Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 07:12 PM

Incidentally, Stanron, your big mate Nigel Farage (without whom we wouldn't be having this argument now) has taken millions from the EU in expenses, on top of a very handsome salary package, yet next-to-never actually turns up. I note that you didn't include that in your anti-Kinnock invective, which is yet another lame gravy train-style attack by feeble-minded brexiteers (and I'm no bloody Kinnock supporter, just to apprise you). However, as you assume I'd be pleased about Kinnock's pension pot (I'm far from that, as it happens), I dare say you'll be pleased about Farage's depradations. And, next time you pass by a dictionary, do look up "corruption." You may be surprised. And, when applied to some of the scumbags on your side, rather embarrassed. Though not into silence, knowing you. Do continue to bring it on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 08:31 PM

By the way again, Stanron, about this:

'The consensus is that it [Full Facts] is a left wing propaganda site."

Please provide a list of the people who have contributed to this "consensus." This quote from your post, unsupported, is just weasel words. We know what an expert you are in providing those. Perhaps this time you'll exonerate yourself by backing up your remark with a comprehensive list of your consensus buddies. Alternatively, why not just admit that you make it up as you go along?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Aug 18 - 07:38 AM

VAT for businesses if 'No Deal'

Trading with EU if there's 'No Deal'

Just a chance to read what the government has stated, before starting to comment on what other commentators are saying they believe the government have said.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 04:30 AM

Being on hols, I have far more pleasant ways of passing the time than reasing government publications. So I have only given those a 'speed read'. In that, they seemed astonishingly vacuous: i noticed very little that showed detailed thinking- the majoriry was obvious to anyone who contemplated a "no deal" even before the vote. I don't see the result of a couple of years of intensive thought.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 04:47 AM

(Interrupted slightly on that post.)

One of the things that leapt out was that they seem to forget Margaret Thatcher's oft misquoted dictum "There is no such thing a society." In context, she was saying neither 'society' nor 'the government' has any money of its own - it is all your taxation, one way or another. And that applies as much to the government statements about VAT here as any benefit expenditure.

But I will read the papers more thoroughly in a week or two.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 04:48 AM

The long preamble in those vacuous trading and VAT documents is clearly there to allay perfectly justified near-panic. The chancellor has split the Tories in two with his warning that no-deal would blow an 80-billion hole in government finances. And there is still nothing about the Irish border issue. The SNP brexit secretary (why have they got one of those!) says that no-deal should be off the table but that a responsible government should prepare for all exit possibilities.

A responsible government is a government that acts in the interests of the people. In this case, that means taking brexit off the table.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 05:41 AM

"A responsible government is a government that acts in the interests of the people. In this case, that means taking brexit off the table."

Amen to that!

Some people (and I'm one of those) suspect that's precisely what they're up to right now. Or rather, they're working on a form of 'Brexit Lite' - keep the Customs Union and Trading Arrangements, fudge 'Free Movement' - the kind of thing Norway has.

That would be better than nowt, but best of all would be to abandon what is, and has been from day one, an utter debacle and an impending disaster. The Brexiteer Bumpkins will 'get over it' or, if they don't, they know where the door is....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 06:53 AM

Just saw a good summation on Facebook

Brexit in a nutshell -

Gary: Will you drink this medicine? It's really good for you.
Bob: Yes, I will
Gary: Actually, its a poison
Bob: I'm not drinking it then
Gary: Too late, you already said you would drink it
Bob: But my decision was based on you saying it was good for me!
Gary: Drink it means drink it.

:D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 10:35 AM

It was kind of Nigel to give those links, but I would have thought we would have an accounr by now from the Leavers to say either that the reports show No Deal to be better than any alternative on offer or that they are greatly overstating the issues.

So far, silence.

I am particularly interested in their thoughts on the middling group of businesses: the smallest who don't trade with the EU at all will only be indirectly by those reports and the biggest who already trade with the EU and elsewhere can probably adapt existing systems and processes. But the middling ones who have only dealt with the EU will have to redesign/retrain their buyers and sellers completely. What support will available for them?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 11:09 AM

I wonder how a second referndum would go, also the result of referendum in Northern Ireland on a united ireland, the second would sort the border problem if it was yes for unification, or would the island of iureland have to vote about staying in europe?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 12:08 PM

No response from me so far as it's been Whitby Folk Week, far too busy enjoying myself to really bother with Mudcat!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 07:18 AM

Well the HMRC guidance is as clear as mud.

