

"It does mention "most economists", which could be as little as 51%"

May I nitpick the nitpicker? If 51% of economists say a thing, and you then claimed that "most economists" had said it, you would be seriously misrepresenting the position in a tendentious manner. Honest debate dictates that you'd say instead "just over half of economists..." or "a small majority of economists..." or, most honest of all, "51% of economists." "Most economists" would be highly misleading. You have a hundred apples. You tell me that most of your apples are bruised. I examine your apples and find 51 bruised and 49 unbruised. The first thing I'd say to you would be to tell you to stop being such a bloody pessimist. Dunno about anybody else, but I'd have expected at least 70 to 80% to be bruised had you told me that "most" were bruised.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 03:14 PM

Nigel has yet to tell us why he feels optimistic for the UK after we leave the EU.

Not once has he addressed that question, not once.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 03:27 PM

No one will, Raggytash. If it has not happened in 30 months I cannot see it happening now.

Sent you an email on another matter BTW but I dunno if you are in a position to pick it up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:10 PM

More police for "hard border" in Ireland

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:23 PM

The good thing about this thread, including the tone of some of the debate, is that it shows the fractures that exist within the UK, which have been exacerbated, though probably not created, by Cameron's decision to hold a referendum.

But conservatives held to their promise to the electorate to hold a referendum,unlike Labour who reneged on their promises.
( 20 April 2004 the PM told Parliament it should debate the European constitutional question "in detail and decide upon it" and "then let the people have the final say".He ended the Commons statement with the war-cry: "Let the issue be put. Let the battle be joined." Fast-forward to the Labour election manifesto in 2005 and the language is as forthright.
Blair promises: "We will put it [the constitution] to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a Yes vote."

Also worth noting:
the Labour manifesto in 2017 was a hard Brexit manifesto. It promised to leave the European Union by “accepting the result”, and that “freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union”.
How do our resident lefties square the circle on those little gems?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:40 PM

Not only are they reducing taxation, one of the main drivers for brexit is so their rich puppet masters can use the UK as a tax haven once the EU tightens up avoidance legislation.

Tell me. Why are so many global companies based in Ireland?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-commission-pushes-ahead-with-plan-to-end-unanimity-on-tax-1.3746080 (Synopsis:The ending of unanimity would carry significant risks for Ireland, particularly as the EU continues to discuss plans to come forward with a common tax base for big corporations across Europe and eventually to consolidate collection of this tax. This would threaten Irish corporate tax revenues and would meet strong opposition from the Government and from businesses.)
It would seem the Irish are finally waking up to the realities of being obstructive

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/farming-news/emergency-eu-aid-for-farmers-to-be-sought-for-brexit-fallout-37677

and what about the 13billion that appl was forced to pay in back taxes due to irish shenanigins.
https://www.thejournal.ie/apple-tax-ireland-escrow-3889453-Mar2018/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:44 PM

Here is the beady eye of guido on the situation:


https://order-order.com/2019/01/03/eu-preparing-clobber-ireland-tax-brexit/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:52 PM

It will probably be required DMcG. It will not only be goods across the border but when the EU tax laws are tightened up there is likely to be a mass migration of tax exiles moving to third world UK!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:33 PM

And while these 1000 police are undergoing training, they cannot be preventing or solving crimes in the rest of the UK. All part of the cost of Brexit!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 06:25 PM

True enough, the 2005 Labour manifesto promised to put any EU constitution to the public - but that promise was dependant on their being a ratified constitution, and there wasn't, because it was rejected by the French and Dutch.

Instead we got the Treaty of Lisbon, which wasn't a constitution. It was this Treaty that got initially narrowly rejected in an Irish referendum, but then accepted when presented again for a second referendum with some slight (but significant) adjustments - thus demonstrating that Ireland is a considerably more democratic country in this respect than the UK. Support for EU membership in recent polls in The Republic runs at around 84%.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 07:15 PM

"But conservatives held to their promise to the electorate to hold a referendum,unlike Labour who reneged on their promises."

