Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Not Now Kato on January 11, 2021, 11:53:09 am
-
We've now left the EU so it's time to keep a list of all the benefits we achieve as we go forward. We were promised some excellent trade deals and so far we've managed to copy across over 60 trade deals. They aren't better than those we had as members of the EU, but at least they are positive achievements.
However https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/first-blow-for-post-brexit-britain-as-australia-rejects-trade-deal/07/01/?fbclid=IwAR17nan5Ez3WNCLY7xK0oIACnYnxvQmEAooWfuv2IOpwqHUQQZQMNs1XiHI
-
Anybody would think the Government don't want anyone to know how wonderful Brexit is!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-committee-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-trade-deal-b1784512.html
-
And it seems Leave EU never really wanted to leave the EU after all....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/leave-eu-moves-to-ireland-to-keep-eu-suffix/06/01/
-
Not been part of the process of becoming a European state works for me nnk.
-
You have started a benefits thread on leaving the eu and then carried it on the same as the last one that was locked,why not give it a bit of time rather than a week and see what replies you get?
-
You have started a benefits thread on leaving the eu and then carried it on the same as the last one that was locked,why not give it a bit of time rather than a week and see what replies you get?
This thread will still be here in future. How long do we have to wait for your list of benefits to appear in it?
Plus, we keep being told that people knew what they were voting for so surely everybody would already know what the benefits are instead of having to leave us hanging around to find out what they are..?
-
I assume the blue passports are on the way?
-
Oh aye. And I SURE Johnson said repeatedly and categorically in the General Election campaign that there would be no customs checks between GB and Northern Ireland.
Looks like he'd better get onto the tax office, only it looks like someone there has gone rogue, actually read the Withdrawal Agreement that Johnson signed and realised they DO have to have customs checks.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55556840
Who'd have thought it eh? Johnson bare-faced lying and not a single Brexit supporter having the dignity to call him out on it.
-
I assume the blue passports are on the way?
Got my new JET BLACK one
-
Oh aye. And I SURE Johnson said repeatedly and categorically in the General Election campaign that there would be no customs checks between GB and Northern Ireland.
Looks like he'd better get onto the tax office, only it looks like someone there has gone rogue, actually read the Withdrawal Agreement that Johnson signed and realised they DO have to have customs checks.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55556840
Who'd have thought it eh? Johnson bare-faced lying and not a single Brexit supporter having the dignity to call him out on it.
Not as little dignity as the DUP, who have gone extremely quiet about it.
-
It's still bugging some of you.
-
It's still bugging some of you.
Funny how Brexit Supporters can never answer the question ‘how being in the EU has negatively affected me personally’, yet every day there is news on how Brexit negatively affects people’s lives.
-
It's still bugging some of you.
Throwing the country into a pile of shit does that to people.
-
Ah Glyn, forgot about you, were you a member of a backing group when younger?
-
People don’t have to have a blue passport now we are out of the EU.
Just carry on using the burgundy one until it expires.
-
People don’t have to have a blue passport now we are out of the EU.
Just carry on using the burgundy one until it expires.
Same applies to the E111 (EHIC) until it expires..... and then a new GHIC can be applied for
-
Seems Bees are going to benefit from our ability to make our own laws....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/uk-farmers-given-go-ahead-to-use-bee-killing-pesticide-banned-by-eu/09/01/
-
Seems Bees are going to benefit from our ability to make our own laws....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/uk-farmers-given-go-ahead-to-use-bee-killing-pesticide-banned-by-eu/09/01/
I wouldn’t have thought that bees would be benefitting from farmers being allowed to use a bee killing pesticide.
-
Seems Bees are going to benefit from our ability to make our own laws....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/uk-farmers-given-go-ahead-to-use-bee-killing-pesticide-banned-by-eu/09/01/
I wouldn’t have thought that bees would be benefitting from farmers being allowed to use a bee killing pesticide.
I'm guessing NNK is being sarcastic - but just a guess mind, he may have it in for bees for some reason?
What it does mean of course is that we will then have more of our own (banned pesticide covered) food to eat - as all field grown food stuff to the EU will immediately be banned when this law comes in.
It is also benefical in another way as it does confirm what I expected. This government's claim to be more enviromentaly friendly is actually the same as that of most other Tory governments - the ability to kill more things in the countryside.
-
France made 60 million euros in fines sent to British drivers under the agreement that was in place for such as speeding on the motorways last year and sent the fines here to be paid.
the agreement no longer stands don't bother paying them.
-
Seems Bees are going to benefit from our ability to make our own laws....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/uk-farmers-given-go-ahead-to-use-bee-killing-pesticide-banned-by-eu/09/01/
I wouldn’t have thought that bees would be benefitting from farmers being allowed to use a bee killing pesticide.
I'm guessing NNK is being sarcastic - but just a guess mind, he may have it in for bees for some reason?
What it does mean of course is that we will then have more of our own (banned pesticide covered) food to eat - as all field grown food stuff to the EU will immediately be banned when this law comes in.
It is also benefical in another way as it does confirm what I expected. This government's claim to be more enviromentaly friendly is actually the same as that of most other Tory governments - the ability to kill more things in the countryside.
As you say Wilts, it was sarcastic. Just another non benefit of Brexit. I believe we'll see more negative changes going forward too.
-
We've shipped 20 odd orders to the continent since coming back on 4th Jan.
16 of them have been stuck in f**king customs checkpoints.
-
At some point in the future, we will look back and laugh at the days when utter bell ends like this ruled the country, and preened like this on an issue which is driving many companies to the brink.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TobyonTV/status/1349707738583093248
Just feels like a f**king long way off at the moment.
-
Meanwhile, as Scottish fishing companies face oblivion, get this.
The UK Fisheries minister didn't read the fishing sections of the Brexit trade deal before voting for it. Because she was too busy organising a Nativity trail.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue/status/1349415252925026306
So the Fisheries minister votes for a deal that she has no idea of the effect on fishing.
We should be horrified at this amateurishness, but when the Brexit Secretary and now Foreign Secretary didn't realise how important trade through Dover was, and when the NI Secretary didn't realise that sectarian tensions in Belfast were a problem, you kind of get numbed to the level of amateur incompetence.
-
At some point in the future, we will look back and laugh at the days when utter bell ends like this ruled the country, and preened like this on an issue which is driving many companies to the brink.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TobyonTV/status/1349707738583093248
Just feels like a f**king long way off at the moment.
You have to make him right though. British fish are going to be the happiest fish in the world right now - because no-one is catching them! As for British fisherman, well they don't seem to chuffed about this control they have taken back.
-
From Bloomberg
Britain's population of Eastern Europeans is going home amid Covid lockdowns and Brexit rule changes
Eastern Europeans Were Leaving U.K. in Months Before Brexit
The number of eastern Europeans living in the U.K. last year slumped to levels last seen in 2015 ahead of the end of the Brexit transition and as the coronavirus lockdowns closed huge parts of the...
bloomberg.com
-
There are some mis conceptions about the loss of passporting for British Financial Services companies .I ran Commercial Union Assurance Benelux and despite the Freedom Of Services Directive of 1992 we never received authorisation either from the Belgian or Dutch to sell U.K Non smoker Life assurance on the continent nor our U.K. Investment Managed Funds .We had to ESTABLISH a company in Luxembourg and rely on customers applying to us from Belgium and Holland as passive marketing only was allowed yet the 1992 Directive should have meant you no longer needed to Establish a company in EU because cross bordering was the idea ...it. never happened .
I hear Insurers and Investment managers from the City now saying they do not need to be on the continent since today’s customers are all online wherever they are resident .Big Industrial Companies like Maersk to quote but one would never be able to get all their fleet insured without resorting to London Coty Companies or Lloyds .They will be coming to London to get covered for sure .
-
From Bloomberg
Britain's population of Eastern Europeans is going home amid Covid lockdowns and Brexit rule changes
Eastern Europeans Were Leaving U.K. in Months Before Brexit
The number of eastern Europeans living in the U.K. last year slumped to levels last seen in 2015 ahead of the end of the Brexit transition and as the coronavirus lockdowns closed huge parts of the...
bloomberg.com
Is that bloke wearing a Rovers shirt? :blink:
-
No. It’s a cheap EU copy.
-
Remember back in 2016 when some of us said that a huge benefit of the EU was the protection of workers' rights?
And the Brexit Death Cult said "Yes but nobody is saying we'd have worse workers' rights outside the EU"?
https://mobile.twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1349846854255710210
Aged well, that argument...
-
To me brexit never made much sense unless the government planned to get stuck into workers rights in all forms. Why would anyone as a business owner want to put up with the costs of all the hurdles if they couldn't be more than compensated for by reducing a major cost to running that business.
Kwateng
''“We are not going to lower the standards of workers’ rights,” he tweeted. “The UK has one of the best workers’ rights records in the world – going further than the EU in many areas. We want to protect and enhance workers’ rights going forward, not row back on them.”''
Can someone ask him what plans are in train for this and when will it happen???
-
Spain are going to go about it the right way Sydney, they are going to put up the retirement age and likely to reduce state pensions by 5% a lot of pensioners in Spain have a retirement income of less than £6000 according to Reuters.
-
Spain are going to go about it the right way Sydney, they are going to put up the retirement age and likely to reduce state pensions by 5% a lot of pensioners in Spain have a retirement income of less than £6000 according to Reuters.
Strange you should mention it selby, our Government has been planning the increase in retirement age to 67 for some time
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/money-legal/pensions/state-pension/changes-to-state-pension-age/
-
Spain are going to go about it the right way Sydney, they are going to put up the retirement age and likely to reduce state pensions by 5% a lot of pensioners in Spain have a retirement income of less than £6000 according to Reuters.
It's already been done in Oz selby with those doing physical work getting the rough end of the pineapple of course.
Plus that during the pandemic instead of sufficient welfare people have been given early access to their super and of course those in the lower wage brackets have been forced to access more than the wealthy, which mean that on retirement they will have less to live on. Some of these ideas look ok at first glance but are full of bear traps.
https://www.amp.com.au/retirement/prepare-to-retire/retirement-age-australia
-
Lots of people in Spain are doing it really tough as they had to live on their savings though the years following the GFC and now this.
-
I would just like to acknowledge the extreme sensitivity of Brexiters, and the diligent care they're taking in not rubbing our noses in ANY brexit success stories: not one.
-
It really pisses me off when someone got their state pension at 65 says increase the retirement age and decrease the amount. When I started my working life pension age was 65, now for me its 67. It was same for my company pension, made redundant at 48, at the time I could claim my pension at 50, just after I finished it was raised to 55, I’ve been hit both ways, so when some is sat there in their ivory towers preaching what others should get it really pisses me off!
-
Here's a real Brexit Benefit - our fish are now happier....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2021/jan/14/jacob-rees-mogg-fish-british-happier-because-brexit-video
And people vote for these idiots?
-
Here's a real Brexit Benefit - our fish are now happier....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2021/jan/14/jacob-rees-mogg-fish-british-happier-because-brexit-video
And people vote for these idiots?
I love eating happy Cod
-
I had a happy flatfish once. It was brill.
-
I had a happy flatfish once. It was brill.
I didn't really, I was joking, as was JRM!
-
I had a happy flatfish once. It was brill.
I didn't really, I was joking, as was JRM!
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier:
You have to make him right though. British fish are going to be the happiest fish in the world right now - because no-one is catching them! As for British fisherman, well they don't seem to chuffed about this control they have taken back.
-
Ask the Netherlands government why they have resigned Billy and thank your lucky stars
-
I reckon Selby doesn't actually exist. His account is just wired into that computer that automatically generates Daily Mail headlines.
What the actual f**k has the resignation of the Dutch Govt, over a purely Dutch matter, got to do with anything connected with Brexit?
-
I had a happy flatfish once. It was brill.
I didn't really, I was joking, as was JRM!
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier:
You have to make him right though. British fish are going to be the happiest fish in the world right now - because no-one is catching them! As for British fisherman, well they don't seem to chuffed about this control they have taken back.
Not surprising if all their schools are shut, they'll be staying in their beds.
-
Ask the Netherlands government why they have resigned Billy and thank your lucky stars
Tell you what, pull your finger out and you ask them for us. Then perhaps you may have point to make.
-
I reckon Selby doesn't actually exist. His account is just wired into that computer that automatically generates Daily Mail headlines.
What the actual f**k has the resignation of the Dutch Govt, over a purely Dutch matter, got to do with anything connected with Brexit?
you could say that about certain posters and the independent
-
I reckon Selby doesn't actually exist. His account is just wired into that computer that automatically generates Daily Mail headlines.
What the actual f**k has the resignation of the Dutch Govt, over a purely Dutch matter, got to do with anything connected with Brexit?
you could say that about certain posters and the independent
Today's input from the Minister for Whataboutery.
-
I reckon Selby doesn't actually exist. His account is just wired into that computer that automatically generates Daily Mail headlines.
What the actual f**k has the resignation of the Dutch Govt, over a purely Dutch matter, got to do with anything connected with Brexit?
you could say that about certain posters and the independent
But you don't say it, apparently.
-
I reckon Selby doesn't actually exist. His account is just wired into that computer that automatically generates Daily Mail headlines.
What the actual f**k has the resignation of the Dutch Govt, over a purely Dutch matter, got to do with anything connected with Brexit?
you could say that about certain posters and the independent
But you don't say it, apparently.
No, he just likes to deflect deflect deflect. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Here's another cracking response from Rabb....
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1350740369756008452
-
Raab's a national treasure int he? Wrapping himself up in the Union Jack (have you noticed how many Tory ministers have taken to having the flag in their office while they are interviewed?) and hoping we all forget about that book he wrote where he called the British working class idle layabouts.
And here he is now saying the crisis in the Scottish fishing industry isn't due to the Brexit deal.
Like some collective madness has just, totally coincidentally, engulfed the buyers and sellers of Scottish fish and they have forgotten how to trade with each other at PRECISELY the same time that Raab's Government has put barriers to the cross-Channel trade that Raab didn't realise was so important when he was Brexit Secretary.
-
Meanwhile, on a fishing forum I go on, anglers are up in arms following a posting from the Angling Trust....
The Angling Trust has joined forces with bait manufacturers Dynamite and Mainline in urgently seeking clarification on Brexit ruling which will effectively ban UK anglers from taking baits with them on fishing trips in Europe.
Since the UK-EU Trade Agreement came into force on January 1st, the export of baits derived from animal produce, such as boilies, requires a European Health Certificate (EHC) to be completed. At present, the EHC for baits of this sort are under the same requirements as exporting animal feed which involves exhaustive and expensive testing, and certification from a vet. To make export to Europe cost effective, the Angling Trust believes bait needs to sit under a simpler EHC classification.
Mark Owen, the Angling Trust’s Head of Freshwater, said:
“The Angling Trust has retained active engagement with the European Commission through our membership of the European Anglers Alliance and we will continue to press the EU to facilitate this change of EHC classification.
“It is apparent, from our understanding, that the current position will impact on anglers purchasing bait in England to go fishing in Europe once Covid travel restrictions are lifted as they would have to produce an EHC if challenged. We are presently seeking clarification that our interpretation is correct and more information will follow.”
Jamie Cook, Angling Trust CEO and keen carp angler, added:
“It’s ridiculous that fishing baits for a species that is returned alive are being treated as if they were part of the food production process. I have asked my team at the Angling Trust to work with the angling trade to press the European Commission to see sense.”
The Angling Trades Association also hope to provide a briefing on the issues next week.
The post Anglers to challenge Brexit bait ban appeared first on Angling Trust.
The irony is that those complaining are the very same people who voted for Brexit in the first place; of course, they blame the EU and still think Brexit is a good thing!
Whatever happened to education in this country?
-
Meanwhile, on a fishing forum I go on, anglers are up in arms following a posting from the Angling Trust....
The Angling Trust has joined forces with bait manufacturers Dynamite and Mainline in urgently seeking clarification on Brexit ruling which will effectively ban UK anglers from taking baits with them on fishing trips in Europe.
Since the UK-EU Trade Agreement came into force on January 1st, the export of baits derived from animal produce, such as boilies, requires a European Health Certificate (EHC) to be completed. At present, the EHC for baits of this sort are under the same requirements as exporting animal feed which involves exhaustive and expensive testing, and certification from a vet. To make export to Europe cost effective, the Angling Trust believes bait needs to sit under a simpler EHC classification.
Mark Owen, the Angling Trust’s Head of Freshwater, said:
“The Angling Trust has retained active engagement with the European Commission through our membership of the European Anglers Alliance and we will continue to press the EU to facilitate this change of EHC classification.
“It is apparent, from our understanding, that the current position will impact on anglers purchasing bait in England to go fishing in Europe once Covid travel restrictions are lifted as they would have to produce an EHC if challenged. We are presently seeking clarification that our interpretation is correct and more information will follow.”
Jamie Cook, Angling Trust CEO and keen carp angler, added:
“It’s ridiculous that fishing baits for a species that is returned alive are being treated as if they were part of the food production process. I have asked my team at the Angling Trust to work with the angling trade to press the European Commission to see sense.”
The Angling Trades Association also hope to provide a briefing on the issues next week.
The post Anglers to challenge Brexit bait ban appeared first on Angling Trust.
The irony is that those complaining are the very same people who voted for Brexit in the first place; of course, they blame the EU and still think Brexit is a good thing!
Whatever happened to education in this country?
I wonder if it will work the other way, when I was match fishing a lot of bloodworm came from Belgium, don’t know if its the same these days, but if it is I’m sure there will be barriers in the way now
-
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/johnson-pleads-with-business-leaders-give-me-a-reason-for-brexit/
-
Meanwhile, on a fishing forum I go on, anglers are up in arms following a posting from the Angling Trust....
The Angling Trust has joined forces with bait manufacturers Dynamite and Mainline in urgently seeking clarification on Brexit ruling which will effectively ban UK anglers from taking baits with them on fishing trips in Europe.
Since the UK-EU Trade Agreement came into force on January 1st, the export of baits derived from animal produce, such as boilies, requires a European Health Certificate (EHC) to be completed. At present, the EHC for baits of this sort are under the same requirements as exporting animal feed which involves exhaustive and expensive testing, and certification from a vet. To make export to Europe cost effective, the Angling Trust believes bait needs to sit under a simpler EHC classification.
Mark Owen, the Angling Trust’s Head of Freshwater, said:
“The Angling Trust has retained active engagement with the European Commission through our membership of the European Anglers Alliance and we will continue to press the EU to facilitate this change of EHC classification.
“It is apparent, from our understanding, that the current position will impact on anglers purchasing bait in England to go fishing in Europe once Covid travel restrictions are lifted as they would have to produce an EHC if challenged. We are presently seeking clarification that our interpretation is correct and more information will follow.”
Jamie Cook, Angling Trust CEO and keen carp angler, added:
“It’s ridiculous that fishing baits for a species that is returned alive are being treated as if they were part of the food production process. I have asked my team at the Angling Trust to work with the angling trade to press the European Commission to see sense.”
The Angling Trades Association also hope to provide a briefing on the issues next week.
The post Anglers to challenge Brexit bait ban appeared first on Angling Trust.
The irony is that those complaining are the very same people who voted for Brexit in the first place; of course, they blame the EU and still think Brexit is a good thing!
Whatever happened to education in this country?
I wonder if it will work the other way, when I was match fishing a lot of bloodworm came from Belgium, don’t know if its the same these days, but if it is I’m sure there will be barriers in the way now
In theory, yes. But our customs rules are not in place at the moment to handle it. Whether we will do so in time remains to be seen, though I somehow doubt it.
-
Here's a genuine benefit of the Withdrawal Agreement....
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/01/17/the-brexit-deal-locks-the-uk-into-continued-strasbourg-human-rights-court-membership/
Of course, it's just the same as we had before Brexit; but Brexiters aren't going to like the exposure of yet another lie!
-
Meanwhile, on a fishing forum I go on, anglers are up in arms following a posting from the Angling Trust....
The Angling Trust has joined forces with bait manufacturers Dynamite and Mainline in urgently seeking clarification on Brexit ruling which will effectively ban UK anglers from taking baits with them on fishing trips in Europe.
Since the UK-EU Trade Agreement came into force on January 1st, the export of baits derived from animal produce, such as boilies, requires a European Health Certificate (EHC) to be completed. At present, the EHC for baits of this sort are under the same requirements as exporting animal feed which involves exhaustive and expensive testing, and certification from a vet. To make export to Europe cost effective, the Angling Trust believes bait needs to sit under a simpler EHC classification.
Mark Owen, the Angling Trust’s Head of Freshwater, said:
“The Angling Trust has retained active engagement with the European Commission through our membership of the European Anglers Alliance and we will continue to press the EU to facilitate this change of EHC classification.
“It is apparent, from our understanding, that the current position will impact on anglers purchasing bait in England to go fishing in Europe once Covid travel restrictions are lifted as they would have to produce an EHC if challenged. We are presently seeking clarification that our interpretation is correct and more information will follow.”
Jamie Cook, Angling Trust CEO and keen carp angler, added:
“It’s ridiculous that fishing baits for a species that is returned alive are being treated as if they were part of the food production process. I have asked my team at the Angling Trust to work with the angling trade to press the European Commission to see sense.”
The Angling Trades Association also hope to provide a briefing on the issues next week.
The post Anglers to challenge Brexit bait ban appeared first on Angling Trust.
The irony is that those complaining are the very same people who voted for Brexit in the first place; of course, they blame the EU and still think Brexit is a good thing!
Whatever happened to education in this country?
I wonder if it will work the other way, when I was match fishing a lot of bloodworm came from Belgium, don’t know if its the same these days, but if it is I’m sure there will be barriers in the way now
In theory, yes. But our customs rules are not in place at the moment to handle it. Whether we will do so in time remains to be seen, though I somehow doubt it.
The rules are there, but not the systems and trained personnel to implement them. They cost money!
-
Meanwhile, on a fishing forum I go on, anglers are up in arms following a posting from the Angling Trust....
The Angling Trust has joined forces with bait manufacturers Dynamite and Mainline in urgently seeking clarification on Brexit ruling which will effectively ban UK anglers from taking baits with them on fishing trips in Europe.
Since the UK-EU Trade Agreement came into force on January 1st, the export of baits derived from animal produce, such as boilies, requires a European Health Certificate (EHC) to be completed. At present, the EHC for baits of this sort are under the same requirements as exporting animal feed which involves exhaustive and expensive testing, and certification from a vet. To make export to Europe cost effective, the Angling Trust believes bait needs to sit under a simpler EHC classification.
Mark Owen, the Angling Trust’s Head of Freshwater, said:
“The Angling Trust has retained active engagement with the European Commission through our membership of the European Anglers Alliance and we will continue to press the EU to facilitate this change of EHC classification.
“It is apparent, from our understanding, that the current position will impact on anglers purchasing bait in England to go fishing in Europe once Covid travel restrictions are lifted as they would have to produce an EHC if challenged. We are presently seeking clarification that our interpretation is correct and more information will follow.”
Jamie Cook, Angling Trust CEO and keen carp angler, added:
“It’s ridiculous that fishing baits for a species that is returned alive are being treated as if they were part of the food production process. I have asked my team at the Angling Trust to work with the angling trade to press the European Commission to see sense.”
The Angling Trades Association also hope to provide a briefing on the issues next week.
The post Anglers to challenge Brexit bait ban appeared first on Angling Trust.
The irony is that those complaining are the very same people who voted for Brexit in the first place; of course, they blame the EU and still think Brexit is a good thing!
Whatever happened to education in this country?
I wonder if it will work the other way, when I was match fishing a lot of bloodworm came from Belgium, don’t know if its the same these days, but if it is I’m sure there will be barriers in the way now
In theory, yes. But our customs rules are not in place at the moment to handle it. Whether we will do so in time remains to be seen, though I somehow doubt it.
The rules are there, but not the systems and trained personnel to implement them. They cost money!
Thanks for the correction Glyn. It's a sign of the way this government handled the whole Brexit thing that the EU were fully prepared from day one and we weren't. As you say, these things cost money and the usual UK way is to do things down to a price, not up to a standard!
-
They weren't that good with chips for their cars in Germany.
-
Selby's non sequitur of the day, right on time.
-
''Seafood lorries travel to Westminster for protest against Brexit red tape''
I'm not revelling in the fact that these people are losing money and maybe their livlihoods but really what did they expect from brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/18/fishing-trucks-protest-at-westminster-against-brexit-red-tape
-
Maybe they expected something they thought they were voting for, if indeed they even voted for it
-
Oddly Farage is quite quiet on this fishing issue. Very strange.
-
lesser spotted dogfish is a bit of a flake
-
Barnier tells it like it is
https://eminetra.co.uk/barnier-warns-that-post-brexit-border-friction-is-new-and-normal-2/220714/
Brexit, the gift that keeps on giving taking!
-
stinking fish, get your stinking fish, come and get it.
-
This is from Romanian news about Scottish Fishermans
-
I've had a large crate stuck in Italy for a fortnight now because not a single haulier I've contacted has been able to take it due to the sheer volume of imports clogging up their systems. Absolute nightmare and there's a good chance we'll lose a high-value order we can't get our money back on the purchase for.
-
Meanwhile, on a fishing forum I go on, anglers are up in arms following a posting from the Angling Trust....
The Angling Trust has joined forces with bait manufacturers Dynamite and Mainline in urgently seeking clarification on Brexit ruling which will effectively ban UK anglers from taking baits with them on fishing trips in Europe.
Since the UK-EU Trade Agreement came into force on January 1st, the export of baits derived from animal produce, such as boilies, requires a European Health Certificate (EHC) to be completed. At present, the EHC for baits of this sort are under the same requirements as exporting animal feed which involves exhaustive and expensive testing, and certification from a vet. To make export to Europe cost effective, the Angling Trust believes bait needs to sit under a simpler EHC classification.
Mark Owen, the Angling Trust’s Head of Freshwater, said:
“The Angling Trust has retained active engagement with the European Commission through our membership of the European Anglers Alliance and we will continue to press the EU to facilitate this change of EHC classification.
“It is apparent, from our understanding, that the current position will impact on anglers purchasing bait in England to go fishing in Europe once Covid travel restrictions are lifted as they would have to produce an EHC if challenged. We are presently seeking clarification that our interpretation is correct and more information will follow.”
Jamie Cook, Angling Trust CEO and keen carp angler, added:
“It’s ridiculous that fishing baits for a species that is returned alive are being treated as if they were part of the food production process. I have asked my team at the Angling Trust to work with the angling trade to press the European Commission to see sense.”
The Angling Trades Association also hope to provide a briefing on the issues next week.
The post Anglers to challenge Brexit bait ban appeared first on Angling Trust.
The irony is that those complaining are the very same people who voted for Brexit in the first place; of course, they blame the EU and still think Brexit is a good thing!
Whatever happened to education in this country?
I wonder if it will work the other way, when I was match fishing a lot of bloodworm came from Belgium, don’t know if its the same these days, but if it is I’m sure there will be barriers in the way now
In theory, yes. But our customs rules are not in place at the moment to handle it. Whether we will do so in time remains to be seen, though I somehow doubt it.
The rules are there, but not the systems and trained personnel to implement them. They cost money!
Thanks for the correction Glyn. It's a sign of the way this government handled the whole Brexit thing that the EU were fully prepared from day one and we weren't. As you say, these things cost money and the usual UK way is to do things down to a price, not up to a standard!
As I was saying...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55735974
-
Lucrative little sideline for you there, Glyn?
-
In what way?
-
Customs Advisor?
-
Firstly, I'm not as healthy as I used to be when working for HMRC.
Secondly I'm not completely up to date with what's being retained and what has been jettisoned with regards to Duty Relief Schemes (which were one of my specialities).They were EU projects, so technically they could have been discarded when we left the EU - it would have been absolute fecking madness to do so because they benefit UK businesses who trade with third countries - or whether they might have been retained but the details modified. I've heard nothing about what's happened with regards to these.
Apart from those, Customs Procedures are basically the same as they have been for imports and exports to/from non-EU countries all the time we've been in the Single Market. They just now apply to movements to/from the EU now as well as the 27 have suddenly become third countries too. And, of course, the UK has now become a third country to the EU which means we get treated the same by the EU as they treat any other non-EU country, which a lot of the Brexiteers seem to think is the EU 'punishing' us! Basically, what's causing the problems is that too many people swallowed the massive lie that things would stay frictionless or somehow magically be better. I've been saying on this forum since before the referendum what was going to change but I was told that I couldn't possibly know what was going to happen...
Lastly, I wouldn't want to personally cash in on the avoidable distress Brexit is causing no end of UK businesses. That would make me no better than the Jacob Rees-Moggs et al of this world and I couldn't countenance that.
-
Thanks for the explanation, Glyn. I saw many of the exchanges you describe, people saying you couldn't possibly know.
Your final remark, an admirably principled position (pity those in this government seem not to understand the concept), but you have a clear conscience so far as brexit is concerned, you didn't contribute to its happening.
-
The final remark is really a hangover from being in C&E/HMRC. My view was that I was a public servant, not just there to collect anything due, but also to educate people and businesses what relief schemes were available, how they could benefit from them, what they needed to do to comply with the rules and what records they had to keep etc. That ethos still holds true to me. If anyone has a genuine query I'll try and help if I can.
Although I was there to verify stuff, I always saw my role as there to help them as much as possible as well even though it wasn't part of my official remit. The biggest help I could give was to tell them about having their own Duty Deferment Account - too many businesses were getting ripped off left, right and centre by shipping agents charging to use theirs.
-
Here's someone who knew exactly what he was voting for when he voted Leave.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BylineTV/status/1352352805273657347
Flippancy aside, this is heartbreaking. Decent people, used then f**ked over.
-
Interesting that nissan are bringing battery manufacture to Sunderland and committing long term. A month ago certain elements of the political spectrum were adamant they were to close it all.
-
Here's someone who knew exactly what he was voting for when he voted Leave.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BylineTV/status/1352352805273657347
Flippancy aside, this is heartbreaking. Decent people, used then f**ked over.
I think there was a healthy amount of self interest in his decision to support brexit as he says 'I thought we would control the fishing grounds and Europe would be dependent on us' which probably made it a whole lot easier to believe the hype and not read the fine print. All credit to him though for standing up and confronting the fact that he allowed himself to be duped.
-
Cheaper battery tariffs give Nissan UK a competitive edge.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/22/brexit-has-given-competitive-edge-on-car-battery-tariffs-says-nissan-chief
-
RD you appear to be the first to post a genuine benefit from brexit, would Nissan have thought about a cut in production or taken it elsewhere if Brexit hadn't got up?
-
RD you appear to be the first to post a genuine benefit from brexit, would Nissan have thought about a cut in production or taken it elsewhere if Brexit hadn't got up?
They certainly wouldn't have relocated batteries without the brexit deal. Exactly by the way what the economic future of the country should be, green developments.
-
TBH I just posted it because its the first time I have seen a positive story like this.
From what I remember prior to Brexit Nissan were planning on expanding Sunderland anyway.
I guess from glancing at this, the new arrangement means it is beneficial for manufacturers to source their batteries from the UK. Perhaps the battery plant might not otherwise have happened then but I don't know.
-
For the record BFYP, the people predicting serious problems for the Nissan plant in the event of No Deal were the Nissan management.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-54986195
But yes, this is excellent news. Not exactly sure it is a net positive over the situation there would have been without Brexit, but it is certainly an avoidance of a potential major negative.
-
Still waiting for a positive benefit for anyone and we are 3 pages in.
-
TBH I just posted it because its the first time I have seen a positive story like this.
From what I remember prior to Brexit Nissan were planning on expanding Sunderland anyway.
I guess from glancing at this, the new arrangement means it is beneficial for manufacturers to source their batteries from the UK. Perhaps the battery plant might not otherwise have happened then but I don't know.
It's extremely fortunate for the Sunderland workers that sourcing a battery from the UK is enough to make the ex-works price of the final product comply with the 55% original materials rules to qualify as being of UK origin. This development is despite Brexit, not because of it.
Nissan will still have hold all the evidence confirming this before they can claim on any exports to the EU, though (because they'll only be exporting a small variety of final product) they should be in a position that they'll only need to make an invoice declaration and therefore avoid the really cumbersome red tape paperwork that smaller businesses, or those exporting a wide variety of products, will be facing to prove their goods qualify.
Plus, Nissan will still have the extra costs to get their exports through Customs on both sides of the border.
-
Still waiting for a positive benefit for anyone and we are 3 pages in.
Not really what the thread was created for though, despite the title, was it, Easy?
-
Still waiting for a positive benefit for anyone and we are 3 pages in.
Not really what the thread was created for though, despite the title, was it, Easy?
What was it created for then?
I take NNK to have created the thread in good faith, are you insinuating he didn’t?
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
NNK. Were you being ironic? Or did you genuinely want this thread to contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits, as the title suggests?
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
Well I’d like to hear what NNK has to say about your accusation, I’m not sure why you have to make assertions like you do, it seems you have lost the target of most of your arguments and so have just picked on another target now
-
I’ve just asked the same question, Filo.
Let’s wait for his honest answer.
-
I’ve just asked the same question, Filo.
Let’s wait for his honest answer.
Will you only deem it honest if it agrees with your accusation?
-
Of course not, but I would be curious as to why the opening post contained a link to a story about the negative result of Brexit. Followed by many more negatives, if the title was genuine and not ironic.
I’m not sure why you’d ask that.
-
For the record BFYP, the people predicting serious problems for the Nissan plant in the event of No Deal were the Nissan management.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-54986195
But yes, this is excellent news. Not exactly sure it is a net positive over the situation there would have been without Brexit, but it is certainly an avoidance of a potential major negative.
Absolutely in a no deal case which didn't happen. We were constantly told even a deal was end of the world. It clearly is not.
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
Well I’d like to hear what NNK has to say about your accusation, I’m not sure why you have to make assertions like you do, it seems you have lost the target of most of your arguments and so have just picked on another target now
Filo, I’m really not sure what your motives are here.
I responded to a comment by Easy with my direct opinion about Easy’s statement.
No more, no less.
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
Well I’d like to hear what NNK has to say about your accusation, I’m not sure why you have to make assertions like you do, it seems you have lost the target of most of your arguments and so have just picked on another target now
Filo, I’m really not sure what your motives are here.
I responded to a comment by Easy with my direct opinion about Easy’s statement.
No more, no less.
No motives, nothing at all, just a question about your accusation before you checked with NNK, to establish if your accusation is correct or not
-
Why do you call it an accusation?
I don’t think this thread was ever about the benefits of Brexit. That’s my opinion.
Accusation is quite an aggressive term to use. I haven’t accused anybody of anything.
Why the hostility?
-
Perhaps we should all take stock and read what this fellow has to say:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/british-people-now-define-themselves-as-leavers-or-remainers-so-what-happens-after-brexit-130634
-
Cut Kato in half and you would find the EU flag inside, and his favourite tune is Ode to Joy which is a dirge of a tune.
Nissan are shutting their manufacturing facility in Spain and turning it into a storage facility.
-
The Chief Exec of HMRC has said the UK Gov has given orders to prioritize the flow of goods into the UK over compliance with customs regs. As a consequence, the country is set to lose £800m in customs duty and VAT in 2021.
https://trans.info/en/hmrc-chief-loosening-of-customs-checks-on-trucks-to-cost-uk-800m-in-2021-219017
-
The Chief Exec of HMRC has said the UK Gov has given orders to prioritize the flow of goods into the UK over compliance with customs regs. As a consequence, the country is set to lose £800m in customs duty and VAT in 2021.
https://trans.info/en/hmrc-chief-loosening-of-customs-checks-on-trucks-to-cost-uk-800m-in-2021-219017
And that's not considering the deluge of prohibited and restricted goods that will flow through unhindered.
-
For the record BFYP, the people predicting serious problems for the Nissan plant in the event of No Deal were the Nissan management.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-54986195
But yes, this is excellent news. Not exactly sure it is a net positive over the situation there would have been without Brexit, but it is certainly an avoidance of a potential major negative.
Absolutely in a no deal case which didn't happen. We were constantly told even a deal was end of the world. It clearly is not.
BFYP.
No. No-one said a deal was the end of the world. You're hugely overstating the criticism. What WAS said was that there was no mechanism by which Brexit with an FTA made the UK economy as a whole stronger than no Brexit. The difference will compound over the years.
Leaving with NO deal was the far bigger danger. That WOULD have been a catastrophe.
-
Still waiting for a positive benefit for anyone and we are 3 pages in.
Not really what the thread was created for though, despite the title, was it, Easy?
Wasn't it? I would like to know as I asked earlier. I have no idea what NNK's motivation was.
-
Still waiting for a positive benefit for anyone and we are 3 pages in.
Not really what the thread was created for though, despite the title, was it, Easy?
Wasn't it? I would like to know as I asked earlier. I have no idea what NNK's motivation was.
Okay. See previous posts, if you’re interested.
-
Cut Kato in half and you would find the EU flag inside, and his favourite tune is Ode to Joy which is a dirge of a tune.
Nissan are shutting their manufacturing facility in Spain and turning it into a storage facility.
This only exposes yourself as a little britisher selby, embracing the EU the countries and people within made Britain stronger.
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
NNK. Were you being ironic? Or did you genuinely want this thread to contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits, as the title suggests?
I created the thread to provide the opportunity for people to post some positive benefits of Brexit now that we've left, though I did include a rather tongue in cheek link to one of the new deals the Government were trying to negotiate that had failed, though had it succeeded then it would actually have been a better deal than we had via the EU. Without looking back I believe I also pointed to this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/01/17/the-brexit-deal-locks-the-uk-into-continued-strasbourg-human-rights-court-membership/ which I think is a positive as it now locks us into something that is of benefit to everyone in the UK, though I think an awful lot of leave voters will disappointed by it.
Do I believe there will be any major benefits for our leaving? No. But the opportunity is here for people to post any that they do find.
Do I think it should contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits? Well, it would be great if it did - do you have any?
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
NNK. Were you being ironic? Or did you genuinely want this thread to contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits, as the title suggests?
I created the thread to provide the opportunity for people to post some positive benefits of Brexit now that we've left, though I did include a rather tongue in cheek link to one of the new deals the Government were trying to negotiate that had failed, though had it succeeded then it would actually have been a better deal than we had via the EU. Without looking back I believe I also pointed to this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/01/17/the-brexit-deal-locks-the-uk-into-continued-strasbourg-human-rights-court-membership/ which I think is a positive as it now locks us into something that is of benefit to everyone in the UK, though I think an awful lot of leave voters will disappointed by it.
Do I believe there will be any major benefits for our leaving? No. But the opportunity is here for people to post any that they do find.
Do I think it should contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits? Well, it would be great if it did - do you have any?
Thanks, Not.
My mistake clearly. It wasn’t an ironic title, just a very misleading one.
For the record, I don’t have any issues with any of the negative Brexit comments in fact I agree with the majority of them. Unfortunately, people are seemingly automatically assuming I have taken that stance. I don’t know what benefits there will be in time, I have none to offer at this moment. It’s even being suggested that you (or Easy, I’m not entirely sure) may be my new ‘target’, whatever that means.
I simply suggested that the title and the content, from the very first post, are a direct conflict of expectation for the thread.
Perhaps a truer reflection of the title would have been ‘A Brexit Pros and Cons Log’.
I have nothing against the title you chose BTW, just an observation I thought I’d share. Think of it what you will.
I posted a link earlier. If you haven’t read it yet, then please do. That will give you an idea of where I stand on Brexit.
-
Another benefit that has comes to light is that businesses struggling with the paperwork and extra costs are being advised by the Dept of International Trade to set up offices in the EU to overcome this setback, the positives are that British businesses not fully across the different customs of the Europeans in the way that they do business will learn and grow albeit in Europe. Stronger ties with Europe what's not to like.
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
NNK. Were you being ironic? Or did you genuinely want this thread to contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits, as the title suggests?
I created the thread to provide the opportunity for people to post some positive benefits of Brexit now that we've left, though I did include a rather tongue in cheek link to one of the new deals the Government were trying to negotiate that had failed, though had it succeeded then it would actually have been a better deal than we had via the EU. Without looking back I believe I also pointed to this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/01/17/the-brexit-deal-locks-the-uk-into-continued-strasbourg-human-rights-court-membership/ which I think is a positive as it now locks us into something that is of benefit to everyone in the UK, though I think an awful lot of leave voters will disappointed by it.
Do I believe there will be any major benefits for our leaving? No. But the opportunity is here for people to post any that they do find.
Do I think it should contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits? Well, it would be great if it did - do you have any?
Thanks, Not.
My mistake clearly. It wasn’t an ironic title, just a very misleading one.
For the record, I don’t have any issues with any of the negative Brexit comments in fact I agree with the majority of them. Unfortunately, people are seemingly automatically assuming I have taken that stance. I don’t know what benefits there will be in time, I have none to offer at this moment. It’s even being suggested that you (or Easy, I’m not entirely sure) may be my new ‘target’, whatever that means.
I simply suggested that the title and the content, from the very first post, are a direct conflict of expectation for the thread.
Perhaps a truer reflection of the title would have been ‘A Brexit Pros and Cons Log’.
I have nothing against the title you chose BTW, just an observation I thought I’d share. Think of it what you will.
I posted a link earlier. If you haven’t read it yet, then please do. That will give you an idea of where I stand on Brexit.
I think you might be suffering from paranoia. None of this is personal. The opening post simply asked what benefits we have gained from Brexit. I would have thought it was an easy enough question to answer.
-
Not exactly in line with the thread title but I thought this was interesting:
On joining the EU, Ireland was 22nd by GDP per capita. Today, it is 3rd.
Before the Brexit referendum, the UK was 6th by GDP per capita, today it is 22nd.
(OECD figures)
https://twitter.com/Eyeswideopen69/status/1353078945952874496
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
NNK. Were you being ironic? Or did you genuinely want this thread to contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits, as the title suggests?
I created the thread to provide the opportunity for people to post some positive benefits of Brexit now that we've left, though I did include a rather tongue in cheek link to one of the new deals the Government were trying to negotiate that had failed, though had it succeeded then it would actually have been a better deal than we had via the EU. Without looking back I believe I also pointed to this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/01/17/the-brexit-deal-locks-the-uk-into-continued-strasbourg-human-rights-court-membership/ which I think is a positive as it now locks us into something that is of benefit to everyone in the UK, though I think an awful lot of leave voters will disappointed by it.
Do I believe there will be any major benefits for our leaving? No. But the opportunity is here for people to post any that they do find.
Do I think it should contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits? Well, it would be great if it did - do you have any?
Thanks, Not.
My mistake clearly. It wasn’t an ironic title, just a very misleading one.
For the record, I don’t have any issues with any of the negative Brexit comments in fact I agree with the majority of them. Unfortunately, people are seemingly automatically assuming I have taken that stance. I don’t know what benefits there will be in time, I have none to offer at this moment. It’s even being suggested that you (or Easy, I’m not entirely sure) may be my new ‘target’, whatever that means.
I simply suggested that the title and the content, from the very first post, are a direct conflict of expectation for the thread.
Perhaps a truer reflection of the title would have been ‘A Brexit Pros and Cons Log’.
I have nothing against the title you chose BTW, just an observation I thought I’d share. Think of it what you will.
I posted a link earlier. If you haven’t read it yet, then please do. That will give you an idea of where I stand on Brexit.
I think you might be suffering from paranoia. None of this is personal. The opening post simply asked what benefits we have gained from Brexit. I would have thought it was an easy enough question to answer.
Thanks for the diagnosis, Easy. You’re wasted on here.
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
NNK. Were you being ironic? Or did you genuinely want this thread to contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits, as the title suggests?
I created the thread to provide the opportunity for people to post some positive benefits of Brexit now that we've left, though I did include a rather tongue in cheek link to one of the new deals the Government were trying to negotiate that had failed, though had it succeeded then it would actually have been a better deal than we had via the EU. Without looking back I believe I also pointed to this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/01/17/the-brexit-deal-locks-the-uk-into-continued-strasbourg-human-rights-court-membership/ which I think is a positive as it now locks us into something that is of benefit to everyone in the UK, though I think an awful lot of leave voters will disappointed by it.
Do I believe there will be any major benefits for our leaving? No. But the opportunity is here for people to post any that they do find.
Do I think it should contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits? Well, it would be great if it did - do you have any?
Thanks, Not.
My mistake clearly. It wasn’t an ironic title, just a very misleading one.
For the record, I don’t have any issues with any of the negative Brexit comments in fact I agree with the majority of them. Unfortunately, people are seemingly automatically assuming I have taken that stance. I don’t know what benefits there will be in time, I have none to offer at this moment. It’s even being suggested that you (or Easy, I’m not entirely sure) may be my new ‘target’, whatever that means.
I simply suggested that the title and the content, from the very first post, are a direct conflict of expectation for the thread.
Perhaps a truer reflection of the title would have been ‘A Brexit Pros and Cons Log’.
I have nothing against the title you chose BTW, just an observation I thought I’d share. Think of it what you will.
I posted a link earlier. If you haven’t read it yet, then please do. That will give you an idea of where I stand on Brexit.
I think you might be suffering from paranoia. None of this is personal. The opening post simply asked what benefits we have gained from Brexit. I would have thought it was an easy enough question to answer.
Thanks for the diagnosis, Easy. You’re wasted on here.
You're welcome. Any time.
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
NNK. Were you being ironic? Or did you genuinely want this thread to contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits, as the title suggests?
I created the thread to provide the opportunity for people to post some positive benefits of Brexit now that we've left, though I did include a rather tongue in cheek link to one of the new deals the Government were trying to negotiate that had failed, though had it succeeded then it would actually have been a better deal than we had via the EU. Without looking back I believe I also pointed to this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/01/17/the-brexit-deal-locks-the-uk-into-continued-strasbourg-human-rights-court-membership/ which I think is a positive as it now locks us into something that is of benefit to everyone in the UK, though I think an awful lot of leave voters will disappointed by it.
Do I believe there will be any major benefits for our leaving? No. But the opportunity is here for people to post any that they do find.
Do I think it should contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits? Well, it would be great if it did - do you have any?
Thanks, Not.
My mistake clearly. It wasn’t an ironic title, just a very misleading one.
For the record, I don’t have any issues with any of the negative Brexit comments in fact I agree with the majority of them. Unfortunately, people are seemingly automatically assuming I have taken that stance. I don’t know what benefits there will be in time, I have none to offer at this moment. It’s even being suggested that you (or Easy, I’m not entirely sure) may be my new ‘target’, whatever that means.