Surely if we are forced by the Tories to exit without a deal is to have no change whatsover for business/consumers in terms of additional administration, accounting requirement, and costs with HMRC completing 100% of the paperwork free of charge and paying 100% of additoanal duties, tariffs, etc from Treasury funds.

That way the rest of us won't need to worry.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 09:51 AM

You really couldn't make this up. It would seem that MP's may be asked to vote on Teresa May's Brexit deal without having access to the financial details in the impact assessments.

How utterly stupid that would be. Not only do the government seem terrified of letting us voters have details but terrified on even letting our elected representatives have the facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/no-deal-brexit-no-10-refuses-to-say-mps-will-see-full-impact-analysis

I think this is referred to as the Mushroom System of goverment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 10:22 AM

Utterly stupid to ask MPs.
They represent the ruling establishment elite, not us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 11:59 AM

A bit of education about the UK's democratic system...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 01:10 PM

Of course you are the elite Keith, don't try to pretend you are not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 02:03 PM

Thanks David, but an elite of just one I think.
BWM, would you like a link about referendums?
Your link is all about representative democracy. We had a referendum because on that issue many did not believe they were being represented.
That is why we needed a referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 02:23 PM

Hoops gentlemen hoops.

The FACT remains that our democratically elected representatives may be asked to vote on a matter which they may not have full access to the facts regarding the subject that they are being asked to vote on.

Utterly ludricous.

A fine example of the Mushroom system of government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 02:25 PM

Talk about revisionism. We had a referendum because a feckless Tory leader, running scared of his backbenchers and of UKIP, brought it to a vote of MPs, most of whom were scared of a backlash if they voted against holding it and most of whom thought that there'd be no harm done anyway as we were sure to vote remain. Your analysis is pure confection. Is there any point any more trying to persuade you to get honest? Anyway, that's all you're getting from me. It was nice when you were away. I'm going to pretend you still are.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 02:49 PM

Referenda have no place in a representative democracy. We elect representatives on the basis that they might know a bit more than the general populace about the issues they are deciding. If some of them had a bit more backbone then they might be able to avoid the catastrophe towards which a flawed referendum is propelling us.

You are the elite Keith in the sense that you have a great deal. Virtually everyone in the UK is elite in this sense. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to make them intelligent.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 03:40 PM

Referenda have no place in a representative democracy. We elect representatives on the basis that they might know a bit more than the general populace about the issues they are deciding. If some of them had a bit more backbone then they might be able to avoid the catastrophe towards which a flawed referendum is propelling us.

You are the elite Keith in the sense that you have a great deal. Virtually everyone in the UK is elite in this sense. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to make them intelligent.

Bingo!

Steve et al, ignore the troll. Please.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:10 AM

"Referenda have no place in a representative democracy. "
That depends surely
In the recent past Ireland has had two nation-shattering referenda to correct past evils that have been instilled in Irish society due to uncontrolled religious influences - one on same-sex marriages . the other on pregnancy termination
Before either of those could be changed it needed to be established whether Ireland had moved on enough - in both cases it had

Brexit is different is that it was deliberately driven through on the basis of Xenophobia - sheet populist agenda-driving
Even then, there is no indication that that is what the majority of the British peope want and all the indications are that many of those who voted for it then would no longer do so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:42 AM

"Referenda have no place in a representative democracy. "

But the representatives from all parties in this representative democracy all voted that this issue should be decided by referendum, and it was.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:48 AM

That's been fully addressed but he's ignoring it. Let's ignore HIM, chaps, until he decides to play nice. Dead right, John.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:57 AM

Quick. Bury your heads.
Pathetic non-response Steve.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 05:10 AM

Meanwhile back with Brexit a report today suggests the cost of stockpiling medical supplies could be £2 billion.

"Owen Smith, the former shadow Northern Ireland secretary and a supporter of Best for Britain, said: “I don’t remember anyone warning that Brexit would mean we’d have to stockpile drugs or that this would cost the NHS and taxpayers up to £2bn. Maybe they should have slapped that on the side of the bus"

“Every day it seems as though there is another hidden cost being revealed.”

The last statement is something I, and others, have stated on here on numerable occasions.