Well yes, apart from what Kevin has said to correct your perspective about Labour and its promises. But now here's summat. What a bloody stupid promise it was from your lot in the first place. You've forgotten that bit. A complete abnegation of the way our democracy is run. Sniffily praising the Tories, especially the idiotic Cameron, for plunging us headlong into utter foolery may chime with whatever principles you might be adhering to, but some of us are just a tad more interested in the actual wellbeing of the country. Sod your Tory principles and sod the Tory party's ever-present need to stave off its own right-wing and the proto-fascistic UKIP. Apart from one or two of you on here, it's amazing how quiet brexiteers have become about those future "opportunities" of ours. Wot we have patently not got. Unless you know different but wot you are cleverly keeping secret from the worried rest of us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 07:50 PM

Tory promises in a manifesto are worthless. Remember the last one with its firm promises that free TV licences for people over 75 were guaranteed for the whole of the next Parliament? Torn up and forgotten. Hopefully not by those over 75s who have been daft enough to vote Tory previously.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 08:20 PM

Then was was Georgie-boy's 2010 promise that the deficit would be gone by 2015 and Maybot's promise that immigration would be cut to the tens of thousands.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 03:01 AM

And don't forget there will be no general election :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 04:53 AM

Why not just accept Labour lied, as usual? Waffling around the small print fools not a soul. Even your own party supports Brexit.
Below from the official labour website

Where We Stand

Labour's Plan for Brexit
Labour respects the result of the referendum, and Britain is leaving the EU.

More Lies from Labour mayhap?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 05:24 AM

Broken Tory Promises from May 2017.

A few more with no apologies for redressing the balance.

Enjoy

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 05:33 AM

Isn't it strange how quickly criticising elected politicians stops being unpatriotic ?
Funny old world !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 05:43 AM

Keep EU referendum promise, MPs tell Brown
"One of Tony Blair's last acts was to renege on a promise and it is almost unbelievable that one of Gordon Brown's first has been to do the same," she writes. "There is still time for Gordon Brown to put this right.(July 2007) That is labour mps talking.
" What a bloody stupid promise it was from your lot in the first place. You've forgotten that bit."
Indeed you have. You just cannot trust Labour, unless economy wrecking is the subject under discussion!






https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558786/Keep-EU-referendum-promise-MPs-tell-Brown.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 05:53 AM

Chris Grayling awards ferry contract to Nigerian Prince

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:21 AM

Just in case anyone takes Dave's link at face value, here's how the Rochdale Herald describes itself:
Daily news, satire and comment from the world’s worst local newspaper.
The Rochdale Herald is a satirical, spoof, parody commentary on current affairs, and stuff that annoys and amuses us. We make it up and it’s not intended, in any way whatsoever, to be considered factual.
From their own website Here

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:28 AM

JUST IN CAE PEOPLE TAKE NIGEL'S LAST POSTING SERIOUSLY
Keep up Nigel - old news
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:31 AM

Yes, Nigel. And, for the record, The moon is not made of cheese, I am not really a garden ornament and nitpicking does not require the nit nurse.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:38 AM

MORE

Gets even better
MORE STILL
Maybe their planning to export pizzas !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:39 AM

I expect we all realised that, Nigel, but even spoofs that are not intended to be any way factual rely on references, taken to the extreme, to things that occurred in reality. So the 13m paid to Chess Pizza, for example, refers the terms and conditions of Seaborne being adapted from those for a fast food delivery.

Taking of stating the obvious, Seaborne said those Terms and Conditions were "an error." Yes, we can all see that. But what is this specific error? Is it, for example, that the web developer had two sets of T+Cs, both mentioning Sherborne, one of which was for a takeaway and the other the real set, and somehow he uploaded the wrong set? Or was the error that the board of Sherborne had not p4oduced a proper set of T+Cs? Let's drop this anodyne reference to an error, and spell out what the error really is.

And why were these oddities not spotted in the "thorough" due diligence process undertaken by Grayling's department? The spoof rightly compares that failure - while taking to deliberately absurd extremes - to failing to spot a fake offer from a Prince.

There can be truth in simile and metaphor, you know.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:39 AM

"Green cheese isn't far off the mark Dave
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:58 AM

Seaborne, not Sherborne! I visited the town recently so autotext helpfully changed it for me...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 07:14 AM

Once again. There wasn't any existing EU constitution for Labour to to have a referendum about. The one referred to had already been vetoed by two other countries.