I simply suggested that the title and the content, from the very first post, are a direct conflict of expectation for the thread.
Perhaps a truer reflection of the title would have been ‘A Brexit Pros and Cons Log’.
I have nothing against the title you chose BTW, just an observation I thought I’d share. Think of it what you will.
I posted a link earlier. If you haven’t read it yet, then please do. That will give you an idea of where I stand on Brexit.
Yes, I read it. Sadly, the writer misses a few rather important points, but in fairness to him he was guessing before he actually knew the substance of the trade deal Johnson negotiated.
He talks about a free trade deal without knowing the details of the trade deal we negotiated and fails to address the reality that a 'free trade deal' doesn't mean 'free trade'. There are lots of examples and I link to ne below
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55734277
And here's the Institute for Governments precise of the actual deal and what it means in reality - which is far from the promised sunlit uplands and shiny unicorns; though again, in fairness, there are a few positives contained in it.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal
Meanwhile, the Government appear to be advising SME's to open offices in EU countries to avoid the hassle and costs associated with the 'free' trade deal it negotiated with the EU - with the associated loss of jobs in the UK. You couldn't make it up!
I sincerely hope that the Government fairs better in their upcoming Financial & Services Trade negotiations as these form the bulk of contributions to our economy; and I genuinely hope that this is where the sunlit uplands and unicorns will come from, I mean, why wouldn't they?
-
Here's a benefit. The Govt appears to have moved from being dominated by ideologically-driven policies to enabling sensible, practical advice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55786974
Let's hope it is a sign of things to come.
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
NNK. Were you being ironic? Or did you genuinely want this thread to contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits, as the title suggests?
I created the thread to provide the opportunity for people to post some positive benefits of Brexit now that we've left, though I did include a rather tongue in cheek link to one of the new deals the Government were trying to negotiate that had failed, though had it succeeded then it would actually have been a better deal than we had via the EU. Without looking back I believe I also pointed to this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/01/17/the-brexit-deal-locks-the-uk-into-continued-strasbourg-human-rights-court-membership/ which I think is a positive as it now locks us into something that is of benefit to everyone in the UK, though I think an awful lot of leave voters will disappointed by it.
Do I believe there will be any major benefits for our leaving? No. But the opportunity is here for people to post any that they do find.
Do I think it should contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits? Well, it would be great if it did - do you have any?
Thanks, Not.
My mistake clearly. It wasn’t an ironic title, just a very misleading one.
For the record, I don’t have any issues with any of the negative Brexit comments in fact I agree with the majority of them. Unfortunately, people are seemingly automatically assuming I have taken that stance. I don’t know what benefits there will be in time, I have none to offer at this moment. It’s even being suggested that you (or Easy, I’m not entirely sure) may be my new ‘target’, whatever that means.
I simply suggested that the title and the content, from the very first post, are a direct conflict of expectation for the thread.
Perhaps a truer reflection of the title would have been ‘A Brexit Pros and Cons Log’.
I have nothing against the title you chose BTW, just an observation I thought I’d share. Think of it what you will.
I posted a link earlier. If you haven’t read it yet, then please do. That will give you an idea of where I stand on Brexit.
Yes, I read it. Sadly, the writer misses a few rather important points, but in fairness to him he was guessing before he actually knew the substance of the trade deal Johnson negotiated.
He talks about a free trade deal without knowing the details of the trade deal we negotiated and fails to address the reality that a 'free trade deal' doesn't mean 'free trade'. There are lots of examples and I link to ne below
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55734277
And here's the Institute for Governments precise of the actual deal and what it means in reality - which is far from the promised sunlit uplands and shiny unicorns; though again, in fairness, there are a few positives contained in it.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal
Meanwhile, the Government appear to be advising SME's to open offices in EU countries to avoid the hassle and costs associated with the 'free' trade deal it negotiated with the EU - with the associated loss of jobs in the UK. You couldn't make it up!
I sincerely hope that the Government fairs better in their upcoming Financial & Services Trade negotiations as these form the bulk of contributions to our economy; and I genuinely hope that this is where the sunlit uplands and unicorns will come from, I mean, why wouldn't they?
I meant his philosophy regarding the future. We are becoming more divided as a nation with every major concern that comes our way. There is little middle ground any more and Brexit is a prime example of that.
Both sides of the stay or leave campaign behaved appallingly, both lied, both treated the general public with disdain. Throughout the campaign I swayed from on side to the next. I finally opted leave with my pencil literally hovering over both choices in the voting booth. I then spent months regretting my choice and wishing for a re-vote. I stopped regretting my decision after listening to the arrogance of EU leaders and some of the pro remain voices over here.
It’s done. We, as a country have no choice but to deal with it. Preferably ‘all in it together’.
As Timothy Oliver says:
‘ Failure to erode the divide between Leave and Remain will ensure UK politics remains deeply fractious for some time to come.’
-
Really, Filo? You’ve only got to read the creator’s posts within the thread to see they want the opposite of ‘Brexit Benefits’ to be posted, as do the vast majority of other posts on the thread.
The title is clearly ironic (in my opinion, of course).
NNK. Were you being ironic? Or did you genuinely want this thread to contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits, as the title suggests?
I created the thread to provide the opportunity for people to post some positive benefits of Brexit now that we've left, though I did include a rather tongue in cheek link to one of the new deals the Government were trying to negotiate that had failed, though had it succeeded then it would actually have been a better deal than we had via the EU. Without looking back I believe I also pointed to this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/01/17/the-brexit-deal-locks-the-uk-into-continued-strasbourg-human-rights-court-membership/ which I think is a positive as it now locks us into something that is of benefit to everyone in the UK, though I think an awful lot of leave voters will disappointed by it.
Do I believe there will be any major benefits for our leaving? No. But the opportunity is here for people to post any that they do find.
Do I think it should contain nothing but examples of Brexit benefits? Well, it would be great if it did - do you have any?
Thanks, Not.
My mistake clearly. It wasn’t an ironic title, just a very misleading one.
For the record, I don’t have any issues with any of the negative Brexit comments in fact I agree with the majority of them. Unfortunately, people are seemingly automatically assuming I have taken that stance. I don’t know what benefits there will be in time, I have none to offer at this moment. It’s even being suggested that you (or Easy, I’m not entirely sure) may be my new ‘target’, whatever that means.
I simply suggested that the title and the content, from the very first post, are a direct conflict of expectation for the thread.
Perhaps a truer reflection of the title would have been ‘A Brexit Pros and Cons Log’.
I have nothing against the title you chose BTW, just an observation I thought I’d share. Think of it what you will.
I posted a link earlier. If you haven’t read it yet, then please do. That will give you an idea of where I stand on Brexit.
Yes, I read it. Sadly, the writer misses a few rather important points, but in fairness to him he was guessing before he actually knew the substance of the trade deal Johnson negotiated.
He talks about a free trade deal without knowing the details of the trade deal we negotiated and fails to address the reality that a 'free trade deal' doesn't mean 'free trade'. There are lots of examples and I link to ne below
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55734277
And here's the Institute for Governments precise of the actual deal and what it means in reality - which is far from the promised sunlit uplands and shiny unicorns; though again, in fairness, there are a few positives contained in it.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal
Meanwhile, the Government appear to be advising SME's to open offices in EU countries to avoid the hassle and costs associated with the 'free' trade deal it negotiated with the EU - with the associated loss of jobs in the UK. You couldn't make it up!
I sincerely hope that the Government fairs better in their upcoming Financial & Services Trade negotiations as these form the bulk of contributions to our economy; and I genuinely hope that this is where the sunlit uplands and unicorns will come from, I mean, why wouldn't they?
I meant his philosophy regarding the future. We are becoming more divided as a nation with every major concern that comes our way. There is little middle ground any more and Brexit is a prime example of that.
Both sides of the stay or leave campaign behaved appallingly, both lied, both treated the general public with disdain. Throughout the campaign I swayed from on side to the next. I finally opted leave with my pencil literally hovering over both choices in the voting booth. I then spent months regretting my choice and wishing for a re-vote. I stopped regretting my decision after listening to the arrogance of EU leaders and some of the pro remain voices over here.
It’s done. We, as a country have no choice but to deal with it. Preferably ‘all in it together’.
As Timothy Oliver says:
‘ Failure to erode the divide between Leave and Remain will ensure UK politics remains deeply fractious for some time to come.’
And therein lies the problem. Whilst ever the outcome of Brexit means that I and my family are worse off, and the oportunities for my grandchildren are less than they were whilst we were in the EU, I can see no way in which the divide will be eroded.
People who voted leave should now own the problems they created and propose ways that will make me and my family at least as well off as we were before the referendum, and that will restore the opportunities my grandchildren would have enjoyed had we remained.
It's no good saying we are where we are get on with it in the hope that the divide will somehow be eroded, leavers should be working damned hard with concrete proposals to make this work for the better!
They can make a start by posting here the benefits of leaving as they materialise.
-
NNK
There is a similar argument going on in the USA at the moment. The Republican party which enabled, supported and protected a criminal in the White House, a criminal who tried to undermine the very systems of American Democracy, is now saying "Let's work together going forwards". But that cannot and should not happen unless they face up to owning the situation that they created.
Bothsidesism is a serious problem at the moment. It sounds like a serious, mature, balanced approach to say "there is good and bad on both sides" but it is actually an easy cop out that avoids addressing the real questions. Taken to its extreme, it leads to the "Shape of the Earth: Opinions Differ" attitude. You have to consider the arguments of the two sides on their merits.
In the case of Brexit, one side said Brexit would lead to a weakening of the UK as an international force and a long term and serious weakening of our economy. The other side said it would open up great opportunities for us to grow stronger as a nation.
Both sides cannot be right, by definition. If we simply ignore that situation, it means that the people who made those arguments cannot be held responsible for them. In which case, how do we sensibly decide who to trust in future?
Personally, I strongly believe that Brexit is a serious mistake that will weaken us for years to come. But tomorrow, I will be in a 3 hour meeting with a potential customer from the USA, trying to secure a (for my company) major contract for the next five years. Doing my little bit to make the future stronger. You can both do your damnedest to try to improve the future, while pointing out the consequences for the country of previous political decisions. In fact, I'd say we all have a duty to do that.
Saying, "that's done: both sides were as bad as each other and we are where we are so let's put it behind us and move on" is no way to make us stronger in future. If people who wanted Brexit don't like having the net consequences of Brexit set out in front of them, that is no reason not to set those consequences out.
As you say, there is an opportunity (I'd say, a duty) for us to set out ALL the effects of Brexit. Only then can we properly assess whether it was a sensible decision or not.
-
I particularly do not like the gloating/speculation that brexit will lead to further break up of the EU When consideration of the total lack of conflict between EU members and the horrors of previous decades.
If you look at a couple of the countries that remained neutral purely on an economic basis Sweden and Switzerland their economies have done well.
-
I particularly do not like the gloating/speculation that brexit will lead to further break up of the EU When consideration of the total lack of conflict between EU members and the horrors of previous decades.
If you look at a couple of the countries that remained neutral purely on an economic basis Sweden and Switzerland their economies have done well.
Of all the benefits the EU has brought, peace in Europe has to be THE main one.
When the dissagreements over fishing access became public what did Brexiters call for?
"Send in the gunboats"!
My case rests.
-
I particularly do not like the gloating/speculation that brexit will lead to further break up of the EU When consideration of the total lack of conflict between EU members and the horrors of previous decades.
If you look at a couple of the countries that remained neutral purely on an economic basis Sweden and Switzerland their economies have done well.
Of all the benefits the EU has brought, peace in Europe has to be THE main one.
When the dissagreements over fishing access became public what did Brexiters call for?
"Send in the gunboats"!
My case rests.
And NATO has no role in this???
-
Yes it does but it also has a wider scope, strength and unity in Europe is a great deterence against Russian agression.
-
I particularly do not like the gloating/speculation that brexit will lead to further break up of the EU When consideration of the total lack of conflict between EU members and the horrors of previous decades.
If you look at a couple of the countries that remained neutral purely on an economic basis Sweden and Switzerland their economies have done well.
Of all the benefits the EU has brought, peace in Europe has to be THE main one.
When the dissagreements over fishing access became public what did Brexiters call for?
"Send in the gunboats"!
My case rests.
And NATO has no role in this???
Not really. They are a common defence organisation to respond to external threats. Not internal.
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
-
Ldr.
NATO didn't prevent The Troubles. It didn't prevent Basque terrorism and the horrific repression of it. It didn't prevent a fascist coup in Portugal. It didn't prevent the overthrow of democracy by fascist military officers in Greece.
Every one of those things happened within living memory in NATO member countries before they joined the EU. It is inconceivable that they would happen in EU member countries.
I am deeply depressed that this was never discussed in 2016, as it is THE greatest success of the EU.
-
Ldr.
NATO didn't prevent The Troubles. It didn't prevent Basque terrorism and the horrific repression of it. It didn't prevent a fascist coup in Portugal. It didn't prevent the overthrow of democracy by fascist military officers in Greece.
Every one of those things happened within living memory in NATO member countries before they joined the EU. It is inconceivable that they would happen in EU member countries.
I am deeply depressed that this was never discussed in 2016, as it is THE greatest success of the EU.
I'm pretty sure a great deal of the troubles happened post 1973 (and post 1992 if ppl want to be pedantic) and pressure from the US brought the good Friday agreement to fruition
-
Ldr.
I'm talking about when they started.
-
Ldr.
I'm talking about when they started.
Given you can trace it back to the partition and the Irish civil war in the 20s I dont agree at all with you, yes it escalated in the late 60s into a full on campaign but the EU (EEC) didn't have any bearing on it
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
-
Ldr.
I'm talking about when they started.
Just so we are clear are stating that any of the troubles ANY? Would not have happen had the UK been a member of the then EEC? Just so we are clear
-
Ldr.
My point is that being in NATO did not prevent an armed conflict starting on UK territory.
No armed conflict has EVER started in an EU member country. No EU country has ever had its democracy overthrown in a coup.
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
Remainer - person suffering from Stockholm Syndrome
(Well if NNK can be antagonist)
-
Ldr.
My point is that being in NATO did not prevent an armed conflict starting on UK territory.
No armed conflict has EVER started in an EU member country. No EU country has ever had its democracy overthrown in a coup.
My point is the EEC/EU didn't stop it
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
And you believe they all called for gunboats?
-
Ldr.
My point is that being in NATO did not prevent an armed conflict starting on UK territory.
No armed conflict has EVER started in an EU member country. No EU country has ever had its democracy overthrown in a coup.
My point is the EEC/EU didn't stop it
The existence of the EU was absolutely instrumental in finding a mechansim that led to peace.
Then look at the other issues I raised. It is utterly inconceivable that a country could experience a military coup d'etat and reamain in the EU. Yet two countries in the mid 20th century were kept in the NATO fold when fascists overthrew their governments.
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
Remainer - person suffering from Stockholm Syndrome
(Well if NNK can be antagonist)
I was simply answering a question LDR, not being antagonistic; but if the cap fits....
Seeing as this is the Brexit Benefits thread do you have any?
-
Ldr.
My point is that being in NATO did not prevent an armed conflict starting on UK territory.
No armed conflict has EVER started in an EU member country. No EU country has ever had its democracy overthrown in a coup.
My point is the EEC/EU didn't stop it
The existence of the EU was absolutely instrumental in finding a mechansim that led to peace.
Then look at the other issues I raised. It is utterly inconceivable that a country could experience a military coup d'etat and reamain in the EU. Yet two countries in the mid 20th century were kept in the NATO fold when fascists overthrew their governments.
I'm sure you believe what you type, I dont
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
Remainer - person suffering from Stockholm Syndrome
(Well if NNK can be antagonist)
I was simply answering a question LDR, not being antagonistic; but if the cap fits....
Seeing as this is the Brexit Benefits thread do you have any?
For me yes, we won't be involved in the inevitable European superstate
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
And you believe they all called for gunboats?
Of course not. But then, not all former leave voters still think it's a good idea. Do you?
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
Remainer - person suffering from Stockholm Syndrome
(Well if NNK can be antagonist)
I was simply answering a question LDR, not being antagonistic; but if the cap fits....
Seeing as this is the Brexit Benefits thread do you have any?
For me yes, we won't be involved in the inevitable European superstate
And why is that a benefit?
-
My basic point, which appears to be getting lost as the discussion moves on, is that it is a fundamental aim of the EU to even out the sort of socio-economic disparities between and within countries that are the root cause of civil strife and political instability. That was the founding reason for the EU and it has been spectacularly successful in securing peace and stability, in a continent (including the British Isles) which historically has been THE most dangerous place on the planet.
I think we take that far too much for granted, and I am deeply suspicious of the motives of those who want to bring the EU down in a heap and go back to an environment of naked competition between nations. That has always ended in catastrophe in Europe in the past.
-
Ldr.
And if this hypothetical "European Superstate" had finally come to pass, we could have chosen then to stay out of it. Like we chose not to adopt the Euro.
It's a pretty weak argument to justify Brexit if you don't mind me saying.
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
Remainer - person suffering from Stockholm Syndrome
(Well if NNK can be antagonist)
I was simply answering a question LDR, not being antagonistic; but if the cap fits....
Seeing as this is the Brexit Benefits thread do you have any?
For me yes, we won't be involved in the inevitable European superstate
And why is that a benefit?
As I say, it is to me. I have no desire to be a part of it. Therefore I see it as a benefit.
-
Ldr.
And if this hypothetical "European Superstate" had finally come to pass, we could have chosen then to stay out of it. Like we chose not to adopt the Euro.
It's a pretty weak argument to justify Brexit if you don't mind me saying.
You're entitled to your opinion
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
Remainer - person suffering from Stockholm Syndrome
(Well if NNK can be antagonist)
I was simply answering a question LDR, not being antagonistic; but if the cap fits....
Seeing as this is the Brexit Benefits thread do you have any?
For me yes, we won't be involved in the inevitable European superstate
And why is that a benefit?
As I say, it is to me. I have no desire to be a part of it. Therefore I see it as a benefit.
And if that superstate, (if it ever happens - which I doubt), makes all its people better off while we are worse off do you still see not being part of it a benefit?
For something to be a benefit it has to be quantifiable.
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
Remainer - person suffering from Stockholm Syndrome
(Well if NNK can be antagonist)
I was simply answering a question LDR, not being antagonistic; but if the cap fits....
Seeing as this is the Brexit Benefits thread do you have any?
For me yes, we won't be involved in the inevitable European superstate
And why is that a benefit?
As I say, it is to me. I have no desire to be a part of it. Therefore I see it as a benefit.
And if that superstate, (if it ever happens - which I doubt), makes all its people better off while we are worse off do you still see not being part of it a benefit?
For something to be a benefit it has to be quantifiable.
What i see as quantifiable you may not and vice versa
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
And you believe they all called for gunboats?
Of course not. But then, not all former leave voters still think it's a good idea. Do you?
But they’re not Brexiteers by your definition, so they are irrelevant to my question.
-
Still waiting to hear of a real benefit not a hypothetical benefit.
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
And you believe they all called for gunboats?
Of course not. But then, not all former leave voters still think it's a good idea. Do you?
But they’re not Brexiteers by your definition, so they are irrelevant to my question.
I answered your question in the first part of my post. The second part was simply a qualifier.
-
Still waiting to hear of a real benefit not a hypothetical benefit.
Indeed. But as Mark Twain once wrote "How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again!" So I guess we'll be waiting a long time.
-
Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
And you believe they all called for gunboats?
Of course not. But then, not all former leave voters still think it's a good idea. Do you?
But they’re not Brexiteers by your definition, so they are irrelevant to my question.
I answered your question in the first part of my post. The second Not. Would you mind explaining your definition of a ‘Brexiteer’?
Brexiter - Someone who voted 'leave' and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes it's good for the people in this country and refuses to admit they were conned.
And you believe they all called for gunboats?
Of course not. But then, not all former leave voters still think it's a good idea. Do you?
But they’re not Brexiteers by your definition, so they are irrelevant to my question.
I answered your question in the first part of my post. The second part was simply a qualifier.
But you haven’t at all.
You said Brexiteers are people who still think leaving the EU is a good idea.
You also said that Brexiteers called for gunboats.
I’m simply asking if you think that anyone who still thinks Brexit is a good thing called for gunboats?
-
Meanwhile, out in the real world...
https://mobile.twitter.com/BylineTV/status/1353388644451704833
-
Real world?
-
Medical Tourists are having a bad time of it saving the British tax payer millions
-
The "real world" where people are dealing with the effects of Brexit. Not the niche one in here where people focus on arguments about arguing, while not addressing substantive points.
-
I’m not sure if you are including my discussion with Not as not being in the real world. If you are not, then I apologise in advance.
But I think that me questioning the fact that a prominent remainer thinks that ‘Brexiteers’ (which, apparently is anyone who still says that Brexit is a good thing) want to see ‘gunboats’ on the seas is a very substantive point.
That kind of unfounded, generalised insinuation is absolutely an effect of Brexit.
-
Medical Tourists are having a bad time of it saving the British tax payer millions
Errr we agreed a reciprocal health care arrangment with the EU, EU citizens get free access to the NHS when in the UK:
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/brexit-end-of-transition-period-impact-health-care-system
unless you meant numbers have gone down due to Covid or from outside the EU - in which case it's the wrong thread...
-
Pakistan isn't in the EU.
-
Pakistan isn't in the EU.
I cant imagine there are many people coming from Pakistan to get health treatment in the UK
-
In October 2016, David Davis, the then Brexit secretary, told the House of Commons that “there will be no downside to Brexit at all, and considerable upsides”.
Yorkshire Bylines have been keeping a list of all the 'considerable upsides' and the 'no downsides'. It makes for interesting reading.
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/the-davis-downside-dossier/
Oh, and there's also a link to all the 'considerable upsides' that the Government have claimed which have subsequently turned out to be lies myths.
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/brexit-benefit-myths/
-
Pakistan isn't in the EU.
I cant imagine there are many people coming from Pakistan to get health treatment in the UK
Before we both took early retirement, my wife worked in the NHS (hospitals) & I was based with an Anti-Smuggling Team in Leeds with HM Revenue & Customs (who later, much custom officers chagrin, morphed into UK Border Force).
We had two flights a week coming into Leeds Bradford Airport from Islamabad. It would normally take us 2 hours to turn around a flight of 250 passengers coming from a destination 'of interest to Customs' (not every passenger, but those 'identified' as targets & those who may fit certain profiling criteria would be stopped & their bags searched), but the Islamabad flight would take 5-6 hours due to the quantity of luggage per passenger, the amount of contraband found on those flights & the difficulties in the language barrier. Many of the Pakistani passengers, even those holding British Passports, would 'claim' not to speak any English despite having lived in the UK for 10 or 20 years. The amount of cigarettes passengers travelling from a non EU country was 1 carton (200 cigarettes). It wasn't unusual to find 10, 20 sometimes full suitcases holding 50 times that amount. Mostly the brand was John Player Special, a brand no longer sold in the UK, which could be purchased in Pakistan at £3.50 a carton. These would then find their way onto the black market selling at three or four times the price they were purchased for. That's cigarettes with no UK Duty payed on them so evading taxes that The Exchequer would be able to use to build & staff hospitals & schools.
We would also find passengers with Pakistani passports issued with a Visitors Visa having NHS prescription drugs inside their baggage. Drugs for diabetes, heart problems along with Class B drugs such as Diazepam, given to them by "My brother, sister, cousin..." etc.
My wife would tell me of passengers from Asia & America who would 'present' themselves into hospital care within days of arriving in the UK.
So Dennis, I hope you can now see how the NHS was abused on a regular basis & how this pandemic has highlighted that since the curtailment of air travel.
If you go on to the NHS website you'll find that this abuse amounted to some £1.8 billion per year.
Let's hope that once we are at the 'other side' of this terrible virus & Brexit is at last nigh on done, we can protect our Borders a little more robustly than before.
-
Still not sure how anything would change with flights from Islamabad. It will still take just as long to process the passengers and there is no reason why those same people who present themselves at hospitals will disappear?
-
Still not sure how anything would change with flights from Islamabad. It will still take just as long to process the passengers and there is no reason why those same people who present themselves at hospitals will disappear?
It would change by increasing the number of UK Border Force Officers Dennis.
When I retired in 2013, Customs & Immigration staff had started to undergo 'dual training'. In theory after training, each would be able to do the others job. I say in theory because it never quite panned out that way, with Immigration Officers reluctant to undergo the necessary training required to be able to, (as a Law Enforcement Officer with the powers of arrest as Customs Officers have), apply handcuffs to a non compliant person when arrested. So we had some Officers who were dual trained (100% of Customs were as opposed to 10% of Immigration) but a majority who weren't. As the 'powers at be' decided that the priority was to ensure passengers were processed quickly in order that flights were not held on the tarmac due to long queues in the airport terminals, 99% of Customs work 'dropped off'. We became in effect 'Queue Busters', with the resulting dramatic drop in the number of seizures of the import of illicit tobacco, counterfeit goods, drugs & weapons.
In 2012 there were 22 Immigration Officers & 24 Customs Officers processing 2.5 million passengers a year. In 2019 (now UK Border Force was 'one entity', no more separation of Immigration & Customs work), there were in total 22 UK Border Force Officers now dealing with 4 million passengers a year. Those 22 Officers only cover ex Immigration work i.e., swiping passports. With no 'Customs' to stop & open up baggage, the Islamabad flight now clears in one to one & a half hours.
Unless the government deploys more staff to LBA (& I know the priority is to recruit more NHS nurses & doctors & quite right too) the airport is & will remain a magnet for smugglers, be that tobacco, drugs or people traffickers.
Apologies for the rant, but when any politician talks about "Securing our Borders" my blood boils.
-
It's beginning to look like a benefit of Brexit, is that you'll get your Covid vaccination faster, than if the UK had remained in the EUs collective effort.
-
Yep, after they made it difficult for us as we were leaving the boot might be on the other foot now, so to speak.
-
The number of British people living in Poland is way below the number of Poles living in Britain, they claimed more from us than we did for them for medical expenses, Spain and France make millions out of us.
With Covid stopping travel between the countries the figures are going to show the real extent of the cost to our NHS, and might wake some one up to the fact it wants stopping period.
The longer the travel ban is extended in a lot of cases so much the better, I feel sorry for the people employed in the travel industry but it is a must if we are to hold the numbers down at all the holiday travel and any unnecessary travel abroad should be curtailed throughout this year.
-
It would be good if you can post the data selby.
-
It would be good if you can post the data selby.
It's fairly easy to find. But the link below advises it. Over 100 times more Poles in Britain than the other way around.
http://streetwise.pl/2019/06/04/how-many-brits-live-in-poland-you-might-be-surprised/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Office%20for,men%20and%201.3%20thousand%20women.
-
thanks bfyp I thought there maybe more showing how many people across all countries where britons travel and live rather than a couple of paras without links and supporting data from a osurce I've never heard of.
-
No indication of the reasons they are in Poland, many more men than women, perhaps they’re working. Also no figures about how many Poles are on benefits here, or how many are making a more positive contribution through work and taxes. When in France, I was able to use their health system and claim the money back, a reciprocal arrangement within the EU, therefore EU citizens using the NHS has to be put in that context.
-
About four years ago someone told me that Polish people working in the UK could claim child benefit for their children even if they (the children) were still living in Poland.
I don’t know if it is true, just what I was told.
By the way, I have a few Polish friends and have nothing against them being here.
-
Don't get sucked into this shit from selby it over 3 years old and selby likes to thriw grenades cos he hasn't got anything else, except of course a personal attention deficit disorder.
-
https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-does-uk-recover-health-costs-eu/
Eyes tight shut pity about the gob Syd.
-
About four years ago someone told me that Polish people working in the UK could claim child benefit for their children even if they (the children) were still living in Poland.
I don’t know if it is true, just what I was told.
By the way, I have a few Polish friends and have nothing against them being here.
That's correct. Any of them still here and registered under the EU Settlement Scheme still can:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/benefits-and-pensions-for-eea-and-swiss-citizens-in-the-uk
So you can rule that out as a benefit of Brexit then.
-
It's quite alright for things to carry on then is it? I wonder why? they always said a good socialist is ok while someone else's money runs out.
Add that to the payments we paid to be members you want to still be paying. I bet Spain wish they had tourists in hospitals now from the UK, they would be throwing their own out on the streets for the cash.
-
It's quite alright for things to carry on then is it? I wonder why? they always said a good socialist is ok while someone else's money runs out.
Add that to the payments we paid to be members you want to still be paying. I bet Spain wish they had tourists in hospitals now from the UK, they would be throwing their own out on the streets for the cash.
(https://i.imgur.com/xqb45Ys.gif)
-
https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-does-uk-recover-health-costs-eu/
Eyes tight shut pity about the gob Syd.
it's from 2018 selby, that's a couple of seasons ago and farage is putting a new team together.
-
I know Syd, i'm in the team playing right wing.
-
It's a shame your team manager won't acknowledge the devastation he's wrought on the country with death and destruction 100,000 + friends and relatives with a debt spiralling upwards into the trillions that would dwarf any perceived losses you appear to claim by the NHS. He reminds me of Ken Richardson and deserves the same fate.
-
Don't be bitter Syd, just try and get on the winning side now and again, and stop being such a bad loser.
-
There can't be a winning side when everybody's a loser.
-
There can't be a winning side when everybody's a loser.
Try telling that to Nick Berry.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JyTzmhFQt2o
-
I call your Nick Berry and raise you an Elton John, who got there before him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kRaQcnYkEc
-
Don't be bitter Syd, just try and get on the winning side now and again, and stop being such a bad loser.
I'm not I don't have to big myself up to justify my political leanings, Anyone that wants to see a real loser just has to watch johnson on Wednesday's PMQs to see the performance of a dishonest blame shifter, he's all yours selby you deserve him.
-
Here's a win. More work for customs officers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55849864
We appear to have signed a deal that requires our armed forces to fill out customs forms and give prior notification to NATO before they are allowed to move within the UK.
This "taking back control" thing is rather subtle, int it?
-
The Covid situation has exposed the European Commission for what it is, a bullying unelected top heavy unwieldy, nasty bit of work that hits out and blames everyone else when things go wrong.
The German press are giving it loads of criticism over it's running of the pandemic, the Netherlands are undergoing riots in cities against the lockdown most nights, Italy looks like having an election within the year with Italix parties gaining popularity, Spain are proposing to shave pensions, and in France Le Pen is waiting on the side lines for Macron to finish making a mess of things, and the southern countries look like having a very bad time of it this summer with the tourist trade, especially the free spending Brits being thin on the ground.
Oh and forgot, the Danes are moving towards getting out.
-
Here's a win. More work for customs officers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55849864
We appear to have signed a deal that requires our armed forces to fill out customs forms and give prior notification to NATO before they are allowed to move within the UK.
This "taking back control" thing is rather subtle, int it?
To be honest, military movements have always been more complicated because they have their own rules and regulations about what can be in personal luggage over and above normal Customs.
At one time (I don't know if this is still true) ALL movements of military personnels' effects went through one depository near Romford, and one of my colleagues was the officer responsible for overseeing it. I helped him out a few times conducting some of the bigger searches of effects, equipment and vehicles. As well as the Customs regulations, he also searched for anything contravening the military rules as a courtesy to the service and quite often found stuff that was being tried to be smuggled back into the UK, presumably as 'souvenirs'.
-
The Covid situation has exposed the European Commission for what it is, a bullying unelected top heavy unwieldy, nasty bit of work that hits out and blames everyone else when things go wrong.
Just like Boris' Government. I can't understand why you don't like them.
PS The EU isn't:
The German press
The imposer of the Dutch lockdown
The Italian voters
Who determine Spanish pensions
Emanuel Macron
responsible for the tourist trade being hit by British being Covid-riddled. That's Boris, no?
As for the Danes, prove it.
-
Here's a win. More work for customs officers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55849864
We appear to have signed a deal that requires our armed forces to fill out customs forms and give prior notification to NATO before they are allowed to move within the UK.
This "taking back control" thing is rather subtle, int it?
To be honest, military movements have always been more complicated because they have their own rules and regulations about what can be in personal luggage over and above normal Customs.
At one time (I don't know if this is still true) ALL movements of military personnels' effects went through one depository near Romford, and one of my colleagues was the officer responsible for overseeing it. I helped him out a few times conducting some of the bigger searches of effects, equipment and vehicles. As well as the Customs regulations, he also searched for anything contravening the military rules as a courtesy to the service and quite often found stuff that was being tried to be smuggled back into the UK, presumably as 'souvenirs'.
Glyn
But this is about those customs regulations now being required for movement of materiel within the UK (i.e. between GB and NI).
-
Here's a win. More work for customs officers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55849864
We appear to have signed a deal that requires our armed forces to fill out customs forms and give prior notification to NATO before they are allowed to move within the UK.
This "taking back control" thing is rather subtle, int it?
To be honest, military movements have always been more complicated because they have their own rules and regulations about what can be in personal luggage over and above normal Customs.
At one time (I don't know if this is still true) ALL movements of military personnels' effects went through one depository near Romford, and one of my colleagues was the officer responsible for overseeing it. I helped him out a few times conducting some of the bigger searches of effects, equipment and vehicles. As well as the Customs regulations, he also searched for anything contravening the military rules as a courtesy to the service and quite often found stuff that was being tried to be smuggled back into the UK, presumably as 'souvenirs'.
Glyn
But this is about those customs regulations now being required for movement of materiel within the UK (i.e. between GB and NI).
The military regulations applied to movements within the Single Market (ie troops to/from Germany) anyway. The movements were usually of a whole unit and everything went together, even the personal effects of the servicepeople and they all went through the same depository.
As for the NATO form claim, that's b*llocks. The form is about crossing National borders, not a Customs border.
-
The Covid situation has exposed the European Commission for what it is, a bullying unelected top heavy unwieldy, nasty bit of work that hits out and blames everyone else when things go wrong.
The German press are giving it loads of criticism over it's running of the pandemic, the Netherlands are undergoing riots in cities against the lockdown most nights, Italy looks like having an election within the year with Italix parties gaining popularity, Spain are proposing to shave pensions, and in France Le Pen is waiting on the side lines for Macron to finish making a mess of things, and the southern countries look like having a very bad time of it this summer with the tourist trade, especially the free spending Brits being thin on the ground.
Oh and forgot, the Danes are moving towards getting out.
You're wasting your breath on here. Anyone can see what you are saying is correct, but some just refuse to see any wrong in the great EU god.
I would have thought their disgusting antics regarding the covid vaccine this week would have been enough to show what a pit of villainy and scum that organisation is.
-
The Covid situation has exposed the European Commission for what it is, a bullying unelected top heavy unwieldy, nasty bit of work that hits out and blames everyone else when things go wrong.
The German press are giving it loads of criticism over it's running of the pandemic, the Netherlands are undergoing riots in cities against the lockdown most nights, Italy looks like having an election within the year with Italix parties gaining popularity, Spain are proposing to shave pensions, and in France Le Pen is waiting on the side lines for Macron to finish making a mess of things, and the southern countries look like having a very bad time of it this summer with the tourist trade, especially the free spending Brits being thin on the ground.
Oh and forgot, the Danes are moving towards getting out.
You're wasting your breath on here. Anyone can see what you are saying is correct, but some just refuse to see any wrong in the great EU god.
I would have thought their disgusting antics regarding the covid vaccine this week would have been enough to show what a pit of villainy and scum that organisation is.
As I pointed out, all of selby's rant is feck all to do with the EU, and as for the covid vaccine, none of it would be happening if AstraZenica stuck to it's own contract.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55852698
'Disgusting antics'? aye, 'EU in putting it's own citizens first when screwed over by vaccine supplier shocker'
-
If you were as clever and short sighted when working as you are now Glyn I make no wonder getting something into and out of the UK is easy.
Eyes tight shut, Gob wide open again.
-
The Covid situation has exposed the European Commission for what it is, a bullying unelected top heavy unwieldy, nasty bit of work that hits out and blames everyone else when things go wrong.
The German press are giving it loads of criticism over it's running of the pandemic, the Netherlands are undergoing riots in cities against the lockdown most nights, Italy looks like having an election within the year with Italix parties gaining popularity, Spain are proposing to shave pensions, and in France Le Pen is waiting on the side lines for Macron to finish making a mess of things, and the southern countries look like having a very bad time of it this summer with the tourist trade, especially the free spending Brits being thin on the ground.
Oh and forgot, the Danes are moving towards getting out.
You're wasting your breath on here. Anyone can see what you are saying is correct, but some just refuse to see any wrong in the great EU god.
I would have thought their disgusting antics regarding the covid vaccine this week would have been enough to show what a pit of villainy and scum that organisation is.
As I pointed out, all of selby's rant is feck all to do with the EU, and as for the covid vaccine, none of it would be happening if AstraZenica stuck to it's own contract.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55852698
'Disgusting antics'? aye, 'EU in putting it's own citizens first when screwed over by vaccine supplier shocker'
Nothing to do with EU incompetence then? Our government have got plenty wrong over covid but it can't be denied they took a gamble and came out on top with the vaccine orders. Why should the UK miss out?
-
So they can grumble at the government again AL, and fawn over how good the EU is, apart from delivering vaccinations that is.
They have got blood on their hands ( I think that was the handle to Johnson when it suited).
-
The Covid situation has exposed the European Commission for what it is, a bullying unelected top heavy unwieldy, nasty bit of work that hits out and blames everyone else when things go wrong.
The German press are giving it loads of criticism over it's running of the pandemic, the Netherlands are undergoing riots in cities against the lockdown most nights, Italy looks like having an election within the year with Italix parties gaining popularity, Spain are proposing to shave pensions, and in France Le Pen is waiting on the side lines for Macron to finish making a mess of things, and the southern countries look like having a very bad time of it this summer with the tourist trade, especially the free spending Brits being thin on the ground.
Oh and forgot, the Danes are moving towards getting out.
You're wasting your breath on here. Anyone can see what you are saying is correct, but some just refuse to see any wrong in the great EU god.
I would have thought their disgusting antics regarding the covid vaccine this week would have been enough to show what a pit of villainy and scum that organisation is.
As I pointed out, all of selby's rant is feck all to do with the EU, and as for the covid vaccine, none of it would be happening if AstraZenica stuck to it's own contract.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55852698
'Disgusting antics'? aye, 'EU in putting it's own citizens first when screwed over by vaccine supplier shocker'
Nothing to do with EU incompetence then? Our government have got plenty wrong over covid but it can't be denied they took a gamble and came out on top with the vaccine orders. Why should the UK miss out?
Go on then, Mr Moral High Ground. If the UK were not getting what they contracted for from an overseas vaccine supplier, what would you expect the UK to do to protect it's own citizens?
-
It is interesting that whenever anybody does try to log a benefit of Brexit in a Brexit benefit log, they are instantly shot down.
It is a genuine thread though.
-
So they can grumble at the government again AL, and fawn over how good the EU is, apart from delivering vaccinations that is.
They have got blood on their hands ( I think that was the handle to Johnson when it suited).
It's not the EU not delivering vaccines, it's AstraZenica. Because AstraZenica haven't delivered, the EU MIGHT
decide to stop vaccines being exported from the EU - to anywhere (not just the UK) to ensure that it's own citizens have the amount of vaccines they should have. If AstraZenica pull their fingers out and deliver what they contracted too, it won't need to happen. 'Eyes tight shut, Gob wide open.', eh?
-
It is interesting that whenever anybody does try to log a benefit of Brexit in a Brexit benefit log, they are instantly shot down.
It is a genuine thread though.
No genuine benefits yet though. That's why they get 'shot down'.
-
That’s a matter of opinion, Glyn, which is what it’s all about.
Isn’t it?
-
That’s a matter of opinion, Glyn, which is what it’s all about.
Isn’t it?
So selby spouting about all sorts of stuff that isn't related to us being in the EU or not at all counts as Brexit benefits then? That's a very strange 'matter of opinion'.
Isn't it?
-
Glyn it's highly likely that AZ are meeting their obligations as their obligations to existing contracts should typically be met first, that would be reasonable of them and a good reason why they aren't obliged to meet the EU order.
You'd love criticising Boris if it was the other way around. The EU have massively got this wrong. I think actually the EU is too big to cope with the individual member states requirements in this case. It just hasn't worked.
-
Whilst we are on it how much has the EU contributed to covax? How much has the UK contributed?
-
That’s a matter of opinion, Glyn, which is what it’s all about.
Isn’t it?
So selby spouting about all sorts of stuff that isn't related to us being in the EU or not at all counts as Brexit benefits then? That's a very strange 'matter of opinion'.
Isn't it?
Yes. In your opinion.
I mean no. In your opinion.
-
Glyn it's highly likely that AZ are meeting their obligations as their obligations to existing contracts should typically be met first, that would be reasonable of them and a good reason why they aren't obliged to meet the EU order.
You'd love criticising Boris if it was the other way around. The EU have massively got this wrong. I think actually the EU is too big to cope with the individual member states requirements in this case. It just hasn't worked.
Your first paragraph says it's AstraZenica that's not fulfulled the contract, but you then say it's the EU's fault!
-
That’s a matter of opinion, Glyn, which is what it’s all about.
Isn’t it?
So selby spouting about all sorts of stuff that isn't related to us being in the EU or not at all counts as Brexit benefits then? That's a very strange 'matter of opinion'.
Isn't it?
Yes. In your opinion.
So which of selby's rants are genuine Brexit benefits in your opinion?
-
Glyn it's highly likely that AZ are meeting their obligations as their obligations to existing contracts should typically be met first, that would be reasonable of them and a good reason why they aren't obliged to meet the EU order.
You'd love criticising Boris if it was the other way around. The EU have massively got this wrong. I think actually the EU is too big to cope with the individual member states requirements in this case. It just hasn't worked.
Your first paragraph says it's AstraZenica that's not fulfulled the contract, but you then say it's the EU's fault!
Sorry what? Read it again it does not say that at all. It is fairly clear.
-
I haven’t particularly got one. I’m just making an observation. It’s not just Selby.
-
I haven’t particularly got one. I’m just making an observation. It’s not just Selby.
See? Not even you are prepared to nail your colours to any of his masts. That's if you've even bothered to read his nonsensical post.
I know it's not just selby, but I'd be happy for you to point out a genuine Brexit benefit that you think has been shot down unfairly. I could easily have missed one.
-
Glyn. I never mentioned Selby. I said ‘anyone’. I never said whether I agreed with him or you or anyone else.
I’m entitled to observe, and read and quietly come to my own conclusions. My conclusion is that whenever anyone tries to offer a Brexit benefit, they are shot down.
It seems to me that your obsession with Selby has spilled over to my post.
As for ‘not even me’ nailing my colours to his mast’ - what on earth does that mean?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever had a direct conversation with Selby, for or against anything (though I’d be happy to be corrected on that).
I do enjoy reading his pre match threads, though.
-
Glyn it's highly likely that AZ are meeting their obligations as their obligations to existing contracts should typically be met first, that would be reasonable of them and a good reason why they aren't obliged to meet the EU order.
You'd love criticising Boris if it was the other way around. The EU have massively got this wrong. I think actually the EU is too big to cope with the individual member states requirements in this case. It just hasn't worked.
I'm with you on this BFYP. The UK has absolutely got the vaccine procurement right and the EU has been woeful. I heard an EU official the other day saying that it was important to them that they screwed the price down. That is beyond belief. They will need a billion vaccine does. If they save 5 Euros on each one, that is a pin prick compared to what they will lose by being even a week late in vaccinating.
-
Glyn. I never mentioned Selby. I said ‘anyone’. I never said whether I agreed with him or you or anyone else.
I’m entitled to observe, and read and quietly come to my own conclusions. My conclusion is that whenever anyone tries to offer a Brexit benefit, they are shot down.
It seems to me that your obsession with Selby has spilled over to my post.
As for ‘not even me’ nailing my colours to his mast’ - what on earth does that mean?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever had a direct conversation with Selby, for or against anything (though I’d be happy to be corrected on that).
I do enjoy reading his pre match threads, though.
Surely you'd agree that any claims of Brexit benefits that weren't genuine should be challenged? That's only right.
Which goes back to - which genuine Brexit benefit in your opinion has been unfairly shot down though? You must have some in mind for you to have said that in the first place. No one else can decide what your opinion is, only you, so I'd be interested to know.
-
Glyn it's highly likely that AZ are meeting their obligations as their obligations to existing contracts should typically be met first, that would be reasonable of them and a good reason why they aren't obliged to meet the EU order.
You'd love criticising Boris if it was the other way around. The EU have massively got this wrong. I think actually the EU is too big to cope with the individual member states requirements in this case. It just hasn't worked.
I'm with you on this BFYP. The UK has absolutely got the vaccine procurement right and the EU has been woeful. I heard an EU official the other day saying that it was important to them that they screwed the price down. That is beyond belief. They will need a billion vaccine does. If they save 5 Euros on each one, that is a pin prick compared to what they will lose by being even a week late in vaccinating.
Cheeky t**ts, AZ are supplying the vaccine at cost, as far as I’m concerned the EU are behind us in the queue, they ordered 3 months later than us, so one benefit of brexit is we didn’t join their procurement process
-
Glyn it's highly likely that AZ are meeting their obligations as their obligations to existing contracts should typically be met first, that would be reasonable of them and a good reason why they aren't obliged to meet the EU order.
You'd love criticising Boris if it was the other way around. The EU have massively got this wrong. I think actually the EU is too big to cope with the individual member states requirements in this case. It just hasn't worked.
I'm with you on this BFYP. The UK has absolutely got the vaccine procurement right and the EU has been woeful. I heard an EU official the other day saying that it was important to them that they screwed the price down. That is beyond belief. They will need a billion vaccine does. If they save 5 Euros on each one, that is a pin prick compared to what they will lose by being even a week late in vaccinating.
Cheeky t**ts, AZ are supplying the vaccine at cost, as far as I’m concerned the EU are behind us in the queue, they ordered 3 months later than us, so one benefit of brexit is we didn’t join their procurement process
Whose fault is it that AstraZenica aren't fulfilling their contract - AstraZenica or the EU?
Yes, I agree that the EU are behind the UK in the queue and the UK should get their order fulfilled first, but the nub of the situation is that there should be a queue in the first place. Whose fault is it that there IS a queue?
