Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Sep 18 - 03:07 PM

No.

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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: DMcG
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 11:31 AM

Oops, ONS, not OCD!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: DMcG
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 02:05 AM

Argh, the 29th, not 19th!

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: Donuel
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 10:29 AM

I missed an appointment by 10 days and I said "Lets not nit pick".
I was charged $30 for a missed appointment.

Brexit will probably happen late at an extra expense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 05:53 PM

Anyone seen tomorrow's headlines?

Barnier says deal possible in 6 to 8 weeks.

Are we still all doomed?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 06:15 PM

I suppose that depends on the deal ........

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 06:20 PM

Says it all....

https://inktank.fi/i-spent-a-day-on-pro-brexit-facebook-pages-this-is-what-i-discovered/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 07:02 PM

Barnier is a scallywag who blows with the wind. There has been no progress. Of course he wants a deal. But he won't accept Chequers without compromise. The Tories won't accept Chequers as they think it's already a massive compromise. I'd love you to tell me how the twain will meet. It's a shambles. We're in big trouble.

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

From John's link:

"Make no mistake about this, it was a mostly racist vote. This is why presenting facts to leavers makes no difference. You think you’re discussing Brexit with them, but they’re not. You are simply wasting your time. This also explains perfectly why Leavers are not angry about being lied to and basically getting scammed. It still gave exactly what they wanted."

Couldn't agree more. And, speaking for John and me I reckon (sorry, John!), it's precisely why we regard leave voters as feeble-minded.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 07:17 PM

Who's John?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 07:31 PM

Backwoodsman. As fine a man as ever bestrode this planet.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 07:51 PM

Steve, let's pretend that come next March 29, my birthday as it happens, we exit the EU with a deal that is passed by Parliament and rubber stamped by the Lords, what then? I am assuming that you will still be able to buy your favourite wines from your usual supermarkets, still be able to go on foreign holidays and all that. Will it still be a disaster?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 08:28 PM

I'm at a loss as to why you think that the only priorities I have are my wine and my holidays. It may seem a little odd to you Tories, but some of us lefties have a little more than self-interest on our minds.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Sep 18 - 02:11 AM

"Backwoodsman. As fine a man as ever bestrode this planet."

Gawrsh Steve, you ole flatterer, you sure can toyn a goyl's head! :-) ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 02:21 AM

If we pass with a deal, everything depends on what the deal is, Stanron, but I agree with Steve than whether either he or I can buy wine is approaching the bottom of the list of concerns.

But let's imagine 'no-deal' instead. The Whitehall auditors have found Defra is not ready. The side deals Raab seeks for airlines are reliant on the EU countries breaking ranks, and to top it off the police are preparing for civil disorder (andJavit will not rule out the idea this could last three months.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 06:18 AM

While I would be more than happy to agree that there was a lot of racism behind the anti-EU vote, I can also see that some people (eg Kate Hoey and the RMT union too, I believe) opposed the EU on genuine constitutional/democratic deficit grounds. Let us not forget that some on the left opposed our initial membership on leftist grounds.

I will never forget seeing open racist abuse on a pavement café the day they announced Brexit (some about a person having the cheek in the view of the racist to wear a Sari in this country, and some from a waiter in the next door café who believed 'we' were 'going to get our jobs back').

And though the democratic deficit points may sometimes be made in an exaggerated way, there is a problem in this areas. One could also point to the way Greece was treated.

I'm sure there were decent people who believed the stuff about how money that is spent on the EC would be used for public services including local councils instead (which I did not; this government is ideologically committed to tax and local services cuts).

Ironic, since the right always objected to Europe because it involved the social chapter, workers' rights, working time directives and other stuff that eroded the sort of 'freedoms' beloved of the right.

What happens won't just be about the sort of 'deal' we get with Europe, or the reductions in food standards to be expected in future trade deals, or the changes in power structures with companies able to take governments to courts in some proposals, it will be about who is in power at the time and their politics.

So while I'm sure a lot of dim people voted Brexit on racist grounds, feelings whipped up by Farage and his ilk and sure to get worse given Bannon's involvement in European politics, I don't think you can call them all thick!

But those who imagined there would be a lot more money to spend on stuff for ordinary people are in for a disappointment. And this is without the loss of scientific co-operation, EU based security, EU grants and subsidies which benefited a great many of the Brexit-voting communities and so on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 07:14 AM

If you cannot play the race card, play the brexiteer stupidity card.
Remember those in favour of brexit could make similar observations about remainiacs. But they do not.

Compare with the bell curve, and where the majority lie for intelligence. Constant swearing and insult hurling does not suggest remainiacs lie to the right of said bell curve. What does that say about stupidity and referendum majorities?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 07:30 AM

Please tell me something horrible about the other side, I'll believe anything.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 07:45 AM

I will never forget seeing open racist abuse on a pavement café the day they announced Brexit

We have a long way to go to catch up with the major EU states on racism.
Muslim women are banned from covering their face in France, Belgium, Denmark and Holland.
Not on one day, but all the time.

