Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:34 PM

By the way, Nigel:

"Feel free to ask the mods to delete my previous comment, as you clearly have issues with any contrary opinions expressed in this discussion."

Don't be so bloody stupid.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 02:22 AM


You may not have been told of possible 'negative effects' by the Leave campaign

I *know* it is a valid English construct, bu5 that 'may' is still rather weaselly. The poibt Raggy was making, surely, was that Leave did not acknowlege any financial impact of leaving. They did not day, for example, that there would be an impact but Remain were greatly exaggerating it: the leave campaign admitted no impact at all.

Of course, I may have missed such a more nuanced statement, so feel free to link to offical campaign documents from 'Leave' dates before the vote accepting there would be a finacial impact on the ordinary citizen.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 02:24 AM

(Must put my glasses on before typing)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 02:50 AM

Nigel, still peddling the brexiter lies are you? The negative effects are real and serious, and for a start we have not left yet, if we do they will kick in big time. If no deal on the customs union then there will be shortages of foodstuffs and medicines. We have already seen a massive drop in the value of the pound. Today we see car sales down, and major manufacturers will leave. The effects are dire indeed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 03:22 AM

But, but, but...'taking are cuntry back', unicorns...?? ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 03:37 AM

Ah - c'mon lads - IT'S NOT ALL BAD NEWS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 03:41 AM

Ah but David, the pound soaring downwards is merely a "correction!" Nigel said so!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 04:12 AM

That sounds like disastrous news AFAIC (and I'd guess, AFAMOUAC), Jim. And of course Jacob ("Call me Jake") Rich-Mong would back Bozo the Brexit-Buffoon against The Praying Mantis - anything to ensure a no-deal Brexit so that he and his immensely wealthy kind can continue their offshoring and other tax-avoidance/evasion schemes. Why should they pay UK taxes - isn't that what the plebs are for? :-(

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 04:31 AM

I don't know about anyone else but I cannot recall being informed, prior to the referendum, that leaving the EU would have a negative financial effect on me or any other person in the UK.

I do. That was the main focus of the Remain case.

when no-one denies that there would be costs, especially to us, are our politicians, and for the current government I do think BWM's description is apposite, do the dumbfuck's persist in doing it??

It is a medium to long term thing, not a short term hit.

We have conflicting predictions of the outcome of leaving . We do not even know what deal we will get. The predictions from Remain about the immediate effect of a Leave vote have all proved wrong, and that damages the credibility of those same people making dire predictios now.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 04:51 AM

"You may not have been told of possible 'negative effects' by the Leave campaign..................."

You are quite correct Nigel I should have made myself clearer. I forgot that I am dealing with pedants.

Today Michael Barnier has suggested that the UK could get a bespoke deal with the EU unlike any other. On the face of it that sounds like a positive note ............ however it could also mean that a deal we were offered is worse than any other deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 04:56 AM

It could, but no-one took it that way and certainly not the markets.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 05:02 AM

"That sounds like disastrous news "
Wellll!
Do you honestly believe any political party could survive a dream-team leadership like that
Not only digging their own grave but also making their wn funeral arrangements
Bring 'm on I say
Mind you - I believe Moggie's Nanny still packs a lethal punch
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 09:46 AM

"We have conflicting predictions of the outcome of leaving. We do not even know what deal we will get."

And there, gentlemen, in two short sentences, is the admission of the Brexiter's stupidity - they voted for something without the faintest idea about what they were voting for. Not a clue about what the outcome would be. Gullible fools sucked in by sound bites, slogans on buses, and blond Bullingdon-Boy buffoons parroting "Take Are Cuntry Back" at the end of every sentence he uttered.

And, as the whole debacle crashes around their ears, with the PM and her ministers scuttling around the world rattling their begging-bowls, more and more businesses indicating their intention to desert the U.K. in favour of EU Member-States, they continue to defend the indefensible. You couldn't make it up!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 11:07 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 18 - 05:13 AM

BWM has expressed his opinions on why Leavers voted Leave.
I do not think any of that is true. Apparantly I am not allowed to say that, but it remains my opinion.

It is a sad day for the forum if one side can request that opinions from the other side are deleted.

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.

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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 07:48 AM

It's called 'Spin', DMcG - but you know that already! ;-)

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: DMcG
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 09:07 AM

So I did not infer it.

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: 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 - 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 12:02 PM

Need?

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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 02:55 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:43 PM

Oh well. That one might as well go too, along with my thumbs-up one.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Sep 18 - 02:42 PM

Jacob ("Call Me Jake") Rees-Mong said fifty years, didn't he?