-
Glyn. I never mentioned Selby. I said ‘anyone’. I never said whether I agreed with him or you or anyone else.
I’m entitled to observe, and read and quietly come to my own conclusions. My conclusion is that whenever anyone tries to offer a Brexit benefit, they are shot down.
It seems to me that your obsession with Selby has spilled over to my post.
As for ‘not even me’ nailing my colours to his mast’ - what on earth does that mean?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever had a direct conversation with Selby, for or against anything (though I’d be happy to be corrected on that).
I do enjoy reading his pre match threads, though.
Surely you'd agree that any claims of Brexit benefits that weren't genuine should be challenged? That's only right.
Which goes back to - which genuine Brexit benefit in your opinion has been unfairly shot down though? You must have some in mind for you to have said that in the first place. No one else can decide what your opinion is, only you, so I'd be interested to know.
I never said any opinions had been unfairly shot down.
-
Glyn. I never mentioned Selby. I said ‘anyone’. I never said whether I agreed with him or you or anyone else.
I’m entitled to observe, and read and quietly come to my own conclusions. My conclusion is that whenever anyone tries to offer a Brexit benefit, they are shot down.
It seems to me that your obsession with Selby has spilled over to my post.
As for ‘not even me’ nailing my colours to his mast’ - what on earth does that mean?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever had a direct conversation with Selby, for or against anything (though I’d be happy to be corrected on that).
I do enjoy reading his pre match threads, though.
Surely you'd agree that any claims of Brexit benefits that weren't genuine should be challenged? That's only right.
Which goes back to - which genuine Brexit benefit in your opinion has been unfairly shot down though? You must have some in mind for you to have said that in the first place. No one else can decide what your opinion is, only you, so I'd be interested to know.
I never said any opinions had been unfairly shot down.
So what are you moaning about? That opinions of benefits were challenged at all?
-
Glyn it's highly likely that AZ are meeting their obligations as their obligations to existing contracts should typically be met first, that would be reasonable of them and a good reason why they aren't obliged to meet the EU order.
You'd love criticising Boris if it was the other way around. The EU have massively got this wrong. I think actually the EU is too big to cope with the individual member states requirements in this case. It just hasn't worked.
I'm with you on this BFYP. The UK has absolutely got the vaccine procurement right and the EU has been woeful. I heard an EU official the other day saying that it was important to them that they screwed the price down. That is beyond belief. They will need a billion vaccine does. If they save 5 Euros on each one, that is a pin prick compared to what they will lose by being even a week late in vaccinating.
Cheeky t**ts, AZ are supplying the vaccine at cost, as far as I’m concerned the EU are behind us in the queue, they ordered 3 months later than us, so one benefit of brexit is we didn’t join their procurement process
Whose fault is it that AstraZenica aren't fulfilling their contract - AstraZenica or the EU?
Yes, I agree that the EU are behind the UK in the queue and the UK should get their order fulfilled first, but the nub of the situation is that there should be a queue in the first place. Whose fault is it that there IS a queue?
You tell me, the fact of the matter is the EU has ballsed it up, now they want to be clever t**ts demanding supplies be diverted from the UK, for once our Govt has been in front of the curve on this, if they want to be clever t**ts let them have it, but not at cost
-
Glyn it's highly likely that AZ are meeting their obligations as their obligations to existing contracts should typically be met first, that would be reasonable of them and a good reason why they aren't obliged to meet the EU order.
You'd love criticising Boris if it was the other way around. The EU have massively got this wrong. I think actually the EU is too big to cope with the individual member states requirements in this case. It just hasn't worked.
I'm with you on this BFYP. The UK has absolutely got the vaccine procurement right and the EU has been woeful. I heard an EU official the other day saying that it was important to them that they screwed the price down. That is beyond belief. They will need a billion vaccine does. If they save 5 Euros on each one, that is a pin prick compared to what they will lose by being even a week late in vaccinating.
Cheeky t**ts, AZ are supplying the vaccine at cost, as far as I’m concerned the EU are behind us in the queue, they ordered 3 months later than us, so one benefit of brexit is we didn’t join their procurement process
Whose fault is it that AstraZenica aren't fulfilling their contract - AstraZenica or the EU?
Yes, I agree that the EU are behind the UK in the queue and the UK should get their order fulfilled first, but the nub of the situation is that there should be a queue in the first place. Whose fault is it that there IS a queue?
You tell me, the fact of the matter is the EU has ballsed it up, now they want to be clever t**ts demanding supplies be diverted from the UK, for once our Govt has been in front of the curve on this, if they want to be clever t**ts let them have it, but not at cost
How have the EU ballsed it up?
I don't agree with them wanting vaccines that are already in the UK but I think they are well within their rights to refuse export licences for those already in the EU - because that's what I'd expect the UK to do if the situation was reversed.
PS If the contract was at cost price, then that's the supply price. That's just basic law.
-
Glyn. I never mentioned Selby. I said ‘anyone’. I never said whether I agreed with him or you or anyone else.
I’m entitled to observe, and read and quietly come to my own conclusions. My conclusion is that whenever anyone tries to offer a Brexit benefit, they are shot down.
It seems to me that your obsession with Selby has spilled over to my post.
As for ‘not even me’ nailing my colours to his mast’ - what on earth does that mean?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever had a direct conversation with Selby, for or against anything (though I’d be happy to be corrected on that).
I do enjoy reading his pre match threads, though.
Surely you'd agree that any claims of Brexit benefits that weren't genuine should be challenged? That's only right.
Which goes back to - which genuine Brexit benefit in your opinion has been unfairly shot down though? You must have some in mind for you to have said that in the first place. No one else can decide what your opinion is, only you, so I'd be interested to know.
I never said any opinions had been unfairly shot down.
So what are you moaning about? That opinions of benefits were challenged at all?
I’m not moaning - just, as I keep saying, making an observation.
I think, in time, when the dust settles and we’ve begun to move away from ‘nailing colours’ to remain or leave, there will be lots of benefits. There will also be negatives. I hope and believe that, like most things, we will deal with the situation and make us leaving the EU a decision where, eventually, the good for our country outweighs the bad.
I’m not knowledgeable of the EU and our relationship enough to wade into the discussions just yet. I am also not directly affected by any short term, immediate issues resulting from Brexit. From a personal point of view, I can’t offer you any positives, but neither can I offer you any negatives.
So I read and observe and form an opinion.
Personally, I don’t think now is the time to have a ‘competition’ to see who is right. Which is why I struggle to see this thread as a genuine ‘let’s log the good stuff’, despite its creator’s assurances that it is.
-
29 days in to the Brexit agreement and the EU have invoked article 16 regarding the Northern Ireland protocol, effectivley placing a Land Border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, I’m starting to think that the EU are the flat track bully’s many said they were
-
Filo, you must know that bullies always want to dominate everyone else.
-
Filo, you must know that bullies always want to dominate everyone else.
Not sure what you are alluding to there
-
29 days in to the Brexit agreement and the EU have invoked article 16 regarding the Northern Ireland protocol, effectivley placing a Land Border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, I’m starting to think that the EU are the flat track bully’s many said they were
I don't think they are and it's good to see Ireland object to it as this move benefits nobody.
It is a political move to create noise and override what a mess the EU has made of something that is fundamental to their political reasoning.
It's quite a test of the agreement as obviously it could see the UK trigger a dispute mechanism and we know how much the EU believes in not breaking any agreements and treaties.
Perhaps Gina miller will be interested in this one....
-
Ridiculous thing for the EU to do. And dangerous. I suspect there will be some serious arm twisting from Biden this weekend.
-
Well apparently a vital ingredient for the Pzifer vaccine is made at Croda in the UK, maybe a UK embargo stopping that ingredient being exported might bring them to their senses. Johnson should be onto his Irish counterpart explaining it’s the EU that have thrown Ireland under the bus
-
Well apparently a vital ingredient for the Pzifer vaccine is made at Croda in the UK, maybe a UK embargo stopping that ingredient being exported might bring them to their senses. Johnson should be onto his Irish counterpart explaining it’s the EU that have thrown Ireland under the bus
What if Pfizer then stopped production of it completely as a protest?
-
Well apparently a vital ingredient for the Pzifer vaccine is made at Croda in the UK, maybe a UK embargo stopping that ingredient being exported might bring them to their senses. Johnson should be onto his Irish counterpart explaining it’s the EU that have thrown Ireland under the bus
What if Pfizer then stopped production of it completely as a protest?
Well they would have to stop production of it if they haven’t got the ingredient won’t they, the UK has four vaccines at its disposal, the EU were slow to act and they are trying to cover their backs, but they’ve probably pissed off a lot of Countries, including those in the 27, they invoked article 16 of the protocol without even consulting Ireland, what a kick in the teeth that must be for Ireland
-
Glyn, wow plenty of gob wide open there, have you got an itch?
-
Stupid decision but quickly corrected. Doesn't make the original decision any less stupid though.
-
Stupid decision but quickly corrected. Doesn't make the original decision any less stupid though.
Natural instincts from the outset is how I see it .
-
Not really up on the details of this Article 16 story, but why does the UK want the EU to supply vaccine to NI? I thought the UK was the one with the vaccine - so why are we demading the EU supply vaccine to part of it?
-
Wilts. It was the symbolic aspect. The totally over the top action in triggering A16, which is supposed to be invoked only in the direst of circumstances. It was triggered as part of the EU policy of preventing frictionless export of EU-produced vaccines. That policy in itself is very worrying and feels like a populist response to a situation they seem to have managed very badly. But invoking A16 as part of that was beyond stupid. Because it has stoked up anger on BOTH sides of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland. And doing it without informing either the Irish or British Govts was pretty much beyond belief.
I HOPE this was a jobsworth official implementing policy as they saw fit. If it was a political decision from higher up, it is very worrying.
-
Wilts. It was the symbolic aspect. The totally over the top action in triggering A16, which is supposed to be invoked only in the forest of circumstances. It was triggered as part of the EU policy of preventing frictionless export of EU-produced vaccines. That policy in itself is very worrying and feels like a populist response to a situation they seem to have managed very badly. But invoking A16 as part of that was beyond stupid. Because it has stoked up anger on BOTH sides of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland. And doing it with informing either the Irish or British Govts was pretty much beyond belief.
I HOPE this was a jobsworth official implementing policy as they saw fit. If it was a political decision from higher up, it is very worrying.
You do mean “without informing” make no mistake it was Political, the commisions Health minister has been making those noises all week
-
Filo. Yes I do. Corrected now.
-
It's nobody's fault that there is a waiting list for the vaccine, every vaccine that has been developed has been done so in record time, but the supply requirements are so vast, and wanted so quickly it is impossible to meet everyone's requirements.
Sky news had a German expert on and he was very complementary at the UK's response building up a vaccine industry that didn't exist six months ago helped by direct government financial help.
Hopefully quite quickly other countries and companies can replicate the build up of manufacturing and alleviate the problem quickly, that is what governments and companies should be putting their efforts in in a joint planned effort, not seeing it as a badge to be worn at other countries expense.
Then the world has a chance to go forward again into something like normality.
-
Is Gove telling the truth for the first time in his political career?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/michael-gove-admits-that-post-brexit-trade-issues-in-northern-ireland-are-not-teething-problems
Or just stabbing Coco The Clown in the back already?
-
It's hurting Eire Kato, I can see them pulling out of that s**t soon. especially when they get hit for higher and higher contributions now they are in negative territory and the Euro valuation is starting to slide.
-
Lucky its not hurting us at all and just Eire eh Selby.
In unrealted news there have been terrorist threats to staff at NI ports and ferry companies have moved their larger vessels from the Irish Sea to the new Ireland cross-channel routes.
-
Wilts, we are their biggest market, Eires and the EU part of that market will be else where as time goes by as our trade with the world will.
The illegal part of the Eire to Nortern Ireland business unhindered by checks up to now, but now a problem will hurt the people of Eire much more than the legal business which in value compared to illegal arms and drugs is a drop in the ocean.
-
Wilts, we are their biggest market, Eires and the EU part of that market will be else where as time goes by as our trade with the world will.
The illegal part of the Eire to Nortern Ireland business unhindered by checks up to now, but now a problem will hurt the people of Eire much more than the legal business which in value compared to illegal arms and drugs is a drop in the ocean.
You really don't understand what being a 3rd country means, do you selby?
-
Kato, you know I am as thick as a plank, I just enjoy life and making a bob or two to get by.
The good news is I also had my vaccination today, and the coal fired heating is banging it out ok, must be like the third world in your area.
-
Wilts, we are their biggest market, Eires and the EU part of that market will be else where as time goes by as our trade with the world will.
The illegal part of the Eire to Nortern Ireland business unhindered by checks up to now, but now a problem will hurt the people of Eire much more than the legal business which in value compared to illegal arms and drugs is a drop in the ocean.
Good point Selby, hadn't thought of that.
Nor presumably had Google or Apple who have their European HQ's there or Jacob Rees-Mogg who recently moved his hedge fund there. Mabye you need to give them some of your financial wisdom?
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
Some very unpatriotic tweets there. Why don't they f*ck off and live somewhere else if they don't like this country?
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
Some very unpatriotic tweets there. Why don't they f*ck off and live somewhere else if they don't like this country?
Eggsf**kingzactly!
-
I'm struggling SS. Which ones were the unpatriotic ones?
-
SS, Methinks the leader of the Britain Surrendering Together party is just looking for an argument.
-
Not in the slightest BB. I didn't make any assertions. Last thing I'm looking for is a fight.
-
Ah I see, you were just providing a bit of 5th form Twitter twaddle.
-
I found it grimly amusing. You are at liberty not to. Goodnight.
-
BB, do you ever get the feeling that some on here are getting more bitchy as time passes?
-
For sure SS. I've never known a situation like it where people are amused by gloom.
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
Some very unpatriotic tweets there. Why don't they f*ck off and live somewhere else if they don't like this country?
The UK was doing just fine as part of the EU. So why don't those who didn't like it fcuk off somewhere else and leave us happy folk alone if they thought it was so bad?
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
Some very unpatriotic tweets there. Why don't they f*ck off and live somewhere else if they don't like this country?
The UK was doing just fine as part of the EU. So why don't those who didn't like it fcuk off somewhere else and leave us happy folk alone if they thought it was so bad?
Because there was a referendum and the result of that referendum concluded that we left the EU .
It's called democracy .
So wipe your tears away soft lad and accept it , the same as the rest of us have to accept every election or referendum we are on the wrong side of .
Your beginning to sound like one of Trump's mob .
-
BB, do you ever get the feeling that some on here are getting more bitchy as time passes?
Maybe because now the chickens are coming home to roost they are being proved wrong on many issues.
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
Some very unpatriotic tweets there. Why don't they f*ck off and live somewhere else if they don't like this country?
The UK was doing just fine as part of the EU. So why don't those who didn't like it fcuk off somewhere else and leave us happy folk alone if they thought it was so bad?
Because there was a referendum and the result of that referendum concluded that we left the EU .
It's called democracy .
So wipe your tears away soft lad and accept it , the same as the rest of us have to accept every election or referendum we are on the wrong side of .
Your beginning to sound like one of Trump's mob .
Best response on here for a long time
-
So wipe your tears away soft lad and accept it , the same as the rest of us have to accept every election or referendum we are on the wrong side of.
Those who don't know their history, eh?
Within 8 years of the 1975 referendum, the Bennite Left that you so admire had taken over policymaking at the Labour party, and committed Labour to leaving the EEC in its 1983 Election manifesto.
It never stopped campaigning against our membership.
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
Some very unpatriotic tweets there. Why don't they f*ck off and live somewhere else if they don't like this country?
The UK was doing just fine as part of the EU. So why don't those who didn't like it fcuk off somewhere else and leave us happy folk alone if they thought it was so bad?
Because there was a referendum and the result of that referendum concluded that we left the EU .
It's called democracy .
So wipe your tears away soft lad and accept it , the same as the rest of us have to accept every election or referendum we are on the wrong side of .
Your beginning to sound like one of Trump's mob .
That doesn't answer why those who disliked the UK being in the EU didn't f**k off to somewhere they did like in the decades before the referendum..!
-
Don't you like it now Glyn?
-
I like it less than I did before, but then I don't subscribe to your pathetic black-and-whitist WUM attempts.
Didn't you leave the country when you didn't like it selby?
-
People who are unhappy with the result of a democratic vote in the UK have a democratic right to object peacefully to the outcome, but demanding that the vote be overruled is beyond that democratic right.
Those who don't like it have a right to f**k off and live somewhere where they can overrule a democratic vote.
-
BB.
Does that include peacefully campaigning for anotger vote? Only you've previously called that undemocratic.
-
People who are unhappy with the result of a democratic vote in the UK have a democratic right to object peacefully to the outcome, but demanding that the vote be overruled is beyond that democratic right.
Those who don't like it have a right to f**k off and live somewhere where they can overrule a democratic vote.
Who on here wanted it to be overruled? No-one as far as I recall.
-
BB.
Does that include peacefully campaigning for anotger vote? Only you've previously called that undemocratic.
You were campaigning for a revote. You were campaigning for the first vote to be scrapped before it was set in motion.
WE CAN'T ALLOW TRUMP-LIKE BEHAVIOUR TO OVERRULE OUR DEMOCRACY.
-
That's my recollection too Glyn.
There WERE plenty of people wanting a democratic vote to confirm tat what people voted for in 2016 was what they actually supported. Most Brexit supporters howled in outrage at that, called it a betrayal of democracy and said "How dare you suggest that we didn't know what we were voting for!?!"
Well here's one prominent Brexit supporter from who didn't appear to understand what he was voting for.
This is him in 2016 assuring us that "No-one is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkof9CVerrQ
This is him in 2018 saying, "I don't understand why people are threatening our place in the Single Market."
https://www.businessinsider.com/senior-brexiteer-admits-leaving-eu-is-not-working-out-2018-5?r=US&IR=T
-
BB.
Does that include peacefully campaigning for anotger vote? Only you've previously called that undemocratic.
You were campaigning for a revote. You were campaigning for the first vote to be scrapped before it was set in motion.
WE CAN'T ALLOW TRUMP-LIKE BEHAVIOUR TO OVERRULE OUR DEMOCRACY.
Not scrapped. Superceded. I'm sure you can understand the difference even when you pretend not to.
-
BB.
Once again you entirely misunderstand what the choice was. I was NOT asking for a re-vote. I was asking for a vote to clarify what people actually wanted, once the options were clear, which they never had been in 2016. My stance ALWAYS was that the 2016 vote was flawed. Not because Remain lost. But because no-one (and I mean NO-ONE) had a clear idea what "Leave" actually meant. And as a result, the vote in 2016 (taken at a time when people like Hannan, Farage, Gove, Johnson etc were assuring us that "Leave" meant no change to our trading with the EU) had not in any possible way supported the eventual Leave that we ended up with.
For some unfathomable reason, Brexit supporters screamed that that was an outrageously undemocratic thing to suggest, and that it was a foul slur on the Leave voters to suggest that they didn't know what they were voting for.
-
Even as recently as last year, Leave supporters didn't seem to understand what sort of Brexit they had voted for. Johnson repeatedly insisted that Brexit wold not result in a customs border in the Irish Sea. That aged well didn't it?
-
To supersede is to replace.
-
With something of equal validity.
-
BST, we are discussing the point that people demanded that we overruled a Democratic vote. You are pointing out reasons why you think we should have overruled a democratic vote.
WE CAN'T ALLOW TRUMP-LIKE BEHAVIOUR TO OVERRULE OUR DEMOCRACY.
-
The 2016 referendum overuled the democratic vote of 1975.
WE CAN'T ALLOW TRUMP-LIKE BEHAVIOUR TO OVERRULE OUR DEMOCRACY.
-
With something of equal validity.
If that's the case why invalidate the first vote?
-
"Clarify" is the word. Surely, no-one seriously thinks it was sensible to make such a momentous decision without properly understanding what the alternative outcomes were?
-
With something of equal validity.
If that's the case why invalidate the first vote?
Because that's how democracy works when the electorate change their mind based on newer information.
Assuming they change their mind, of course.
-
The 2016 referendum overuled the democratic vote of 1975.
WE CAN'T ALLOW TRUMP-LIKE BEHAVIOUR TO OVERRULE OUR DEMOCRACY.
The 2016 referendum didn't stop the 1975 vote being consumated democratically.
-
A decision can be superseded before it's put into effect. Surely even you know that?
-
Do you mean in political instances like the recent US election events?
-
Billy. Out of interest, would you have asked for a vote of clarification had remain won the democratic vote?
-
Belton.
No, of course not. Because "Remain" was a defined thing.
"Leave" was an amorphous, undefined concept which covered everything from No Deal Brexit to a soft Norway-style deal.
That was the reason why the whole concept of a binary choice was flawed.
-
Do you mean in political instances like the recent US election events?
Any decision can be superseded before any action is taken. It's the making of the decision that is superseded, not its effects. Otherwise there'd be no Court Of Appeal. Especially in the days of capital punishment!
-
Belton.
No, of course not. Because "Remain" was a defined thing.
"Leave" was an amorphous, undefined concept which covered everything from No Deal Brexit to a soft Norway-style deal.
That was the reason why the whole concept of a binary choice was flawed.
But surely leave should have been defined then, regardless of the outcome?
-
Belton.
If you are saying that the precise form of Leave should have been known at the time we voted to Remain or Leave, then I have no argument with you.
It was utterly ridiculous to vote on something so important to the future of the nation for generations to come when one of the options was totally undefined. That lack of definition was critical to the success of the Leave campaign. The people who headed the campaign (like Hannan above and he is only one of very many) reassured Leave supporters that they could have all the freedoms of Leave with none of the economic costs. Johnson repeatedly banged the table and shouted "Take Back Control" and when it was shown that taking back control would have negative economic consequences, or cause major problems for Northern Ireland, that was waved away as Project Fear. They knew that was total b*llocks, but while ever "Leave" wasn't a defined thing, they could play that game. And they did. They repeatedly conflated all the freedom benefits of a hard Brexit with all the economic advantages of a Norway-type deal, despite them knowing that we couldn't have both. While ever Brexit wasn't defined, they could tell the electorate that they could have both.
Which is why a TRULY democratic process would have had a confirmatory vote once Brexit was defined: Do you want A) The Brexit that has been agreed or B) to Remain.
Of course, Brexit supporters could never support such a vote. Because they know they would have lost it hands down. Poll after poll after poll has shown that the only form of Brexit which could have won a majority support (and which I personally would have certainly accepted in 2016, after the vote) was a soft, Norway-style Brexit. But, despite regularly advocating that sort of outcome DURING the campaign (if I had a penny for every time Farage said "Norway" in Spring 2016...) the Leave leaders about-turned AFTER the vote and said a Norway deal would be a Betrayal of the Will of the People.
-
Leave was defined, it was even advertised on the side of a bus.
-
Should we not be moving on from that topic of conversation? We had a referendum, leave won, we had an election (twice since that point) which the conservatives came out the largest party. They are points that are done, history. It's about the future now surely?
-
Do you mean in political instances like the recent US election events?
Any decision can be superseded before any action is taken. It's the making of the decision that is superseded, not its effects. Otherwise there'd be no Court Of Appeal. Especially in the days of capital punishment!
So you don't mean in political instances such as the recent US election then?
-
BFYP.
You don't believe in understanding and learning from your history?
-
Billy. What I mean is, it was the British public who were misinformed by leave campaigners, not just Brexit supporters. You were misinformed just as much as anyone else.
We (the British public) were misinformed and lied to by both remain and leave campaigns. We were treated with contempt by both sides. I know people who moved from leave to remain and remain to leave because of misinformation and ‘fear’ talk from both sides.
The vote should never have taken place to begin with - it was in my opinion one of the worst decisions any government has ever made. It should never have happened, especially the way that it did.
But it did, and many, many politicians (and their advisers), leave or remain, should be thoroughly ashamed of what they have put us all through, and continue to do. Starting with David Cameron.
It’s not just remainers who should feel hard done to, it’s all of us. And not because of the outcome of the vote, but because of the appalling manner in which we were all treated.
But it’s happened. I know you don’t like the ‘let’s move on’ attitude, but there is no other choice.
This country f**ked this right up. Again, not because we voted to leave, but because of the decision to allow the vote and the disgraceful way the campaigns were allowed to behave.
The reason I asked you the question was that I believe if anyone thinks that any kind of vote is needed after the first vote, then it should be needed regardless of the outcome of the original vote to remain or leave. Otherwise it seems a second vote, even one of clarification, would only be for the sole purpose of overturning the original outcome. Which is completely undemocratic.
-
Belton.
In what way did the Remain side lie disgracefully in a way that matched the Leave side illegally profiling vulnerable people and bombarding them with "If we don't leave, 80m Turks are going to get the right to be your neighbour" approach?
-
I never mentioned ‘matching lies’.
It’s simple. We could play the ‘you were worserer than me’ game all day long. Or we can accept that both sides are to blame, and it is a part of our history that, regrettably, we cannot change, and deal with it.
I fear that there are too many of the former, though. As shown by this microcosmic thread.
-
Do you mean in political instances like the recent US election events?
Any decision can be superseded before any action is taken. It's the making of the decision that is superseded, not its effects. Otherwise there'd be no Court Of Appeal. Especially in the days of capital punishment!
So you don't mean in political instances such as the recent US election then?
As usual, your deflection question is so vague as to be totally unanswerable. What instances?
-
As a general point, now that Brexit has happened would a new referendum held tomorrow be deemed to be undemocratic?
-
Belton.
But this matters. I DON'T accept that there was any form of equality in the behaviour of the two sides. My take is that there is a lesson to be learned from this whole sorry process, and it is how easily we as a country can be deceived by those with enough balls to stand up and tell flat out lies. I don't think that has ever happened before in our politics, and I think the "oh they ALL do it attitude" is deeply dangerous. Because it means there is no filter when it is taken to the level that we saw by the Leave campaign, or by Trump. So you really should not say both campaigns behaved disgracefully unless you have clear evidence to support that.
-
Do you mean in political instances like the recent US election events?
Any decision can be superseded before any action is taken. It's the making of the decision that is superseded, not its effects. Otherwise there'd be no Court Of Appeal. Especially in the days of capital punishment!
So you don't mean in political instances such as the recent US election then?
As usual, your deflection question is so vague as to be totally unanswerable. What instances?
I've deflected! A discussion about democratic votes being deflected into courts of appeal on capital punishment and I'VE deflected!
Oh dear!
-
Do you mean in political instances like the recent US election events?
Any decision can be superseded before any action is taken. It's the making of the decision that is superseded, not its effects. Otherwise there'd be no Court Of Appeal. Especially in the days of capital punishment!
So you don't mean in political instances such as the recent US election then?
As usual, your deflection question is so vague as to be totally unanswerable. What instances?
I've deflected! A discussion about democratic votes being deflected into courts of appeal on capital punishment and I'VE deflected!
Oh dear!
I was using the Appeal Court as an example, not a question.
What instances?
-
As a general point, now that Brexit has happened would a new referendum held tomorrow be deemed to be undemocratic?
I'm not aware of any ruling saying we can't have another referendum in future. Hopefully, there won't be any success in overturning that result either.
-
As a general point, now that Brexit has happened would a new referendum held tomorrow be deemed to be undemocratic?
I'm not aware of any ruling saying we can't have another referendum in future. Hopefully, there won't be any success in overturning that result either.
Good. Let's campaign for a new referendum!
-
Luckily for you, you can, thanks to the likes of me who strive to keep our country a democratic one.
-
Glyn the Maastricht and Lisbon treaty's being imposed on us without a vote made sure the 2016 vote was not over ruling the same thing as in 1975, but something the ECM had morphed deliberately into without the citizens of the UK having any vote on, and alienated those generations against an undemocratic system.
The politicians reaped what they sowed for totally ignoring the UK's electorate in the past.
-
Billy. But in this case they ALL (the remain and leave campaign) DID. Dangerous or not
That doesn’t mean I think that all members of both camps were liars, and it certainly doesn’t mean that all politicians are liars.
The remain campaign was built on the foundation of fear, scaremongering and ill founded dystopian predictions.
Or lies, if you will.
If thy had focussed on the benefits of staying in the EU, instead of trying to frighten us, I think remain would have had a comfortable win.
I’ve said before, I was just on the side of remain to begin with. By the time of the vote, I was just on the side of leave.
I wasn’t pulled into leave by the Brexiteers, though - I was pushed there by the remain camp.
https://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/the-many-lies-of-the-remain-campaign/
I have little knowledge of the Daily Globe, but you suggested I offer some evidence. This was top of the search.
-
Cadbury is to move the Dairy Milk chocolate manufacturing back to the UK from Germany a £15 million investment.
-
Cadbury is to move the Dairy Milk chocolate manufacturing back to the UK from Germany a £15 million investment.
Yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but yea...................
-
Cadbury is to move the Dairy Milk chocolate manufacturing back to the UK from Germany a £15 million investment.
Nice. Shame it's not going to mean any new jobs though.
-
Eyes tight shut, gob wide open fell for it BB.
-
He'll be saying next it's Flake news.
-
No doubt he’ll Fudge the issue.
-
I say it's nice and mean it, and BB's little coterie can't help but snigger about it.
Says everythijng about all three of them.
-
Don’t you mean ‘Snicker’ about it?
-
I don't think he likes the idea of the UK coming up smelling of Roses.
-
Even as recently as last year, Leave supporters didn't seem to understand what sort of Brexit they had voted for. Johnson repeatedly insisted that Brexit wold not result in a customs border in the Irish Sea. That aged well didn't it?
Even as recently as last month the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland insisted there is no border in the Irish Sea and goods between GB & NI were flowing freely:
https://twitter.com/BrandonLewis/status/1345057483887411200
-
Should we not be moving on from that topic of conversation? We had a referendum, leave won, we had an election (twice since that point) which the conservatives came out the largest party. They are points that are done, history. It's about the future now surely?
I'm with you on this one BFYP.
Leave won and country will be poorer and quite probably smaller for it.
Although this thread is mighty short of anyone publishing any actual benefits from it.
-
Should we not be moving on from that topic of conversation? We had a referendum, leave won, we had an election (twice since that point) which the conservatives came out the largest party. They are points that are done, history. It's about the future now surely?
I'm with you on this one BFYP.
Leave won and country will be poorer and quite probably smaller for it.
Although this thread is mighty short of anyone publishing any actual benefits from it.
Some might say you’ve just named a huge, long term benefit right there, Wilts.
Global society has developed at a mighty rate over very recent years. Faster than people can adapt in many ways. Maybe someone should take the lead in slowing down or becoming ‘smaller’. The world imploding in a few years to come is certainly a possibility the way things are going.
I’d never thought of Brexit providing a benefit in such a way before.
Finally, we’ve got one. Here’s to many more.
-
Should we not be moving on from that topic of conversation? We had a referendum, leave won, we had an election (twice since that point) which the conservatives came out the largest party. They are points that are done, history. It's about the future now surely?
I'm with you on this one BFYP.
Leave won and country will be poorer and quite probably smaller for it.
Although this thread is mighty short of anyone publishing any actual benefits from it.
Some might say you’ve just named a huge, long term benefit right there, Wilts.
Global society has developed at a mighty rate over very recent years. Faster than people can adapt in many ways. Maybe someone should take the lead in slowing down or becoming ‘smaller’. The world imploding in a few years to come is certainly a possibility the way things are going.
I’d never thought of Brexit providing a benefit in such a way before.
Finally, we’ve got one. Here’s to many more.
Couldn't agree more Belton , well said .
-
Should we not be moving on from that topic of conversation? We had a referendum, leave won, we had an election (twice since that point) which the conservatives came out the largest party. They are points that are done, history. It's about the future now surely?
I'm with you on this one BFYP.
Leave won and country will be poorer and quite probably smaller for it.
Although this thread is mighty short of anyone publishing any actual benefits from it.
Some might say you’ve just named a huge, long term benefit right there, Wilts.
Global society has developed at a mighty rate over very recent years. Faster than people can adapt in many ways. Maybe someone should take the lead in slowing down or becoming ‘smaller’. The world imploding in a few years to come is certainly a possibility the way things are going.
I’d never thought of Brexit providing a benefit in such a way before.
Finally, we’ve got one. Here’s to many more.
It's a very good point.
-
Well spotted Wilts!
-
Belton.
So your "evidence" is the first hit that Google chucks up? A partisan opinion piece by a conservative blogger. This hasn't started well has it?
I'm a bit busy right now, so I'm certainly not going down the rabbit hole of dealing with every one of his accusations of "lying" by the Remain side, but here are a few to be going on with.
1) EU Army. Does anyone, anywhere genuinely and seriously think that the EU has plans for an army on the scale of national armies? Or that Britain in the EU would have joined such a scheme? What a bizarre one for him to choose as his No1 "lie".
2) The vote for Leave DID have an immediate and detrimental effect on the UK economy. The pound fell in value by 10% overnight. Consequently, inflation bounced up, resulting in a stagnation in real wage growth, just as it was finally starting to rise after years of Austerity. Have a look at this graph and put your finger on the date when the referendum happened.
(https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/What_wages_are_worth_Sept_18_update.png)
And it got worse. In 2014-15, we had had the highest GDP growth in the G7. By 2017, we had the second lowest. The rest of the developed world had a strong mini-boom in 2017-18, with GDP rising by 2-4% per year in most countries. Except us, where ours stagnated at around 1-1.5%. Have a look at the graph below and put your finger on the date that referendum happened.
(https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/UK_economic_growth_within_the_G7.png)
3) Emergency Budget. That was a stupidly 1-dimensional thing for the Remain side to say, but it was based on a truth. The UK finances WERE devastated by the effect of the vote causing the economic downturn. In that, Darling and Osborne were absolutely bang on. The way that Hammond dealt with that once Osborne had gone, was to extend the period of grinding Austerity to balance the books out from 2019 to 2025 in his first Budget. So no, there wasn't an emergency budget. There was a continuation of the grinding misery of Austerity as a result of the vote. A spin based on a truth, rather than an outright lie to match the 80million Turks.
8) No hard border in Ireland. This is about as far as I'm going with this bloke's arguments. If he is truly claiming that anyone saying there would be a hard trade border between NI and Eire in the event of a No Deal was a liar, there's not much more point in engaging. Of COURSE there would have been. There is no example in the history of commerce of two trading entities having neither a trade deal, nor a trade border between them. As it is, because of the deal we struck, we now have the trade border between NI and GB, despite Johnson's insistence for two years that that wouldn't be the case (despite him having signed the deal that said that WOULD be the case). I assume you don't agree with what this blogger is saying about the Irish border Belton, because I assume you have more sense than that. Which does leave me wondering why you posted that link.
Enough for now.
-
Billy. Because you asked me to post evidence to be taken seriously by you. My opinion is not enough for you when I make a point.
I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.
Don’t bother with any more of your sarcastic shit. I’l give evidence when I see fit in future, not when you demand it.
I shouldn’t have fallen into that trap.
If your long winded response was for my benefit, it was a complete waste of your time.
The point I tried to make (and seemingly failed) about the link, is that you can find whatever ‘evidence’ you like in a couple of clicks. Much like you do on Twitter, among other platforms. Some people (you) have time to scrutinise every part of every link that is posted. Some people don’t. Some people see a link and think that is evidence and proof that the poster is correct; that the link MUST back up the poster’s opinion just because it is there, but very often it does no such thing.
You actually don’t have the right, or respect to dismiss opinion through lack of evidence.
Edit: you do have the right to dismiss whatever you like of course.
-
Belton.
It absolutely was not a trap. I am just genuinely surprised at your insistence that both sides behaved disgracefully. And yeah, maybe I was sarcastic in my response, but it does get a bit trying when you post something in evidence which I assume you hadn't even read. Because if you had read it, I'm sure you would have seen the glaring inconsistencies for yourself.
Regarding your point about "finding whatever evidence you want", that is deeply depressing. If you give into that then evidence-based discussion is dead and we are back into a Dark Age. I have higher aspirations than that. I believe there is a thing called Objective Truth and all of us who care about the future have a responsibility to look for it. Not just post something because it makes a point.
The opinions thing gets to the core of the issue. Opinions are fine. We all have them. But opinions which don't change when faced with contrary evidence are dangerous. I'd prefer a world where we have evidenced-based opinions, rather than the one we seem to be collapsing into, which is one of opinion-based evidence.
-
You really don’t think you use opinion based evidence? You never find expert opinion or scientific evidence or tweets to back up your opinion?
I see the problem with opinion based evidence, which is one of the reasons I rarely post links. But you are as guilty of opinion based links as anyone.
-
Belton
I'm sure I am far from perfect, but I have a policy of always trying to go back and look at the original data whenever possible, rather than repeating someone's opinion because it chimes with mine.
I don't expect you to believe that because you don't accept that I try to act in good faith, but it is the truth. I genuinely believe that we all have a responsibility to challenge our opinions on a regular basis. To look for evidence that contradicts what we would like to be the case.
For example, the persona that you have conjured up about who I am, is a person who would be loathe EVER to give credit to a Tory Government. I try to avoid becoming that person by reflecting on what the Tory Government does. And, as you may or may not have seen, I've been fulsome in my praise for how the vaccine programme has been handled. Better than very nearly anywhere else in the world. If I wasn't acting in good faith, I would have ignored that, or I would have tried to find an angle to criticise.
Like I say, I am far from perfect, but that is what I try to do.
-
Why do you insist on bringing this persona you think I have created of you up time and time and time again? Why do you insist on telling everyone that I don’t believe you act in good faith EVERY single time we disagree? Good faith/bad faith is YOUR line. I think I used the phrase once, when directly quoting you in your first accusation.
I’ve done nothing to warrant this latest outburst from you but it’s the same old system of yours every single time we converse like this: you dig some old shit up that has no relevance to the current debate. Next you will tell me you have no interest in discussing anything else with me again.
Until you do.
What is your problem?
-
Belton.
I said that I don't expect you to believe what I wrote because I honestly DON'T expect you to believe it. Based on 6 months worth of interaction.
I would be delighted to be wrong. Genuinely.
-
Should we not be moving on from that topic of conversation? We had a referendum, leave won, we had an election (twice since that point) which the conservatives came out the largest party. They are points that are done, history. It's about the future now surely?
I'm with you on this one BFYP.
Leave won and country will be poorer and quite probably smaller for it.
Although this thread is mighty short of anyone publishing any actual benefits from it.
Some might say you’ve just named a huge, long term benefit right there, Wilts.
Global society has developed at a mighty rate over very recent years. Faster than people can adapt in many ways. Maybe someone should take the lead in slowing down or becoming ‘smaller’. The world imploding in a few years to come is certainly a possibility the way things are going.
I’d never thought of Brexit providing a benefit in such a way before.
Finally, we’ve got one. Here’s to many more.
I mean't smaller in that Scotland and Northern Ireland will be leaving the UK - thus diminished.
As Brexit is a project devised by billionaires to reduce tax and increase money laundering whilst reducing workers and environmental rights, I doubt you will be seeing this government push to 'slow it down'. Isn't one of Johnson's slogans 'Build, build, build'.
Maybe you should have voted for Labour's Green New Deal if it is that important to you.
-
Should we not be moving on from that topic of conversation? We had a referendum, leave won, we had an election (twice since that point) which the conservatives came out the largest party. They are points that are done, history. It's about the future now surely?
I'm with you on this one BFYP.
Leave won and country will be poorer and quite probably smaller for it.
Although this thread is mighty short of anyone publishing any actual benefits from it.
Some might say you’ve just named a huge, long term benefit right there, Wilts.
Global society has developed at a mighty rate over very recent years. Faster than people can adapt in many ways. Maybe someone should take the lead in slowing down or becoming ‘smaller’. The world imploding in a few years to come is certainly a possibility the way things are going.
I’d never thought of Brexit providing a benefit in such a way before.
Finally, we’ve got one. Here’s to many more.
I mean't smaller in that Scotland and Northern Ireland will be leaving the UK - thus diminished.
As Brexit is a project devised by billionaires to reduce tax and increase money laundering whilst reducing workers and environmental rights, I doubt you will be seeing this government push to 'slow it down'. Isn't one of Johnson's slogans 'Build, build, build'.
Maybe you should have voted for Labour's Green New Deal if it is that important to you.
Ah, you see, Wilts, that’s the problem with ambiguous language.
I missed the news bulletin that said Scotland and Northern Ireland were leaving Britain because of Brexit. Was it on Talk Radio?
I’m still going to use my interpretation of ‘smaller’ as a benefit of Brexit, if you don’t mind. I know it’s not what you meant now, but I think you have inadvertently come up with a benefit that could single handedly outweigh the almost relentless negativity on here and shape a much brighter future for us all.
I’m unsure why you’d suggest I should have voted for Labour’s Green New Deal when that was clearly your interpretation of ‘small’, not mine.
-
Interesting interview between Jes Staley, CEO of Barclays and the BBC this morning. Optimistic about the opportunity Brexit presents for the UK financial sector to compete globally outside of Europe with the US and the Far East without having to go down the route of deregulation. He feels that Brexit leans slightly towards being a positive opportunity rather than a negative overall. Talks down the "modest" loss of jobs seen in the financial sector as a direct result of Brexit.
Plenty of opportunity to play the man rather than the ball here, given he's an American, he's a banker and he was investigated for being allegedly less than truthful about his financial dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. He is nevertheless CEO of one of our largest and oldest banking institutions so his opinion isn't completely irrelevant.
It's only his opinion of course but nevertheless it's good to read a piece about Brexit that focuses on opportunity for the future.
-
Tommy, just because this is a Brexit benefits thread it doesn't mean that any suggestion of Brexit benefits is welcome!
-
learning all the time Albert, it is only a suggestion, nothing concrete yet to replace the 7000 jobs already lost and the hundreds of millions of £s.
Added, my mistake Albert £1.6 trillion
-
Thank goodness for that, Skippy. I almost thought the CEO of Barclays had a point for a minute there until you put him straight.
Told yer, Tommy!
-
every day's a school day bb
-
Are you homeschooling in Sydney, Sydney? I don't want to get you into trouble by distracting you.
-
So how long do you think this will take to get to fruition and start to pay off the brexit tab bb? I thought even you might be sick of all the couldaves and whatifs by now.
-
I've no idea Sydney. I've never claimed to be an expert, but I do like to hear positive news. Besides that, if you're not going to accept the CEO of Barclays opinion why would you accept mine?
-
His statement about Frankfurt and Paris will not have gone down well.
talked of them as toytowns.
-
I thought we were told that Brexit was supposed to be good for the UK by making the economy bigger, not smaller.
-
As long as it’s good for the UK, I don’t suppose it matters.
-
It's already been good, you have a chance of being vaccinated.
-
As long as it’s good for the UK, I don’t suppose it matters.
When do we get to find out?
-
Glyn and Syd, the two guys who would find a fault with a big lottery win and moan about it.
-
A big lottery win delivers exactly what it promises.
-
A big lottery win delivers exactly what it promises.
Unless your interpretation of big is different to Camelot’s
-
A big lottery win delivers exactly what it promises.
Unless your interpretation of big is different to Camelot’s
Do they write it on the side of a bus?
-
I've no idea Sydney. I've never claimed to be an expert, but I do like to hear positive news. Besides that, if you're not going to accept the CEO of Barclays opinion why would you accept mine?
Me too bb and I will be excitied about it but you'd think rather than just predicting what may happen you'd think he'd be telling the world of finance when how it's happening about the progress, which financial institutions are involved, what's the point in waiting?
-
Yeah it would have been nice.
Didn’t he do that.
-
https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95346?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en-GB
-
Some of the finace experts here are going to have to help me out again because as you know I don't know much about it.
The Intercontinetal Exchange, trading $1.2 billion daily, is moving from London to Amsterdam. Is this good news or bad? Presumably it will help make the economy smaller as people say they want?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-08/london-finance-takes-another-hit-as-emission-trading-moves-to-eu
-
I'll bet ''Jes Staley, CEO of Barclays'' would have an idea, but if there's one thing that brexit has taught everyone is get it in writing or it doesn't mean a great deal and even then laws and conventions are dismissed so no guarantees.
-
Interesting interview between Jes Staley, CEO of Barclays and the BBC this morning. Optimistic about the opportunity Brexit presents for the UK financial sector to compete globally outside of Europe with the US and the Far East without having to go down the route of deregulation. He feels that Brexit leans slightly towards being a positive opportunity rather than a negative overall. Talks down the "modest" loss of jobs seen in the financial sector as a direct result of Brexit.
Plenty of opportunity to play the man rather than the ball here, given he's an American, he's a banker and he was investigated for being allegedly less than truthful about his financial dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. He is nevertheless CEO of one of our largest and oldest banking institutions so his opinion isn't completely irrelevant.
It's only his opinion of course but nevertheless it's good to read a piece about Brexit that focuses on opportunity for the future.
I'm not sure I'd set too much store by the opinions of the 'soon to be ex' CEO of Barclays.
As Staley's time at the helm has shown, talking a good game doesn't translate into playing a good game.
Just ask Barclays's shareholders!
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
Some very unpatriotic tweets there. Why don't they f*ck off and live somewhere else if they don't like this country?
The UK was doing just fine as part of the EU. So why don't those who didn't like it fcuk off somewhere else and leave us happy folk alone if they thought it was so bad?
Because there was a referendum and the result of that referendum concluded that we left the EU .
It's called democracy .
So wipe your tears away soft lad and accept it , the same as the rest of us have to accept every election or referendum we are on the wrong side of .
Your beginning to sound like one of Trump's mob .
Best response on here for a long time
And your contributory list of benefits which have/will make us better off is?
-
One of the panel on the Jeremy Vine show this morning is a Brexiter and former Brexit Party MEP. The subject being discussed was the part Facebook, WhatsApp etc play in the dissemination of disinformation regarding the Coronavirus Vaccine. One of his comments was that 'the posting of disinformation should be taken down as it's unacceptable'. Let that sink in for a second..........
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
Some very unpatriotic tweets there. Why don't they f*ck off and live somewhere else if they don't like this country?
The UK was doing just fine as part of the EU. So why don't those who didn't like it fcuk off somewhere else and leave us happy folk alone if they thought it was so bad?
Because there was a referendum and the result of that referendum concluded that we left the EU .
It's called democracy .
So wipe your tears away soft lad and accept it , the same as the rest of us have to accept every election or referendum we are on the wrong side of .
Your beginning to sound like one of Trump's mob .
Best response on here for a long time
And your contributory list of benefits which have/will make us better off is?