There was never any kind of promise to have a referendum about membership of the EU in that manifesto.

Unlike the firm and unambiguous promise I mentioned in Tory referendum of 2017: We will maintain all other pensioner benefits including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this parliament.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 07:58 AM

Having demonstrated what a greedy and dishonest bunch of scrotes the current government are - even by Tory standards - by their Seaborne Freight ferry scam, one could almost be forgiven for believing that this could be genuine...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 08:11 AM

Can't see anything wrong with that Baccie
I'd say she was overqualified, considering their track record - May wants to make sure she doesn't take her job
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 09:11 AM

BWM, you have not pointed out to NP the NP that the link may contain certain inaccuracies. Vengeance will be heaped upon thee! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 10:21 AM

Labour’s ambiguous Brexit stance is now untenable
I wonder if the fence corbyn sits on is strung with razor wire? You cannot beat a little party unity.

https://www.ft.com/content/f0d676d4-0ead-11e9-b2f2-f4c566a4fc5f

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 10:22 AM

"BWM, you have not pointed out to NP the NP that the link may contain certain inaccuracies. Vengeance will be heaped upon thee! :-)"

Like I give a FF! ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 10:27 AM

I get all my information from The Daily Mash. Iains gets all his from Guido Fawkes. You decide who is the sillier. Answers on a postcard, please, closing date April 1st.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 10:49 AM

Ian's, why are you trying to make this a party-issue?

The Tory government decided there would be a referendum. The Tory PM of the day decided to announce that the result would be binding, and on the basis of a simple majority, despite the fact that the standard referendum terms in the U.K. are that referendums require a super-majority.

The current Tory PM decided to press ahead with Brexit, and has steadfastly turned her back on any and every suggestion, including by members of her own Cabinet, that Brexit should be a cross-party project.

Jeremy Corbyn's position on Brexit, indeed the position of the Labour Party itself, is of no consequence - they have no representation on the Brexit team, and no say in the way the process is run.

It's the Tories' project. That's the way they wanted it, so that they could call all the shots and ensure that the true purpose of Brexit - to enable their small but immensely-wealthy cadre of tax-avoiding masters to escape the stringent anti-tax-avoidance regulations being introduced by the EU in mid-2019 - is fulfilled.

The Tories made their bed, it's for them to lie in it. It's got SFA to do with Labour, the SNP, the Lib-Dems or anyone else. The entire blame for the whole steaming, festering pile of excrement that you feeble-minded, Union-Jack-waving cockwombles were fooled into voting for lies with The Conservative and Unionist Party, no-one else, and they are the ones who should, and will, carry the can in the final analysis.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 10:58 AM


The Tories made their bed, it's for them to lie in it. It's got SFA to do with Labour, the SNP, the Lib-Dems or anyone else. The entire blame for the whole steaming, festering pile of excrement that you feeble-minded, Union-Jack-waving cockwombles were fooled into voting for lies with The Conservative and Unionist Party, no-one else, and they are the ones who should, and will, carry the can in the final analysis.

Almost true. Even now I hope I got it wrong and Brexit will turn out to have been a great idea. I can't say I think it likely, but I would still love to be wrong.

If, on the other hand, I am not wrong, then in my view those who fell for the lies take some responsibility as well. But rathermore so those insist they did not fall for any lies and insist they voted for Leave with clear eyes and a full understanding of what it would entail. I don't feel inclined to let them put all the blame on the Tory party.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 11:00 AM

He's got you dancing again, lads :-( I thought only Jim was falling for it now but it seems contagious. Now, take a deep breath and repeat 10 times "I will not respond" :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 11:06 AM

I was only responding to Backswoodsman!

One of the clear markers of Brexiteers is that it is always someone else's fault if the dream is not realised. It is May ("She's a Remainer"), or judges ("enemies of the people") or Remainers obstructing things, or the EU ("punishing Britain") or, or, or …

Never anything to do with them.

Sorry, you take responsibility for how you voted, whether it turns out badly or well.