No deal medical costs?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 05:46 AM

I wonder whether there'll be a bus with the Chancellor's "80 billion brexit black hole" on the side. It may not come true but it's a damn sight more likely than £350 million per week for the NHS. Actually, we could do with a whole fleet of buses to adequately cover the various aspects of the brexit disaster to come. I note that the PM is going round African nations trying stiffly to twerk deals out of countries that smile sweetly but who aren't really interested. Pity she didn't take Boris with her. Those "piccaninnies" are all grown up now and they might have found somewhere useful to shove those flags of theirs.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:44 AM

There will be no need for stockpiling if we get a deal.
There will be some costs to leaving without a deal.
What is your point?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:40 AM

I find the spectacle of the Prime Minister of this country and her senior ministers scuttling around the world holding out their begging-bowls utterly appalling and shameful - that this once-powerful nation should be reduced to the kind of behaviour that would embarrass even a third-world country is beneath contempt.

The Brexiteer Dumbfucks should hang their heads in shame that their gullibility, stupidity, and xenophobia has dumped this pile of crap on, not only our senior politicians, but also the entire population of the UK, the vast majority of whom did not express a desire to leave the EU in that ludicrously flawed referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:41 AM

Don't tell him, Pike. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:42 AM

Grr, you just beat me to the send button, John!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:44 AM

I'm still pretty athletic for a septuagenarian, Steve - ask Mrs. Backwoodsperson! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:49 AM

Steve, I should have made it clear that my post was in response to yours of 05:46 AM - nobody else's.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:51 AM

With you on that, John. I need to knock meself into line...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 08:31 AM

Some costs Keith?? You mean we won't be able to eat??

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 01:49 PM

No David, but no-one denies that there would be costs to both sides from a no deal Brexit.

BWM, it is not acceptable to call people names like "Dumbfucks" just because they disagree with you.
Try to discuss reasonably and not be abusive please.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 01:50 PM

Are you a Moderator?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 02:57 PM

" it is not acceptable to call people names"
"Pathetic non-response" when nobody wants to talk to you doesn't count I suppose
Stop feeding the chimps Baccy
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 03:31 PM

Yeah, you're right Jim. What on Earth was I thinking of? He can GFH.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 03:40 PM

Keith, no-one denies that there would be costs to both sides if I stepped in front of a bus. Mostly to me. So I don't do it. So why the hell, 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??

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 03:56 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:15 PM

Me neither, Raggy.

I do, however, recall being told countless times that we would all be much better-off if we leave the EU, how the NHS would get an extra £350 million a week, that there would be far fewer immigrants claiming benefits (or stealing our jobs, depending on which lie you fell for), how we will be 'taking are cuntry back', and many lies and exaggerations. And, not long after the referendum, I recall one particular Tory Brexiteer-dumbfuck announcing that the Exit Agreement would be 'the easiest Agreement ever' to negotiate.

All this, for no other reason than to ensure that the likes of Rees-Mogg, the Rothermeres, Rupert Murdoch, et al can continue their dodgy tax-avoidance/evasion schemes, while the plebs pay for the entire debacle.

And the resident troll objects to me referring to Brexiters as 'dumbfucks'? Obviously hit a nerve there.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:18 PM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 03:56 PM
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.

No, you were told most clearly (if inaccurately) that following a vote to leave the EU there would be a massive black hole in the economy, there would be massive unemployment, and there would be an immediate punitive budget. Those were clearly expected 'negative effects'.

You may not have been told of possible 'negative effects' by the Leave campaign, but you were certainly told about them by the remainers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:29 PM

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

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:42 PM

"...you were told most clearly (if inaccurately) that following a vote to leave the EU there would be a massive black hole in the economy..."

Well your Tory chancellor is saying the same thing right now. Eighty billion. Seems to be a fairly persistent worry, doesn't it, Nigel...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:45 PM

Yes, it's consistent, (even if Raggytash says he hasn't heard it).
But being consistent isn't the same as being accurate.
It's been proved wrong once, why believe it the second time?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:45 PM

Yes, it's consistent, (even if Raggytash says he hasn't heard it).
But being consistent isn't the same as being accurate.
It's been proved wrong once, why believe it the second time?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:02 PM

How has it been "proved wrong," Nigel? Shouldn't we await brexit before we conclude that?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:09 PM

How has it been "proved wrong," Nigel? Shouldn't we await brexit before we conclude that?
The scare stories about what would happen if we voted to leave the EU have already been proved wrong.
If you care to believe similar scare stories about what will happen when we leave the EU, that is, of course, up to you.

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

But you said it had been proved wrong. I want to know how this amazing prescience of yours mIght be justified.