I've already posted what I consider to be a benefit to me, go read yourself and no, I don't care if you agree or not
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
Some very unpatriotic tweets there. Why don't they f*ck off and live somewhere else if they don't like this country?
The UK was doing just fine as part of the EU. So why don't those who didn't like it fcuk off somewhere else and leave us happy folk alone if they thought it was so bad?
Because there was a referendum and the result of that referendum concluded that we left the EU .
It's called democracy .
So wipe your tears away soft lad and accept it , the same as the rest of us have to accept every election or referendum we are on the wrong side of .
Your beginning to sound like one of Trump's mob .
Best response on here for a long time
And your contributory list of benefits which have/will make us better off is?
I've already posted what I consider to be a benefit to me, go read yourself and no, I don't care if you agree or not
So, you only care about yourself and sod the rest of the country?
-
His statement about Frankfurt and Paris will not have gone down well.
talked of them as toytowns.
Here's a message from toytown for you selby....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/business-economics/reaction-as-eu-poised-to-lock-britain-out-of-its-banking-market/11/02/
-
That feeling when Mother Nature chucks in her two pennorth.
https://mobile.twitter.com/adamclarkitv/status/1357002525795352576
Some very unpatriotic tweets there. Why don't they f*ck off and live somewhere else if they don't like this country?
The UK was doing just fine as part of the EU. So why don't those who didn't like it fcuk off somewhere else and leave us happy folk alone if they thought it was so bad?
Because there was a referendum and the result of that referendum concluded that we left the EU .
It's called democracy .
So wipe your tears away soft lad and accept it , the same as the rest of us have to accept every election or referendum we are on the wrong side of .
Your beginning to sound like one of Trump's mob .
Best response on here for a long time
And your contributory list of benefits which have/will make us better off is?
I've already posted what I consider to be a benefit to me, go read yourself and no, I don't care if you agree or not
So, you only care about yourself and sod the rest of the country?
Well me and my son yes, everyone else I dont wish harm to but not my concern. I vote for me, not for you or anyone else
-
Kato, give them enough rope and they will hang themselves, if you want a bet on who will win that one be my guest.
Just read one of our bankers talk on the subject, and they are just waiting for them to be pushed into declaring open house on them in my opinion.
If they are pushed out then they will just go their own way buddy to the cost of those pushing.
-
His statement about Frankfurt and Paris will not have gone down well.
talked of them as toytowns.
Here's a message from toytown for you selby....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/business-economics/reaction-as-eu-poised-to-lock-britain-out-of-its-banking-market/11/02/
Perhaps you should though read what the governor actually said.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/10/bank-of-england-governor-warns-eu-demands-for-city-are-unrealistic
Is he wrong? I'm not convinced he is.
-
They would do well to take notice of the chairman of the BOE Andrew Bailey now is not the time to rock the boat on finance matters, which is camouflage for, you owe us too much and we can make it very difficult for you to raise money when you need to borrow so much.
-
Kato, give them enough rope and they will hang themselves, if you want a bet on who will win that one be my guest.
Just read one of our bankers talk on the subject, and they are just waiting for them to be pushed into declaring open house on them in my opinion.
If they are pushed out then they will just go their own way buddy to the cost of those pushing.
Here's some more rope selby....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56017419
-
His statement about Frankfurt and Paris will not have gone down well.
talked of them as toytowns.
Here's a message from toytown for you selby....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/business-economics/reaction-as-eu-poised-to-lock-britain-out-of-its-banking-market/11/02/
Perhaps you should though read what the governor actually said.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/10/bank-of-england-governor-warns-eu-demands-for-city-are-unrealistic
Is he wrong? I'm not convinced he is.
Time will tell if he's right or wrong. Brexit history would seem to show that the little guy 'talking big' and 'making threats' to the big group doesn't work out too well though.
-
When it comes to finance Kato, who do you think is the big guy?
-
When it comes to finance Kato, who do you think is the big guy?
I'm sure London will remain a force in the financial world, but I am not sure it will be back anywhere near where it was - or could have been had we remained in the EU.
-
So you aren’t sure that London will be back where it was as a financial force.
Perhaps that is why Brexiteers aren’t listing the benefits of leaving, because we don’t know yet.
I voted to remain by the way.
-
So you aren’t sure that London will be back where it was as a financial force.
Perhaps that is why Brexiteers aren’t listing the benefits of leaving, because we don’t know yet.
I voted to remain by the way.
Nor are you sure that Brexit will mark the beginning of a long slow decline of the City of London from a major international finance force to a minor reginal one.
Although as Brexiteers have said in earlier posts that they want the economy to grow smaller, who knows what they really want.
-
So you aren’t sure that London will be back where it was as a financial force.
Perhaps that is why Brexiteers aren’t listing the benefits of leaving, because we don’t know yet.
I voted to remain by the way.
Nor are you sure that Brexit will mark the beginning of a long slow decline of the City of London from a major international finance force to a minor reginal one.
Although as Brexiteers have said in earlier posts that they want the economy to grow smaller, who knows what they really want.
Precisely wilts.
No one knows yet what is going to happen, which is why it is amusing that NNK keeps asking for people to list the benefits of us leaving the EU.
-
Go on then Selby. Tell us how big the financial markets are in the UK and the EU.
-
So you aren’t sure that London will be back where it was as a financial force.
Perhaps that is why Brexiteers aren’t listing the benefits of leaving, because we don’t know yet.
I voted to remain by the way.
Nor are you sure that Brexit will mark the beginning of a long slow decline of the City of London from a major international finance force to a minor reginal one.
Although as Brexiteers have said in earlier posts that they want the economy to grow smaller, who knows what they really want.
Precisely wilts.
No one knows yet what is going to happen, which is why it is amusing that NNK keeps asking for people to list the benefits of us leaving the EU.
And I find it saddening that people can't. We were promised so much, no time limit was set, so where is it?
-
So you aren’t sure that London will be back where it was as a financial force.
Perhaps that is why Brexiteers aren’t listing the benefits of leaving, because we don’t know yet.
I voted to remain by the way.
Nor are you sure that Brexit will mark the beginning of a long slow decline of the City of London from a major international finance force to a minor reginal one.
Although as Brexiteers have said in earlier posts that they want the economy to grow smaller, who knows what they really want.
Precisely wilts.
No one knows yet what is going to happen, which is why it is amusing that NNK keeps asking for people to list the benefits of us leaving the EU.
Don't they hound? where is all the good news, why is there only stories about fisherfolk regretting their decision to believe the bullshit, why don't we actually have good news stories about how the financial servivces industry are on the front foot breaking new ground and setting up services to take advantage of the new freedoms. There's no reason to wait to start reaping the benefits, you could help by telling us about some of them.
-
So you aren’t sure that London will be back where it was as a financial force.
Perhaps that is why Brexiteers aren’t listing the benefits of leaving, because we don’t know yet.
I voted to remain by the way.
Nor are you sure that Brexit will mark the beginning of a long slow decline of the City of London from a major international finance force to a minor reginal one.
Although as Brexiteers have said in earlier posts that they want the economy to grow smaller, who knows what they really want.
Precisely wilts.
No one knows yet what is going to happen, which is why it is amusing that NNK keeps asking for people to list the benefits of us leaving the EU.
And I find it saddening that people can't. We were promised so much, no time limit was set, so where is it?
‘No time limit was set, so where is it?’
I don’t get your point, Not.
If there had been a time limit and it had passed, then it would make sense.
-
So you aren’t sure that London will be back where it was as a financial force.
Perhaps that is why Brexiteers aren’t listing the benefits of leaving, because we don’t know yet.
I voted to remain by the way.
Nor are you sure that Brexit will mark the beginning of a long slow decline of the City of London from a major international finance force to a minor reginal one.
Although as Brexiteers have said in earlier posts that they want the economy to grow smaller, who knows what they really want.
Precisely wilts.
No one knows yet what is going to happen, which is why it is amusing that NNK keeps asking for people to list the benefits of us leaving the EU.
Don't they hound? where is all the good news, why is there only stories about fisherfolk regretting their decision to believe the bullshit, why don't we actually have good news stories about how the financial servivces industry are on the front foot breaking new ground and setting up services to take advantage of the new freedoms. There's no reason to wait to start reaping the benefits, you could help by telling us about some of them.
Don't you think that normal life is somewhat suspended at the moment thus hindering any sort of accurate forecasting regarding the benefits of leaving the EU, even if ever so slightly?
-
BB.
Odd post. You've spent years in here saying you don't believe we can forecast the future under any circumstances, and even then ignoring earlier predictions which turned out to be correct.
I've spent years pointing out the predictions of the seriously negative consequences of the Brexit vote to you which braodly turned out to be correct and your response in every single case was to argue that no-one can predict the future and the negative effects were down to Remainers sowing seeds of division instead of getting with the project.
So what have the current circumstances got to do with anything? Surely, either you are guided by predictions from people who have generally got predictions right in the past or you aren't?
-
So you aren’t sure that London will be back where it was as a financial force.
Perhaps that is why Brexiteers aren’t listing the benefits of leaving, because we don’t know yet.
I voted to remain by the way.
Nor are you sure that Brexit will mark the beginning of a long slow decline of the City of London from a major international finance force to a minor reginal one.
Although as Brexiteers have said in earlier posts that they want the economy to grow smaller, who knows what they really want.
Precisely wilts.
No one knows yet what is going to happen, which is why it is amusing that NNK keeps asking for people to list the benefits of us leaving the EU.
Don't they hound? where is all the good news, why is there only stories about fisherfolk regretting their decision to believe the bullshit, why don't we actually have good news stories about how the financial servivces industry are on the front foot breaking new ground and setting up services to take advantage of the new freedoms. There's no reason to wait to start reaping the benefits, you could help by telling us about some of them.
Don't you think that normal life is somewhat suspended at the moment thus hindering any sort of accurate forecasting regarding the benefits of leaving the EU, even if ever so slightly?
Normal life being suspended is probably why coco shoould have sought to delay brexit don't you think?
-
What, do you mean so that the likes of you could have accused him of U turning on his promise of getting Brexit done?
-
What, do you mean so that the likes of you could have accused him of U turning on his promise of getting Brexit done?
Exactly BB.
You can just imagine the posts that would have appeared had that happened.
-
:silly:
BB.
Odd post. You've spent years in here saying you don't believe we can forecast the future under any circumstances, and even then ignoring earlier predictions which turned out to be correct.
I've spent years pointing out the predictions of the seriously negative consequences of the Brexit vote to you which braodly turned out to be correct and your response in every single case was to argue that no-one can predict the future and the negative effects were down to Remainers sowing seeds of division instead of getting with the project.
So what have the current circumstances got to do with anything? Surely, either you are guided by predictions from people who have generally got predictions right in the past or you aren't?
Filo. How’s this for playing the man, not the ball.
Everybody’s at it, Jeff. Unbelievable.
-
So you aren’t sure that London will be back where it was as a financial force.
Perhaps that is why Brexiteers aren’t listing the benefits of leaving, because we don’t know yet.
I voted to remain by the way.
Nor are you sure that Brexit will mark the beginning of a long slow decline of the City of London from a major international finance force to a minor reginal one.
Although as Brexiteers have said in earlier posts that they want the economy to grow smaller, who knows what they really want.
Precisely wilts.
No one knows yet what is going to happen, which is why it is amusing that NNK keeps asking for people to list the benefits of us leaving the EU.
And I find it saddening that people can't. We were promised so much, no time limit was set, so where is it?
‘No time limit was set, so where is it?’
I don’t get your point, Not.
If there had been a time limit and it had passed, then it would make sense.
The point is that the leave campaigns and, subsequently, the government didn't say we had to wait to see any benefits, (which is now what the government and leavers say we have to do!).
There were supposed to be no downsides, only a considerable upside, (the government's David Davies).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped
Numerous new trade deals would be ready by 29 March 2019, (the government's Liam Fox)
If we vote Leave, we will be able to increase funding to science and still save billions, (Vote Leave)
There will be no change to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, (the government's Gove, Johnson & Patel)
Brexit will give the NHS extra £350 million a week, (Boris Johnson at a seminar in Bristol)
https://www.snp.org/debunked-7-broken-brexit-promises/
And many many more. So, where are they?
-
BB.
Odd post. You've spent years in here saying you don't believe we can forecast the future under any circumstances, and even then ignoring earlier predictions which turned out to be correct.
I've spent years pointing out the predictions of the seriously negative consequences of the Brexit vote to you which braodly turned out to be correct and your response in every single case was to argue that no-one can predict the future and the negative effects were down to Remainers sowing seeds of division instead of getting with the project.
So what have the current circumstances got to do with anything? Surely, either you are guided by predictions from people who have generally got predictions right in the past or you aren't?
Trouble is BST, I simply haven't said you can't try to forecast the future. I run a competition doing just that! The rules stipulate though, that you can't make your forecast after the game has finished, because it comes under the hindsight rule, and wouldn't be fair!
Now, just for once, will you answer the question instead of blathering on?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/xmo1OK6.jpg)
-
Billy, it is no surprise to the London banks that Amsterdam has shown a big rise in share trading, seeing as how they have set up small offices there to circumnavigate any problems.
What might surprise you is that most of the management certainly for one of the largest British Banks over there is managed daily from a small country village just north of Doncaster and from a house in Chorley Lancashire.
-
Have you tried unplugging your country for 20 seconds and then plugging it back again?
-
How's this for a Brexit benefit..... I got my covid vaccination yesterday.
-
How's this for a Brexit benefit..... I got my covid vaccination yesterday.
Absolutely nothing at all to do with Brexit. However, glad you got it and hope more do as soon as possible.
-
How's this for a Brexit benefit..... I got my covid vaccination yesterday.
Absolutely nothing at all to do with Brexit. However, glad you got it and hope more do as soon as possible.
Could it have anything to do with ‘increased funding to science’ that so many people have been vaccinated?
-
How's this for a Brexit benefit..... I got my covid vaccination yesterday.
Absolutely nothing at all to do with Brexit. However, glad you got it and hope more do as soon as possible.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
-
How's this for a Brexit benefit..... I got my covid vaccination yesterday.
Absolutely nothing at all to do with Brexit. However, glad you got it and hope more do as soon as possible.
Could it have anything to increased funding to science that so many people have been vaccinated?
Yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but, yeah bu.....
-
How's this for a Brexit benefit..... I got my covid vaccination yesterday.
Absolutely nothing at all to do with Brexit. However, glad you got it and hope more do as soon as possible.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Why the laughing BB? Do you not understand how procurement works? As I said, you getting your vaccination has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit - what on earth makes you think it does?
-
How's this for a Brexit benefit..... I got my covid vaccination yesterday.
Absolutely nothing at all to do with Brexit. However, glad you got it and hope more do as soon as possible.
Could it have anything to do with increased funding to science that so many people have been vaccinated?
Ah but that won’t count.
-
There are some absolutely great millionairs on the Labour benches who would be absolutely fantastic socialists spending other peoples money if they were given the chance.
It looks a long way off though, so Starmer, Thornberry and Milliband will just have to hope they are still relevant and around if they ever do get back in power.
-
How's this for a Brexit benefit..... I got my covid vaccination yesterday.
Absolutely nothing at all to do with Brexit. However, glad you got it and hope more do as soon as possible.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Why the laughing BB? Do you not understand how procurement works? As I said, you getting your vaccination has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit - what on earth makes you think it does?
Because the EU has made a complete b*llocks of the vaccine distribution by its own admission, whereas the UK has been brilliant. I firmly believe that I can be grateful for having received my vaccine very quickly, and doubt I would have been treated so efficiently had we been under EU distribution.
-
How's this for a Brexit benefit..... I got my covid vaccination yesterday.
Absolutely nothing at all to do with Brexit. However, glad you got it and hope more do as soon as possible.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Why the laughing BB? Do you not understand how procurement works? As I said, you getting your vaccination has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit - what on earth makes you think it does?
Because the EU has made a complete b*llocks of the vaccine distribution by its own admission, whereas the UK has been brilliant. I firmly believe that I can be grateful for having received my vaccine very quickly, and doubt I would have been treated so efficiently had we been under EU distribution.
As I said BB, it's clear you don't understand how procurement works. Each and every member state can buy from whatever country they want, there is no EU restriction. That the majority of member states chose a joint approach under the EU umbrella was entirely at their own discretion - a bad decision IMO as it happens, but a completely free choice, no one made them. That is why Hungary, for example, chose to purchase the Sputnik vaccine from Russia whilst still being an EU member state. Had we still been a member we would still have had that same free choice. So you getting your vaccination when you did had nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
It's a sad fact that many people choose not to take the time to look at how the EU operates and would rather believe the myths lies perpetrated by the right wing media to paint the EU as something evil. Here's a list of all those myths lies that have been drip fed to people in the UK over twenty odd years complete with the source of those myths lies....
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/see-20-years-of-fake-news-about-eu-by-uk-press-vote-for-your-favourite-here/
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56009251
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/02/10/966382766/european-commission-president-says-late-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-slowed-roll?t=1613143251161
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-we-underestimated-vaccine-rollout-admits-eushttps://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-we-underestimated-vaccine-rollout-admits-eus-ursula-von-der-leyen-12214133-ursula-von-der-leyen-12214133
-
We purchased the vaccines whilst still under EU rules. So try as hard as you may, a good decision from the UK government but hardly a benefit of Brexit.
-
Benefits don’t count when they’re too early, benefits don’t count when they’re too late.
I can’t shake off this nagging feeling that some posters aren’t treating this pro Brexit thread with the same good faith it was created in.
Just a feeling, mind.
-
Of course, our decision to go our own way on the vaccination process was within the EU rules, and the decision to do so was the right one, despite it being one that was condemned by some (especially Remoaners) at the time. If we had decided to follow the EU's vaccine programme, we would never have experienced how great we have been in the organisation of our own vaccine programme. In fact, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Remoaners would have laughed at such a suggestion had they not witnessed it with their own eyes.
What can't be denied is the fact that it proves that the EU isn't as wonderful an organisation as the Remoaners would have you believe.
Who knows, we might still have the last laugh on other things in future. The only hope is, and it's a doubtful one judging by this thread, that if we do find any success, the Remoaners might have grown up a bit more so as to acknowledge it.
-
Anyone taking an exam in brain washing would give their right arm to get some of the remainers on here as a subject, Kato, Glyn, and Syd would be dreams, Billy would take too long for an hours exam he is too far gone.
-
First rules of procurement is find the fella who will discuss the sentence " whats in it for us."
-
''Horizon 2020 is the EU’s flagship research and innovation programme 2014–20. It offered nearly €80 billion of funding to promote "excellent science, industrial leadership and tackling of societal challenges". Horizon funding was allocated in a number of ways, including by the European Research Council and under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions programme.
The UK has been the second largest contributor to Horizon 2020 – at €6.9 billion – and has also been a major beneficiary, receiving 14% of the total funds allocated.[1] In 2015/16, EU research grants and contracts accounted for 11% of the 24 Russell Group universities total funding.
The UK also uses funding from the EU Structural and Investment Funds to support research and innovation projects.
What impact has Brexit already had?
The number of UK researchers applying for Horizon 2020 funding since the EU referendum has fallen. Analysis by the Royal Society shows that between 2015 and 2018 funding applications fell almost 40%.[2]''
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/scientific-research
-
First rules of procurement is find the fella who will discuss the sentence " whats in it for us."
First rule of politics - who they talking about when they say 'us'?
-
Anyone taking an exam in brain washing would give their right arm to get some of the remainers on here as a subject, Kato, Glyn, and Syd would be dreams, Billy would take too long for an hours exam he is too far gone.
for a sad old git you spend plenty of time attacking people instead of putting up an argument selby
-
Anyone taking an exam in brain washing would give their right arm to get some of the remainers on here as a subject, Kato, Glyn, and Syd would be dreams, Billy would take too long for an hours exam he is too far gone.
Aye, HMRC did a fantastic job of brainwashing me with Customs knowledge.
-
Benefits don’t count when they’re too early, benefits don’t count when they’re too late.
I can’t shake off this nagging feeling that some posters aren’t treating this pro Brexit thread with the same good faith it was created in.
Just a feeling, mind.
All benefits count as and when they arrive Belton, and I genuinely hope there will be many, otherwise this whole exercise will have been bloody stupid!
Problem is, people aren't posting any. LDR has posted reasons which, for him, are seen as benefits; but no one yet has posted any tangible benefits for the country as a whole, only losses.
Leave UK, Farage and the Government promised so much, now it's time for them to deliver, don't you think?
-
Don't you think that normal life is somewhat suspended at the moment thus restricting any potential benefits of leaving the EU?
-
stuck in a ground hog day nightmare bb
-
Don't you think that normal life is somewhat suspended at the moment thus restricting any potential benefits of leaving the EU?
Possibly BB, though it doesn't seem to be delaying the downsides we keep seeing on a regular basis. It also hasn't stopped us signing trade deals with other countries which are the equivalent of those we had whilst being a member of the EU, (even though we were promised they'd be better!). So, whilst I say possibly, I do think it most unlikely.
-
I see, so because there have been no benefits, and it's unlikely there will be any in the future it's not really intended as a benefits log thread then, is it?
-
I see, so because there have been no benefits, and it's unlikely there will be any in the future it's not really intended as a benefits log thread then, is it?
Bentley. How dare you suggest that?
Disgraceful behaviour.
-
I see, so because there have been no benefits, and it's unlikely there will be any in the future it's not really intended as a benefits log thread then, is it?
I did not say that BB, please don't put words into my mouth. For the record, I genuinely hope that there will be benefits to offset the downsides we are already seeing; and I look forward to seeing them posted here. I am please though that you recognise there have been no benefits thus far.
-
When the question of Brexit first arose the majority of people that I knew who were going to vote to leave said that they wanted us to have control of our borders.
I suppose they meant stopping refugees and illegal immigrants coming in.
Has that really happened I wonder.
-
The biggest and most important benefit of Brexit thus far has been that it has finally happened and a democratic vote has been carried out after years of objections and obstacles from the EU itself and Remoaners who wanted to overrule the referendum result.
Threads like this that are intended to antagonise show that the bad feeling hasn't gone away, and to be made at a time when a pandemic has no doubt made it harder for the UK to adjust to Brexit makes it plainly obvious that under no circumstances will it ever go away.
-
When the question of Brexit first arose the majority of people that I knew who were going to vote to leave said that they wanted us to have control of our borders.
I suppose they meant stopping refugees and illegal immigrants coming in.
Has that really happened I wonder.
Can someone can explain how leaving the EU affects what an illegal immigrant would attempt to do in any way that staying in the EU prevented us from stopping them? How would having/removing borders make any difference to someone who ignores them anyway?
-
I don't think the problem with being in the EU was so much the number of illegal immigrants as much as some of the legal ones.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-office-announces-tougher-criminality-rules-for-eu-citizens
-
A small step in the right direction as long as it's not just a throwaway soundbite. What we need is action not promises that never materialise.
-
When the question of Brexit first arose the majority of people that I knew who were going to vote to leave said that they wanted us to have control of our borders.
I suppose they meant stopping refugees and illegal immigrants coming in.
Has that really happened I wonder.
Can someone can explain how leaving the EU affects what an illegal immigrant would attempt to do in any way that staying in the EU prevented us from stopping them? How would having/removing borders make any difference to someone who ignores them anyway?
I have no idea GW.
Perhaps you should be asking some of the people I know, after all they were the ones saying it, not me.
-
A small step in the right direction as long as it's not just a throwaway soundbite. What we need is action not promises that never materialise.
I agree, Idler. At least we are allowed to take the action needed now, whereas under the EU regulations we weren't. Hopefully, the government can now carry out the action without objections from elsewhere.
-
Isn’t that a benefit BB.
-
Isn’t that a benefit BB.
Of course it is Hound, but it seems benefits are much maligned on this thread, despite its title!
-
Aren't we losing access to the EU criminal records of EU citizens, so we won't know if an EU citizen is a criminal or not?
-
The biggest and most important benefit of Brexit thus far has been that it has finally happened and a democratic vote has been carried out after years of objections and obstacles from the EU itself and Remoaners who wanted to overrule the referendum result.
Threads like this that are intended to antagonise show that the bad feeling hasn't gone away, and to be made at a time when a pandemic has no doubt made it harder for the UK to adjust to Brexit makes it plainly obvious that under no circumstances will it ever go away.
The pandemic hasn't stopped Amsterdam becoming the leading share trading centre in Europe. Nor has it stopped a 450% rise in ferry traffic from the RoI to mainland Europe. Or Ineos setting up a new car plant in France.
Which particular benefit were you thinking of that it has stopped the UK from achieving?
-
When the question of Brexit first arose the majority of people that I knew who were going to vote to leave said that they wanted us to have control of our borders.
I suppose they meant stopping refugees and illegal immigrants coming in.
Has that really happened I wonder.
Illegal immigrants are by their very definition illegal and therefore nothing to do with the EU or EU laws.
The rules governing refugees are set down in the 1951 Refugee Convention (commonly known as the Geneva Convention) that the UK assisted in drafting and is an independent signatory too. Adherence to this is overseen by the United Nations - of which the UK is a permanent member on the Security Council.
If the UK wishes to change its laws to make things that are already illegal even more illegal, or to break the Geneva Convention and be ostrasised by the UN, they are at liberty to do so, regardless of whether or not we are in the EU. So sorry to break it to your friends if that doesn't happen, but it wont be a benefit of Brexit.
-
.....And there we go! Wasn't it obvious why Wilts was the hot favourite to completely confirm what I said!
-
When the question of Brexit first arose the majority of people that I knew who were going to vote to leave said that they wanted us to have control of our borders.
I suppose they meant stopping refugees and illegal immigrants coming in.
Has that really happened I wonder.
Illegal immigrants are by their very definition illegal and therefore nothing to do with the EU or EU laws.
The rules governing refugees are set down in the 1951 Refugee Convention (commonly known as the Geneva Convention) that the UK assisted in drafting and is an independent signatory too. Adherence to this is overseen by the United Nations - of which the UK is a permanent member on the Security Council.
If the UK wishes to change its laws to make things that are already illegal even more illegal, or to break the Geneva Convention and be ostrasised by the UN, they are at liberty to do so, regardless of whether or not we are in the EU. So sorry to break it to your friends if that doesn't happen, but it wont be a benefit of Brexit.
Wilts.
As I pointed out to GW, it was exactly what some people were saying to me (about immigrants) so I was putting it out there for forum consumption.
I am not interested in saying anything to the people who were saying it.
They had their reason to vote for Brexit I suppose.
-
Hound.
Did you tell them that the EU wasn't responsible for illegal immigration?
-
BST, didn’t you read that I said I wasn’t interested in telling them.
:facepalm:
-
Apologies. I wasn't clear. I meant, didn't you tell them at the time. You were referring to a post by Wilts talking about the present.
-
When the question of Brexit first arose the majority of people that I knew who were going to vote to leave said that they wanted us to have control of our borders.
I suppose they meant stopping refugees and illegal immigrants coming in.
Has that really happened I wonder.
Can someone can explain how leaving the EU affects what an illegal immigrant would attempt to do in any way that staying in the EU prevented us from stopping them? How would having/removing borders make any difference to someone who ignores them anyway?
I have no idea GW.
Perhaps you should be asking some of the people I know, after all they were the ones saying it, not me.
Hound you are asking if anything has been done about what you aren't even sure was the question then refer GW back to the people that he doesn't know, good effort. :)
-
When the question of Brexit first arose the majority of people that I knew who were going to vote to leave said that they wanted us to have control of our borders.
I suppose they meant stopping refugees and illegal immigrants coming in.
Has that really happened I wonder.
Can someone can explain how leaving the EU affects what an illegal immigrant would attempt to do in any way that staying in the EU prevented us from stopping them? How would having/removing borders make any difference to someone who ignores them anyway?
I have no idea GW.
Perhaps you should be asking some of the people I know, after all they were the ones saying it, not me.
Hound you are asking if anything has been done about what you aren't even sure was the question then refer GW back to the people that he doesn't know, good effort. :)
#confuseadigger
-
confueseverybody
-
Doesn’t take much.
-
I've found a real Brexit benefit. There will now be less Irish lorries on our roads over here, and greater capacity on ferries out of Dover....
(https://i.imgur.com/UcA3r1h.jpg)
Raab seem confused as to what it means though. But then, he didn't know that our main trading route with the EU was via Dover!
-
I wouldn't trust anyone who came up with that map!
-
I wouldn't trust anyone who came up with that map!
Drat, just when I thought I'd found a real benefit someone has to come along and spoil it!
-
I've found a real Brexit benefit. There will now be less Irish lorries on our roads over here, and greater capacity on ferries out of Dover....
(https://i.imgur.com/UcA3r1h.jpg)
Raab seem confused as to what it means though. But then, he didn't know that our main trading route with the EU was via Dover!
He didn’t say that he didn’t know our main trading route with the EU was via Dover.
He did say that he didn’t realise just how much went through Dover.
Difference.
-
Hound. Stop letting the truth get in the way of a genuine Brexit benefit Log.
-
Maybe I shouldn’t have said anything so they could all chortle about what Raab didn’t say.
-
Maybe it's time to just ignore the thread and let those who want to continue the bullshit just bullshit each other.
-
This thread if basically one man who's wife has left him for another man wanting everyone to tell him how wonderful he is and how she is a bitch for leaving
-
Maybe it's time to just ignore the thread and let those who want to continue the bullshit just bullshit each other.
I'm guessing you support what Liz Truss is doing then?
https://mobile.twitter.com/MarcelloRuffini/status/1361595544934768641
Just ignore the problems and they'll go away!
-
This thread if basically one man who's wife has left him for another man wanting everyone to tell him how wonderful he is and how she is a bitch for leaving
If only. We celebrate our Golden Wedding Anniversary this year as it happens.
Meanwhile, keep believing the lies - maybe one day they'll come true! Oh, got any 'real' benefits?
-
I wouldn't trust anyone who came up with that map!
Drat, just when I thought I'd found a real benefit someone has to come along and spoil it!
It depends whether you think Wales leaving the UK is a benefit!
-
The drugs and dead bodies are bypassing us.
-
The do you want your drive doing misters will be opening European branches.
-
This thread if basically one man who's wife has left him for another man wanting everyone to tell him how wonderful he is and how she is a bitch for leaving
If only. We celebrate our Golden Wedding Anniversary this year as it happens.
Meanwhile, keep believing the lies - maybe one day they'll come true! Oh, got any 'real' benefits?
Wasn't intended personally NNK, congrats btw
-
This thread if basically one man who's wife has left him for another man wanting everyone to tell him how wonderful he is and how she is a bitch for leaving
If only. We celebrate our Golden Wedding Anniversary this year as it happens.
Meanwhile, keep believing the lies - maybe one day they'll come true! Oh, got any 'real' benefits?
Wasn't intended personally NNK, congrats btw
I'd guessed it wasn't, hence the 'If only'. And thanks. :thumbsup: We'd planned to celebrate by going back to Italy where we spent our Silver Wedding Anniversary but sadly Coronavirus has put paid to that. Maybe next year.
-
I've found a real Brexit benefit. There will now be less Irish lorries on our roads over here, and greater capacity on ferries out of Dover....
Raab seem confused as to what it means though. But then, he didn't know that our main trading route with the EU was via Dover!
He didn’t say that he didn’t know our main trading route with the EU was via Dover.
He did say that he didn’t realise just how much went through Dover.
Difference.
Did he? You sure about that:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-dominic-raab-trade-eu-france-calais-dover-economy-finance-deal-a8624036.html
-
It will be a lot cheaper then Kato
-
I've found a real Brexit benefit. There will now be less Irish lorries on our roads over here, and greater capacity on ferries out of Dover....
Raab seem confused as to what it means though. But then, he didn't know that our main trading route with the EU was via Dover!
He didn’t say that he didn’t know our main trading route with the EU was via Dover.
He did say that he didn’t realise just how much went through Dover.
Difference.
Did he? You sure about that:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-dominic-raab-trade-eu-france-calais-dover-economy-finance-deal-a8624036.html
Nothing conclusive there wilts that says my statement is wrong.
-
It will be a lot cheaper then Kato
:thumbsup: Well, until next year anyway.
-
It might be back to a barrow full of Lira to the pound if you leave it a couple of years Kato.
-
It might be back to a barrow full of Lira to the pound if you leave it a couple of years Kato.
It doesn't seem that long ago that I went to Rome as a millionaire - just over 1 million Lira in travellers checks plus change and a few notes in my pocket! I've also sat on top of seven million pounds sterling, but that's another story. ;)
-
Maybe it's time to just ignore the thread and let those who want to continue the bullshit just bullshit each other.
more pm's to your gang Simon?
-
Here is a genuine benefit.
There is finally some truth emerging on the question of whether business was ever seriously hindered by EU regulations.
This from the FT.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DuncanWeldon/status/1362324940184240129
Government "badgering" business to come up with some regulations that they want ditching.
If we start to get some clarity and honesty about our relationship with the EU, that'll be a big plus.
-
Also, it's good to see that Duncan Smith is working hard trying to write up a list of EU regulations we can ditch.
Only, given that he's been so passionate for so long in his argument that EU regulations hold us back, you'd think he'd have had this list sorted out well in advance, no?
Still, if he's busy at it now, maybe he'll not have time for spouting his lockdown-sceptic batshittery that contributed to 25,000 deaths over the past 2 months, so that's another plus.
-
Also, it's good to see that Duncan Smith is working hard trying to write up a list of EU regulations we can ditch.
Only, given that he's been so passionate for so long in his argument that EU regulations hold us back, you'd think he'd have had this list sorted out well in advance, no?
Still, if he's busy at it now, maybe he'll not have time for spouting his lockdown-sceptic batshittery that contributed to 25,000 deaths over the past 2 months, so that's another plus.
But that’s ‘another plus’ for the wrong topic. You’re getting your sarcasm all mixed up.
Here’s a possible benefit. Clearly long term, so I await its instant dismissal:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/31/why-brexit-is-chance-to-fix-uk-economy-long-term-problems
-
Also, it's good to see that Duncan Smith is working hard trying to write up a list of EU regulations we can ditch.
Only, given that he's been so passionate for so long in his argument that EU regulations hold us back, you'd think he'd have had this list sorted out well in advance, no?
Still, if he's busy at it now, maybe he'll not have time for spouting his lockdown-sceptic batshittery that contributed to 25,000 deaths over the past 2 months, so that's another plus.
But that’s ‘another plus’ for the wrong topic. You’re getting your sarcasm all mixed up.
Here’s a possible benefit. Clearly long term, so I await its instant dismissal:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/31/why-brexit-is-chance-to-fix-uk-economy-long-term-problems
It will certainly be a benefit if/when it's delivered. How likely that will be under this government is uncertain as their previous record in investment is somewhat minimalistic, especially in the North.
-
Also, it's good to see that Duncan Smith is working hard trying to write up a list of EU regulations we can ditch.
Only, given that he's been so passionate for so long in his argument that EU regulations hold us back, you'd think he'd have had this list sorted out well in advance, no?
Still, if he's busy at it now, maybe he'll not have time for spouting his lockdown-sceptic batshittery that contributed to 25,000 deaths over the past 2 months, so that's another plus.
But that’s ‘another plus’ for the wrong topic. You’re getting your sarcasm all mixed up.
Here’s a possible benefit. Clearly long term, so I await its instant dismissal:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/31/why-brexit-is-chance-to-fix-uk-economy-long-term-problems
Why is that a benefit? I thought you wanted a lower growth rate?
-
Also, it's good to see that Duncan Smith is working hard trying to write up a list of EU regulations we can ditch.
Only, given that he's been so passionate for so long in his argument that EU regulations hold us back, you'd think he'd have had this list sorted out well in advance, no?
Still, if he's busy at it now, maybe he'll not have time for spouting his lockdown-sceptic batshittery that contributed to 25,000 deaths over the past 2 months, so that's another plus.
But that’s ‘another plus’ for the wrong topic. You’re getting your sarcasm all mixed up.
Here’s a possible benefit. Clearly long term, so I await its instant dismissal:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/31/why-brexit-is-chance-to-fix-uk-economy-long-term-problems
Why is that a benefit? I thought you wanted a lower growth rate?
Wilts. I have never, ever said I wanted a lower growth rate. I think you may be alluding to our discussion about what big and small mean. It seems you are obsessed with size.
Does Mrs Wilts know which way round to hold a ruler?
(That’s a joke, by the way, before I’m accused of personal attacks)
-
Also, it's good to see that Duncan Smith is working hard trying to write up a list of EU regulations we can ditch.
Only, given that he's been so passionate for so long in his argument that EU regulations hold us back, you'd think he'd have had this list sorted out well in advance, no?
Still, if he's busy at it now, maybe he'll not have time for spouting his lockdown-sceptic batshittery that contributed to 25,000 deaths over the past 2 months, so that's another plus.
But that’s ‘another plus’ for the wrong topic. You’re getting your sarcasm all mixed up.
Here’s a possible benefit. Clearly long term, so I await its instant dismissal:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/31/why-brexit-is-chance-to-fix-uk-economy-long-term-problems
Not exactly sure what there is to chew on there.
Elliott is one of the old Bennite lefties who have a sheaf full of complaints about the EU, but no practical policies that people would actually vote for. That article is a perfect example. All he does is list his grievances with the EU, many of which are nothing to do with the EU, but actually stem from the totally separate Thatcher revolution. He suggests we will be better off out, but he doesn't, at all, explain how or why.
So I'm struggling to see how that adds anything to a debate on the benefits of Brexit to be honest.
-
PS. The line immediately under the headline is very misleading.
"Growth rate since joining EEC in 1973 has been slower than in decades before entry."
That is written in such a way as to imply that our growth has fallen BECAUSE of us being in the EU. But our growth rate between 1973 and 2008 was actually higher than our growth rate in the decade before we joined the EEC. The reason that our growth rate average from 1973-today has slipped to a lower level is because of Austerity and COVID. Neither of those has anything to do with the EU.
Very naughty by Elliott there. And not for the first time on this subject.
-
Seems like there’s plenty for you to chew on. And spit out.
-
Too many variables BST to make either that article or your points fully correct. Eg the oil boom is now fading, should that be corrected for also?
-
BFYP.
I'm simply stating a fact. Our growth rate inside the EU, prior to the lost decade of Austerity and the COVID was better than our growth rate before that. I'm not talking about reasons. I'm just pointing out that Elliott is either being very careless or is deliberately trying to mislead his readers.
-
Belton.
Thanks for that response. I was merely making the point that the article really doesn't say anything about HOW Brexit will deliver benefits, beyond brief, vague and unsubstantiated comments about investment and regulations in one sector.
Maybe you could point out if I missed something?
-
Also, it's good to see that Duncan Smith is working hard trying to write up a list of EU regulations we can ditch.
Only, given that he's been so passionate for so long in his argument that EU regulations hold us back, you'd think he'd have had this list sorted out well in advance, no?
Still, if he's busy at it now, maybe he'll not have time for spouting his lockdown-sceptic batshittery that contributed to 25,000 deaths over the past 2 months, so that's another plus.
But that’s ‘another plus’ for the wrong topic. You’re getting your sarcasm all mixed up.
Here’s a possible benefit. Clearly long term, so I await its instant dismissal:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/31/why-brexit-is-chance-to-fix-uk-economy-long-term-problems
Why is that a benefit? I thought you wanted a lower growth rate?
Wilts. I have never, ever said I wanted a lower growth rate. I think you may be alluding to our discussion about what big and small mean. It seems you are obsessed with size.
Does Mrs Wilts know which way round to hold a ruler?
(That’s a joke, by the way, before I’m accused of personal attacks)
Then please enlighten me and (the future - don't go giving her any ideas) Mrs Wilts Rover on how an encomy can both grow - and be smaller? She can have a smaller ruler - or a larger ruler - is this schroedinger's ruler?
-
Wilts. I’ve no idea. Why are you asking me?
-
Belton.
Thanks for that response. I was merely making the point that the article really doesn't say anything about HOW Brexit will deliver benefits, beyond brief, vague and unsubstantiated comments about investment and regulations in one sector.
Maybe you could point out if I missed something?
You just carry on chewing and spitting, Billy. Or swallow, of course, if the money shot link suits your agenda.
-
Good to see you refraining from playing the man Belton.
-
Billy, I’m simply pointing out, metaphorically, that you appear to dismiss links that don’t support your views, but not those that do.
And it’s hard to play the ball all the time when you keep taking it home.
-
Not at all Belton. Read what I wrote. There's nothing of substance in that report to dismiss. It is a lifelong anti-EU journalist opining that things will go well and blowing smoke in all directions batvthe same time. He may be right of course but it's scarcely a tangible benefit.
-
Billy. You’ve dismissed the link as a Brexit benefit as it is ‘not adding anything to the debate on the benefits of Brexit’.
Sounds like a pretty clear dismissal to me.
-
Well if I'm wrong and there is a benefit loud and clear in there, show me what I've missed.
-
To begin with, I said ‘possible benefit’, meaning it could happen, not it has happened.
If YOU had read MY post correctly, all this silliness could have been avoided.
-
But it's not even clear what the "possible" benefit is.
He says "Brexit supporters of left and right say that leaving the EU creates policy space to try different things." Then he gives a couple of vague, hand-waving suggestions (in two short paragraphs out of 20) about what the "different things" might be without giving any analysis of the pros and cons. Or specifically how that might be implemented. He had plenty of space to expand on that but he preferred to spend the vast majority of the article telling us about all the problems of the UK economy without explaining that many of them have bugger all to do with the EU.
That's all grand. He might be right. But as a "possible benefit" it's rather lacking in any detail. That's my only point.
-
Okay. Point taken.
-
There is a conscious movement away from buying EU produce by Uk shoppers.
-
There is a conscious movement away from buying EU produce by Uk shoppers.
Are you trying to bullshit us that people are not buying because they've looked where things are from and not because of the price and availability?
-
Poor old Glyn, so angry with life.
-
There is a conscious movement away from buying EU produce by Uk shoppers.
Are you trying to bullshit us that people are not buying because they've looked where things are from and not because of the price and availability?
Im with you
NEVER in my life have I thought thats British I will buy it - even in the campaigns to try to guilt trip me to do so
If I want anything as of now I decide what it is and get it. I might not even look where it is made but I will look at the price for sure. If its 10.99 on Ebay and 9.99 on Amazon I will get the Amazon item unless I can get the Ebay item tomorrow while the Amazon one wont cone for a fortnight
I havent set much store out on buying British in the past and wont buy on nationality now
My criteria would be :
Do I need it (whetever it is)
How much is it
Is it in stock
When can I get it
Can I get it delivered
Is it from the UK (NAH - dont give it a thought)
-
Glyn's right though, I'm not going to refuse a banana because it's from whatever country (I might because I can't stand bananas mind).
We all like to support local etc I doubt brexit changed that. It's actually based on a survey aswell not actual real sales.
I guess though it's like tea, I'll only drink the tea grown in Yorkshire ( I once knew someone who thought that was real).
-
There is a conscious movement away from buying EU produce by Uk shoppers.
Difficult to do that when buying Pork on-line from Tesco as the no longer appear to put country of origin on their labels or web pages. I assume it's the same with other products, though I haven't looked.
But then, wasn't that one of the things the Tories set out to achieve on the back of Brexit, no country of origin labelling? - Another Brexit Benefit for the consumer!
-
There is a conscious movement away from buying EU produce by Uk shoppers.
Given that our exports to the EU have supposedly dropped by 60% then there should be plenty to go around.
-
There is a conscious movement away from buying EU produce by Uk shoppers.
Difficult to do that when buying Pork on-line from Tesco as the no longer appear to put country of origin on their labels or web pages. I assume it's the same with other products, though I haven't looked.
But then, wasn't that one of the things the Tories set out to achieve on the back of Brexit, no country of origin labelling? - Another Brexit Benefit for the consumer!
I'm not sure that regulation has changed, they still have to according to the guidance online?
-
There is a conscious movement away from buying EU produce by Uk shoppers.
Difficult to do that when buying Pork on-line from Tesco as the no longer appear to put country of origin on their labels or web pages. I assume it's the same with other products, though I haven't looked.
But then, wasn't that one of the things the Tories set out to achieve on the back of Brexit, no country of origin labelling? - Another Brexit Benefit for the consumer!
Here you go, Not.
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/search?query=british%20pork
-
Suspect it's an online thing. I have a pork joint for Sunday and it's clearly got the country of origin (Denmark) written on the front.
-
Poor old Glyn, so angry with life.
You really can't help being wrong all the time, can you? I'm beginning to think you're a masochist who enjoys looking like a berk.
-
Looks like you might be struggling for British flowers this year - is this a benefit?
https://www.ft.com/content/e87bf45c-e1a6-4d8e-98f5-f0411820f48e
-
Looks like you might be struggling for British flowers this year - is this a benefit?
https://www.ft.com/content/e87bf45c-e1a6-4d8e-98f5-f0411820f48e
I think most people would have expected that wilts but isn’t it strange that Boston was Britain’s most pro Brexit town despite the fact that growers in that area relied heavily on European labour.
-
They felt they were over run with eu citizens which contributed to the Schools Doctors and the one Hospital for miles feeling the pressure of the "immigrants". Ditto Wisbech which is close by
However that Veg is not generally pick itself. Sure there is mechanisation for some crops but there are others that DO rely on actual people and some like Cabbages are semi mechanised
I feel (and am repeating this so sorry) that the locals will eventually take up those positions. They may not think they will but eventually Iain Duncan Smith and others will listen to the Farmers / Growers and stop peoples benefits especially if they wont volunteer for the low paid menial jobs themselves
On unemployment - there are jobs here for you - what do you mean you dont want to trim Cabbages to fit placcy bags - sorry we will have to stop your benefit. Who cant see that scenario coming ?
-
Question wolf is whether that is correct. When there are jobs there shouldn't people do them?
-
That was my point really
The local population voted the EU Workers out via a Leave vote - and then when there are no workers to do those jobs some of those people who voted to remove the "labour face" will probably be selected to take those jobs especially if unemployed at the time they are offered the job
The people needing to be recruited will not surely be in the "highly needed" groups in our Points based immigration system I dont suppose either and so those locals and not so locals may have voted themselves into jobs
-
I suppose, if that comes in Wolfie, growers will have to offer minimum wage... Where as they didn't always do that with the migrant workforce.