The Far Right have not gained any representation here, but are aggressively gaining legitimacy in France, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Italy,.....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 12:48 PM

"The Far Right have not gained any representation here"??? What the hell are Boris, and Rees Mogg doing in parliament then? And Andrew Brigden. And Loathsome Leadsome. The far right are in government, Raab is pretty far right. May is not capable of standing up to them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 01:00 PM

Re far right representation: The BNP has had some success at local government level, and both Nick Griffin and Andrew Bron were MEPs. And then there is Farage, of course. Before that the NF also had some local government success, and some Tories defected to them so they indirectly gained representation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 01:34 PM

No Far Right anti-immigrant party has reached Parliament here, unlike France, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Austria, and Italy where they are major parties and dangerously close to achieving government.

And you people want ever closer union with them!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 01:45 PM

And Farage, thanks Karen, how could I have forgotten him. He may not be an MP, but he is an MEP, so he has achieved representation (even if he has wilfully refused to carry it out).

And Theresa May is the architect of the "hostile environment" policy. And she is after all Prime Minister now. Now you may not regard a hostile environment as a policy of the far right, but there, Keith, you and I will have to differ.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 02:05 PM

From the Times:

Leaving the European Union would not guarantee a rosy economic future for the UK, the international trade secretary Liam Fox has admitted.

In a frank assessment of Britain’s prospects Dr Fox said that fellow Brexiteers needed to beware of succumbing to "irrational positivity".


All together now:
"I beg your pardon,
I never promised you a rose garden..."

..
Oh, we did.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 04:44 AM

David, Labour were first to use that term when they were in government and committed to reducing immigration too.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 04:50 AM

DMcG,
Fox said,
“We have to say there are great opportunities that come from Brexit but that is not a guarantee that everything is going to be rosy on the other side.
“Let’s not have an irrational positivity, but look at the opportunities and look in a balanced way at the pluses we can control. We will be subjected to the same global pressures as before.”

Of course the same global pressures will apply whether we are in or out.
No-one ever claimed that all the problems of the world would disappear.
Us leaving will not change the whole world!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 06:20 AM

Good article in politics.co.uk

Remain is the only part of the political spectrum which looks alive

There is one phrase I love and while I know it is cherry picking, I love it :-)

Returning to campaigning may make Farage feel better, because it returns him to the world of gibbering baseless promises rather than technical horror stories, but it actually complements the narrative of his enemies rather than his friends.

Enjoy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 08:03 AM

The 'rose garden'I was referring to was the same Liam Fox saying the EU trade deal "should be the easiest in human history."

Seems a good example of irrational positivity to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 02:10 PM

From: DMcG - PM
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 08:03 AM
The 'rose garden'I was referring to was the same Liam Fox saying the EU trade deal "should be the easiest in human history."
Seems a good example of irrational positivity to me.

But he's right. it should be the easiest deal: The easiest if the EU were not insistent on making the UK pay a price for leaving pour encourager les autres

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 02:17 PM

Not so, Nigel, or at least not in my opinion.   If both sides were committed to maintaining the same standards and regulations etc - which is why he said it should be easy - then I agree it might be easy. But the UK was clear it wanted to diverge from that, so whatever agreement was put in place would have to deal with that divergence. And differences like that are why such deals take years and are not simple.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 09:14 PM

"The easiest if the EU were not insistent on making the UK pay a price for leaving pour encourager les autres"

They are not "insistent on making the UK pay a price." They are simply sticking to the rules. We are not a special case. There's more than a touch of the little Englander "you do know who I am, don't you?" about your attitude, Nigel.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 04:53 AM

Steve Shaw wrote

They are not "insistent on making the UK pay a price."

Nothing happened in negotiations until the UK agreed to a 'Divorce Bill'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 05:09 AM

That is not a fine. That is to meet our legal (and moral) obligations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 05:13 AM

Fine. Who was talking about a fine? The end.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 05:18 AM

one thing ministers seem to forget was that the original EU figure was much higher and it only came down the current figure as part of the negotiations. If we leave with "no deal" and remembering nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the EU's willingness to accept the current figure is also void.

So it is feasible what we have to pay for leaving with no deal is higher, not lower.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 05:42 AM

We negotiate the outstanding money we are committed to paying once we leave. The continual gloss put on that by leavers, that the EU is insisting/forcing/penalising/punishing us/doing it as a deterrent to other member states, is a complete misrepresentation of the position. As I recall, we negotiated our commitment down to that forty billion from a much higher initial figure. I do understand that leavers want to use any stick they can find to beat the EU with. This is not one of them.

If we leave with no deal, there will still be money to be paid. And, if the Tory Chancellor is to be believed, whatever we pay to leave will be dwarfed by the cost of the hit to our economy. Then there's Mark Carney... Still you brexiteers are so fed up with "experts," aren't you?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 06:12 AM

Still you remainiacs hide behind partial Quotes. The full quote said that people were fed up with experts WHO KEEP GETTING IT WRONG.

Nah. Let's delete the last five words and tell lies with partial truth.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 06:18 AM

From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 05:42 AM
We negotiate the outstanding money we are committed to paying once we leave. The continual gloss put on that by leavers, that the EU is insisting/forcing/penalising/punishing us/doing it as a deterrent to other member states, is a complete misrepresentation of the position. As I recall, we negotiated our commitment down to that forty billion from a much higher initial figure. I do understand that leavers want to use any stick they can find to beat the EU with. This is not one of them.

As I recall, a certain Steve Shaw did not believe we should be negotiating that sum at all, but paying the much higher figure which the EU had, apparently, plucked from thin air.