-
They felt they were over run with eu citizens which contributed to the Schools Doctors and the one Hospital for miles feeling the pressure of the "immigrants". Ditto Wisbech which is close by
However that Veg is not generally pick itself. Sure there is mechanisation for some crops but there are others that DO rely on actual people and some like Cabbages are semi mechanised
I feel (and am repeating this so sorry) that the locals will eventually take up those positions. They may not think they will but eventually Iain Duncan Smith and others will listen to the Farmers / Growers and stop peoples benefits especially if they wont volunteer for the low paid menial jobs themselves
On unemployment - there are jobs here for you - what do you mean you dont want to trim Cabbages to fit placcy bags - sorry we will have to stop your benefit. Who cant see that scenario coming ?
Hmm.
If the locals don't step up then, over the next ten years they should expect an influx of Chinese, Indian and Nigerian immigrants.
Part of the 'deal' that global Britain will cut with its 'new' trading partners.
-
Maybe right but if we have taken back Control of our Borders as we are told then the Points based system will be severely tested
I dont know much about it tbh but incoming people into Australia have to be "trades" or "skills" that they need so Teachers get in Nurses get in etc etc but I presume from my limited exposure to it Veg pickers and Road Sweepers dont get in
This seems to be what we are aiming for and I believe (guessing) there is a minimum Wage that you have to attain in your own Country (say India) before the UK will let you in in addition to the Points. I believe there were warnings fired earlier because most Nurses in the places you mention above would be nowhere near earning the £25k (another estimate) they would need to get in
As you say rightly though the Trade deals we signed with the Pacific Trading Partners MIGHT cut through all that and let them all in as "cheap labour" but then what will leaving the EU have achieved ? To me it would only have seemed to have changed EU labour for non EU labour and those latter people would then be filling Schools and Doctors Surgeries and Hospital beds
So what would those who voted Leave to remove foreign workers from the UK think about that I wonder.
-
You could be right there Wolfie. It's almost as though (some) people were tricked into believing there would be a certain outcome if they voted one way in a referendum by (a small group of extremly wealthy & politically connected) people whose actual goal in that referendum was totally different, hmmm...
Agricultural workers are prioritised in the points based system btw. The thing is if people don't want to come - stuff will still rot in the fields - it doesn't care.
Which is as it may be but deflects from the actual facts of Brexit and is what we are seeing now a benefit?
Still all helping to make the economy smaller eh, which is what they say they wanted.
-
Still all helping to make the economy smaller eh, which is what they say they wanted.
No, it's what certain WUMs are saying now that they can see it's what we're getting.
-
https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-business-benefits-from-brexit/
Again, I await the derision from the experts.
-
I assume you have read the content of that article Belton? In which case, perhaps you could summarise what the authors claim are the benefits, and more specifically, why we should want to have them?
-
Why would I summarise for you Billy? Can’t you be arsed to read it?
-
No Belton, I've read every word. I'm just genuinely struggling to understand why you put that forward as an example of benefits and I thought perhaps you could explain.
-
https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-business-benefits-from-brexit/
Again, I await the derision from the experts.
Why would anyone wish to deride it is pretty much what I have been saying since the referendum campaign?
Breixt was a project initated by millionaires on behalf of billionaires to turn the UK into a de-regulated, tax haven for oligarchs, hedge funds and money launderers - whilst cutting workers rights and environmental protection at the same time.
Of course it will benefit them - but if you are saying it will benefit the UK in general, well...
Masses more on it here btw on the individuals, organisations and how they are connected, buts its a bit heavy going:
https://bakerstreetherald.com/
-
I’ve ‘put forward’ the views of two retired university lecturers as their examples of the benefits of Brexit.
Your beef should be with them.
-
Belton.
I know you have. But I'm not convinced you have understood their point.
The "benefits" they point out are the possibility of a big drop in corporation tax and further deregulation of the finance markets.
The authors are crystal clear that these are benefits for CAPITAL, not for the population of the UK. So I'm genuinely struggling to understand why you would push this as a benefit, unless you believe, (as I do as it happens) that one of the purposes of Brexit was to use the votes of ordinary people to enrich the already very wealthy. If that's your point, then fair enough, I accept that these are benefits.
-
I’m not pushing anything.
Except, perhaps, that everyone is entitled to a view, however different it might be to mine or yours.
-
I’m not pushing anything.
Except, perhaps, that everyone is entitled to a view, however different it might be to mine or yours.
Give it up mate, nothing will be accepted by the junta on here
-
Grand. Then we HAVE established that an "outcome" of Brexit is that high finance can now pressurise Govt to have taxes on its profits and regulations on its activities reduced.
As Wilts says, some of us Brexit critics have been making that case for years, so it's good to see a Brexit supporter now making it. I'm still struggling to see it as a net "benefit" to the UK as a whole, mind, nevermind to the folk of Donny who were so steadfastly sure of what their "Leave" vote meant.
-
Billy. I am making no case of any such thing. This is all really immature of you.
-
I’m not pushing anything.
Except, perhaps, that everyone is entitled to a view, however different it might be to mine or yours.
Give it up mate, nothing will be accepted by the junta on here
The truth, and genuine benefits to the UK as a whole will always be accepted LDR.
-
Belton.
So you post on a Brexit Benefits thread, an argument that the benefits to capital will be lower taxes and regulations. But you are not making a case that that is a benefit? You're just saying that everyone is entitled to a view?
See, if you'd just said that at the start...
-
Billy. I posted a link to the views of two scholars on the benefits of Brexit, on a benefits of Brexit log thread.
My apologies if that was misleading.
-
Billy. I posted a link to the views of two scholars on the benefits of Brexit, on a benefits of Brexit log thread.
My apologies if that was misleading.
Have you not noticed that the goalposts have changed now from benefit to benefits the whole of the UK
-
Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution.
A Einstein.
-
Ldr.
I have no problem whatsoever in accepting that Brexit will massively benefit the capital markets. Never have.
Ass I said a few posts up, it's grand if Brexit supporters are now seeing that this is one of the outcomes, because I don't recall them trumpeting that as a Brexit outcome previously.
I'm just asking how that translates into benefitting the rest of us.
-
I’ve ‘put forward’ the views of two retired university lecturers as their examples of the benefits of Brexit.
Your beef should be with them.
Sorry, I have said I agree with them? If anything they don't go far enough in explaining exactly who will benefit - and who will lose out - and why.
The question is do you agree with them - you posted it?
-
Billy. I posted a link to the views of two scholars on the benefits of Brexit, on a benefits of Brexit log thread.
My apologies if that was misleading.
Have you not noticed that the goalposts have changed now from benefit to benefits the whole of the UK
Ah, so you agree that Brexit will only benefit the rich then? And that that's what people who voted leave voted for?
-
Billy. I posted a link to the views of two scholars on the benefits of Brexit, on a benefits of Brexit log thread.
My apologies if that was misleading.
Have you not noticed that the goalposts have changed now from benefit to benefits the whole of the UK
Ah, so you agree that Brexit will only benefit the rich then? And that that's what people who voted leave voted for?
Yeah coz all the people who voted leave are rich people aren’t they.
And where did ldr say that Brexit will only benefit the rich.
-
Billy. I posted a link to the views of two scholars on the benefits of Brexit, on a benefits of Brexit log thread.
My apologies if that was misleading.
Have you not noticed that the goalposts have changed now from benefit to benefits the whole of the UK
Ah, so you agree that Brexit will only benefit the rich then? And that that's what people who voted leave voted for?
Yeah coz all the people who voted leave are rich people aren’t they.
And where did ldr say that Brexit will only benefit the rich.
Well I didn't say that did I? Clearly an agenda coming in to play now if change the goalposts Once a benefit has been mentioned and lie about what ppl have said to back up the agenda. To use what BST hides behind all the time, too many on here posting in bad faith
-
Billy. I posted a link to the views of two scholars on the benefits of Brexit, on a benefits of Brexit log thread.
My apologies if that was misleading.
Have you not noticed that the goalposts have changed now from benefit to benefits the whole of the UK
Ah, so you agree that Brexit will only benefit the rich then? And that that's what people who voted leave voted for?
Yeah coz all the people who voted leave are rich people aren’t they.
And where did ldr say that Brexit will only benefit the rich.
Well I didn't say that did I? Clearly an agenda coming in to play now if change the goalposts Once a benefit has been mentioned and lie about what ppl have said to back up the agenda. To use what BST hides behind all the time, too many on here posting in bad faith
The thing is ldr, if you don’t challenge stuff it becomes a truth on here.
-
Billy. I posted a link to the views of two scholars on the benefits of Brexit, on a benefits of Brexit log thread.
My apologies if that was misleading.
Have you not noticed that the goalposts have changed now from benefit to benefits the whole of the UK
Ah, so you agree that Brexit will only benefit the rich then? And that that's what people who voted leave voted for?
Yeah coz all the people who voted leave are rich people aren’t they.
And where did ldr say that Brexit will only benefit the rich.
Well I didn't say that did I? Clearly an agenda coming in to play now if change the goalposts Once a benefit has been mentioned and lie about what ppl have said to back up the agenda. To use what BST hides behind all the time, too many on here posting in bad faith
I didn't say you did, I asked you if you agreed that Brexit will only benefit the rich. I also asked you if you believe that's what people who voted leave voted for. You've answered neither.
And no one has moved the goalposts, surely the whole idea of Brexit was to benefit the whole of the UK. If it wasn't then an awful lot of people have been duped!
-
I’ve ‘put forward’ the views of two retired university lecturers as their examples of the benefits of Brexit.
Your beef should be with them.
Sorry, I have said I agree with them? If anything they don't go far enough in explaining exactly who will benefit - and who will lose out - and why.
The question is do you agree with them - you posted it?
Wilts. I’m not sure if your first sentence is a statement or a question. I know it has a question mark, but still. Are you apologising for agreeing with them, or asking me if you said you agreed with them?
In answer to your last question, I absolutely agree that this is a benefit for some, which is why It’s on an absolutely genuine ‘Brexit Benefit Log’ thread.
Is it a benefit for me?
No
Is it a benefit for you?
I’ve no idea
Does this mean that if this is not a benefit for someone, then there are or will be no other benefits of Brexit for them?
Absolutely not.
-
We've now left the EU so it's time to keep a list of all the benefits we achieve as we go forward. We were promised some excellent trade deals and so far we've managed to copy across over 60 trade deals. They aren't better than those we had as members of the EU, but at least they are positive achievements.
However https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/first-blow-for-post-brexit-britain-as-australia-rejects-trade-deal/07/01/?fbclid=IwAR17nan5Ez3WNCLY7xK0oIACnYnxvQmEAooWfuv2IOpwqHUQQZQMNs1XiHI
We've now left the EU so it's time to keep a list of all the benefits we achieve as we go forward. We were promised some excellent trade deals and so far we've managed to copy across over 60 trade deals. They aren't better than those we had as members of the EU, but at least they are positive achievements.
However https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/first-blow-for-post-brexit-britain-as-australia-rejects-trade-deal/07/01/?fbclid=IwAR17nan5Ez3WNCLY7xK0oIACnYnxvQmEAooWfuv2IOpwqHUQQZQMNs1XiHI
Nope just says benefits
-
We've now left the EU so it's time to keep a list of all the benefits we achieve as we go forward. We were promised some excellent trade deals and so far we've managed to copy across over 60 trade deals. They aren't better than those we had as members of the EU, but at least they are positive achievements.
However https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/first-blow-for-post-brexit-britain-as-australia-rejects-trade-deal/07/01/?fbclid=IwAR17nan5Ez3WNCLY7xK0oIACnYnxvQmEAooWfuv2IOpwqHUQQZQMNs1XiHI
We've now left the EU so it's time to keep a list of all the benefits we achieve as we go forward. We were promised some excellent trade deals and so far we've managed to copy across over 60 trade deals. They aren't better than those we had as members of the EU, but at least they are positive achievements.
However https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/first-blow-for-post-brexit-britain-as-australia-rejects-trade-deal/07/01/?fbclid=IwAR17nan5Ez3WNCLY7xK0oIACnYnxvQmEAooWfuv2IOpwqHUQQZQMNs1XiHI
Nope just says benefits
The use of the word 'we' throughout the above is a bit of a giveaway Ldr. Unless your idea of 'we' is 'a select few'. And you still haven't answered either of the questions I asked you.
By the way, a benefit is only a benefit when it's been achieved; just as a downside is only a downside when it happens. We've already seen a number of downsides even though we were promised by David Davies "There will be no downsides, only upsides", I'm taking upsides to mean benefits, (you may have a different definition?), seems he got it a bit wrong, would you say?
-
As stated before I see not been in the drive to a federal Europe a benefit. That has happened, you disagree so you dismiss it. A benefit for one is not necessarily a benefit for others as is the case at every election. I am happy
-
Quite a bizarre turn this discussion has taken.
Presumably, if we passed a law legalising murder, folk on here would maintain that it benefited murderers and call it "moving the goalposts" if someone asked whether it benefited the country as a whole.
-
People getting hot under the collar for little reason.
I sometimes post a link because it adds to the debate, but it does not mean I endorse everything within the link.
Occasionally it is helpful to consider other interpretations.
Belton posted an interesting link, one which argues against much of what he has said on here before.
I find that commendable, and shows a willingness to address his own perceptions.
This board would be a better place if others took a leaf from his book, and did the same sometimes.
-
Not as bizarre as your analogy,Billy
There are probably thousands upon thousands of areas in life that will be affected one way or another by Brexit.
You and others have decided that because the link I put up doesn’t benefit everyone in the UK, then either it is not a benefit or it proves that the only benefit of Brexit is for the rich.
Both arguments are nonsense unless, of course, you ‘move the goalposts’ by changing the purpose of the thread to ‘Benefits of Brexit Log but only benefits that benefit every single person in the UK in exactly the same way’.
Of which there will probably be none.
-
Belton.
Yet again you misrepresent what I've said in here. It's borderline obsessional, this insistence of yours if putting words into my mouth.
Please re-read this exchange and reflect on the thought process that lead you to conclude that I have said anything that "proves that the only benefit of Brexit is for the rich" or that I am "changing the purpose of the thread to ‘Benefits of Brexit Log but only benefits that benefit every single person in the UK in exactly the same way’."
I have said numerous times that I accept that Brexit will be of benefit to the capital owners, so I have no issue with that. My question was whether that is a good thing or a bad thing for the country as a whole.
I'd quite happily discuss that with anyone, but it's rather difficult when the response is (yet) another rabid as hominem attack entirely misrepresenting what I've actually said. Again.
My "analogy" wasn't an "analogy" by the way. It was a rhetorical device to establish a truth. In this case, the point I was establishing was that, clearly, an event can benefit a small and destructive part of society while greatly disadvantaging the vast majority. The question that then raises is: is it sensible to call that a "benefit"?
-
Belton.
Yet again you misrepresent what I've said in here. It's borderline obsessional, this insistence of yours if putting words into my mouth.
Please re-read this exchange and reflect on the thought process that lead you to conclude that I have said anything that "proves that the only benefit of Brexit is for the rich" or that I am "changing the purpose of the thread to ‘Benefits of Brexit Log but only benefits that benefit every single person in the UK in exactly the same way’."
I have said numerous times that I accept that Brexit will be of benefit to the capital owners, so I have no issue with that. My question was whether that is a good thing or a bad thing for the country as a whole.
I'd quite happily discuss that with a home, but it's rather difficult when the response is (yet) another rabid as hominem attack entirely misrepresenting what I've actually said. Again.
Right on cue.
And utter garbage.
-
So you stand by the words that you have put in my mouth once again Belton? Really? Because I've re-read the entire exchange and I don't see anything that justifies that.
-
I do not care what you think Billy. Read it again a thousand times and you will only ever read what you want to read.
I’ve put no words in your mouth.
As for ad hominem attacks - I get that it’s your buzz phrase at the moment, but please, use it correctly or not at all.
-
I’ve ‘put forward’ the views of two retired university lecturers as their examples of the benefits of Brexit.
Your beef should be with them.
Sorry, I have said I agree with them? If anything they don't go far enough in explaining exactly who will benefit - and who will lose out - and why.
The question is do you agree with them - you posted it?
Wilts. I’m not sure if your first sentence is a statement or a question. I know it has a question mark, but still. Are you apologising for agreeing with them, or asking me if you said you agreed with them?
In answer to your last question, I absolutely agree that this is a benefit for some, which is why It’s on an absolutely genuine ‘Brexit Benefit Log’ thread.
Is it a benefit for me?
No
Is it a benefit for you?
I’ve no idea
Does this mean that if this is not a benefit for someone, then there are or will be no other benefits of Brexit for them?
Absolutely not.
Yes it is a question Belton as your 'beef should be with them' post was posted in response to my earlier post and totally misrepresents it.
-
Belton.
I'm confused. If you genuinely don't care what I think, why on earth would you write this:
"You and others have decided that because the link I put up doesn’t benefit everyone in the UK, then either it is not a benefit or it proves that the only benefit of Brexit is for the rich.
Both arguments are nonsense unless, of course, you ‘move the goalposts’ by changing the purpose of the thread to ‘Benefits of Brexit Log but only benefits that benefit every single person in the UK in exactly the same way’."
I haven't said any of those things. So those comments can only come from what you think I think. There is no other possible explanation.
So, once again, an exchange with you spirals into you not engaging with what I actually say, but arguing with what you reckon I think. Over and over again.
-
Let me rephrase, Billy, to hopefully make it clear.
I don’t care what you think about me or this topic after you started to play the ‘ad hominem’ card.
-
Ad hominem means something that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I wonder what it's called when, like in my case, it's directed against a person BECAUSE OF THE WAY they maintain their position?
-
I’ve ‘put forward’ the views of two retired university lecturers as their examples of the benefits of Brexit.
Your beef should be with them.
Sorry, I have said I agree with them? If anything they don't go far enough in explaining exactly who will benefit - and who will lose out - and why.
The question is do you agree with them - you posted it?
Wilts. I’m not sure if your first sentence is a statement or a question. I know it has a question mark, but still. Are you apologising for agreeing with them, or asking me if you said you agreed with them?
In answer to your last question, I absolutely agree that this is a benefit for some, which is why It’s on an absolutely genuine ‘Brexit Benefit Log’ thread.
Is it a benefit for me?
No
Is it a benefit for you?
I’ve no idea
Does this mean that if this is not a benefit for someone, then there are or will be no other benefits of Brexit for them?
Absolutely not.
Yes it is a question Belton as your 'beef should be with them' post was posted in response to my earlier post and totally misrepresents it.
Now I’m really confused.
The ‘I’ve put forward’ post was for Billy. I thought I’d made that clear by quoting Billy’s ‘I’ve put forward’ within a post directly addressed to me.
I’m sorry if you missed this in your eagerness to stick the boot in.
-
Belton.
It wasn't a "card". It was an observation of your approach.
I was discussing the issue that you had raised. You responded by attacking me for saying a whole lot of things I hadn't said. That's the very definition of an ad hominem attack, albeit not a very skillful one, because, having no basis in fact, it is easy to rebut. Which is what I did, although you seem to have no interest in that.
-
Billy. I didn’t. Read everything again and reflect. Or don’t. But either way, please stop this witch hunt.
-
As stated before I see not been in the drive to a federal Europe a benefit. That has happened, you disagree so you dismiss it. A benefit for one is not necessarily a benefit for others as is the case at every election. I am happy
The only time I've seen mention of a 'Federal Europe' is in the right wing media. Given that each member state has it's own sovereignty, (though the right wing media would wrongly have you believe otherwise), and given that the current structure and 'rules' of the EU preclude such a thing happening, what you perceive as a benefit is in your mind only at this time. Yes, things may change in the future, but it would require the consent of each and every member state government for it to happen.
Talking about right wing media, here's a list of the lies about the EU that have been spread by them over the last 20 years or so....
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/see-20-years-of-fake-news-about-eu-by-uk-press-vote-for-your-favourite-here/
Notice which papers are spreading them?
Do you believe ANY of these lies? Oh, I forgot, silly me, you don't seem to want to answer questions!
-
Given its a private blog (and none of the links contained in it seem to work for me) I cant answer. What I do find is that blogs are trusted by ppl who feel the same as the blogger regardless of provenance
-
I’ve ‘put forward’ the views of two retired university lecturers as their examples of the benefits of Brexit.
Your beef should be with them.
Sorry, I have said I agree with them? If anything they don't go far enough in explaining exactly who will benefit - and who will lose out - and why.
The question is do you agree with them - you posted it?
Wilts. I’m not sure if your first sentence is a statement or a question. I know it has a question mark, but still. Are you apologising for agreeing with them, or asking me if you said you agreed with them?
In answer to your last question, I absolutely agree that this is a benefit for some, which is why It’s on an absolutely genuine ‘Brexit Benefit Log’ thread.
Is it a benefit for me?
No
Is it a benefit for you?
I’ve no idea
Does this mean that if this is not a benefit for someone, then there are or will be no other benefits of Brexit for them?
Absolutely not.
Yes it is a question Belton as your 'beef should be with them' post was posted in response to my earlier post and totally misrepresents it.
Now I’m really confused.
The ‘I’ve put forward’ post was for Billy. I thought I’d made that clear by quoting Billy’s ‘I’ve put forward’ within a post directly addressed to me.
I’m sorry if you missed this in your eagerness to stick the boot in.
It doesn't mention Billy and it is directly below a post of mine.
My eagerness to 'stick the boot' in relates to a post that appears to be aimed at me. That why I asked a question - which now is deemed 'sticking the boot in'.
-
Wilts. I’ve clearly explained why it’s clear you made an error. Why can’t you just accept that? It’s no big deal. Just acknowledge you got it wrong.
-
Another thought experiment.
The customs checks that have come into place between GB and NI are increasing sectarian tensions and raising the profile of people associated with unionist paramilitaries.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-northern-ireland-sea-border-loyalist-b1797786.html%3famp
Mr Campbell here is having his profile as a community spokesman lifted by this. Presumably we must accept that as a "benefit" of Brexit because he is benefiting from it?
-
Another thought experiment.
The customs checks that have come into place between GB and NI are increasing sectarian tensions and raising the profile of people associated with unionist paramilitaries.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-northern-ireland-sea-border-loyalist-b1797786.html%3famp
Mr Campbell here is having his profile as a community spokesman lifted by this. Presumably we must accept that as a "benefit" of Brexit because he is benefiting from it?
Really quite embarrassing now.
-
Given its a private blog (and none of the links contained in it seem to work for me) I cant answer. What I do find is that blogs are trusted by ppl who feel the same as the blogger regardless of provenance
The links in the blog are to a publication by the EU themselves in response to the lies told in the British Press. You can actually follow ALL the links by selecting the 'See All Versions of this archives page' and selecting any of the links listed. For instance....
https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004102143/https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/
It's all there, but you only have to see the main topics to understand how the British Press have been used to manipulate people, straight bananas ring a bell? Or was it cucumbers? The links are there to be followed if you are concerned about being lied to. Of course, if you're not then no wonder we're in the mess we are!
-
Then you accept Belton that there is a line? A level at which a benefit for some is so outweighed by the problems it caused for others that to call it a "benefit" is a misuse of language?
Have we established that now?
Because that was unambiguously the idea that the authors of the report you posted were making. Agreed?
-
Billy, the only thing I accept at this moment in time is that you need a good night’s kip. Make yourself a Horlicks and read a book in bed for half an hour.
-
Here's a real Brexit benefit, according to the Express
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1400444/brexit-news-european-union-vnuk-insurance-boris-johnson
Though I'm struggling to work out why, if a farmer has to pay insurance on all his on-farm vehicles, (for example), my car insurance would have to go up by £50. And I presume that racing car teams would have to comply with the requirement to race in any EU country anyway.
And surely, people like this should be insured....
(https://i.imgur.com/pFIMOjX.jpg)
-
Looks like the Euromyth business is still in full swing.
https://www.willistowerswatson.com/en-GB/Insights/2020/02/amendments-to-the-eu-motor-insurance-directive
"The European Parliament has however approved a report which favoured that ‘use of a vehicle’ must relate to use ‘in-traffic’. It also suggested amending the Directive to include use ‘as a means of transport’ to distinguish between vehicles being used as machines, where tools of the trade exclusions usually apply. It seems unlikely that the Commission will define what is meant by ‘in traffic’. This is likely to be left to member states to decide.
Parliament also recommended that the Directive should not apply to motor sports vehicles used on a dedicated track."4
It's a complete non-story anyway. The government can't scrap something that wasn't going to happen to us!
-
You would hope that a benefit of Brexit would be that the Govt no longer needed to lie and deceive about Brexit. Not happening yet but we live in hope.
https://mobile.twitter.com/HawardTom/status/1363409729888923648
-
You would hope that a benefit of Brexit would be that the Govt no longer needed to lie and deceive about Brexit. Not happening yet but we live in hope.
https://mobile.twitter.com/HawardTom/status/1363409729888923648
If that’s all true, then he has every right to feel quite hard done to, but it’s difficult to know for sure if all the facts have been presented.
However, in the true spirit of this genuine thread title, perhaps we can look forward to more of our own purification centres. There certainly seems to be a market for it.
-
You would hope that a benefit of Brexit would be that the Govt no longer needed to lie and deceive about Brexit. Not happening yet but we live in hope.
https://mobile.twitter.com/HawardTom/status/1363409729888923648
If that’s all true, then he has every right to feel quite hard done to, but it’s difficult to know for sure if all the facts have been presented.
However, in the true spirit of this genuine thread title, perhaps we can look forward to more of our own purification centres. There certainly seems to be a market for it.
Only if there's a market for the end product after purification and other ancillary costs have been included into the end price.
-
Very true, but it seems that Europe want our oysters, so hopefully it could still be a seller’s market.
I have absolutely no idea about oysters, by the way - I’ve never even eaten one, purified or not.
-
Very true, but it seems that Europe want our oysters, so hopefully it could still be a seller’s market.
I have absolutely no idea about oysters, by the way - I’ve never even eaten one, purified or not.
They want our oysters at the old price. They still farm oysters inside the EU though and their price won't have altered.
-
Very true, but it seems that Europe want our oysters, so hopefully it could still be a seller’s market.
I have absolutely no idea about oysters, by the way - I’ve never even eaten one, purified or not.
They want our oysters at the old price. They still farm oysters inside the EU though and their price won't have altered.
But there must have been a need for our oysters. So why wouldn’t there be now?
I know this is in very simplistic terms, but if we sell oysters at a price that includes purification, then the extra that European buyers pay is equalled out with no purification costs for them.
-
If this comes to pass then it has the makings of a benefit to the UK as a whole. Just depends on who these companies are and what they plan to do of course - looking forward to the details emerging.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56155531
-
Very true, but it seems that Europe want our oysters, so hopefully it could still be a seller’s market.
I have absolutely no idea about oysters, by the way - I’ve never even eaten one, purified or not.
They want our oysters at the old price. They still farm oysters inside the EU though and their price won't have altered.
But there must have been a need for our oysters. So why wouldn’t there be now?
I know this is in very simplistic terms, but if we sell oysters at a price that includes purification, then the extra that European buyers pay is equalled out with no purification costs for them.
You're forgetting the Customs and bureaucracy costs, plus any Countervailing Duty there might be on top of that now that we're not in the EU. Which makes UK produce uncompetitive compared to EU produce that can be supplied within the Single Market. The demand will go to the cheaper suppliers. Who wants to spend lots of money building purification centres that produces oysters that don't sell, or at the very least have no guarantee of being sold? There's already enough UK purification centres to fulfil the UK's home demand, so the current Brexiteer mantra to those losing their customers of 'sell to the UK' won't wash.
-
So there will an oyster shortage in Europe because they won’t want ours?
-
They might just clam up and stop talking to us.
-
They might just clam up and stop talking to us.
Ah but that would be shellfish.
-
I doubt Whelks Rover will be impressed.
-
Supply and demand aren't fixed are they? If you supply the same amount but at a higher price, demand goes down. So there might be plenty of people prepared to spend £10 on a luxury like oysters, but if you put the price up to £20 for the same amount of stuff, the demand will drop. Or people who can still sell them for £10 because they have the benefit of being in the SM with lower fixed costs will increase production to fill the gap in the supply.
Basic economics really. And we were always led to believe that the Tories were the party of small businesses...
-
I always thought that Labour was the party of small businesses. Just a shame they used to be big ones.
-
......... and the tories are the party of big liars so pretty much square
-
Depends what papers you read, Skippy.
-
too right, far too right
''Telegraph issues correction over Boris Johnson's false UK economy claim
Claim UK would overtake Germany was former columnist’s own extrapolation, says newspaper''
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/03/telegraph-forced-to-issue-correction-to-boris-johnson-column
-
Obviously not far too right enough.
-
I'd have thought that johnson's connections to the russian oligarchy put him squarely at the forefront of and far right organisation and his protectionism for russia shows where he stands, he must love all his little enablers dotted around the country.
-
Thank f**k for that. We might have had Gerry Adams as an alternative.
-
Einstein did have the tory supporters in mind when he coined to the definition of insanity? :)
-
Maybe, but was he considering the alternative that was available at the time, or now?
-
not much choice between insanity and idiocy :)
-
So there will an oyster shortage in Europe because they won’t want ours?
No.
-
So there will an oyster shortage in Europe because they won’t want ours?
No.
1st world problems summed up right here
-
That the UK can't keep it's rivers and estuaries clean enough?
-
Which led me as to why, why are the areas where shellfish grow in the UK classed as polluted?
Human waste.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12560-017-9279-3
-
So there will an oyster shortage in Europe because they won’t want ours?
No.
So fewer people in Europe will want to eat Oysters?
-
Which led me as to why, why are the areas where shellfish grow in the UK classed as polluted?
Human waste.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12560-017-9279-3
Another possible benefit of Brexit: we finally clean our rivers and coastlines up.
-
Which led me as to why, why are the areas where shellfish grow in the UK classed as polluted?
Human waste.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12560-017-9279-3
Another possible benefit of Brexit: we finally clean our rivers and coastlines up.
Now that would seriously be a benefit, to the country as a whole. Though it shouldn't need Brexit to drive it.
-
I agree with you, it shouldn’t. It seems being part of the EU has made us complacent. We’ve ignored our poisonous waters because someone else can clean up the food we take from them.
Here’s to a much cleaner post-Brexit future for our children.
It make me wonder what else we will have to address now instead of brushing under the North Sea?
Gosh, the benefits could be endless!
-
Where is the money coming from to pay for this cleansing though?
The government won't want to throw money at it, unless of course some of their cronies can tender for the work.
As someone who just wants the best for the UK whoever is in charge I see very little hope on the horizon.
-
So there will an oyster shortage in Europe because they won’t want ours?
No.
So fewer people in Europe will want to eat Oysters?
No. Fewer people will be able to afford to eat them at the price that the British seafood sector can provide them.
-
So the EU have made a decision that will result in many of their members not being able to afford oysters and us having an excess of inedible oysters, whilst, presumably, the EU allows many of their own purification plants to become obsolete.
Sounds to me like they are cutting off our noses, and their members’ own noses to f**k everyone over.
Good riddance to such behaviour, I say.
-
No Belton. That is the whole point!
The EU hasn't done anything! WE, the UK, have chosen to leave the Single Market. That automatically makes us a "third country" and automatically we are treated as one. As a third country, we have opted out if the arrangement whereby fish can be caught in Class B waters and shipped somewhere else in the SM to be purified.
WE have chosen to do that. But the Govt and right wing press are spinning this as the EU unfairly imposing regulations. Your post suggest that spin is working.
-
But it is still a ‘you left, so tough titties’ attitude, which is their prerogative of course. But surely, if they had their members’ best interests at heart, they would still want to give them all the opportunity to eat affordable oysters.
Two things that haven’t changed in all this are the oysters and the Europeans who want to eat them.
-
So there will an oyster shortage in Europe because they won’t want ours?
No.
So fewer people in Europe will want to eat Oysters?
No, the EU will supply more to fulfil the demand. Economics 101. Try learning some.
-
Which led me as to why, why are the areas where shellfish grow in the UK classed as polluted?
Human waste.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12560-017-9279-3
Another possible benefit of Brexit: we finally clean our rivers and coastlines up.
There was nothing stopping us doing so when in the EU so I doubt it.
-
No Belton. That is the whole point!
The EU hasn't done anything! WE, the UK, have chosen to leave the Single Market. That automatically makes us a "third country" and automatically we are treated as one. As a third country, we have opted out if the arrangement whereby fish can be caught in Class B waters and shipped somewhere else in the SM to be purified.
WE have chosen to do that. But the Govt and right wing press are spinning this as the EU unfairly imposing regulations. Your post suggest that spin is working.
Unfortunately BST, this is something Brexiters completely fail to understand. All the problems being experienced both here and in the EU are entirely of OUR doing!
-
Not sure which part of this you're not getting Belton.
WE opted out of the SM.
The ClassB --> Purification in another country thing only works for countries in the SM.
You seem to be saying that it is the fault of the EU that our fish are now exported to the EU from a country outside the SM, and are treated as such.
-
But it is still a ‘you left, so tough titties’ attitude, which is their prerogative of course. But surely, if they had their members’ best interests at heart, they would still want to give them all the opportunity to eat affordable oysters.
Two things that haven’t changed in all this are the oysters and the Europeans who want to eat them.
They will get affordable oysters, just not from the UK because our prices go up due to OUR decision, not theirs.
Neither are they copping an attitude. They are treating us exactly the same as any other non-EU country. That's what we wanted after all, apparently we knew what we were voting for. The EU are looking after their own best interests - especially those of their own oyster producers and through them ultimately the EU consumers.
The only 'attitude' on display is from those cakeists who can't believe the UK isn't somehow being treated as special case.
-
So there will an oyster shortage in Europe because they won’t want ours?
No.
So fewer people in Europe will want to eat Oysters?
No, the EU will supply more to fulfil the demand. Economics 101. Try learning some.
Absolutely no need for that Glyn. It’s that kind of superior arrogance that causes such divides. If you want debate with economists only, you’re in the wrong group.
-
The bitter remainers still view the EU as their friends . They are not our friends as evidenced with the covid scenario with the Irish border. They are an inward looking protectionist racket, who as each year goes by will become less important.
-
But it is still a ‘you left, so tough titties’ attitude, which is their prerogative of course. But surely, if they had their members’ best interests at heart, they would still want to give them all the opportunity to eat affordable oysters.
Two things that haven’t changed in all this are the oysters and the Europeans who want to eat them.
They will get affordable oysters, just not from the UK because our prices go up due to OUR decision, not theirs.
Neither are they copping an attitude. They are treating us exactly the same as any other non-EU country. That's what we wanted after all, apparently we knew what we were voting for. The EU are looking after their own best interests - especially those of their own oyster producers and through them ultimately the EU consumers.
The only 'attitude' on display is from those cakeists who can't believe the UK isn't somehow being treated as special case.
How are they looking after their own oyster producers?
-
But it is still a ‘you left, so tough titties’ attitude, which is their prerogative of course. But surely, if they had their members’ best interests at heart, they would still want to give them all the opportunity to eat affordable oysters.
Two things that haven’t changed in all this are the oysters and the Europeans who want to eat them.
They will get affordable oysters, just not from the UK because our prices go up due to OUR decision, not theirs.
Neither are they copping an attitude. They are treating us exactly the same as any other non-EU country. That's what we wanted after all, apparently we knew what we were voting for. The EU are looking after their own best interests - especially those of their own oyster producers and through them ultimately the EU consumers.
The only 'attitude' on display is from those cakeists who can't believe the UK isn't somehow being treated as special case.
How are they looking after their own oyster producers?
By not giving special status to a non-EU supplier.
-
So there will an oyster shortage in Europe because they won’t want ours?
No.
So fewer people in Europe will want to eat Oysters?
No, the EU will supply more to fulfil the demand. Economics 101. Try learning some.
Absolutely no need for that Glyn. It’s that kind of superior arrogance that causes such divides. If you want debate with economists only, you’re in the wrong group.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/160660/economics/explaining-supply-and-demand-2/
-
Glyn. I am asking lots of questions so I do have a better understanding of the economics. Hopefully in a balanced manner.
But in answer to your question, I expected a bit better, even from you.
-
And I was advising you to get a better understanding of economics for yourself. I even posted a link for you. To expect others to answer your own questions instead of expecting other people to spoonfeed it to you. Perhaps you should follow your own link.
Unfortunately, I wasn't expecting better of you. And so it transpired.
-
I'd question the elasticity of oysters though to be fair....
-
They're not inelastic, no, but that makes it worse for the UK suppliers as the EU are therefore more likely to turn towards other cheaper alternative.
-
The oysters I've had were too elastic, if anything. Like snotty rubber. Never again.
-
But it is still a ‘you left, so tough titties’ attitude, which is their prerogative of course. But surely, if they had their members’ best interests at heart, they would still want to give them all the opportunity to eat affordable oysters.
Two things that haven’t changed in all this are the oysters and the Europeans who want to eat them.
They will get affordable oysters, just not from the UK because our prices go up due to OUR decision, not theirs.
Neither are they copping an attitude. They are treating us exactly the same as any other non-EU country. That's what we wanted after all, apparently we knew what we were voting for. The EU are looking after their own best interests - especially those of their own oyster producers and through them ultimately the EU consumers.
The only 'attitude' on display is from those cakeists who can't believe the UK isn't somehow being treated as special case.
How are they looking after their own oyster producers?
By not giving special status to a non-EU supplier.
I still don’t understand how this shows they are looking after ‘their own’.
Britain sold oysters to mainland Europe, presumably because there was a market for it.
Mainland Europe had (have) purification plants that purify our polluted oysters.
So now, there are no British oysters for Europe to consume and there are no British oysters to go through their purifying plants. It seems to me that there will be lots of ‘their own’ doing without oysters, possibly resulting in higher prices, and their will be lots of purifying plant workers being made redundant.
-
And I was advising you to get a better understanding of economics for yourself. I even posted a link for you. To expect others to answer your own questions instead of expecting other people to spoonfeed it to you. Perhaps you should follow your own link.
Unfortunately, I wasn't expecting better of you. And so it transpired.
Got it. No more questions.
Why didn’t someone think of that earlier?
Shit. Another question.
Can you forgive me?
Shit, shit.
-
Belton.
Once again. It is because we are not in the Single Market. There is no me hanism for the EU to accept non Class A water seafood from ANY third country.
And yes, this does result in a minor inconvenience to European consumers of oysters. But there has been a consistent line from the EU since the vote. The resilience of the SM is of FAR more importance to the countries of the EU than any minor inconveniences. So they will not allow third countries to pick and choose preferential bits of the SM to buy into. It is all or nothing. We chose nothing. OUR choice. The consequences are consequences of our making, not the EUs.
It is fascinating that some of us have been making this case now for 5 years. We used to get the response that it was all a negotiating stance and the EU would give us special terms when push came to shove. Now the line is that the EU is imposing unfair and punitive penalties on us. Or that they are being unfair in not giving us a preferential deal. Does no-one on the Brexit-supporting side ever stop and think that they have called this wrong every step of the way?
-
Belton.
Once again. It is because we are not in the Single Market. There is no me hanism for the EU to accept non Class A water seafood from ANY third country.
And yes, this does result in a minor inconvenience to European consumers of oysters. But there has been a consistent line from the EU since the vote. The resilience of the SM is of FAR more importance to the countries of the EU than any minor inconveniences. So they will not allow third countries to pick and choose preferential bits of the SM to buy into. It is all or nothing. We chose nothing. OUR choice. The consequences are consequences of our making, not the EUs.
It is fascinating that some of us have been making this case now for 5 years. We used to get the response that it was all a negotiating stance and the EU would give us special terms when push came to shove. Now the line is that the EU is imposing unfair and punitive penalties on us. Or that they are being unfair in not giving us a preferential deal. Does no-one on the Brexit-supporting side ever stop and think that they have called this wrong every step of the way?
Thanks, Billy, genuinely. Though I think ‘minor inconvenience’ is playing it down rather a lot. You didn’t think the British guy you shared a link to that started this section of debate was going through a minor inconvenience, did you?
Also, it’s not Britain who would be picking and choosing. Britain has something the people of Europe want. The EU are choosing not to buy, to the detriment of those in Europe who would like to continue working in the purifying plants.
-
Which led me as to why, why are the areas where shellfish grow in the UK classed as polluted?
Human waste.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12560-017-9279-3
Another possible benefit of Brexit: we finally clean our rivers and coastlines up.
There was nothing stopping us doing so when in the EU so I doubt it.
Clearly there was - someone else cleaned up the food that came from it.
-
But it is still a ‘you left, so tough titties’ attitude, which is their prerogative of course. But surely, if they had their members’ best interests at heart, they would still want to give them all the opportunity to eat affordable oysters.
Two things that haven’t changed in all this are the oysters and the Europeans who want to eat them.
They will get affordable oysters, just not from the UK because our prices go up due to OUR decision, not theirs.
Neither are they copping an attitude. They are treating us exactly the same as any other non-EU country. That's what we wanted after all, apparently we knew what we were voting for. The EU are looking after their own best interests - especially those of their own oyster producers and through them ultimately the EU consumers.
The only 'attitude' on display is from those cakeists who can't believe the UK isn't somehow being treated as special case.
Where will they get them from at lower prices?
-
But it is still a ‘you left, so tough titties’ attitude, which is their prerogative of course. But surely, if they had their members’ best interests at heart, they would still want to give them all the opportunity to eat affordable oysters.
Two things that haven’t changed in all this are the oysters and the Europeans who want to eat them.
They will get affordable oysters, just not from the UK because our prices go up due to OUR decision, not theirs.
Neither are they copping an attitude. They are treating us exactly the same as any other non-EU country. That's what we wanted after all, apparently we knew what we were voting for. The EU are looking after their own best interests - especially those of their own oyster producers and through them ultimately the EU consumers.
The only 'attitude' on display is from those cakeists who can't believe the UK isn't somehow being treated as special case.
Where will they get them from at lower prices?
From other suppliers within the Single Market, who will be able to supply at a lower cost than the EU. At least four EU countries are oyster producers and they'll be more than happy to take up the slack, probably using the very same purification plants that you're so worried won't have anything to do any more. Which is also how the EU is looking after it's own. You seem to forget that that used to include us until we decided to stick two fingers up to them.
-
So there was an excess of oysters in the EU before we left?
Makes you wonder why they were so expensive.
-
I'd question the elasticity of oysters though to be fair....
I'd question the efficiency of Oysters myself. I bought my wife six oysters at a wonderful seafood restaurant, and only five of them worked later that evening!
-
I can’t find anywhere that tells me exactly where the oysters are coming from to replace the British ones. I’m sure it must be out there.
Can you pop a link up?
-
Belton.
Once again. It is because we are not in the Single Market. There is no me hanism for the EU to accept non Class A water seafood from ANY third country.
And yes, this does result in a minor inconvenience to European consumers of oysters. But there has been a consistent line from the EU since the vote. The resilience of the SM is of FAR more importance to the countries of the EU than any minor inconveniences. So they will not allow third countries to pick and choose preferential bits of the SM to buy into. It is all or nothing. We chose nothing. OUR choice. The consequences are consequences of our making, not the EUs.
It is fascinating that some of us have been making this case now for 5 years. We used to get the response that it was all a negotiating stance and the EU would give us special terms when push came to shove. Now the line is that the EU is imposing unfair and punitive penalties on us. Or that they are being unfair in not giving us a preferential deal. Does no-one on the Brexit-supporting side ever stop and think that they have called this wrong every step of the way?
Thanks, Billy, genuinely. Though I think ‘minor inconvenience’ is playing it down rather a lot. You didn’t think the British guy you shared a link to that started this section of debate was going through a minor inconvenience, did you?
Also, it’s not Britain who would be picking and choosing. Britain has something the people of Europe want. The EU are choosing not to buy, to the detriment of those in Europe who would like to continue working in the purifying plants.
Belton.
I fully agree that the man whose livelihood is on the line is undergoing more than a little inconvenience. But his situation is not the responsibility or really, the concern of the EU. The EU are not going to compromise the integrity of the SM (which would affect countless more EU jobs) to help out someone whose Govt chose to massively inconvenience.
But I wasn't referring to him when I said "minor inconvenience". I was referring to the inconvenience of the consumers of oysters in the EU who will have a tad less choice and possibly a bit less supply. That is a very minor inconvenience compared to the earthquake that would rip through the SM if the EU started letting third countries pick and choose which bits of the SM they wanted to be a part of.
Because, if you let third countries choose to do that, why should EU countries follow ALL the rules of the SM? But if all EU countries don't follow all the rules of the SM, there is no SM.
And THAT is the insoluble fact that I and others have been banging on about into the void for years. There will be no preferential access for Britain to bits of the SM. Because the consequences for the EU of allowing that are far worse than the inconveniences of not allowing it.
It would be good if we as a country would now grow up and deal with that fact, instead of blubbing that the EU isn't playing fair.
-
Belton.
Once again. It is because we are not in the Single Market. There is no me hanism for the EU to accept non Class A water seafood from ANY third country.
And yes, this does result in a minor inconvenience to European consumers of oysters. But there has been a consistent line from the EU since the vote. The resilience of the SM is of FAR more importance to the countries of the EU than any minor inconveniences. So they will not allow third countries to pick and choose preferential bits of the SM to buy into. It is all or nothing. We chose nothing. OUR choice. The consequences are consequences of our making, not the EUs.
It is fascinating that some of us have been making this case now for 5 years. We used to get the response that it was all a negotiating stance and the EU would give us special terms when push came to shove. Now the line is that the EU is imposing unfair and punitive penalties on us. Or that they are being unfair in not giving us a preferential deal. Does no-one on the Brexit-supporting side ever stop and think that they have called this wrong every step of the way?
Thanks, Billy, genuinely. Though I think ‘minor inconvenience’ is playing it down rather a lot. You didn’t think the British guy you shared a link to that started this section of debate was going through a minor inconvenience, did you?
Also, it’s not Britain who would be picking and choosing. Britain has something the people of Europe want. The EU are choosing not to buy, to the detriment of those in Europe who would like to continue working in the purifying plants.
Belton.
I fully agree that the man whose livelihood is on the line is undergoing more than a little inconvenience. But his situation is not the responsibility or really, the concern of the EU. The EU are not going to compromise the integrity of the SM (which would affect countless more EU jobs) to help out someone whose Govt chose to massively inconvenience.
But I wasn't referring to him when I said "minor inconvenience". I was referring to the inconvenience of the consumers of oysters in the EU who will have a tad less choice and possibly a bit less supply. That is a very minor inconvenience compared to the earthquake that would rip through the SM if the EU started letting third countries pick and choose which bits of the SM they wanted to be a part of.
Because, if you let third countries choose to do that, why should EU countries follow ALL the rules of the SM? But if all EU countries don't follow all the rules of the SM, there is no SM.
And THAT is the insoluble fact that I and others have been banging on about into the void for years. There will be no preferential access for Britain to bits of the SM. Because the consequences for the EU of allowing that are far worse than the inconveniences of not allowing it.
It would be good if we as a country would now grow up and deal with that fact, instead of blubbing that the EU isn't playing fair.
I get most of that, but:
Firstly, the folk wanting to quaff cheap oysters are quite clearly suffering a minor inconvenience, but what about those (I have no idea if this would be six or six thousand) who would could lose their livelihoods as oyster purifiers.
Secondly, it’s not the EU letting non members do what they like, its the EU choosing and controlling which non members to trade with.
-
another example that should make you stop and think - why did we leave again?
-
another example that should make you stop and think - why did we leave again?
Not at all Bob. I’m just not accepting that it has to be doom and gloom. I often ask that question, but then I feel I have to try to at least focus on the positives as much as I possibly can, and our future.
Leaving the EU doesn’t and shouldn’t mean we can’t trade with the EU.
I don’t regret voting to leave, but I may well have voted differently had the remain campaign done their jobs properly.
I do, however, wish we had never been given the ‘opportunity’ to vote, given the shambles that came during and after campaigns.
I also don’t consider myself a Brexiteer.
Just someone who voted leave after literally hovering my pencil over both boxes, and now has a responsibility to embrace the decision, as should everyone - leave or remain.
-
In other words you were not across the facts when you put you X down.
-
Neither was I, and I voted to remain.
-
I dont think anyone was aware of all the potential problems before casting their vote.
-
The problems were made worse by Remoaners refusing to accept the result.
-
Belton.
EVERY sovereign market chooses who to trade with!
The salient point here is that the EU hasn't changed its policies to hit us, which is what Tory ministers and Tory papers have been saying.
Third or fourth time I've repeated this now so apologies if I'm sounding like a broken record, but the following point is key and doesn't seem to be getting through.
The EU's policy on fish imports is that fish caught in Class B waters cannot be imported into the EU from a third country for purification in the EU. That, apparently, has been the policy for years. 8 weeks ago, we were not a third country. We chose to become a third country. So the problems this causes for our fishing industry is entirely and solely a result of our choice of policy.
You seem to still be complaining that the EU won't bend the rules to help us out. But that's missing THE massive point. The EU cannot and will not allow third countries to have selected benefits of SM membership. Full stop. That will not happen because it would mean the destruction of the SM.
And, crucially, anyone who was prepared to look at the issues dispassionately knew this years ago. So the Govt putting on a surprised face now and shouting "unfair" means they are either stupid, or deliberately deceiving people. And I don't think they are stupid.
-
PS .
Of course leaving the EU doesn't mean we cannot trade with the EU. Literally no-one is saying that.
What it DOES mean is that we cannot trade with them as easily as we could 8 weeks ago. Which was the whole point of the Twitter thread I posted about oysters.
-
I dont think anyone was aware of all the potential problems before casting their vote.
I voted to remain too BB.
Thinking back i am sure i didnt hear from either side that our fish wouldnt be allowed into EU countries to be purified if we left though.
What a sneaky trick that was eh.
-
Neither did I, but I was glad in a way because what with all the empty food shelves in the shops it was all we could rely on as our main diet.
-
Hound. No. But I assume you did hear people on the Remain side saying that leaving the SM would make trade much harder? And people on the Leave side saying that was Project Fear, and "Literally no-one is saying we will leave the SM" and "It would be madness to leave the SM"?
BB. Reight comedian aren't you? I bet the people in the fishing industry seeing their businesses on the rocks are rolling in the aisles.
And I assume you remember that "empty shelves" comment was about what would happen in the event of us crashing out with No Deal? You do remember?
-
Belton.
EVERY sovereign market chooses who to trade with!
The salient point here is that the EU hasn't changed its policies to hit us, which is what Tory ministers and Tory papers have been saying.
Third or fourth time I've repeated this now so apologies if I'm sounding like a broken record, but the following point is key and doesn't seem to be getting through.
The EU's policy on fish imports is that fish caught in Class B waters cannot be imported into the EU from a third country for purification in the EU. That, apparently, has been the policy for years. 8 weeks ago, we were not a third country. We chose to become a third country. So the problems this causes for our fishing industry is entirely and solely a result of our choice of policy.
You seem to still be complaining that the EU won't bend the rules to help us out. But that's missing THE massive point. The EU cannot and will not allow third countries to have selected benefits of SM membership. Full stop. That will not happen because it would mean the destruction of the SM.
And, crucially, anyone who was prepared to look at the issues dispassionately knew this years ago. So the Govt putting on a surprised face now and shouting "unfair" means they are either stupid, or deliberately deceiving people. And I don't think they are stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I’m not complaining that they won’t bend the rules for us. I’m expressing my view that choosing not to trade with us BECAUSE we left is not in the best interests of their members who will suffer because of it. They have every right to make things as difficult as they can, but I wouldn’t have thought even the EU would do that at all costs.
I also think that in time, they will welcome such trade again if it benefits them.
-
In other words you were not across the facts when you put you X down.
I don’t think anyone was
-
BST, so I suspect your claim of being right on something that you think would have happened, but didn't happen because the situation never arose, still goes down in Viking history as being absolutely correct!
Just like when the schools reopen on March 8th, your script will already be written about how many thousands of lives Boris could have saved by delaying the return by three weeks.
Let's see if I'm reight.
-
Belton.
One last time. They are NOT " choosing not to trade with us because we left."
What is happening is the inevitable consequence of us leaving. The EU didn't sit down and say "Right, the British have left. Do we choose whether to trade with them or not?" They simply applied the rules that are applied to ALL third countries.
The ONLY way they could have done anything different is literally to bend the rules for us. Which you say you have no problem with them not doing. So I honestly don't get the point you are making.
-
BB.
You ignore predictions about the future that do come to pass. When predictions about the future become irrelevant because of changes of circumstances, you make lame wisecracks about them.
I do wonder what you get out of this, but I hope it is worth it.
-
Belton.
EVERY sovereign market chooses who to trade with!
The salient point here is that the EU hasn't changed its policies to hit us, which is what Tory ministers and Tory papers have been saying.
Third or fourth time I've repeated this now so apologies if I'm sounding like a broken record, but the following point is key and doesn't seem to be getting through.
The EU's policy on fish imports is that fish caught in Class B waters cannot be imported into the EU from a third country for purification in the EU. That, apparently, has been the policy for years. 8 weeks ago, we were not a third country. We chose to become a third country. So the problems this causes for our fishing industry is entirely and solely a result of our choice of policy.
You seem to still be complaining that the EU won't bend the rules to help us out. But that's missing THE massive point. The EU cannot and will not allow third countries to have selected benefits of SM membership. Full stop. That will not happen because it would mean the destruction of the SM.
And, crucially, anyone who was prepared to look at the issues dispassionately knew this years ago. So the Govt putting on a surprised face now and shouting "unfair" means they are either stupid, or deliberately deceiving people. And I don't think they are stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I’m not complaining that they won’t bend the rules for us. I’m expressing my view that choosing not to trade with us BECAUSE we left is not in the best interests of their members who will suffer because of it. They have every right to make things as difficult as they can, but I wouldn’t have thought even the EU would do that at all costs.
I also think that in time, they will welcome such trade again if it benefits them.
Have you any proof that the EU is not trading with us because we left? afaik they are not making things difficult they are looking after there own interests, which is exactly what brexiteers wanted to do, no? the rules applied are for all non-members unless there agreements with the EU varying that position, these rules were put into place by and with the support of the UK.
-
BST.
I'd agree with you if that were true, but it's bullshit.
-
Belton.
EVERY sovereign market chooses who to trade with!
The salient point here is that the EU hasn't changed its policies to hit us, which is what Tory ministers and Tory papers have been saying.
Third or fourth time I've repeated this now so apologies if I'm sounding like a broken record, but the following point is key and doesn't seem to be getting through.
The EU's policy on fish imports is that fish caught in Class B waters cannot be imported into the EU from a third country for purification in the EU. That, apparently, has been the policy for years. 8 weeks ago, we were not a third country. We chose to become a third country. So the problems this causes for our fishing industry is entirely and solely a result of our choice of policy.
You seem to still be complaining that the EU won't bend the rules to help us out. But that's missing THE massive point. The EU cannot and will not allow third countries to have selected benefits of SM membership. Full stop. That will not happen because it would mean the destruction of the SM.
And, crucially, anyone who was prepared to look at the issues dispassionately knew this years ago. So the Govt putting on a surprised face now and shouting "unfair" means they are either stupid, or deliberately deceiving people. And I don't think they are stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I’m not complaining that they won’t bend the rules for us. I’m expressing my view that choosing not to trade with us BECAUSE we left is not in the best interests of their members who will suffer because of it. They have every right to make things as difficult as they can, but I wouldn’t have thought even the EU would do that at all costs.
I also think that in time, they will welcome such trade again if it benefits them.
Have you any proof that the EU is not trading with us because we left? afaik they are not making things difficult they are looking after there own interests, which is exactly what brexiteers wanted to do, no? the rules applied are for all non-members unless there agreements with the EU varying that position, these rules were put into place by and with the support of the UK.
We? Us?
-
Belton.
One last time. They are NOT " choosing not to trade with us because we left."
What is happening is the inevitable consequence of us leaving. The EU didn't sit down and say "Right, the British have left. Do we choose whether to trade with them or not?" They simply applied the rules that are applied to ALL third countries.
The ONLY way they could have done anything different is literally to bend the rules for us. Which you say you have no problem with them not doing. So I honestly don't get the point you are making.
Thanks Billy, I’ve genuinely learned something new tonight.
But
Keeping my positive head on - an opportunity to invest in more purifying plants and creating more jobs.
Bring it on.
-
I'm pretty sure I said before that if you don't want to be included in the conversation to then stay out. That's fairly plain even for you hound I would have thought. You don't add much to the conversations except a continual sniping and you even take it over to the football threads which is remarkably petty. Then you complain that people are having a go at you, I wonder why? :)
-
Belton.
EVERY sovereign market chooses who to trade with!
The salient point here is that the EU hasn't changed its policies to hit us, which is what Tory ministers and Tory papers have been saying.
Third or fourth time I've repeated this now so apologies if I'm sounding like a broken record, but the following point is key and doesn't seem to be getting through.
The EU's policy on fish imports is that fish caught in Class B waters cannot be imported into the EU from a third country for purification in the EU. That, apparently, has been the policy for years. 8 weeks ago, we were not a third country. We chose to become a third country. So the problems this causes for our fishing industry is entirely and solely a result of our choice of policy.
You seem to still be complaining that the EU won't bend the rules to help us out. But that's missing THE massive point. The EU cannot and will not allow third countries to have selected benefits of SM membership. Full stop. That will not happen because it would mean the destruction of the SM.
And, crucially, anyone who was prepared to look at the issues dispassionately knew this years ago. So the Govt putting on a surprised face now and shouting "unfair" means they are either stupid, or deliberately deceiving people. And I don't think they are stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I’m not complaining that they won’t bend the rules for us. I’m expressing my view that choosing not to trade with us BECAUSE we left is not in the best interests of their members who will suffer because of it. They have every right to make things as difficult as they can, but I wouldn’t have thought even the EU would do that at all costs.
I also think that in time, they will welcome such trade again if it benefits them.
You don't seem to get it do you? The EU are NOT making things difficult for us, WE have made it difficult for US! You voted leave, own it, stop blaming the EU, deliver the lies you believed in!
-
I'm pretty sure I said before that if you don't want to be included in the conversation to then stay out. That's fairly plain even for you hound I would have thought. You don't add much to the conversations except a continual sniping and you even take it over to the football threads which is remarkably petty. Then you complain that people are having a go at you, I wonder why? :)
Yeah coz you never jump into other people’s conversations on here do you, like you did this morning between Tommy C and BST.
I was just curious about why you say we and us when you are half a world away and people are talking issues between the UK and the EU.
-
Belton.
EVERY sovereign market chooses who to trade with!
The salient point here is that the EU hasn't changed its policies to hit us, which is what Tory ministers and Tory papers have been saying.
Third or fourth time I've repeated this now so apologies if I'm sounding like a broken record, but the following point is key and doesn't seem to be getting through.
The EU's policy on fish imports is that fish caught in Class B waters cannot be imported into the EU from a third country for purification in the EU. That, apparently, has been the policy for years. 8 weeks ago, we were not a third country. We chose to become a third country. So the problems this causes for our fishing industry is entirely and solely a result of our choice of policy.
You seem to still be complaining that the EU won't bend the rules to help us out. But that's missing THE massive point. The EU cannot and will not allow third countries to have selected benefits of SM membership. Full stop. That will not happen because it would mean the destruction of the SM.
And, crucially, anyone who was prepared to look at the issues dispassionately knew this years ago. So the Govt putting on a surprised face now and shouting "unfair" means they are either stupid, or deliberately deceiving people. And I don't think they are stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I’m not complaining that they won’t bend the rules for us. I’m expressing my view that choosing not to trade with us BECAUSE we left is not in the best interests of their members who will suffer because of it. They have every right to make things as difficult as they can, but I wouldn’t have thought even the EU would do that at all costs.
I also think that in time, they will welcome such trade again if it benefits them.
You don't seem to get it do you? The EU are NOT making things difficult for us, WE have made it difficult for US! You voted leave, own it, stop blaming the EU, deliver the lies you believed in!
The EU are bitter, bitter, bitter, but not nearly as bitter as you are.
For all your knowledge and passion, your obsessive bitterness is your fundamental, fatal flaw:
I’m not blaming the EU. The people I blame are everyone involved in the idea, the passing of and the whole process of the referendum. You seem incapable of seeing anything but Remain= good, Leave=evil. It’s really not like that.
But, despite that, WE, as a democratic society, which includes you, voted to leave.
You ‘own’ it as much as I do. You have as much responsibility to make it work as I do.
You do have two options:
1. Own it. Stop moaning - it absolutely makes no difference now. It’s done. Help the country make it work.
2 Don’t own it. Live in the EU.
-
Many of us are trying to make it work. My own staff are currently trying to sort out the paperwork for a key item of equipment we want to import from Italy which would have been one click 8 weeks ago. To date we've spent 25% of the total cost on admin.
But it's not as simple as just "making it work". We also have a responsibility to reflect on how and why we got here. And that goes to the core of this discussion.
I'd be delighted to see our oyster sellers find a way round the current problems as you suggest they might. But there's a bigger issue. It's the fact that the people who brought us Brexit by lying to us are still lying to us now about the consequences. That was the core of the issue. The fact that the Govt and their press supporters have been insisting that the reason our shellfish industry is on the rocks is because the EU have chosen to make it hard for them. Which is a demonstrable lie.
And if we shrug and ignore that, they will lie to us about the next big decision. And the next. Democracy only works if people hold them responsible.
-
Of course we need to reflect. The whole process was a total f**k up by everyone involved, for years and years. But there is an incomparable difference between reflection and refusing to accept.
-
Belton.
Who isn't accepting? Brexit happened. We are dealing with it. It's a fact.
As far as reflecting goes though, I'm not seeing much from certain people in here. Just constant pushback when the predicted problems actually happen, and accusations of bias when still ongoing lies are laid out.
-
Billy. My comment about making it work was a direct response to another poster who cannot accept it despite thinly veiled threads like this one.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have expressed my regret several times that the vote happened in the first place and that we have had years of a complete f**k up from start to not-yet-finished. If that’s not reflection, I really don’t know what is.
-
Many of us are trying to make it work. My own staff are currently trying to sort out the paperwork for a key item of equipment we want to import from Italy which would have been one click 8 weeks ago. To date we've spent 25% of the total cost on admin.
But it's not as simple as just "making it work". We also have a responsibility to reflect on how and why we got here. And that goes to the core of this discussion.
I'd be delighted to see our oyster sellers find a way round the current problems as you suggest they might. But there's a bigger issue. It's the fact that the people who brought us Brexit by lying to us are still lying to us now about the consequences. That was the core of the issue. The fact that the Govt and their press supporters have been insisting that the reason our shellfish industry is on the rocks is because the EU have chosen to make it hard for them. Which is a demonstrable lie.
And if we shrug and ignore that, they will lie to us about the next big decision. And the next. Democracy only works if people hold them responsible.
I do slightly agree on the first point, though I've found it much less costly than yourself to import. More pressing for my current industry is HMRC changing just about every tax treatment at the same time, really poor timing.
Just a further point on Oysters and fish, does it not say something about our green credentials that we're actually not focussed more on cleaning up our waters, which is at best alarming, but IMO pretty disgraceful?
-
Belton.
EVERY sovereign market chooses who to trade with!
The salient point here is that the EU hasn't changed its policies to hit us, which is what Tory ministers and Tory papers have been saying.
Third or fourth time I've repeated this now so apologies if I'm sounding like a broken record, but the following point is key and doesn't seem to be getting through.
The EU's policy on fish imports is that fish caught in Class B waters cannot be imported into the EU from a third country for purification in the EU. That, apparently, has been the policy for years. 8 weeks ago, we were not a third country. We chose to become a third country. So the problems this causes for our fishing industry is entirely and solely a result of our choice of policy.
You seem to still be complaining that the EU won't bend the rules to help us out. But that's missing THE massive point. The EU cannot and will not allow third countries to have selected benefits of SM membership. Full stop. That will not happen because it would mean the destruction of the SM.
And, crucially, anyone who was prepared to look at the issues dispassionately knew this years ago. So the Govt putting on a surprised face now and shouting "unfair" means they are either stupid, or deliberately deceiving people. And I don't think they are stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I’m not complaining that they won’t bend the rules for us. I’m expressing my view that choosing not to trade with us BECAUSE we left is not in the best interests of their members who will suffer because of it. They have every right to make things as difficult as they can, but I wouldn’t have thought even the EU would do that at all costs.
I also think that in time, they will welcome such trade again if it benefits them.
You don't seem to get it do you? The EU are NOT making things difficult for us, WE have made it difficult for US! You voted leave, own it, stop blaming the EU, deliver the lies you believed in!
The EU are bitter, bitter, bitter, but not nearly as bitter as you are.
For all your knowledge and passion, your obsessive bitterness is your fundamental, fatal flaw:
I’m not blaming the EU. The people I blame are everyone involved in the idea, the passing of and the whole process of the referendum. You seem incapable of seeing anything but Remain= good, Leave=evil. It’s really not like that.
But, despite that, WE, as a democratic society, which includes you, voted to leave.
You ‘own’ it as much as I do. You have as much responsibility to make it work as I do.
You do have two options:
1. Own it. Stop moaning - it absolutely makes no difference now. It’s done. Help the country make it work.
2 Don’t own it. Live in the EU.
You say you're not blaming the EU, yet your first six words, and your previous posts, say the oposite.
Face facts. YOU believed the leave lies. YOU voted leave either accepting or ignoring the consequences. YOU, and others like you are responsible for this mess; not remainers, not the EU, YOU!
That's not me being bitter, that's just facts. You say the people you blame are everyone involved in the idea, the passing of and the whole process of the referendum, yet YOU were part of the passing of the vote to leave the EU. So shoulder some blame, stop trying to pass off your responsibility by deflection. Start out by telling us what you want to happen and what needs to be done to make it happen - you know, the WHAT and the HOW you should have thought about before you put your X in the leave box. You can start with the NI/Republic border issue - something I believe to be very important going forward. Oysters are a minor issue in comparison!
This is supposed to be the Brexit Benefits thread. I posted a potentially major financial sector benefit earlier in the thread yet you, (and others), have not commented on it, preferring to point the finger, (incorrectly), at the EU for being awkward!
-
That is an incredibly bitter response, Not.
Edit: I didn’t believe the lies. I was absolutely sick to death of both sides treating me as an ignorant fool. Playing dangerous games for their own self gratification. That’s why Cameron started this in the first place
Something had to change, which is why, I think, I voted the way I did.
-
And, Not, calling the EU bitter has nothing to do with blaming them for what has happened. I have never said the EU are to blame for Brexit.
-
The problem is that at the moment we are all losers.
-
The problem is that at the moment we are all losers.
I am, 5st 4lb since july
-
The problem is that at the moment we are all losers.
I am, 5st 4lb since july
If that was planned, well done indeed. :thumbsup:
-
The problem is that at the moment we are all losers.
I am, 5st 4lb since july
If that was planned, well done indeed. :thumbsup:
Cheers NNK, very much deliberate
-
The problem is that at the moment we are all losers.
I am, 5st 4lb since july
If that was planned, well done indeed. :thumbsup:
Cheers NNK, very much deliberate
How did you manage it Ldr?
I'm dreading the first session back at the gym. I've always used exercise as a way to keep my weight down.
At 72 my metabolism has slowed right down and little gym over the last 12 months has really got me down.
-
The problem is that at the moment we are all losers.
I am, 5st 4lb since july
If that was planned, well done indeed. :thumbsup:
Cheers NNK, very much deliberate
How did you manage it Ldr?
I'm dreading the first session back at the gym. I've always used exercise as a way to keep my weight down.
At 72 my metabolism has slowed right down and little gym over the last 12 months has really got me down.
Total change of diet and slimming world, found it very filling but on the right stuff
-
We eat fresh food most of the time but old school in not leaving or wasting anything. It just gets harder as you get older.
-
The problem is that at the moment we are all losers.
I am, 5st 4lb since july
Brilliant! Congratulations. I thought I was ding well losing a stone and a bit, but 5st is going some.
-
The problem is that at the moment we are all losers.
I am, 5st 4lb since july
Brilliant! Congratulations. I thought I was ding well losing a stone and a bit, but 5st is going some.
Cheers BST appreciate it
-
So on the shellfish issue, the line from the Govt that the EU has changed the rules and deliberately and unfairly hit British fishermen in an unexpected attack has been most vocally pushed by food minister George Eustice.
Which is odd, because back in December, he was writing to MPs to say that his Department was signing up to precisely these conditions.
https://mobile.twitter.com/bbcmartynoates/status/1365321641362866178
I guess he just has a short memory. He'll not be lying through his teeth to try to tell the public that all the Brexit problems are due to them cheating bas**rds in Brussels.
-
According to the latest polls Labour look like they need to start making a lot up just to stay in touch.
-
Which latest polls?
-
More Bible readings.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/27/johnsons-poll-lead-over-labour-boosted-by-covid-vaccine-rollout
-
Some proper Commy selective readers on here.
-
Some proper Commy selective readers on here.
Just look what Brexiters voted for....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/04/brexit-northern-ireland-loyalist-armies-renounce-good-friday-agreement?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
This isn't likely to end well
-
Some proper Commy selective readers on here.
Just look what Brexiters voted for....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/04/brexit-northern-ireland-loyalist-armies-renounce-good-friday-agreement?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
This isn't likely to end well
I can tell you one crystal clear, here and now benefit of Brexit. It’s outed people like you. People who are quite prepared to make generalised, quite wicked statements about the ‘people’ who voted to leave.
How dare you imply, no, explicitly state that I, and everyone else who voted leave, did so in the hope of the Good Friday agreement being renounced.
Take your f**king poison somewhere else.
-
Some proper Commy selective readers on here.
Just look what Brexiters voted for....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/04/brexit-northern-ireland-loyalist-armies-renounce-good-friday-agreement?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
This isn't likely to end well
I can tell you one crystal clear, here and now benefit of Brexit. It’s outed people like you. People who are quite prepared to make generalised, quite wicked statements about the ‘people’ who voted to leave.
How dare you imply, no, explicitly state that I, and everyone else who voted leave, did so in the hope of the Good Friday agreement being renounced.
Take your f**king poison somewhere else.
But I didn't say that Belton. Please read what I wrote!
-
Brexiter (noun) a person who is in favour of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union.
By definition, that’s me.
You wrote: Look what Brexiters voted for.
What is it you didn’t write, exactly?
-
He didn't 'explicitly state that I, and everyone else who voted leave, did so in the hope of the Good Friday agreement being renounced'. You wrote that.
Brexit is having consequences, a lot of them unforeseen by those who voted for it, including this. But they are still consequences of how they voted.
-
He didn't write 'in the hope of the Good Friday Agreement being renounced'. You wrote that.
Brexit is having consequences, a lot of them unforeseen by those who voted for it, including this. But they are still consequences of how they voted.
If you genuinely vote for something, Glyn, you hope it will happen. Always.
Your point is very, very different to his.
-
He didn't write 'in the hope of the Good Friday Agreement being renounced'. You wrote that.
Brexit is having consequences, a lot of them unforeseen by those who voted for it, including this. But they are still consequences of how they voted.
If you genuinely vote for something, Glyn, you hope it will happen. Always.
Your point is very, very different to his.
And you also have to accept the consequences as being a result of what you vote for, even if you didn't foresee them.
-
Any consequences of Brexit I accept as a result of the vote to leave, which I was a part of.
I don’t understand what that has to do with Not’s post.
-
Well, new Customs checks being imposed somewhere into and out of Northern Ireland were always going to be a consequence of Brexit, unless the UK stayed within the Single Market.
-
It seems you are simply refusing to acknowledge my point, so I’ll leave it there.
-
I'm refusing to acknowledge that NNK said what you say he did. Because he didn't say it, you did.
-
Okay, let me take it back and say this instead:
How dare you explicitly say that I, as a Brexiter voted for that.
Cut to his link that the Good Friday agreement has been/will be renounced.
It means EXACTLY the same.
-
Okay, let me take it back and say this instead:
How dare you explicitly say that I, as a Brexiter voted for that.
Cut to his link that the Good Friday agreement has been/will be renounced.
It means EXACTLY the same.
It does NOT mean exactly the same. As I've been saying, if you voted for Brexit you also voted for the consequences of it, even if they're unknown at the time of the vote. Although it WAS known that there would be consequences in Northern Ireland (or it should have been known by those voting for Brexit), no-one could have known at the time of the Referendum what they would exactly turn out to be - especially as all the Leavers were telling us all we were still going to be in the Single Market if we voted to leave!
If you're still not sure, ask yourself one very simple question - 'Would this be happening if we had voted to Remain?'. If the answer is no, then it IS something that Brexiters voted for, even if they didn't know it was going to happen as a result of voting to leave.
-
‘This is the consequence of what you voted for’, is NOTHING like ‘this is what you voted for’.
Perhaps we should just ask ‘Not’ what he actually means by it. He’s had long enough to think about it.
-
I don't know why you're getting all wound up about brexit belton didn't you tell everyone only last week you were not sure what you were voting for?
-
I don't know why you're getting all wound up about brexit belton didn't you tell everyone only last week you were not sure what you were voting for?
But I’m not getting wound up about Brexit, Sydney. I’m getting wound up by quite a despicable accusation that you deem fit to make light of.
At least Not knows why I voted - so the troubles in Ireland could start up again.
-
Glyn, we are out now, and we should be in charge of our own destiny, and if that means telling the EU to go do one then so be it. It' s better than grey areas at least everyone should know where they stand.
-
United Seaways have announced a new roll on roll off ferry crossing from Poole to Morocco saving three days on the present journey which has to be from Britain to Spain and then from Spain to Morocco at present, and will take trade away from Spanish ports.
It will save unnecessary paper work with trade between Britain and Morocco worth £2.5 billion in 2018 and expected to grow significantly as we source produce away from the EU and encourage other sea routes to be opened up to other destinations on the African coast.
-
Just have to make up the other 2.3 trillion and we're square.
-
United Seaways have announced a new roll on roll off ferry crossing from Poole to Morocco saving three days on the present journey which has to be from Britain to Spain and then from Spain to Morocco at present, and will take trade away from Spanish ports.
It will save unnecessary paper work with trade between Britain and Morocco worth £2.5 billion in 2018 and expected to grow significantly as we source produce away from the EU and encourage other sea routes to be opened up to other destinations on the African coast.
Well that must be a benefit selby.
No doubt that other savings will begin to stack up soon.
-
Meanwhile Irish ferry routes going directly EU to EU
https://www.politico.eu/article/ferry-firms-avoid-britain-with-brexit-buster-services-from-ireland-to-eu/ (https://www.politico.eu/article/ferry-firms-avoid-britain-with-brexit-buster-services-from-ireland-to-eu/)
So that cuts Irish sea crossings out losing us the UK (I would guess) much much more than we gain in going direct to Morocco
Holyhead Dover and others all bypassed by those lorries from Ireland destined for Calais Zeebrugge etc and that will be a big BIG loss I guess (again)
-
How wolfie (forgive if a stupid question but waiting to head down for surgery so head not in good place
-
Belton, please accept my apologies for not replying sooner to your comments, I was somewhat busy yesterday and didn't visit this thread until minutes before I went to bed last night.
Having said that, I believe Glyn has more than adequately summed up the situation; and for that I thank him. In fact, if there had been an announcement that everyone in the UK was suddenly £1,000 a year better off due to Brexit then my statement would have been equally true "Just look what Brexiters voted for....", but of course, you wouldn't have dissagreed with that, would you?
But if you want to look into this a little deeper then when the issue was raised prior to the referendum there were only three possible options in respect of the Northern Ireland/ Republic of Ireland border question....
1. The UK as a whole remain in the Single Market and Customs Union
2. A Hard Border is set up between NI and the RoI
3. NI remains in the Single Market and Customs Union with a border between NI and the rest of the UK, effectively in the Irish Sea.
That was as true then as it is today, there are no other possible options. Yes, at the time Gove and Johnson talked about a 'technology solution', but that was just another Unicorn to fool people - such a system doesn't exist and even if it were to be developed it would have to meet EU requirements and there would have to be border checks anyway.
So, let's look at those options in a little detail....
Option 1. was the sensible option as it removed all issues surrounding the NI/RoI border. Further, it also simplified all trade between the UK and the EU as in reality nothing would have changed. However, it would have been hard to sell to hard line Brexiters and, especially, the Hard Right in the Tory Party who would have argued that it meant that we wouldn't have really left the EU. May tried to include a form of it in her agreement with the EU however, this was voted down by the Tory Hard Right and, sadly, Labour!
Option 2. was a non starter. Firstly, it would be totally against the Good Friday Agreement. Secondly there were many physical, cost and trade implications, (not least the Americans openly stating that we could forget a trade agreement if we wrote off the GFA). There would also need to be border checks.
So that leaves Option 3. which is where we are today. That was never going to be acceptable to the 'loyalists' in NI but it was the only option left to the Tory Right. Johnson openly said that there would be no border checks with this option, (another of his lies), and that if there was any additional paperwork send it to him and he'd sort it, (yet another lie). As the effects of leaving the EU in the way we chose are now having a big effect on the people of NI it was always to be expected that they'd react strongly to it.
And now we're seeing the effects of choosing Option 3. Something totally predictable, but either ignored by Leave Voters or they couldn't care less. I've posted this before, but in a discussion with friends about the three options, prior to the referendum, one of them actually said "Fcuk the Irish", falling clearly into that latter category; the others felt that there'd be another solution that would solve the issues falling into the 'ignore reality' category.
I genuinely hope that the situation in NI doesn't escalate to the point of violence and bloodshed, but I stand fully by my statement in my earlier post.
-
United Seaways have announced a new roll on roll off ferry crossing from Poole to Morocco saving three days on the present journey which has to be from Britain to Spain and then from Spain to Morocco at present, and will take trade away from Spanish ports.
It will save unnecessary paper work with trade between Britain and Morocco worth £2.5 billion in 2018 and expected to grow significantly as we source produce away from the EU and encourage other sea routes to be opened up to other destinations on the African coast.
Despite that there was nothing stopping anybody running a direct route between the UK and Morocco before Brexit anyway, I'd love to know what the 'unnecessary' paperwork is that's being avoided. Over to you, selby.
PS It's a shame we threw away the EU Preference Agreements with all the North African countries that allowed UK businesses to import their goods free of Duty when we left the EU, isn't it? We might be aiming to import more of their goods but they'll be more expensive to import than they were before. Perhaps you see that as a benefit too.
-
How wolfie (forgive if a stupid question but waiting to head down for surgery so head not in good place
Sorry to hear this LDR. Hope all goes well for you and that you have a speedy recovery.
-
Hope everything is ok Ldr.
-
This "look what you voted for" spat has me bemused.
It takes a bit of an effort to interpret that as "I genuinely and seriously believe you voted with the express intention of restarting The Troubles."
It's a turn of phrase. It means "Look what your vote has enabled." It's a rhetorical device which emphasises the responsibility for the outcome, even if it was an unintended and unwished outcome.
Or have we changed the English language now, and every word, every phrase is only to be interpreted strictly literally.
Personally, my interest is far more in the troubling issue at the core. The Leave side told us that concerns about Brexit stoking sectarian troubles were Project Fear. Surely we all have a responsibility to reflect on the predictions and the outcomes. Rather than lose yet another discussion down a rabbit hole of subjective semantics.
-
What do you mean when you say 'semantics'? :silly:
-
Very good!
-
This "look what you voted for" spat has me bemused.
It takes a bit of an effort to interpret that as "I genuinely and seriously believe you voted with the express intention of restarting The Troubles."
It's a turn of phrase. It means "Look what your vote has enabled." It's a rhetorical device which emphasises the responsibility for the outcome, even if it was an unintended and unwished outcome.
Or have we changed the English language now, and every word, every phrase is only to be interpreted strictly literally.
Personally, my interest is far more in the troubling issue at the core. The Leave side told us that concerns about Brexit stoking sectarian troubles were Project Fear. Surely we all have a responsibility to reflect on the predictions and the outcomes. Rather than lose yet another discussion down a rabbit hole of subjective semantics.
I wondered how long it would take you.
You are now suddenly bemused by someone (me) of taking something literally, after accusing me of all sorts of bullshit for not taking you literally on many occasions.
This makes you a complete hypocrite who will changes his own rules to suit agenda.
You have attempted to ridicule me for explaining my views on interpretation of language many times. And yet here you are.
If Not didn’t mean I voted for this, then he should at least have the courtesy to say so.
You on the other hand, are now just playing the WUM game.
A new low for you.
Edit: Not - I hadn’t seen your reply when I wrote this.
-
Belton, please accept my apologies for not replying sooner to your comments, I was somewhat busy yesterday and didn't visit this thread until minutes before I went to bed last night.
Having said that, I believe Glyn has more than adequately summed up the situation; and for that I thank him. In fact, if there had been an announcement that everyone in the UK was suddenly £1,000 a year better off due to Brexit then my statement would have been equally true "Just look what Brexiters voted for....", but of course, you wouldn't have dissagreed with that, would you?
But if you want to look into this a little deeper then when the issue was raised prior to the referendum there were only three possible options in respect of the Northern Ireland/ Republic of Ireland border question....
1. The UK as a whole remain in the Single Market and Customs Union
2. A Hard Border is set up between NI and the RoI
3. NI remains in the Single Market and Customs Union with a border between NI and the rest of the UK, effectively in the Irish Sea.
That was as true then as it is today, there are no other possible options. Yes, at the time Gove and Johnson talked about a 'technology solution', but that was just another Unicorn to fool people - such a system doesn't exist and even if it were to be developed it would have to meet EU requirements and there would have to be border checks anyway.
So, let's look at those options in a little detail....
Option 1. was the sensible option as it removed all issues surrounding the NI/RoI border. Further, it also simplified all trade between the UK and the EU as in reality nothing would have changed. However, it would have been hard to sell to hard line Brexiters and, especially, the Hard Right in the Tory Party who would have argued that it meant that we wouldn't have really left the EU. May tried to include a form of it in her agreement with the EU however, this was voted down by the Tory Hard Right and, sadly, Labour!
Option 2. was a non starter. Firstly, it would be totally against the Good Friday Agreement. Secondly there were many physical, cost and trade implications, (not least the Americans openly stating that we could forget a trade agreement if we wrote off the GFA). There would also need to be border checks.
So that leaves Option 3. which is where we are today. That was never going to be acceptable to the 'loyalists' in NI but it was the only option left to the Tory Right. Johnson openly said that there would be no border checks with this option, (another of his lies), and that if there was any additional paperwork send it to him and he'd sort it, (yet another lie). As the effects of leaving the EU in the way we chose are now having a big effect on the people of NI it was always to be expected that they'd react strongly to it.
And now we're seeing the effects of choosing Option 3. Something totally predictable, but either ignored by Leave Voters or they couldn't care less. I've posted this before, but in a discussion with friends about the three options, prior to the referendum, one of them actually said "Fcuk the Irish", falling clearly into that latter category; the others felt that there'd be another solution that would solve the issues falling into the 'ignore reality' category.
I genuinely hope that the situation in NI doesn't escalate to the point of violence and bloodshed, but I stand fully by my statement in my earlier post.
Thanks for your detailed reply, Not.
As I tried to explain to Glyn, my issue wasn’t with the link or the facts regarding the Good Friday agreement. It was with your comment about ‘what Brexiters voted for’, which was, to me a blase comment written to antagonise, like you might do regarding blue passports or something equally trivial.
If you didn’t mean for it to have that effect, then fine, but if you did, then it was in very bad taste.
This is why I asked you to clarify what you meant. It’s just a shame that others thought it the right thing to do to jump on the remainers’ roadshow and answer for you.
-
Thanks BST, NNK et al, back on ward now be home later, just an quick one today
-
Belton.
My issue with your approach is simple. If there are ever subtleties and potential interpretations of meaning is someone's words, you frequently choose the interpretation which justifies you taking offence or kick off an argument which is tangential to the substantive topic.
On this theme, as I say, it does take a real effort of will to interpret NNK's original post as literally meaning that you knowingly and willingly voted for an increase in sectarian tensions, but somehow you managed to put that meaning on it.
-
Billy. It only takes real effort for you because you don’t want to see it like that. You see things as you choose to see them, as is clearly evident here. Yet you are bewildered and flabbergasted when you think others are doing the same.
As I said - at best, you are a hypocrite. At worst, a WUM.
-
Belton.
So you are seriously telling me that you saw NNK's OP and thought "My God! He thinks I deliberately chose to vote for an increase in sectarian tensions!"
Really?
As regards those insults you've thrown my way, I challenge you to substantiate those. As I say, the root cause of every argument we have had has been your insistence on putting interpretations on what people have said that justify you taking offence. If I've pointed that out regularly, I don't see how that makes me a hypocrite or WUM.
-
No Billy
What I thought is that Not was trying to wind people up with the language he chose.
And it worked. There are many things open to banter or piss taking that are part and parcel of a forum like this (in fact there’s not enough of it on here due to how the forum has changed for the worst) in the right context and for certain subjects. I thought what Not said, considering the topic, was below the belt. Though that doesn’t make him a WUM, by the way.
I decline your challenge. The evidence is there for anyone to find who doesn’t have much of a will to live.
A starter though: look anywhere where you have accused me of misrepresentation of you and your words, or anywhere where you have used the phrase ‘bad faith’.
-
Belton, please accept my apologies for not replying sooner to your comments, I was somewhat busy yesterday and didn't visit this thread until minutes before I went to bed last night.
Having said that, I believe Glyn has more than adequately summed up the situation; and for that I thank him. In fact, if there had been an announcement that everyone in the UK was suddenly £1,000 a year better off due to Brexit then my statement would have been equally true "Just look what Brexiters voted for....", but of course, you wouldn't have dissagreed with that, would you?
But if you want to look into this a little deeper then when the issue was raised prior to the referendum there were only three possible options in respect of the Northern Ireland/ Republic of Ireland border question....
1. The UK as a whole remain in the Single Market and Customs Union
2. A Hard Border is set up between NI and the RoI
3. NI remains in the Single Market and Customs Union with a border between NI and the rest of the UK, effectively in the Irish Sea.
That was as true then as it is today, there are no other possible options. Yes, at the time Gove and Johnson talked about a 'technology solution', but that was just another Unicorn to fool people - such a system doesn't exist and even if it were to be developed it would have to meet EU requirements and there would have to be border checks anyway.
So, let's look at those options in a little detail....
Option 1. was the sensible option as it removed all issues surrounding the NI/RoI border. Further, it also simplified all trade between the UK and the EU as in reality nothing would have changed. However, it would have been hard to sell to hard line Brexiters and, especially, the Hard Right in the Tory Party who would have argued that it meant that we wouldn't have really left the EU. May tried to include a form of it in her agreement with the EU however, this was voted down by the Tory Hard Right and, sadly, Labour!
Option 2. was a non starter. Firstly, it would be totally against the Good Friday Agreement. Secondly there were many physical, cost and trade implications, (not least the Americans openly stating that we could forget a trade agreement if we wrote off the GFA). There would also need to be border checks.
So that leaves Option 3. which is where we are today. That was never going to be acceptable to the 'loyalists' in NI but it was the only option left to the Tory Right. Johnson openly said that there would be no border checks with this option, (another of his lies), and that if there was any additional paperwork send it to him and he'd sort it, (yet another lie). As the effects of leaving the EU in the way we chose are now having a big effect on the people of NI it was always to be expected that they'd react strongly to it.
And now we're seeing the effects of choosing Option 3. Something totally predictable, but either ignored by Leave Voters or they couldn't care less. I've posted this before, but in a discussion with friends about the three options, prior to the referendum, one of them actually said "Fcuk the Irish", falling clearly into that latter category; the others felt that there'd be another solution that would solve the issues falling into the 'ignore reality' category.
I genuinely hope that the situation in NI doesn't escalate to the point of violence and bloodshed, but I stand fully by my statement in my earlier post.
Thanks for your detailed reply, Not.
As I tried to explain to Glyn, my issue wasn’t with the link or the facts regarding the Good Friday agreement. It was with your comment about ‘what Brexiters voted for’, which was, to me a blase comment written to antagonise, like you might do regarding blue passports or something equally trivial.
If you didn’t mean for it to have that effect, then fine, but if you did, then it was in very bad taste.
This is why I asked you to clarify what you meant. It’s just a shame that others thought it the right thing to do to jump on the remainers’ roadshow and answer for you.
It most certainly was not written to antagonise, Belton; it was simply a question of fact to point out a failure of Brexit, and I hope my further detailed explanation was further clarification of what I meant. The issue was certainly well known before the vote.
I started this thread with a view to people posting real benefits of Brexit if/as they arose. To date I seem to be the only one who has posted a 'tangible benefit' - EU companies applying for a licence to practice in the finance area of the UK, (much earlier in the thread now), yet no one has commented on that or explored it further.
Perhaps my mistake was in posting the link to what is happening in NI in the Brexit Benefits Log thread rather than what I posted itself; and that in hindsight I should have created a separate thread.
-
NNK don't sweat it, it's far too easy to appear antagonistic in text format
-
Belton, please accept my apologies for not replying sooner to your comments, I was somewhat busy yesterday and didn't visit this thread until minutes before I went to bed last night.
Having said that, I believe Glyn has more than adequately summed up the situation; and for that I thank him. In fact, if there had been an announcement that everyone in the UK was suddenly £1,000 a year better off due to Brexit then my statement would have been equally true "Just look what Brexiters voted for....", but of course, you wouldn't have dissagreed with that, would you?
But if you want to look into this a little deeper then when the issue was raised prior to the referendum there were only three possible options in respect of the Northern Ireland/ Republic of Ireland border question....
1. The UK as a whole remain in the Single Market and Customs Union
2. A Hard Border is set up between NI and the RoI
3. NI remains in the Single Market and Customs Union with a border between NI and the rest of the UK, effectively in the Irish Sea.
That was as true then as it is today, there are no other possible options. Yes, at the time Gove and Johnson talked about a 'technology solution', but that was just another Unicorn to fool people - such a system doesn't exist and even if it were to be developed it would have to meet EU requirements and there would have to be border checks anyway.
So, let's look at those options in a little detail....
Option 1. was the sensible option as it removed all issues surrounding the NI/RoI border. Further, it also simplified all trade between the UK and the EU as in reality nothing would have changed. However, it would have been hard to sell to hard line Brexiters and, especially, the Hard Right in the Tory Party who would have argued that it meant that we wouldn't have really left the EU. May tried to include a form of it in her agreement with the EU however, this was voted down by the Tory Hard Right and, sadly, Labour!
Option 2. was a non starter. Firstly, it would be totally against the Good Friday Agreement. Secondly there were many physical, cost and trade implications, (not least the Americans openly stating that we could forget a trade agreement if we wrote off the GFA). There would also need to be border checks.
So that leaves Option 3. which is where we are today. That was never going to be acceptable to the 'loyalists' in NI but it was the only option left to the Tory Right. Johnson openly said that there would be no border checks with this option, (another of his lies), and that if there was any additional paperwork send it to him and he'd sort it, (yet another lie). As the effects of leaving the EU in the way we chose are now having a big effect on the people of NI it was always to be expected that they'd react strongly to it.
And now we're seeing the effects of choosing Option 3. Something totally predictable, but either ignored by Leave Voters or they couldn't care less. I've posted this before, but in a discussion with friends about the three options, prior to the referendum, one of them actually said "Fcuk the Irish", falling clearly into that latter category; the others felt that there'd be another solution that would solve the issues falling into the 'ignore reality' category.
I genuinely hope that the situation in NI doesn't escalate to the point of violence and bloodshed, but I stand fully by my statement in my earlier post.
Thanks for your detailed reply, Not.
As I tried to explain to Glyn, my issue wasn’t with the link or the facts regarding the Good Friday agreement. It was with your comment about ‘what Brexiters voted for’, which was, to me a blase comment written to antagonise, like you might do regarding blue passports or something equally trivial.
If you didn’t mean for it to have that effect, then fine, but if you did, then it was in very bad taste.
This is why I asked you to clarify what you meant. It’s just a shame that others thought it the right thing to do to jump on the remainers’ roadshow and answer for you.
It most certainly was not written to antagonise, Belton; it was simply a question of fact to point out a failure of Brexit, and I hope my further detailed explanation was further clarification of what I meant. The issue was certainly well known before the vote.
I started this thread with a view to people posting real benefits of Brexit if/as they arose. To date I seem to be the only one who has posted a 'tangible benefit' - EU companies applying for a licence to practice in the finance area of the UK, (much earlier in the thread now), yet no one has commented on that or explored it further.
Perhaps my mistake was in posting the link to what is happening in NI in the Brexit Benefits Log thread rather than what I posted itself; and that in hindsight I should have created a separate thread.
I think you are right - perhaps it was where the link was posted that got my goat - as you know, I don’t think the thread comes close to acheiving what you assure us you wanted it to acheive. If it did, then there would only be a handful of posts on here wouldn’t there?
I ‘d also like to withdraw my initial comment/reaction to your post.
It was an over reaction.
-
How wolfie (forgive if a stupid question but waiting to head down for surgery so head not in good place
Oh good god - good luck with that - Im really cringing now
I was trying just to suggest that as UK PLC we will lose loads of money by missing all the ROI and presumably NI lorries that wont now cross the Irish Sea and the Channel as they go direct
All the Ferry fares all the diesel they may have bought ,breakdowns serviced etc and incidentals like food etc
I thought it would be substantial sum of money thrown away as ROI hauliers open up and support a direct EU 2 EU route that they have previously spurned
... but enough of that i just hope op goes well :thumbsup:
-
Belton, please accept my apologies for not replying sooner to your comments, I was somewhat busy yesterday and didn't visit this thread until minutes before I went to bed last night.
Having said that, I believe Glyn has more than adequately summed up the situation; and for that I thank him. In fact, if there had been an announcement that everyone in the UK was suddenly £1,000 a year better off due to Brexit then my statement would have been equally true "Just look what Brexiters voted for....", but of course, you wouldn't have dissagreed with that, would you?
But if you want to look into this a little deeper then when the issue was raised prior to the referendum there were only three possible options in respect of the Northern Ireland/ Republic of Ireland border question....
1. The UK as a whole remain in the Single Market and Customs Union
2. A Hard Border is set up between NI and the RoI
3. NI remains in the Single Market and Customs Union with a border between NI and the rest of the UK, effectively in the Irish Sea.
That was as true then as it is today, there are no other possible options. Yes, at the time Gove and Johnson talked about a 'technology solution', but that was just another Unicorn to fool people - such a system doesn't exist and even if it were to be developed it would have to meet EU requirements and there would have to be border checks anyway.
So, let's look at those options in a little detail....
Option 1. was the sensible option as it removed all issues surrounding the NI/RoI border. Further, it also simplified all trade between the UK and the EU as in reality nothing would have changed. However, it would have been hard to sell to hard line Brexiters and, especially, the Hard Right in the Tory Party who would have argued that it meant that we wouldn't have really left the EU. May tried to include a form of it in her agreement with the EU however, this was voted down by the Tory Hard Right and, sadly, Labour!
Option 2. was a non starter. Firstly, it would be totally against the Good Friday Agreement. Secondly there were many physical, cost and trade implications, (not least the Americans openly stating that we could forget a trade agreement if we wrote off the GFA). There would also need to be border checks.
So that leaves Option 3. which is where we are today. That was never going to be acceptable to the 'loyalists' in NI but it was the only option left to the Tory Right. Johnson openly said that there would be no border checks with this option, (another of his lies), and that if there was any additional paperwork send it to him and he'd sort it, (yet another lie). As the effects of leaving the EU in the way we chose are now having a big effect on the people of NI it was always to be expected that they'd react strongly to it.
And now we're seeing the effects of choosing Option 3. Something totally predictable, but either ignored by Leave Voters or they couldn't care less. I've posted this before, but in a discussion with friends about the three options, prior to the referendum, one of them actually said "Fcuk the Irish", falling clearly into that latter category; the others felt that there'd be another solution that would solve the issues falling into the 'ignore reality' category.
I genuinely hope that the situation in NI doesn't escalate to the point of violence and bloodshed, but I stand fully by my statement in my earlier post.
Thanks for your detailed reply, Not.
As I tried to explain to Glyn, my issue wasn’t with the link or the facts regarding the Good Friday agreement. It was with your comment about ‘what Brexiters voted for’, which was, to me a blase comment written to antagonise, like you might do regarding blue passports or something equally trivial.
If you didn’t mean for it to have that effect, then fine, but if you did, then it was in very bad taste.
This is why I asked you to clarify what you meant. It’s just a shame that others thought it the right thing to do to jump on the remainers’ roadshow and answer for you.
It most certainly was not written to antagonise, Belton; it was simply a question of fact to point out a failure of Brexit, and I hope my further detailed explanation was further clarification of what I meant. The issue was certainly well known before the vote.
I started this thread with a view to people posting real benefits of Brexit if/as they arose. To date I seem to be the only one who has posted a 'tangible benefit' - EU companies applying for a licence to practice in the finance area of the UK, (much earlier in the thread now), yet no one has commented on that or explored it further.
Perhaps my mistake was in posting the link to what is happening in NI in the Brexit Benefits Log thread rather than what I posted itself; and that in hindsight I should have created a separate thread.
I think you are right - perhaps it was where the link was posted that got my goat - as you know, I don’t think the thread comes close to acheiving what you assure us you wanted it to acheive. If it did, then there would only be a handful of posts on here wouldn’t there?
I ‘d also like to withdraw my initial comment/reaction to your post.
It was an over reaction.
No problem Belton, I really should have created a separate thread - it's just that I have friends in Ireland so I am naturally very concerned as to what is happening over there. I also spent some time working in Belfast, (non forces related), immediately after Bloody Sunday and am acutely aware from experience how bad things were over there at the time, and I'd hate for it to go back to that. Lots of tales to tell, it wasn't pleasant for someone from England over there at the time, by any stretch of the imagination, but it was much worse for the people who lived there themselves. Though I can now look back to the experience fondly and with a bit of a smile.
Have been back on a number of occasions, wonderful City, though a trip down the Falls Road is something I'd not like to repeat!
-
Cheers Wolfie appreciate that, back home now and thanks for the clarification
-
The US have lifted 25% tariffs on a number of items including Scotch Whiskey single Malts imposed because of EU subsidies to building aircraft.
Now we are out of the Eu talks are continuing on a full blown trade agreement with the US.
2) sold two tranches of Barclays bank shares bought in January for 96 pence sold for 170 pence. Hope you were on them lads, well you've got to take advantage while the chance is is there haven't you.
-
Cheers Wolfie appreciate that, back home now and thanks for the clarification
Great stuff...
-
Yep, good news Ldr.
-
Here’s to recuperating with a win today LDR.
Take care.
-
Brexit benefit .......... farage exit only a few more dishonest incompetents to go.
-
Brexit benefit .......... farage exit only a few more dishonest incompetents to go.
What makes you think Farage has gone? He clings on worse than haemorrhoids.
-
Maybe a lighted taper would cure both?
-
He "went" before didn't he.
Said he'd done with British politics, although oddly kept drawing his MEP salary for a job he didn't do. And was given use of his friend Banks's London penthouse flat and chauffer-driven car because, he claimed, he didn't have the income to run his life on his own salary.
They come in all shapes and sizes, these campaigners against The Elite, don't they?
-
Appoint him as our Ambassador in Brussels or Paris.
-
Maybe he should have been more honest, like Neil Kinnock, and kept on drawing his MEP salary for a job he didn't believe in, but paid well.
-
In what way did Kinnock not believe in the EU?
-
I don't know why he didn't believe in it before he changed his mind.
-
It appears he didn’t believe in it until Labour lost the election in 1983. After that he changed his mind in a futile attempt to give Labour a better chance of winning the next one, and giving himself a better chance of becoming PM.
Fancy making such a huge decision, affecting millions of peoples lives, simply for political and personal power.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/neil-kinnock-why-i-changed-my-mind-about-britain-in-europe-brexit-eu
-
Your last paragraph could apply to Boris in some ways Belton.
I'm not excusing Kinnock by the way.
-
It was meant to, Idler.
-
It appears he didn’t believe in it until Labour lost the election in 1983. After that he changed his mind in a futile attempt to give Labour a better chance of winning the next one, and giving himself a better chance of becoming PM.
Fancy making such a huge decision, affecting millions of peoples lives, simply for political and personal power.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/neil-kinnock-why-i-changed-my-mind-about-britain-in-europe-brexit-eu
Glad to see it's not just my words you totally misrepresent. It's clearly a general policy of yours.
You are entirely at libert to believe that of Kinnock. But implying that those words in that article support you drawing that conclusion is beyond ridiculous. If not unexpected.
-
Billy. You are quite unbelievable.
You accuse me of misrepresentation
You accuse me of taking phrases literally
You accuse me of not taking phrases literally
You accuse me of trying to change the English language when I comment on phrases that are clear.
You tell me I argue about arguing, yet that is exactly what you do regularly, and are doing now.
You refuse to engage my opinion without links, yet ridicule when I put up a supporting link.
You ask a question and I give my view with evidence to support and you accuse me of misrepresentation. You jump in on discussions that you have no initial input with, just to question my motives.
The last time I suggested WUMmish behaviour from you, it was in semi-jest, but I am becoming more and more convinced that you really are a WUM.
Just one question on the actual link that you accuse me of (yawn) misrepresenting: If Labour had won the election in 1983, would he have immediately changed from anti EU to pro?
That’s not meant as a rhetorical question, but it doesn’t take much thinking about, does it?
-
Belton.
Calm down and think about what I'm saying.
I said you are perfectly at liberty to believe that Kinnock changed his views on the EEC BECAUSE it was an electorally unpopular stance. But there was precisely nothing in that article to support that opinion. In fact, Kinnock clearly and unambiguously explains in that article his reasons why he changed his stance. But you ignore all those and berate him for being a hypocrite.
My point is that you probably ought to have some pretty strong evidence before you start making that sort of accusation. And there is precisely nothing in that article to support that opinion.
In your last rant, you double down in that. You ask "If Labour had won the election in 1983, would he have immediately changed from anti-EU to pro-EU". But Kinnock himself says in that article about the 1983 defeat:
"For me, that was a confirmation, not a revelation. For years before that, it had objectively become clear that the operation of European Regional Development policy existed to counter the “centripetal pull” and UK engagement in the Common Market was promoting, not inhibiting, investment and jobs—though never enough. I heard my courageous friend, John Hume of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, describe the Community as “the most successful peace process in history.” Willy Brandt struck a resonant chord when he responded to a Labour MEP’s assertion that the Community was “capitalism’s adventure playground” by saying “It will only be that if socialists turn their back and allow it to be so.” Reports were coming from European trade union organisations of progress towards a “social dimension” and some of Labour’s new MEP’s were telling me of the agenda of rights and protections which they shared with sister party colleagues in the European Parliament."
That's his very words. In the very article you linked to.
How on earth can you post that as evidence, say "he changed his mind in a futile attempt to give Labour a better chance of winning the next one, and giving himself a better chance of becoming PM", and then be outraged when I point out that you are misrepresenting his words. Of course you are misrepresenting him. It's as plain as bloody day man.
-
Of course he’s not going to say ‘we lost the election so I’m going to tell everyone that I’m going to become pro EU; let’s see if that works, is he? He’s a bloody politician.
In the link, he says in ‘79 he was anti EU but the EU had no relevance to the election that Labour lost, so he stayed anti EU. In ‘83, he was anti EU but this time the EU did have a relevance to the election that Labour lost, so he became pro EU to stand a chance in the next election.
Do you think you’ll ever hear Johnson go on record to say he tossed a coin to decide his stance on the EU?
-
You just can't help it can you?
That is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he says. Nowhere does he say anything remotely like that. You accuse him of changing his beliefs BECAUSE Labour lost. Maybe he did. Maybe he is lying through his teeth in that article in saying that many things had changed in the "years before" 1983 to change his mind. But you cannot objectively read that article and even begin to suggest that his words support that opinion.
Well, clearly YOU can and have done. I'm just pointing out the error of that.
-
I don't know why he changed his mind and went in favour of the EU. Maybe he thought he was wrong to be against it previously, and in fact realised it was good for the people of this country.
Well, that and his and their lasses 10 million quid EU earnings.
-
I'll repeat by the way, it's not your opinion I have an issue with. It's the way that you twist Kinnock's very words in order to support that opinion. I agree that he is likely to paint himself in as favourable as light as possible. I just don't understand why you would post that link in order to support what you clearly believe to be true (and which may well be true) when it unambiguously does not.
-
BB
By the time Kinnock took up the role as EU Commissioner, he had publicly and stridently advocated our membership for over a decade.
What was your point again?
-
In a nutshell, he knew what side of the bread was buttered!
-
Just think BST, if you spread your wings away from this third division off-topic football forum and become a Tory MP, you might mix in the right circles and become a millionaire x 10 in a decade or so!
-
Roll up. We've got another BB Cliche Bingo game underway.
-
Bail out?
-
We? is that the Royal We?
-
You just can't help it can you?
That is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he says. Nowhere does he say anything remotely like that. You accuse him of changing his beliefs BECAUSE Labour lost. Maybe he did. Maybe he is lying through his teeth in that article in saying that many things had changed in the "years before" 1983 to change his mind. But you cannot objectively read that article and even begin to suggest that his words support that opinion.
Well, clearly YOU can and have done. I'm just pointing out the error of that.
I see. So the only way you’ll accept that Kinnock became pro EU for political success is if Kinnock says ‘I became pro EU for political success’?
We can assume then that you believe OJ Simpson is innocent and God told Peter Sutcliffe to murder 13 women.
-
Belton.
No that's absolutely not what I'm saying.
Please read what I wrote, rather than put words in my mouth.
I'm saying you are perfectly at liberty to believe what you want, but there is nothing in that article to support what you seem to believe. So I don't know why a) you posted it and b) you then misrepresented the content.
For what it's worth, Kinnock's claim to have been reflecting for years does tally somewhat with the historical record. He'd been a far left firebrand as a (very young) MP in the early 70s. But he had been moving away from those positions as he aged. By 1981, he was held responsible by the Bennite wing of the party for organising to prevent (the very anti-EU) Tony Benn winning the Deputy Leadership against (the very pro-EU) Dennis Healy. If you want my take, I think he was genuine in his conversion, and used the shock of the 1983 result to force through a change of policy that probably wouldn't have been possible in other circumstances.
But that's just my opinion.
-
PS. Many in the centre-Left went through that conversion by the way. Myself included. Because the Bennite description of the EEC as a club to enable the worst excesses of Capitalism didn't square with the facts we saw - an EEC/EU that worked successfully to share out wealth, support economically disadvantaged regions and enshrine workers' rights.
As a final aside, there is an odd side to this little discussion. BB has told us for years that the Remain supporters should accept the result and move on. You, Belton, have said regularly that everyone should try to make the best if the situation for Britain. Kinnock is probably the highest profile politician who accepted the defeat in 1975 and worked to try to make the best of our position after that vote. And you both call him a hypocrite who changed his mind for party and personal game.
Looks like there's actually no pleasing you two on this issue. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
-
Billy. That whole article is Kinnock reflecting on that period of is life. Even in a one sided, biased piece, he clearly states that things had to change for Labour after ‘83 and he chose to publicly change his stance on the EU as part of that change. IT IS OF MY OPINION (I hate using capitals, as it’s a cheap shot, but sometimes there’s no other way) that first and foremost, his decision to switch sides was political. I have also formed the opinion that if he thought it was in his and Labour’s best interests to continue to be anti EU then he would. As would 99% of all politicians.
You really need to make your mind up about how language works. OF COURSE there are different interpretations to many things. Pretty much any article or link that has ever been put on here can be interpreted different ways. You are an expert at interpreting such things to suit your point of view, just as you are doing here.
But for crying out loud, stop telling me, every single time I offer an interpretation that is different, but no less valid as yours, that I am misrepresenting.
It really is the weakest, yet most arrogant of arguments.
Edit: Another favourite phrase of yours is ‘don’t put words into my mouth’. That can only work both ways - I never called Kinnock a hypocrite.
-
Belton.
You said: "It appears he didn’t believe in it (the EU) until Labour lost the election in 1983." And you posted an article in which he said the very opposite of that. That's the point I'm taking issue with you over. Like I've said, you are totally free to believe whatever you want. But if you back up that belief with "evidence" that contradicts it, then say "of course it contradicts it" then it's a bit hard to engage with you on the issue.
Regarding "hypocrisy", my dictionary defines it as "feigning to be what one is not; concealment of true character or belief.
You said:
"Fancy making such a huge decision, affecting millions of peoples lives, simply for political and personal power."
If that isn't accusing someone of hypocrisy then words have lost their meaning.
-
BST. That being the case, If only you would take a leaf out of Kinnock's book in 1975 and accept the 2016 result and move on there would be no need for me to compare claims of Farage's dodgy EU connections to those of Kinnocks.
-
BB
I've entirely accepted the result. It's a fact. What I won't do is change my mind that it is a good thing for Britain, until, like Kinnock, I see evidence to demonstrate that.
-
Billy.
1. He didn’t say the opposite of that.
2. Your dictionary definition and my comment do not link to suggest hypocrisy at all.
I said he made a huge decision affecting millions for his own gain.
That’s not being a hypocrite, it’s being an incredibly selfish person.
There’s no point in having a dictionary if you don’t understand what words mean AFTER you’ve read the definitions.
Don’t put misinterpreted dictionary definitions into my mouth.
-
Roll up. We've got another BB Cliche Bingo game underway.
You’re getting your metaphors mixed up.
You mean ‘eyes down’ for cliche bingo, not ‘roll up’.
-
Belton.
You said Kinnock's change of policy was "simply" (your word) for party and political gain. That precludes the possiblity that he believed membership of the EEC was in the interests of the nation and the people. But he campaigned vigorously on it actually being for the benefit of the nation and the people and he explains the reasons for that change of policy in the very link you posted.
If you are saying he had been on a journey that had led him honestly to change his mind on membership of the EEC being in the interests of the nation and the people, all you need to do is say it clearlyband I'll be happy to admit I misrepresented what you meant and withdraw it.
If you don't believe he honestly thought that, you are accusing him of being a hypocrite.
Your call.
-
Billy.
You’re playing with semantics.
You’re misrepresenting me.
You’re putting words in my mouth.
You’re arguing about arguing
You’re accusing me of acting in bad faith
All because I think, and I have given evidence of, Neil Kinnock (who seems to be some kind of political god to you) acted like most politicians would: making sacrifices for their own party and for their own political gain.
Now, I don’t actually give a shit about any of those things you accuse me of, but people in glass houses, and all that.
-
Belton.
Where on earth do you get your conclusion from that Kinnock is some sort of political god to me?
Go back through this thread and ask yourself what I have said that has warranted such a reaction.
-
The bit where you asked ‘In what way did Kinnock not believe in the EU?’, and I then gave my opinion with a link to support it, in which you blindly dismissed any suggestion that he acted in his own, selfish best interests, despite compelling evidence.
As if he were a god.
Just my opinion, of course.
-
Belton.
Serious advice. You need to calm down a bit.
1) My original post was aimed at BB. GO back and have a look at the context of it.
2) My whole point has been that you absolutely did NOT give any evidence to support your assertion. In fact you ignored a whole swathe of argument in the very link you posted which flatly contradicted your assertion.
3) I didn't "Blindly dismiss" anything. I said you were perfectly at liberty to hold that opinion, but that that was all it was. I said, on balance, given other evidence (such as Kinnock's work to cripple Benn's efforts to take over the party Deputy leadership in 1981, ensuring that the pro-EU Healy stayed in post) that I was inclined to believe that Kinnock had been on a long journey of changing opinion, and that the shock of the 1983 result was the opportunity to get the party to change policy. I also said that was only my opinion.
4) Concluding from all that that Kinnock is some sort of political god to me is bizarre and is why I say I think you need to calm down a bit. For what it's worth, I think Kinnock did a massively important job of facing down those who nearly destroyed the Labour party in the 1980s, but i don;t think he was a very good politician at taking on the Tories. Too often he let his heart run away with him when he needed to be controlled. Thatcher generally tied him in knots.
Going back to point 1, this whole discussion was about whether it was reasonable to compare Kinnock taking on the job of EU Commissioner (for which he was nominated by John Major) and Farage being bankrolled by a mate and paid by the EU for a job he never did. It's gone a hell of a long way round the houses since then.
-
Farage had no large political party behind him, and took on the whole of Europe's Political elite and beat them up. The most influential British Politician since Atlee and Churchill.
In comparison Kinnock is nothing but a leech living off the backs of the working class in the UK, an absolute nobody.
-
Selby.
He more than made up for his lack of party by securing funding from elsewhere.
Like fiddling expenses on an industrial scale at the EU Parliament. Like receiving the biggest ever political donation in UK history from a small businessman who has steadfastly refused to show where the money came from, but who DID admit lying to cover up how often he had meetings with the Russian ambassador.
-
Belton.
Serious advice. You need to calm down a bit.
1) My original post was aimed at BB. GO back and have a look at the context of it.
2) My whole point has been that you absolutely did NOT give any evidence to support your assertion. In fact you ignored a whole swathe of argument in the very link you posted which flatly contradicted your assertion.
3) I didn't "Blindly dismiss" anything. I said you were perfectly at liberty to hold that opinion, but that that was all it was. I said, on balance, given other evidence (such as Kinnock's work to cripple Benn's efforts to take over the party Deputy leadership in 1981, ensuring that the pro-EU Healy stayed in post) that I was inclined to believe that Kinnock had been on a long journey of changing opinion, and that the shock of the 1983 result was the opportunity to get the party to change policy. I also said that was only my opinion.
4) Concluding from all that that Kinnock is some sort of political god to me is bizarre and is why I say I think you need to calm down a bit. For what it's worth, I think Kinnock did a massively important job of facing down those who nearly destroyed the Labour party in the 1980s, but i don;t think he was a very good politician at taking on the Tories. Too often he let his heart run away with him when he needed to be controlled. Thatcher generally tied him in knots.
Going back to point 1, this whole discussion was about whether it was reasonable to compare Kinnock taking on the job of EU Commissioner (for which he was nominated by John Major) and Farage being bankrolled by a mate and paid by the EU for a job he never did. It's gone a hell of a long way round the houses since then.
And you’re telling me to calm down? Seriously?
-
Billy, whatever the way he did it he succeeded, made the establishment look mugs.
Kinnock for ever will be remembered for stabbing the miners in the back, losing an election when everything should have been hunky dory for him. and then sneaking his way into keeping on the gravy train in Europe, a complete tosser.
He ran rings around the establishment and the useless set you seem to hold in high esteem.
Just a set of losers the lot of them.
-
My goodness the more I read of Billy and Bentons posts the more it makes me think of Fight Club
-
My goodness the more I read of Billy and Bentons posts the more it makes me think of Fight Club
Well I do look a bit like Brad Pitt.
-
Lad at work said I looked like Bruce Willis. Now that he's let himself go.
-
My goodness the more I read of Billy and Bentons posts the more it makes me think of Fight Club
Well I do look a bit like Brad Pitt.
I heard you were more like his brother, Cess! ;)
-
My goodness the more I read of Billy and Bentons posts the more it makes me think of Fight Club
Well I do look a bit like Brad Pitt.
I heard you were more like his brother, Cess! ;)
Can’t stand the bloke - full of shit, he is.
-
My goodness the more I read of Billy and Bentons posts the more it makes me think of Fight Club
Well I do look a bit like Brad Pitt.
I heard you were more like his brother, Cess! ;)
Or his other brother, Broddy.
-
My goodness the more I read of Billy and Bentons posts the more it makes me think of Fight Club
Well I do look a bit like Brad Pitt.
I heard you were more like his brother, Cess! ;)
Or his other brother, Broddy.
Isn’t he still a minor.
-
Back to the OP of this thread, apparently we now have someone in Govt saying his job is Minister for the Benefits of Brexit.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1368554429314723840
Surprised he didn't go the full George Orwell and call himself the Minister of Plenty.
Still. Watch this space. I'm sure the benefits will be logged on a frequent basis.
-
Not surprised those who had a party when the pound tanked against the Euro but have failed to comment on the pounds gradual rise since January.
There is a long way to go on this the Mediterranean states could well bring the house down completely.
-
those who had a party when the pound tanked against the Euro.
You utter fool. Grow up man!
-
Oh, I am some fool Billy. Just what I want you to think.
You tend to think people who disagree with you are fools and is your weakness.
-
No Selby. I tend to think people who write stupid, foolish crap just to try to start a row are fools. Grow up.
-
WOOO, Yes Billy you are so full of yourself it's a weakness.
-
Well here's a benefit.
Exports to countries other than the EU went up £0.2bn in January.
Only need to increase that by 2800% and it'll make up for the fact that exports to the EU fell by £5.6bn, the largest monthly fall on record by far.
Teething problems...
-
Not a whisper about this on the BBC website front page by the way. Not a mention from Kuenssberg.
-
Well here's a benefit.
Exports to countries other than the EU went up £0.2bn in January.
Only need to increase that by 2800% and it'll make up for the fact that exports to the EU fell by £5.6bn, the largest monthly fall on record by far.
Teething problems...
Yes, but we're buying less from Germany so that should save us a bob or two?
https://twitter.com/DennisNovy/status/1369352176464756736
-
German car imports to the UK down by 40% in January. I guess we should be hearing any day now of VW/Audi/BMW/Merc bosses going and telling Merkel something has to be done? Wasn't that the script?
-
Not a whisper about this on the BBC website front page by the way. Not a mention from Kuenssberg.
Discussed on Breakfast this morning. Stockpiling pre Brexit had an imput into the reduction of imports but still terrible figures
-
Not a whisper about this on the BBC website front page by the way. Not a mention from Kuenssberg.
Discussed on Breakfast this morning. Stockpiling pre Brexit had an imput into the reduction of imports but still terrible figures
Conveniently overlooked by some though.
The report this morning didn’t say over what period the fall is covering.
If businesses were stockpiling and over buying in advance then a fall in January is to be expected.
-
German car imports to the UK down by 40% in January. I guess we should be hearing any day now of VW/Audi/BMW/Merc bosses going and telling Merkel something has to be done? Wasn't that the script?
Cause and effect? Not many buying cars right now in a lockdown etc is there? Clearly as you well know one month won't tell us the ongoing trend, but imports went down by a larger amount than exports....
-
BFYP.
I agree that one month isn't a trend, but it is still shocking to see exports drop by 41% in the first month after we leave the SM/CU.
It's clearly not a COVID lockdown issue because our exports to the rest of the world increased in January. And it clearly cannot be waived away as stockpiling, as there was huge stockpiling going on in Oct and March 2019 when we were facing a no deal crash out, and that didn't result in record breaking drops in trade on this scale the following months.
I genuinely hope it really is teething trouble, otherwise we are in very, very serious trouble.
PS. Imports from the EU went down by less than exports as a percentage. 29% compared to 41%.
-
Another real benefit. We can now buy the Langoustines the French won't take from us now in Tesco's
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/304379363?preservedReferrer=https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?465511-Brexit-Benefits&p=5695962
-
Quite right too. They’re our langoustines, not the Frenchies. We didn’t single handedly liberate Europe for them to steal our langoustines!
-
I’m am saving money and losing weight..........
Because half of the items on our weekly delivery from Tesco’s here in Northern Ireland have suddenly stopped arriving and there are so many empty shelves in the M&S food hall and nothing beyond tomorrow’s date.
All because of that border in the Irish Sea that Boris and friends promised would never happen, and anyone could always clearly see it was always a choice between an unacceptable hard border with the Republic of Ireland or a border in the Irish Sea.
How much longer will the UK remain one country?
-
Not long and I chuckle at the Lloyds / Flying Scotsman advert where they say "in a nation which pulls together"
Where are they looking - everything issue seems 50 50. I bet a Poll asking is Liar Johnson actually a proven liar would be close to 50 50
-
Not long and I chuckle at the Lloyds / Flying Scotsman advert where they say "in a nation which pulls together"
Where are they looking - everything issue seems 50 50. I bet a Poll asking is Liar Johnson actually a proven liar would be close to 50 50
Ah, but would the voters be telling the truth wolfie, or would the poll even be rigged.
-
Who knows any more & its why I try NOT to post on the political threads any more as it seems futile. People are entrenched already be that EU - or whether Hancock is a w**cock and their views wont change my views any more than mine will change theirs
So discretion is the best bet for me and saves me time and ire and frustration
Besides I can react still via Twitter but with 60 ish followers I will hardly the world there either [and I havent]
-
Looks like we might finally be able to start logging the Brexit benefits. Lord Frost is going to employ someone to find them.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1394290835957637128
You'd have thought we might have been better advised to identify them before we left but, you know...strange times.
-
Ah yes, the I must do this list, before leaving ..................
''Brexit negotiator says NI Protocol talks 'not hugely productive'''
4 years before pulling the plug and into the 5th month after and ...... drum roll ..... nothing
Maybe they sent David Jason?
-
Looks like we might finally be able to start logging the Brexit benefits. Lord Frost is going to employ someone to find them.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1394290835957637128
You'd have thought we might have been better advised to identify them before we left but, you know...strange times.
So the Taskforce for Innovation and Growth after Brexit that Johnson asked Duncan Smith to lead in Feb has been unable to find neither innovation or growth then?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/taskforce-on-innovation-growth-and-regulatory-reform
-
Looks like we might finally be able to start logging the Brexit benefits. Lord Frost is going to employ someone to find them.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1394290835957637128
You'd have thought we might have been better advised to identify them before we left but, you know...strange times.
So the Taskforce for Innovation and Growth after Brexit that Johnson asked Duncan Smith to lead in Feb has been unable to find neither innovation or growth then?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/taskforce-on-innovation-growth-and-regulatory-reform
I think we need to buy them an Atlas and tear out the pages for EU countries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkk9DI-8el4
-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1436973/eu-news-covid19-financial-impact-tourism-jobs-europe-holiday-2021-indian-variant-vaccine
Could be interesting
-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1436973/eu-news-covid19-financial-impact-tourism-jobs-europe-holiday-2021-indian-variant-vaccine
Could be interesting
Covid experts warn against foreign holidays - so why is Johnson so keen?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/18/covid-experts-warn-against-foreign-holidays-so-why-is-boris-johnson-so-keen
-
Backtracking now, should avoid holidays on Amber list
-
Listen up, this is important as it will be the first (free) trade deal the UK has signed since brexit and not a rollover of an existing agreement.
All the components of any trade deal are arguably predictable as both sides know what the other is selling and what they want themselves.
The big question around this one is, are UK beef farmers going to be protected as against cheaper meat prices to everyone in the UK. This was always going to be a stumbling block.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57169471
added
Not the first trade deal, described as the first big one.
-
Syd we import 254 thousand tons of beef from the EU a year according to reports this morning, If the Australians can match the price and quality that is a big hole to fill, and no doubt less paperwork.
Question, Doesn't the majority of Australian stock run free over massive ranges even being gathered in by helicopters because of the size of the herds and ranges?
And isn't that better for the environment and the animals welfare than the intensive farming done in Europe with the cattle housed in massive barns?
-
Syd we import 254 thousand tons of beef from the EU a year according to reports this morning, If the Australians can match the price and quality that is a big hole to fill, and no doubt less paperwork.
Question, Doesn't the majority of Australian stock run free over massive ranges even being gathered in by helicopters because of the size of the herds and ranges?
And isn't that better for the environment and the animals welfare than the intensive farming done in Europe with the cattle housed in massive barns?
These are the figures that I read this am here, not sure if yours are more up-to-date but these are from The National Association (UK)
Total consumption in 2019 was 280.5 million tonnes (Kantar 2019)
Total spend on Beef and veal products in 2019 was £2.19 billion (Kantar 2019)
The UK is 75% self-sufficient in Beef leaving us plenty room for producers to grow more beef for the home market
81% of beef sold in the UK is under the British logo, however Aldi, Budgens, Co-op, Lidl, M&S, Morrison’s and Waitrose all use 100% British Beef. Let’s hope the rest follow the trend!
The UK exported 84,789 tonnes of fresh and frozen beef in 2019. Exports are mainly to the EU.
The UK imported 160,289 tonnes of beef in 2019.
https://www.nationalbeefassociation.com/resources/beef-statistics/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%2075%25%20self,the%20rest%20follow%20the%20trend!
''The cattle feedlot industry has a value of production of approximately $2.5 billion and employs some 28,500 people directly and indirectly (Australian Lot Feeders’ Association 2015).
There are around 450 accredited feedlots throughout Australia with the majority located in areas that are in close proximity to cattle and grain supplies''
Queensland is the largest state in terms of cattle numbers on feed with approximately 60% followed by New South Wales with 30%, Victoria with 7% and the remainder shared between South Australia and Western Australia.
'Approximately 40% of Australia's total beef supply and 80% of beef sold in major domestic supermarkets is sourced from the cattle feedlot sector. Two thirds of Australia's beef production is exported to over 100 international markets.
https://futurebeef.com.au/knowledge-centre/feedlots/#:~:text=Approximately%2040%25%20of%20Australia's%20total,to%20over%20100%20international%20markets.
added
The problem UK farmers have is that we can and do produce it cheaper, it's why there is no trade deal as yet.
And there's more .....
I read today the the US/UK trade deal is way off as UK farmers have been lobbying hard behind the scenes to stop the import of cheaper meat from their which has created a stall on talks.
-
Whatever the numbers we are moving away from the EU to new markets, we and them will have to accept that and move on.I think most would agree that the EU are making it as difficult as they can which in the long run will be to their disadvantage. as well as ours for a time.
Other countries will trade with us to fill the void how big that void is is entirely up to the EU and their attitude.
-
I struggle to see how the import costs from Australia can keep it competitive, does t necessarily make sense to me. That is not cheap shipping.
Awaits the cheap Tim tams....
-
I struggle to see how the import costs from Australia can keep it competitive, does t necessarily make sense to me. That is not cheap shipping.
Was thinking the very same regarding shipping....
On the same topic, I saw this article - thought it was an interesting read with some good insight into meat supply/demand and standards.... very enlightening.
One point that is made is that the UK has had free trade with the EU for 47 years, and Irish beef is cheaper than UK beef - and yet the UK still supplies 80% of its own beef. How can this be? Why haven’t the Irish driven UK farmers out of business?
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/wheres-the-beef/
-
Whatever the numbers we are moving away from the EU to new markets, we and them will have to accept that and move on.I think most would agree that the EU are making it as difficult as they can which in the long run will be to their disadvantage. as well as ours for a time.
Other countries will trade with us to fill the void how big that void is is entirely up to the EU and their attitude.
The EU aren't making it difficult, they're treating us exactly the same as any other third country was treated by us when we were in the EU.
-
MM
Here's a thought. Britain consumes nearly 750,000 tonnes of beef a year. The entire Irish industry only produces 670,000 tonnes. So that's one reason why Ireland hasn't totally put the UK industry out of business.
The Australian agri-business sector produced nearly 2.5million tonnes of beef last year. They are already exporting nearly half of that to the EU. So the export costs obviosly don't hurt them too hard.
-
I struggle to see how the import costs from Australia can keep it competitive, does t necessarily make sense to me. That is not cheap shipping.
Was thinking the very same regarding shipping....
On the same topic, I saw this article - thought it was an interesting read with some good insight into meat supply/demand and standards.... very enlightening.
One point that is made is that the UK has had free trade with the EU for 47 years, and Irish beef is cheaper than UK beef - and yet the UK still supplies 80% of its own beef. How can this be? Why haven’t the Irish driven UK farmers out of business?
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/wheres-the-beef/
It could depend on how much capacity the Irish beef industry has and then how much of their produce is sold on their own domestic market.
-
If I was an Irish or any other EU member it would concern me.
-
MM
Here's a thought. Britain consumes nearly 750,000 tonnes of beef a year. The entire Irish industry only produces 670,000 tonnes. So that's one reason why Ireland hasn't totally put the UK industry out of business.
The Australian agri-business sector produced nearly 2.5million tonnes of beef last year. They are already exporting nearly half of that to the EU. So the export costs obviosly don't hurt them too hard.
Why do I always feel like you're telling me off BST.... I was only paraphrasing what was said in the link... if you even bothered to read it.
I've mentioned it before, but you need really need to curb your condescension.
-
I struggle to see how the import costs from Australia can keep it competitive, does t necessarily make sense to me. That is not cheap shipping.
Was thinking the very same regarding shipping....
On the same topic, I saw this article - thought it was an interesting read with some good insight into meat supply/demand and standards.... very enlightening.
One point that is made is that the UK has had free trade with the EU for 47 years, and Irish beef is cheaper than UK beef - and yet the UK still supplies 80% of its own beef. How can this be? Why haven’t the Irish driven UK farmers out of business?
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/wheres-the-beef/
the article says 70% use of landmass here for agri is a bit high it's around 55%, but it' not a scientific article and doesn't lay out the pros and cons, although she is a recognised economist.
For example she talks about the use of hormone use as though everyone is fine with it and if the UK wants to compete it should too.
Thanks MM
-
Apologies if that's how it came across MM. I do get tetchy after I've heard Brexit fanatic MPs making the same argument in defiance of logic.
UK farmers are up in arms about this rushed through deal. Another sector that was promised sunlit Brexit uplands, only to find they get sold out as soon as the dust has settled.
-
Apologies if that's how it came across MM. I do get tetchy after I've heard Brexit fanatic MPs making the same argument in defiance of logic.
That's fine BST and thank you for your apology...
I posted the link as it gave a different angle. I found it quite informative and some of the stuff on hormone implants and their widespread use (30 countries including the US, Australia, South Africa, Mexico etc) was certainly new to me.... and the fact that animals treated with hormone treatment produced leaner meat also was interesting.
The part about the EU block on hormone treated meat was also interesting...especially considering the amount that is found in a large steak and the comparison to everyday foods that most already consume - the example given says..
"A 500g steak from a hormone implanted steer contains only 7 nanograms of estrogenic activity while an adult woman produces 513,000 nanograms each day, an adult man produces 136,000, and a pre-pubescent child 41,000. In case you are wondering – a nanogram is one billionth of a gram. i.e. 0.000000001gm and a 500g steak is a large steak, even in the US.
Not only do the hormones used in cattle production occur naturally in many foods including soybeans, pinto beans, peanuts, eggs, butter and milk, they also occur at much higher levels."
If this is true, what is all the fuss about... and is it just protectionist as suggested by the author...?
-
Catherine Mcbride advocates to ''eat only organic meat'' herself MM
https://twitter.com/ceemacbee?lang=en
-
Catherine Mcbride advocates to ''eat only organic meat'' herself MM
https://twitter.com/ceemacbee?lang=en
I didn't realise that...... even so, a good informative article IMO...
I'm a bit of a wild and game fan myself - had a cracking wild boar casserole last weekend.
-
Apologies if that's how it came across MM. I do get tetchy after I've heard Brexit fanatic MPs making the same argument in defiance of logic.
UK farmers are up in arms about this rushed through deal. Another sector that was promised sunlit Brexit uplands, only to find they get sold out as soon as the dust has settled.
Interesting isn't it. Why are we not commercially competitive?
The problem we appear to have is we are fairly middle of the road. Some countries are cheap as standards are lower. But the quality isn't necessarily high enough to justify premium pricing. Commercially it's nonsensical to be in that place.
-
Apologies if that's how it came across MM. I do get tetchy after I've heard Brexit fanatic MPs making the same argument in defiance of logic.
UK farmers are up in arms about this rushed through deal. Another sector that was promised sunlit Brexit uplands, only to find they get sold out as soon as the dust has settled.
Interesting isn't it. Why are we not commercially competitive?
The problem we appear to have is we are fairly middle of the road. Some countries are cheap as standards are lower. But the quality isn't necessarily high enough to justify premium pricing. Commercially it's nonsensical to be in that place.
I would have thought that UK beef growers sold meat on quality as quantity is all uphill against Australia or the US, consumers buy for many reasons other than price pud.
-
Can't imagine some people have missed this in the Guardian, after all it must be true
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/25/uk-trade-with-eu-falls-by-23-in-first-quarter-as-brexit-and-covid-hit
-
Trade facts are trade facts. It can only be judged in a year or even two years time as there are too many variables with covid and stockpiling etc.
It was mentioned about cars and demand dropping for those imported. How much of that is demand or the inability of the provider to actually provide it to the UK? In other words, I want a car but they can't bloody make it in Europe due to lack of parts from China.
-
Can't imagine some people have missed this in the Guardian, after all it must be true
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/25/uk-trade-with-eu-falls-by-23-in-first-quarter-as-brexit-and-covid-hit
Do you want to summarise the key points for us Selby, only I'm guessing you didn't make it past the headline.
-
Promising news hopefully
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57247758
-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1441691/eu-news-brexit-uk-eurovision-punish-luxembourg-city-of-london-spt
A couple of sensible comments at the end of the article if you bother Billy
-
Promising news hopefully
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57247758
Serbia will be producing enough Lithium by 2026 to satisfy all of Europes needs, The Serbian Goverment has stated they will ban the export of Lithium ore, They will only condone Lithium or Batteries produced in plants in Serbia. A company called AETO has already signed a memorandum of understanding with Rio Tinto Zinc to build Batter factories in Serbia and these will include facilities to process used batteries.
-
Just seen this posted on that there Twitter so I thought I would share it:
One of the many tragic ironies of brexit is that EU/EEA "forrins" are now ..in greater numbers ...more likely than ever before to "take British jobs" because rather than they coming to GB, GB businesses will be/are moving to them'
https://twitter.com/vivamjm/status/1397726144460464128
-
Promising news hopefully
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57247758
Serbia will be producing enough Lithium by 2026 to satisfy all of Europes needs, The Serbian Goverment has stated they will ban the export of Lithium ore, They will only condone Lithium or Batteries produced in plants in Serbia. A company called AETO has already signed a memorandum of understanding with Rio Tinto Zinc to build Batter factories in Serbia and these will include facilities to process used batteries.
OK fella - seems strange that Nissan are proposing this then... they're normally pretty savvy them Japanese business folk...?
-
Promising news hopefully
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57247758
Serbia will be producing enough Lithium by 2026 to satisfy all of Europes needs, The Serbian Goverment has stated they will ban the export of Lithium ore, They will only condone Lithium or Batteries produced in plants in Serbia. A company called AETO has already signed a memorandum of understanding with Rio Tinto Zinc to build Batter factories in Serbia and these will include facilities to process used batteries.
Serbia will be one to watch then. They currently negotiating to join the EU with a target date of 2025. If they join, they won't be able to 'ban' exports to elsewhere within the Single Market. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.
-
Promising news hopefully
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57247758
Serbia will be producing enough Lithium by 2026 to satisfy all of Europes needs, The Serbian Goverment has stated they will ban the export of Lithium ore, They will only condone Lithium or Batteries produced in plants in Serbia. A company called AETO has already signed a memorandum of understanding with Rio Tinto Zinc to build Batter factories in Serbia and these will include facilities to process used batteries.
Serbia will be one to watch then. They currently negotiating to join the EU with a target date of 2025. If they join, they won't be able to 'ban' exports to elsewhere within the Single Market. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.
should be a good thing as they will be Governed from Brussels with all the other sheep, Something will be done about the Raw sewage they pump into the Danube and their Anthracite burning Power stations will be shut down!
Be interesting to see what will happen to Kosovo because no Serb will ever agree to the Albanians having it.!
-
Promising news hopefully
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57247758
Serbia will be producing enough Lithium by 2026 to satisfy all of Europes needs, The Serbian Goverment has stated they will ban the export of Lithium ore, They will only condone Lithium or Batteries produced in plants in Serbia. A company called AETO has already signed a memorandum of understanding with Rio Tinto Zinc to build Batter factories in Serbia and these will include facilities to process used batteries.
Serbia will be one to watch then. They currently negotiating to join the EU with a target date of 2025. If they join, they won't be able to 'ban' exports to elsewhere within the Single Market. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.
should be a good thing as they will be Governed from Brussels with all the other sheep, Something will be done about the Raw sewage they pump into the Danube and their Anthracite burning Power stations will be shut down!
Be interesting to see what will happen to Kosovo because no Serb will ever agree to the Albanians having it.!
Good to see you back at fighting weight sprot
''Water firms discharged raw sewage into English waters 400,000 times last year
Data published for first time by Environment Agency shows 27% increase on previous year''
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/31/water-firms-discharged-raw-sewage-into-english-waters-400000-times-last-year#:~:text=The%20new%20figures%20show%20the,2020%20%E2%80%93%20a%2037%25%20rise.
This is why England can no longer export shellfish directly into the EU
-
the trade deal between UK and Oz ''is on course to include a controversial system of secret courts that will allow businesses to seek compensation if their profits are hit by government policies''
It's looking like a trade deal is more like a deal between big business and tax payer money.
''ISDS is a system of private courts convened in camera and arbitrated by judges, allowing firms to bypass domestic civil courts. They were originally conceived by western multinationals to protect them against the seizure of their assets in the aftermath of a coup or by rogue states, for example a mine being nationalised without reasonable compensation''
the tories are certainly taking back control, what next corn laws?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/30/alarm-at-secret-court-scheme-in-uk-australia-trade-deal
-
UK-Oz, I'm trying to figure out how this trade deal will work and will benefit the average person, goods are traded with ever decreasing tariffs over 15 years, which means that goods coming into the UK, beef, lamb etc will undercut local farmers thereby either forcing them to close or amalgamate into feed lot style growing ......... but with the secret court system for businesses affected by said trade deal will be able to sue gov't (the people) to claim compensation if they lose money because of said deal, which will be paid out of consolidated revenue (the people)
So prices will come down on imported meat but everyone will pay more tax to compensate business?
-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1443600/brexit-news-imports-exports-eu-uk-brussels-northern-ireland-fishing?utm_source=express_newsletter&utm_campaign=politics_morning_newsletter2&utm_medium=email
Looks like ignoring EU products is becoming popular in the UK
-
It's not "ignoring" you ignorant idiot. It's "unable to access due to red tape imposed by Brexit."
Is it really necessary or acceptable to call another poster an ignorant idiot.
-
Certainly not when its plain they're only pretending to be an ignorant idiot.
-
Withdrawn. I shouldn't have used words like that however ridiculous the constant stream of rubbish from that particular poster is. I notice though Hound that you didn't complain when we had an unquestionably racist posting a week or two back.
-
Another post Brexit deal to ketchup with....
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kraft-heinz-ketchup-manufacturing-uk-investment-brexit-101950246.html
-
Another post Brexit deal to ketchup with....
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kraft-heinz-ketchup-manufacturing-uk-investment-brexit-101950246.html
That's great news, Micky; and from a reliable SOURCE.
I'll get mi coat.
-
I beat you by 10 seconds, BB. Great minds and all that.
-
I was just double-checking how to spell 'source', and it backfired!
-
Maybe it's my eyes but I'm struggling to see the bit that says this investment is BECAUSE of Brexit.
-
What a great vote of confidence in the post-Brexit UK economy.
-
Maybe it's my eyes but I'm struggling to see the bit that says this investment is BECAUSE of Brexit.
It's in the headline Billy..... "Heinz Ketchup to be made in the UK again in post-Brexit coup" :whistle:
...surely that's enough to convince you...
-
MM.
The sun was out today. That was post-Brexit weather.
-
Withdrawn. I shouldn't have used words like that however ridiculous the constant stream of rubbish from that particular poster is. I notice though Hound that you didn't complain when we had an unquestionably racist posting a week or two back.
I dont recall seeing the comment you are on about BST.
I havent been spending as much time on here of late.
What was the comment and by whom.
-
Re:--- "BELLS ARE US"
assuming this comes to pass (very big if)
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2685
and my guestimate is the uk would contribute 20% of 3 Billion euro
then that's a potential saving of 600 million euros ?? thats £520 million
lets call it 0.6 of a billion euros (cos it sounds more)
-
Hound
Easily missed.
At more or less the same time Selby was posting his ignorant racist thoughts, you were busy trolling me, telling me how sad it was that I was posting about politics in this forum.
-
Hound
Easily missed.
At more or less the same time Selby was posting his ignorant racist thoughts, you were busy trolling me, telling me how sad it was that I was posting about politics in this forum.
Point of order BST.
I was simply saying how sad i found it that some people spent so much time searching for anti government propaganda to post in the forum.
I don’t recall mentioning you specifically but you are entitled to your thoughts on the matter.
I still don’t know what the racist comment was.
-
Some like to talk about what a great vote of confidence the Heinz deal is in the post-Brexit UK economy, others like to talk about the weather.
-
Hound.
Yeah, you just happened to post it after a post of mine. Probably just a coincidence. I'm sure you'd have the balls to own a deliberate jibe.
As for the post in question, it was up all that night and was removed the following day, presumably by mods. You can ask Selby yourself what he wrote.
-
BST, you are the most prolific poster on here so by the law of averages I will inevitably post stuff which invariably follows one by you.
However, you would be included in the people I was thinking about.
-
Thanks for clearing that up Hound.
Odd that you'd feel it so important to chip in with your two pennorth on that subject though, and miss the takedown of a racist on an adjacent thread.
Priorities I guess.
-
No, not really.
I just don’t recall seeing it.
As I have often said, I don’t read all the threads and certainly don’t read all the posts.
I have spent much less time on here since I have taken on two roles for two different groups and find myself doing work for them.
For the record, I am no more a racist than you.
-
For the record Hound, I'm not accusing you of being a racist. Just selective in your responses. And disturbingly obsessed with me in particular.
-
You know, it is quite funny that you should say that because when I post something on a political thread I often think that you will be the first to jump in and tell me why I am wrong...... and you often are.
A matter of perspective I guess.
-
Billy you happen to be one of a few on here who are obsessed, and free with calling other people the go to race card, and treading on thin ice as far as deformation of character is concerned, you want to start reeling it in thinking you can throw accusations about being thick, bigoted, gammon, racist at people you don't agree with and now ignorant idiot.
The history of educated idiots on here, wondering why the politics and the party they support and their attitude to other people who have deserted them over the last few years has happened.
That's being thick and could cost you a lot.
-
selby, you may not view yourself as racist but the comment in question, now deleted most certainly was, add in other comments you have made and one could be forgiven for thinking that you are. To demolish this possible mistaken view of yourself you could say something along the lines that 'you didn't meant to cause offence' and stop posting offensive comments, instead of trying to rewrite history.
your welcome
-
Good luck convincing a court that the phrase "rag heads" isn't racist, Selby! People didn't call you racist because they disagree with you, they called you racist because you said something racist and refused to apologise or take it back. Instead you just tried to pretend it didn't happen like a coward.
-
Macho, It doesn't bother me at all what handle people put on me personally, but others might just do so and it seems that people like you and some of the others on here are free at calling people out for whatever and up in arms at other peoples statements or the language some have been brought up with years ago but invent insults like Gammon to people of age that are very insulting.
Feel free to call me what you want, the only thing I am bothered about is what I think of people that insult me and my generation which isn't much, on a par with treading in the doo doo really, all you do is go to a bit of grass and wipe it off your shoe.
-
Selby, I didn’t post about your racist comment, just reported it to the moderators. I’m over 70, so may be in your generation, but I know what is offensive and racist, and you should be bothered about using those terms.
-
Selby
I don't think you get the issue here. The use of the word "gammon" (which I don't typically use because I don't like it) is absolutely NOT aimed at all old people. It is aimed at a selection of old people, who have a particular outlook on life which may or may not result in high blood pressure. People choose to have those opinions. And in a free country, while everyone is free to have whatever opinion they wish, the flipside is that other people are free to give their opinion of those opinions.
Racism is different. It is not an insult aimed at someone's opinion, or the opinions of a sub-set of people. It is an insult aimed at someone because of who they are, where they were born.
In simple terms, you can choose whether you have ignorant, unpleasant, stupid, bigoted opinions. You can't choose what DNA you have.
-
Billy, just finished mowing the half acre of lawns, closed two good positions with the broker, and checked the property rents income, all good and dusted and I am not in the slightest interested in what you or anyone else think buddy.
-
If the post in question was deemed offensively racist and deleted, why has the poster not been deemed as racist and allowed to carry on posting freely? Was a suspension not considered? The poster freely admits he doesn't care what other think of him and appears to have had no regrets on making the said racist post
-
Billy, just finished mowing the half acre of lawns, closed two good positions with the broker, and checked the property rents income, all good and dusted and I am not in the slightest interested in what you or anyone else think buddy.
Folk with money have people to do all that selby, they just don't want you as a friend they just want your vote
-
I read that well known pub and hotel owner is saying the shortage of labour being experienced is not down to brexit, experts in the field say it is a combination of both covid and brexit. He says that he supports an Oz style system and it only affects his small coastal town businesses (phew) As the Oz style points system of entry has been promoted and discussed for a couple of years one would think that it is in place and functioning well by now, sort of oven ready, no?
-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1444589/eu-news-euro-eurozone-british-taxpayers-brexit-covid-debt-spt
-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1444589/eu-news-euro-eurozone-british-taxpayers-brexit-covid-debt-spt
The Express tried very hard to not say that they were loans and not contributions as they said in the headline, but they managed to sneak it out of the way and into the very last sentence.
-
Even for The Express that is a bizarre piece of "news". Writing today about a documentary from 2019.
I guess they have to dig up something on the EU every day to keep up Selby's blood pressure.
-
About something that happened eleven years ago, and on top of that try to distort the truth of it so that selby would post a link to it on here as though it proved something.
They also sneaked into the last sentence the fact that the UK were only liable to underwrite this fund, not that any 'contributions' were made at all.
The Daily Splutter.
-
A bit of good news perhaps............ at least until it is derided in here of course.. :whistle:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57347874
-
Get Switzerland involved, it could be the start of a new idea, we could call it a non political Common Market, you would think someone would have thought of it before wouldn't you.
-
A bit of good news perhaps............ at least until it is derided in here of course.. :whistle:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57347874
No, but, yeah but, no but, yeah but, no...
-
A bit of good news perhaps............ at least until it is derided in here of course.. :whistle:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57347874
Is it better than the one we had with them before Brexit?
-
A bit of good news perhaps............ at least until it is derided in here of course.. :whistle:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57347874
Is it better than the one we had with them before Brexit?
It's been nearly two days now. Doesn't anybody touting this deal as a Brexit benefit have an answer to this very simple question?
-
What a great vote of confidence in the post-Brexit UK economy.
We need Hp Sauce back here too does anybody have a Source on any potential moves be Kraft
-
Good old Brexit Tsar.
1) Admits that "we" f**ked up with the NI protocol. (Who'd have thought it? You make trade harder and less trade happens! Why did nobody say?!?)
2) The result is that we are demanding that the EU gives up its red lines on the Protocol.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1401541479345098754
Still. We took back control, eh?
-
Didn't this bloke get a knighthood in part for his negotiating the NI Protocol? Hmmm...
-
Strange issue going on at the moment.
The very same politicians who got Brexit done and cost us a 4% hit to GDP are currently trying to ram through a 0.2% of GDP cut in overseas aid on the grounds that it's important that we keep or money for ourselves.
-
And yet .........
''Theresa May's former chief of staff is "pretty sure it's not true" that the government underestimated the impact of the NI Protocol when it agreed to it''
''Brexit: UK government knew NI Protocol 'was a bad deal'''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-57382239
-
Even for The Express that is a bizarre piece of "news". Writing today about a documentary from 2019.
I guess they have to dig up something on the EU every day to keep up Selby's blood pressure.
well here's my contribution "to stimulate him" from 2009 what Cameron said at the tory conference about the EU
these words actually came out of his mouth
------------------------------------
Going back to the referendum, most of the people I know who voted to leave said they voted that way “to get back control of our borders”
Not one of them said anything about unelected beurocrats.
funnily enough "as you will all recall" :) Cameron (whose catch phrase once was "we are all in it together" (until he jumped ship) said this at the 2009 Tory Conference and mentioned unelected beurocrats
Conservative Conference 2009 Thursday 8 October 2009 14.43 BST
Full text of David Cameron's speech
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/08/david-cameron-speech-in-full
look near the end 7/8th's of the way down
"EU But if there is one political institution that needs decentralisation, transparency, and accountability, it is the EU.
For the past few decades, something strange has been happening on the left of British politics. People who think of themselves as progressives have fallen in love with an institution that no one elects, no one can remove, and that hasn't signed off its accounts for over a decade.
Indeed even to question these things is, apparently, completely beyond the pale. Well, here is a progressive reform plan for Europe.
Let's work together on the things where the EU can really help, like combating climate change, fighting global poverty and spreading free and fair trade.
But let's return to democratic and accountable politics the powers the EU shouldn't have.
And if we win the election, we will have as the strongest voice for our country's interests, the man who is leading our campaign for a referendum, the man who will be our new British Foreign Secretary: William Hague"
game set and match
funnily enough we had a conversation tonight as to whether Boris & Cameron would swear their allegances to their causes on the bible so "chameleon" Cameron isn't doing too well
-
Something Benny Hill-esque about that prize bell end John Redwood on Twitter today saying the EU can't stop us having freedom of passage for our sausages.
More seriously, I despair at the deception by the Brexiters. Or, if we want to be kinder, there monumental ignorance.
They are up in arms about border checks in the Irish Sea for processed meats, when it was there in black and white in the Withdrawal Agreement that they hailed as a great success.
The line now seems to be that we never expected the EU were serious about requiring us to actually implement the WA, and they are being totally unreasonable.
-
Look at this one for example. Alister Heath, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph and arch-Brexiter.
Article on the left was him last year lauding Johnson for skillfully negotiating the WA with the NI protocol.
Article on the right is him yesterday screaming at the EU for sticking to the NI protocol.
https://mobile.twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1402901278427168773
I'm not sure what it will ever take to get Leave supporters to realise the extent to which they have been, and continue to be played on this.
-
Not sure why you would put up with that as a paying reader, it's an insult.
-
Disgusting isn't it?
Last Autumn he said Johnson had "forced the EU juggernaut into a screeching U-turn"
Yesterday he says that the NI Protocol was the EU in "kamikaze mode", that we were "forced to sign it under duress" and that it was "designed to punish us"
As someone else points out in that thread, Umberto Eco (who knew a bit about the topic) said one of the 14 features of fascism is that you must paint your enemies as simultaneously weak and snivelling creatures, and overmighty existential threats.
Classic case of it there from that t**t from the Telegraph.
-
Look at this one for example. Alister Heath, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph and arch-Brexiter.
Article on the left was him last year lauding Johnson for skillfully negotiating the WA with the NI protocol.
Article on the right is him yesterday screaming at the EU for sticking to the NI protocol.
https://mobile.twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1402901278427168773
I'm not sure what it will ever take to get Leave supporters to realise the extent to which they have been, and continue to be played on this.
Billy. What’s your priority motive here? Is it to show that the leave campaign was based on lies, or is it just that you want leave supporters to ‘admit’ they were duped?
What do YOU want to happen next?
-
A bit of good news perhaps............ at least until it is derided in here of course.. :whistle:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57347874
Is it better than the one we had with them before Brexit?
Not according to the article MM linked!
"In terms of their overall trade volumes, this deal is more significant for Norway and Iceland than it is for the UK.
But politically, it's really important for the post-Brexit British government to show that new trade deals are being done quickly. Even if - as the Norwegian side points out - it is less open than the previous relationship inside the same single market. "
-
A bit of good news perhaps............ at least until it is derided in here of course.. :whistle:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57347874
Is it better than the one we had with them before Brexit?
Not according to the article MM linked!
"In terms of their overall trade volumes, this deal is more significant for Norway and Iceland than it is for the UK.
But politically, it's really important for the post-Brexit British government to show that new trade deals are being done quickly. Even if - as the Norwegian side points out - it is less open than the previous relationship inside the same single market. "
So it was already derided in the article itself.
-
this will be difficult to explain away as biased media ........... it's their own f***king words
''How Tories changed their tune on Northern Ireland protocol''
''Some of the most vocal critics of the post-Brexit arrangements had a vastly different view last year''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/11/how-tories-changed-their-tune-on-northern-ireland-protocol
-
Well this looks like a Brexit benefit.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1403459375566622721
City of London reforms to be led by IDS. The man who brought you the unqualified success of Universal Credit.
Looks like a useful first step towards making the financial sector less dominant in the UK...
-
The UK/OZ trade deal looks to have been cemented.....
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnson-scott-morrison-tony-abbott-australia-liz-truss-b940631.html
-
kangaroo steak is not bad and roo tail soup is a favourite amongst old diggers
-
kangaroo steak is not bad and roo tail soup is a favourite amongst old diggers
I've had kangaroo steak - was very nice - lean with a little bit of gaminess, but not too strong. I'd imagine roo tail soup is similar to oxtail soup...?
-
I agree about roo steak but not everyone likes them, I used to work with a guy that went shooting and said the soup was great but I haven't tried it. There's about a million culled each year mostly going to pet food.
https://www.petcircle.com.au/product/meals-for-mutts-dry-dog-food-adult-kangaroo-and-lamb/m5155?&iv_=__iv_p_1_a_6559682568_g_81226420960_w_pla-935146286524_h_1000286_ii__d_c_v__n_u_c_385656323924_k__m__l__t__e__r__x__y_9484867_f_online_o_M5155_z_AU_i_en_j_935146286524_s__vi__&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwrGFmdKZ8QIVjDgrCh1CVQ-gEAQYASABEgJ3H_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
-
Any mention of Sherrins Syd? My club could do with some more
-
Any mention of Sherrins Syd? My club could do with some more
Only regarding sheep as in not sherrin with anyone Ldr
-
Any mention of Sherrins Syd? My club could do with some more
Only regarding sheep as in not sherrin with anyone Ldr
Not so long ago you was promising us burnt Goats head's .
When will this Aussie staple be on the market and have you got any recipe
Ideas?
-
Have you got your order in Sprot? send it to me along with your banking details in a pm
-
The Brexshit benefits just keep on coming....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/australia-trade-deal-tariffs-farmers-b1866496.html?fbclid=IwAR1rjTtDVObJcDmRFraC8BG4dpdPUtWtq4FALFGldwLDkpZS17NQisvV5OU
-
Latest on the doings of the people who told us 'We hold all the cards'...
Michael McCormack (acting Australian PM) - The big winners, in the UK-Australian trade deal, are Australian producers, Australian farmers, indeed Australia full stop... I'm not worried about the Welsh, Scottish & NI beef producers... I want what's best for Australian producers.
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1405159835340005379
-
(https://i.imgur.com/zpwt5Wi.jpg)
-
I see the ongoing saga with the DUP is showing the benefits of taking johnson at his word.
-
At last some good news. I see the govs policy of Global Britian is working as exports to non-EU countries now make up over 50% of all our trade (even tho they fell 4% from pre-covid levels).
Because those to EU countries fell 55% and we have lost £2 billion in sales.
This is good news isn't it?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/18/british-food-and-drink-exports-to-eu-fall-by-2bn-in-first-quarter-of-2021
-
This isn’t good. Surprised nobody has picked up on it yet.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/22/eu-to-lift-its-ban-on-feeding-animal-remains-to-domestic-livestock?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true
-
I know most of you won't be happy to hear that Nissan is to create 2,000
News jobs in the North East at a new battery plant for its Electric cars
-
I was happy to hear it when it was announced ages ago.
-
Looks like we've found one.
https://mobile.twitter.com/danielmgmoylan/status/1409933156564836357
Brexit makes England win football matches. This bell end is going to be well pissed off when he finds out the England team is full of Marxists.
-
Looks like we've found one.
https://mobile.twitter.com/danielmgmoylan/status/1409933156564836357
Brexit makes England win football matches. This bell end is going to be well pissed off when he finds out the England team is full of Marxists.
Footballers on £100,000 a week at least, Marxists?
You've got me there, BST. Is there something I'm missing here?
-
Looks like we've found one.
https://mobile.twitter.com/danielmgmoylan/status/1409933156564836357
Brexit makes England win football matches. This bell end is going to be well pissed off when he finds out the England team is full of Marxists.
Footballers on £100,000 a week at least, Marxists?
You've got me there, BST. Is there something I'm missing here?
That's precisely the point, Steve.
-
Looks like we've found one.
https://mobile.twitter.com/danielmgmoylan/status/1409933156564836357
Brexit makes England win football matches. This bell end is going to be well pissed off when he finds out the England team is full of Marxists.
Footballers on £100,000 a week at least, Marxists?
You've got me there, BST. Is there something I'm missing here?
That's precisely the point, Steve.
Yeah, I get it now. I'm a bit slow on the uptake today.
I think I've razzled my brain trying to decipher CLH's posts.
-
Looks like we've found one.
https://mobile.twitter.com/danielmgmoylan/status/1409933156564836357
Brexit makes England win football matches. This bell end is going to be well pissed off when he finds out the England team is full of Marxists.
Footballers on £100,000 a week at least, Marxists?
You've got me there, BST. Is there something I'm missing here?
Not at all SS, I have quite a few friends that are ex-members of the now defunct CP of Australia that would be considered to be wealthy and others that are lawyers working as organisers and mediators in the fireman's union well above the average wage. All still fans of the concept of communism. Just because they are smart people and have done 'well' should not preclude them from their leanings. Tell me why footballers earning $100,000 should be barred from being a member of any organisation, it's what you say and do that makes the difference I would have thought.
-
Looks like we've found one.
https://mobile.twitter.com/danielmgmoylan/status/1409933156564836357
Brexit makes England win football matches. This bell end is going to be well pissed off when he finds out the England team is full of Marxists.
Footballers on £100,000 a week at least, Marxists?
You've got me there, BST. Is there something I'm missing here?
Not at all SS, I have quite a few friends that are ex-members of the now defunct CP of Australia that would be considered to be wealthy and others that are lawyers working as organisers and mediators in the fireman's union well above the average wage. All still fans of the concept of communism. Just because they are smart people and have done 'well' should not preclude them from their leanings. Tell me why footballers earning $100,000 should be barred from being a member of any organisation, it's what you say and do that makes the difference I would have thought.
You lost me at ‘I have quite a few friends’
-
Good news.....?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57666008
-
of course it's good news MM
-
Good news.....?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57666008
Excellent news.
Be interesting to find out how much the UK tax payer is funding it though. I can't believe this is happening without a very large government subsidy.
Whatever it is it's certainly good news for the people in that area.
-
Oh. https://twitter.com/ITVJoel/status/1410518270319468545?s=19
-
I think this is because it was left out of the original withdrawal agreement
-
I'd be interested to know when they gave up and why they didn't tell anyone that they had.
-
Well those on here that predicted the demise on here of the British motor manufacturing industry seem to have been wide of the mark.
Vauxhall look to be about to announce a new production line of building electric vans at their Ellesmere Port facility with a predicted over a thousand jobs created.
-
Maybe the best way to look at the effects of brexit will be to wait until parity is reached where the economy would have been without brexit and then all the benefits above the point where the economy would have been anyway is a bonus, tada
-
Well those on here that predicted the demise on here of the British motor manufacturing industry seem to have been wide of the mark.
Vauxhall look to be about to announce a new production line of building electric vans at their Ellesmere Port facility with a predicted over a thousand jobs created.
Not sure where you get that from, the reports I’ve read are saying they are safeguarding 1000 jobs. In other words those 1000 jobs are already there, there are no NEW jobs
-
Well those on here that predicted the demise on here of the British motor manufacturing industry seem to have been wide of the mark.
Vauxhall look to be about to announce a new production line of building electric vans at their Ellesmere Port facility with a predicted over a thousand jobs created.
Not sure where you get that from, the reports I’ve read are saying they are safeguarding 1000 jobs. In other words those 1000 jobs are already there, there are no NEW jobs
Not forgetting the bribe paid for by taxpayer's money just to do that.
-
The same company have accepted a bribe as you call it of £1.1 billion from the French and German governments to build a battery production factory in their country's Glyn despite stopping the British government subsidising British Steel companies, something about being illegal at the time if I remember rightly.
What a club to be in buddy, the poor old southern states are begging for us Brits to visit while the big boys up North skim off them with interest rates.
-
The same company have accepted a bribe as you call it of £1.1 billion from the French and German governments to build a battery production factory in their country's Glyn despite stopping the British government subsidising British Steel companies, something about being illegal at the time if I remember rightly.
What a club to be in buddy, the poor old southern states are begging for us Brits to visit while the big boys up North skim off them with interest rates.
Couldn't the government have lowered business rates for british steel to help them out at all selby?
-
Selby, wasn’t it the UK that voted against the EU bringing in tougher sanctions for cheaper Chinese steel when we were members, Sajid Javid said it would not be right for the EE to scrap the “lesser duty” regulations.
-
The same company have accepted a bribe as you call it of £1.1 billion from the French and German governments to build a battery production factory in their country's Glyn despite stopping the British government subsidising British Steel companies, something about being illegal at the time if I remember rightly.
What a club to be in buddy, the poor old southern states are begging for us Brits to visit while the big boys up North skim off them with interest rates.
Since when has creating new factories and jobs been the same as subsidising and propping up existing factories and jobs?
I bet this gets ignored as per usual.
-
Selby, wasn’t it the UK that voted against the EU bringing in tougher sanctions for cheaper Chinese steel when we were members, Sajid Javid said it would not be right for the EE to scrap the “lesser duty” regulations.
I think you’re right. It was around the time Cameron was trying to get the Chinese to fund a new Nuclear Power Plant in the UK if I recall.
-
Well those on here that predicted the demise on here of the British motor manufacturing industry seem to have been wide of the mark.
Vauxhall look to be about to announce a new production line of building electric vans at their Ellesmere Port facility with a predicted over a thousand jobs created.
Not sure where you get that from, the reports I’ve read are saying they are safeguarding 1000 jobs. In other words those 1000 jobs are already there, there are no NEW jobs
Not forgetting the bribe paid for by taxpayer's money just to do that.
Isn’t that just the same as a Government providing ‘State Funding Support’ to a business?
-
Without trying to join an argument, as I understand it the plans will safeguard jobs that were in doubt had the plant closed. Vauxhall had already decided not to build the new Astra there - so the workers jobs (along with many hundreds in the supply chain) were already in jeopardy - and the future of Ellesmere Port has long been seen as vulnerable - this at least gives some security...
That must be a good thing IMO - even if part of the investment is government subsidised - government support also happens in France, Spain, Germany etc etc.
-
The same company have accepted a bribe as you call it of £1.1 billion from the French and German governments to build a battery production factory in their country's Glyn despite stopping the British government subsidising British Steel companies, something about being illegal at the time if I remember rightly.
What a club to be in buddy, the poor old southern states are begging for us Brits to visit while the big boys up North skim off them with interest rates.
Couldn't the government have lowered business rates for british steel to help them out at all selby?
No business rates are set by the council's typically. Good luck funding the council in Scunthorpe without steelworks rates. Equally the government funded steel to a massive extent despite what some politicians claimed.
Just a shame a number of EU rules prevented it at the right times.
-
Without trying to join an argument, as I understand it the plans will safeguard jobs that were in doubt had the plant closed. Vauxhall had already decided not to build the new Astra there - so the workers jobs (along with many hundreds in the supply chain) were already in jeopardy - and the future of Ellesmere Port has long been seen as vulnerable - this at least gives some security...
That must be a good thing IMO - even if part of the investment is government subsidised - government support also happens in France, Spain, Germany etc etc.
MM, I don’t think it is right that you feel you are entering into an argument.
You are simply adding your information to the debate.
I know what you mean though because your point of view doesn’t necessarily fit with the general narrative of the thread.
-
.
-
The same company have accepted a bribe as you call it of £1.1 billion from the French and German governments to build a battery production factory in their country's Glyn despite stopping the British government subsidising British Steel companies, something about being illegal at the time if I remember rightly.
What a club to be in buddy, the poor old southern states are begging for us Brits to visit while the big boys up North skim off them with interest rates.
looks like the political world has totally inverted it itself now, a rabid tory wants to exit from the world's wealthiest single market and then calls for the state to support private company, fmd.
-
The same company have accepted a bribe as you call it of £1.1 billion from the French and German governments to build a battery production factory in their country's Glyn despite stopping the British government subsidising British Steel companies, something about being illegal at the time if I remember rightly.
What a club to be in buddy, the poor old southern states are begging for us Brits to visit while the big boys up North skim off them with interest rates.
looks like the political world has totally inverted it itself now, a rabid tory wants to exit from the world's wealthiest single market and then calls for the state to support private company, fmd.
You're forgetting, this Tory government absolutely love to pump taxpayer's money into private companies. As long as they're the ones owned by them and their mates.
-
That's libel Glyn, you'll get banned from the forum
-
That's libel Glyn, you'll get banned from the forum
Says the man who says others make snide remarks.
-
That's libel Glyn, you'll get banned from the forum
Says the man who says others make snide remarks.
would you like to explain what is snide about it manchild?
-
The same company have accepted a bribe as you call it of £1.1 billion from the French and German governments to build a battery production factory in their country's Glyn despite stopping the British government subsidising British Steel companies, something about being illegal at the time if I remember rightly.
What a club to be in buddy, the poor old southern states are begging for us Brits to visit while the big boys up North skim off them with interest rates.
Couldn't the government have lowered business rates for british steel to help them out at all selby?
No business rates are set by the council's typically. Good luck funding the council in Scunthorpe without steelworks rates. Equally the government funded steel to a massive extent despite what some politicians claimed.
Just a shame a number of EU rules prevented it at the right times.
Business rates are set by the government but collected by the local councils.
-
What benefits, seems like a useless thread to me ?
It was all a tissue of lies I'm just surprised for some that the pennies haven't dropped yet !
-
''Foreign investors now own 66% of UK-listed shares, up from 64% in 2019, according to analysis of the London market that shows a steep decline in domestic holdings by British shareholders''
Not sure if this is a benefit or even brexit related, selby you're the local man about town, what does it all mean?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/07/foreign-investors-own-66-of-uk-listed-shares-analysis-shows
-
The same company have accepted a bribe as you call it of £1.1 billion from the French and German governments to build a battery production factory in their country's Glyn despite stopping the British government subsidising British Steel companies, something about being illegal at the time if I remember rightly.
What a club to be in buddy, the poor old southern states are begging for us Brits to visit while the big boys up North skim off them with interest rates.
looks like the political world has totally inverted it itself now, a rabid tory wants to exit from the world's wealthiest single market and then calls for the state to support private company, fmd.
You're forgetting, this Tory government absolutely love to pump taxpayer's money into private companies. As long as they're the ones owned by them and their mates.
all govts are the same. Where there is power and money, there is corruption. Tonies Cronies anyone?
-
Yes, every government throws billions of taxpayers money at their mate's companies without going through the proper tendering procedures, get nothing back for the money they've thrown away because the recipients of the money were never able to fulfil the contract in the first place (and everybody knew it) and then every government decides it's not worth holding any sort of public enquiry about why it happened and that whoever is responsible, it's not them. Happens all the time, nothing to see here.
-
Yes, every government throws billions of taxpayers money at their mate's companies without going through the proper tendering procedures, get nothing back for the money they've thrown away because the recipients of the money were never able to fulfil the contract in the first place (and everybody knew it) and then every government decides it's not worth holding any sort of public enquiry about why it happened and that whoever is responsible, it's not them. Happens all the time, nothing to see here.
Glyn, we very rarely agree on much apart from maybe on a football thread, but you are bang right with this. Could it be that they are all the same?
-
Yes, every government throws billions of taxpayers money at their mate's companies without going through the proper tendering procedures, get nothing back for the money they've thrown away because the recipients of the money were never able to fulfil the contract in the first place (and everybody knew it) and then every government decides it's not worth holding any sort of public enquiry about why it happened and that whoever is responsible, it's not them. Happens all the time, nothing to see here.
Glyn, we very rarely agree on much apart from maybe on a football thread, but you are bang right with this. Could it be that they are all the same?
Do you actually know of another government that has done what I've described?
-
An estimated 300000 people died in Iraq as a result of Blair’s govt actions. So whilst they may not have allegedly squandered millions in friends companies, how much did this war cost in lives and money?
The biggest war criminal in recent years.
-
Yes, every government throws billions of taxpayers money at their mate's companies without going through the proper tendering procedures, get nothing back for the money they've thrown away because the recipients of the money were never able to fulfil the contract in the first place (and everybody knew it) and then every government decides it's not worth holding any sort of public enquiry about why it happened and that whoever is responsible, it's not them. Happens all the time, nothing to see here.
Glyn, we very rarely agree on much apart from maybe on a football thread, but you are bang right with this. Could it be that they are all the same?
Do you actually know of another government that has done what I've described?
It appears their are many without the intellect or nous to be able to work out the difference.
-
Yes, every government throws billions of taxpayers money at their mate's companies without going through the proper tendering procedures, get nothing back for the money they've thrown away because the recipients of the money were never able to fulfil the contract in the first place (and everybody knew it) and then every government decides it's not worth holding any sort of public enquiry about why it happened and that whoever is responsible, it's not them. Happens all the time, nothing to see here.
Glyn, we very rarely agree on much apart from maybe on a football thread, but you are bang right with this. Could it be that they are all the same?
Do you actually know of another government that has done what I've described?
It appears their are many without the intellect or nous to be able to work out the difference.
“there are” not “their are”.
Speaking of intellect.
I guess you missed the whooooosh moment then.
-
Yes, every government throws billions of taxpayers money at their mate's companies without going through the proper tendering procedures, get nothing back for the money they've thrown away because the recipients of the money were never able to fulfil the contract in the first place (and everybody knew it) and then every government decides it's not worth holding any sort of public enquiry about why it happened and that whoever is responsible, it's not them. Happens all the time, nothing to see here.
Glyn, we very rarely agree on much apart from maybe on a football thread, but you are bang right with this. Could it be that they are all the same?
Do you actually know of another government that has done what I've described?
It appears their are many without the intellect or nous to be able to work out the difference.
“there are” not “their are”.
Speaking of intellect.
I guess you missed the whooooosh moment then.
Just pointing out the truth hound, do you fit the description?
-
Yes, every government throws billions of taxpayers money at their mate's companies without going through the proper tendering procedures, get nothing back for the money they've thrown away because the recipients of the money were never able to fulfil the contract in the first place (and everybody knew it) and then every government decides it's not worth holding any sort of public enquiry about why it happened and that whoever is responsible, it's not them. Happens all the time, nothing to see here.
Glyn, we very rarely agree on much apart from maybe on a football thread, but you are bang right with this. Could it be that they are all the same?
Do you actually know of another government that has done what I've described?
It appears their are many without the intellect or nous to be able to work out the difference.
“there are” not “their are”.
Speaking of intellect.
I guess you missed the whooooosh moment then.
Just pointing out the truth hound, do you fit the description?
LoL. No but you evidently do.
-
Yes, every government throws billions of taxpayers money at their mate's companies without going through the proper tendering procedures, get nothing back for the money they've thrown away because the recipients of the money were never able to fulfil the contract in the first place (and everybody knew it) and then every government decides it's not worth holding any sort of public enquiry about why it happened and that whoever is responsible, it's not them. Happens all the time, nothing to see here.
Glyn, we very rarely agree on much apart from maybe on a football thread, but you are bang right with this. Could it be that they are all the same?
Do you actually know of another government that has done what I've described?
It appears their are many without the intellect or nous to be able to work out the difference.
“there are” not “their are”.
Speaking of intellect.
I guess you missed the whooooosh moment then.
Just pointing out the truth hound, do you fit the description?
LoL. No but you evidently do.
Your reply is nonsensical hound, try to make sense even of you have resumed the roll of forum pedant
-
Yes, every government throws billions of taxpayers money at their mate's companies without going through the proper tendering procedures, get nothing back for the money they've thrown away because the recipients of the money were never able to fulfil the contract in the first place (and everybody knew it) and then every government decides it's not worth holding any sort of public enquiry about why it happened and that whoever is responsible, it's not them. Happens all the time, nothing to see here.
Glyn, we very rarely agree on much apart from maybe on a football thread, but you are bang right with this. Could it be that they are all the same?
Do you actually know of another government that has done what I've described?
It appears their are many without the intellect or nous to be able to work out the difference.
“there are” not “their are”.
Speaking of intellect.
I guess you missed the whooooosh moment then.
Just pointing out the truth hound, do you fit the description?
LoL. No but you evidently do.
Your reply is nonsensical hound, try to make sense even of you have resumed the roll of forum pedant
Nice try Syd but you aren’t going to suck me in to one of your strange argumentative situations.
Find an empty room to argue with yourself, you will enjoy that.
-
Now dickos has had you surgically removed from his leg you must be feeling a bit lonely, aye?
-
The room won't
-
The room won't
The forum would be a dull place without you selby
-
This is an interesting and thought provoking article explaining how recent wage increases in industries that were heavily reliant (and often exploited) on EU Labour, provides us with proof that free movement of workers contributed to keeping salaries artificially low.
This was a claim that was, and continues to be, aggressively denied by EU supporters. However, the evidence seems to show the contrary. See what you think…,
https://unherd.com/2021/08/leavers-were-right-about-immigration/
-
Not sure who would have said that HA, it's fairly obvious, to me at any rate that more labor freely available would not help wages, it may help employment but that's not the issue. Not sure what it would be based on either.
-
Good that we are not fully committed to the same vaccines as the EU who are now going to have to pay massive price rises to the Pharma companies. Well done EU you have just fallen for being gazumped, Astra Zeneca must be laughing their socks off after the way the EU dished them.
Fixed price at little to nothing profit margin, no we are having none of that, and now they pay the price.
-
Not sure who would have said that HA, it's fairly obvious, to me at any rate that more labor freely available would not help wages, it may help employment but that's not the issue. Not sure what it would be based on either.
It was claimed over and again during and after the referendum Syd and it was also claimed on her when I raised it a couple of years ago.
-
Not sure who would have said that HA, it's fairly obvious, to me at any rate that more labor freely available would not help wages, it may help employment but that's not the issue. Not sure what it would be based on either.
It was claimed over and again during and after the referendum Syd and it was also claimed on her when I raised it a couple of years ago.
That may be the case HA, but it's certainly not something I would say, it doesn't make any sense, the article is not making that case either as far as I can see. It is making the case that people said that those voting to leave are voting against their own interest and I think that is still the case for the many reasons that have already been well discussed.
-
This is an interesting and thought provoking article explaining how recent wage increases in industries that were heavily reliant (and often exploited) on EU Labour, provides us with proof that free movement of workers contributed to keeping salaries artificially low.
This was a claim that was, and continues to be, aggressively denied by EU supporters. However, the evidence seems to show the contrary. See what you think…,
https://unherd.com/2021/08/leavers-were-right-about-immigration/
Any competitive market will keep prices low, it isn't artificial, it's basic supply and demand.
However, now that wage prices would be back to what you would call 'normal', why can't I find any sprouts in the shops anywhere? Surely the good folks of Boston are jumping at the chance to earn the money picking them from the umpteen farms in the area..?
-
If the EU were a federal state which is the ultimate objective for many of the unelected leaders they have, and had the same minimum wage level as we do throughout all the member countries, 1) would we have the problems of economic workers coming from countries like Poland and Romania etc. 2)if our minimum wage allows these immigrants to come here and earn more than they can in their own country and send money home, are parts of the EU paying slave labour wages and 3) Shouldn't the Eu with the euro have the same minimum wage in all their member countries.
-
If the EU were a federal state which is the ultimate objective for many of the unelected leaders they have, and had the same minimum wage level as we do throughout all the member countries, 1) would we have the problems of economic workers coming from countries like Poland and Romania etc. 2)if our minimum wage allows these immigrants to come here and earn more than they can in their own country and send money home, are parts of the EU paying slave labour wages and 3) Shouldn't the Eu with the euro have the same minimum wage in all their member countries.
you are going to have to say which ones so we know what you're talking about selby and are you comparing it to the federal state of the UK?
-
If the EU were a federal state which is the ultimate objective for many of the unelected leaders they have, and had the same minimum wage level as we do throughout all the member countries, 1) would we have the problems of economic workers coming from countries like Poland and Romania etc. 2)if our minimum wage allows these immigrants to come here and earn more than they can in their own country and send money home, are parts of the EU paying slave labour wages and 3) Shouldn't the Eu with the euro have the same minimum wage in all their member countries.
If...if...if...if...if...if...if...
'If' selby made sense for once he might have a point.
-
If the EU were a federal state which is the ultimate objective for many of the unelected leaders they have, and had the same minimum wage level as we do throughout all the member countries, 1) would we have the problems of economic workers coming from countries like Poland and Romania etc. 2)if our minimum wage allows these immigrants to come here and earn more than they can in their own country and send money home, are parts of the EU paying slave labour wages and 3) Shouldn't the Eu with the euro have the same minimum wage in all their member countries.
maybe we should get our own house in order now we're out of the EU and look at our own unelected leaders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
-
Yes bob, you'd think that should keep selby quiet for a day or two :)
Not only are they unelected there is a sexist aspect to it.
''Membership was once an entitlement of all hereditary peers, other than those in the peerage of Ireland, but the House of Lords Act 1999 restricted it to 92 hereditary peers.[6] Since the resignation of the Countess of Mar in May 2020 (who had been the only female hereditary peer since 2014), none of these 92 is female. Most hereditary peerages can be inherited only by men.[7]
And if you travel a short distance to the end of The Mall you find more privileged unelected members of the community that can secretly lobby for financial advantage for themselves.
It's weird it should be located where the Mall meets Constitution Hill
-
Well deflected lads, but not the subject, they are your questions, I didn't think for one minute you would answer simply.
BB has you all wrapped up with your AHHHHHHHHH Butttttttttttts
-
Well deflected lads, but not the subject, they are your questions, I didn't think for one minute you would answer simply.
BB has you all wrapped up with your AHHHHHHHHH Butttttttttttts
1000 years of unelected pomposity and mad dog selby has nothing to say on the subject
-
It's about power Syd, people have been on about it for a thousand years, and when it was used by the electorate in a straight referendum you and your lot six years later have still not accepted it have you.
Pot, Kettle, idiots.
-
It's about power Syd, people have been on about it for a thousand years, and when it was used by the electorate in a straight referendum you and your lot six years later have still not accepted it have you.
Pot, Kettle, idiots.
And still you have nothing to say about it selby, 1000 years and you moan about a few decades in the EU. Know your history, wasn't this one if your central arguments for leaving?
-
This is an interesting and thought provoking article explaining how recent wage increases in industries that were heavily reliant (and often exploited) on EU Labour, provides us with proof that free movement of workers contributed to keeping salaries artificially low.
This was a claim that was, and continues to be, aggressively denied by EU supporters. However, the evidence seems to show the contrary. See what you think…,
https://unherd.com/2021/08/leavers-were-right-about-immigration/
The company which i deal with has just given pay rises to all it's warehouse and driving staff as many of the EU workers have gone home.
-
It's about power Syd, people have been on about it for a thousand years, and when it was used by the electorate in a straight referendum you and your lot six years later have still not accepted it have you.
Pot, Kettle, idiots.
this is not about the vote selby, you won enjoy, it's about the ramifications of the vote and your ignorance about your own parliamentary system.
Nearly 800 unelected members in the lords at the last count.
-
It's about power Syd, people have been on about it for a thousand years, and when it was used by the electorate in a straight referendum you and your lot six years later have still not accepted it have you.
Pot, Kettle, idiots.
this is not about the vote selby, you won enjoy, it's about the ramifications of the vote and your ignorance about your own parliamentary system.
Nearly 800 unelected members in the lords at the last count.
I hope you're not criticising Baron Bullet of Bentley, and Squire Stephen of Scawsby, Sydney.
-
It's about power Syd, people have been on about it for a thousand years, and when it was used by the electorate in a straight referendum you and your lot six years later have still not accepted it have you.
Pot, Kettle, idiots.
this is not about the vote selby, you won enjoy, it's about the ramifications of the vote and your ignorance about your own parliamentary system.
Nearly 800 unelected members in the lords at the last count.
I hope you're not criticising Baron Bullet of Bentley, and Squire Stephen of Scawsby, Sydney.
Certainly not Steve, I wouldn't dream of such a thing, but you have to admit that even selby must see the funny side of this, for years he's been using 'the great unelected' as a central plank of his argument and bjw has done him like a dinner in one fell swoop.
-
Your a diamond face Syd you are all for democracy when it suits you. but not willing to accept a democratic vote six years later, just like a child sent to bed for being naughty.
You have shown your colours and are trying to deflect away, poor form buddy.
loads of AHHHHHHHHHHHHH BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
-
It's about power Syd, people have been on about it for a thousand years, and when it was used by the electorate in a straight referendum you and your lot six years later have still not accepted it have you.
Pot, Kettle, idiots.
this is not about the vote selby, you won enjoy, it's about the ramifications of the vote and your ignorance about your own parliamentary system.
Nearly 800 unelected members in the lords at the last count.
I hope you're not criticising Baron Bullet of Bentley, and Squire Stephen of Scawsby, Sydney.
Certainly not Steve, I wouldn't dream of such a thing, but you have to admit that even selby must see the funny side of this, for years he's been using 'the great unelected' as a central plank of his argument and bjw has done him like a dinner in one fell swoop.
Hardly. The system in this country has been here in various forms for over a thousand years. The EU has sneakily tried to creep upon us over the past three decades as it has morphed from a trading block into a superstate. We were born into the British state, we were dragged into the EU.
3/10. Must try harder.
-
We were born into an undemocratic British state.
-
Easily remedied Glyn if you don't like it here go live somewhere else, if they will have you. There are twenty odd countries you admire just over the water, take your pick.
-
Easily remedied Glyn if you don't like it here go live somewhere else, if they will have you. There are twenty odd countries you admire just over the water, take your pick.
Why didn't you follow your own advice and bugger off when you didn't like living in the EU?
-
It's quite pleasant on here when I'm not involved!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Easily remedied Glyn if you don't like it here go live somewhere else, if they will have you. There are twenty odd countries you admire just over the water, take your pick.
Why didn't you follow your own advice and bugger off when you didn't like living in the EU?
I noticed you censored yourself there, Glyn.
-
Yes, I bit my tongue there.
-
It's quite pleasant on here when I'm not involved!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This is pleasant compared to when you stick your oar in.
-
That's good coming from the most obnoxious mouthpiece on the forum by a country mile!
-
Easily remedied Glyn if you don't like it here go live somewhere else, if they will have you. There are twenty odd countries you admire just over the water, take your pick.
Another benefit of Brexit.
-
Well Glyn I still have a place over in Turkey buddy, but I like it here, hows the tongue? that could be sore.
-
It's about power Syd, people have been on about it for a thousand years, and when it was used by the electorate in a straight referendum you and your lot six years later have still not accepted it have you.
Pot, Kettle, idiots.
And still you have nothing to say about it selby, 1000 years and you moan about a few decades in the EU. Know your history, wasn't this one if your central arguments for leaving?
Your a diamond face Syd you are all for democracy when it suits you. but not willing to accept a democratic vote six years later, just like a child sent to bed for being naughty.
You have shown your colours and are trying to deflect away, poor form buddy.
loads of AHHHHHHHHHHHHH BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Still nothing selby, this is not a branch meeting of the tory party with a lot of backslapping where if it is said more than twice it becomes lore, you have been hung out to dry well and truly and you can't face up to that fact.
The vote is done move on, accept you are still stuck in year one parliamentary history and come back a grown up.
-
That's good coming from the most obnoxious mouthpiece on the forum by a country mile!
Mirror mirror on the wall who drinks piss then abuses all :)
-
Well Glyn I still have a place over in Turkey buddy, but I like it here, hows the tongue? that could be sore.
Wow timeshare in Turkey, where can I sign.
-
You can't, I wouldn't let a racial person against the British people like you sit on the toilet seat buddy.
-
You can't, I wouldn't let a racial person against the British people like you sit on the toilet seat buddy.
Even to an idiot you'd sound stupid sometimes selby
-
After 33 pages of posts we should have a good list of all the benefits. Anyone care to find them and post them below?
-
Why don’t you start a new thread, Bob.
-
5 years down the line and STILL not one discernible benefit from Brexit - where and what are they ?
-
5 years down the line and STILL not one discernible benefit from Brexit - where and what are they ?
I take it you've not been jabbed then, Hoola?
-
SS, 6 EU states have higher vaccination rates than UK, so that benefit seems to no longer apply.
-
There's a vast difference in population numbers between the UK and those six EU countries. Malta has less than half a million population. The UK has a population almost 6 times that of Belgium. Spain's population is about 2/3rds the size of the UK's. The UK has about 6.5 times the population of Portugal, and almost 12 times that of Denmark, and 13 times that of Ireland.
-
UK, 7th richest bloc in world it should be able to vaccinate, it's why it's death rate will improve over time as other countries fall behind, as you pointed out bb.
-
There's a vast difference in population numbers between the UK and those six EU countries. Malta has less than half a million population. The UK has a population almost 6 times that of Belgium. Spain's population is about 2/3rds the size of the UK's. The UK has about 6.5 times the population of Portugal, and almost 12 times that of Denmark, and 13 times that of Ireland.
And here's some numbers to help explain the difference.
Total wealth.
UK 5th (3.7%)
Spain 12th (2.1%)
Belgium 19th (0.76%)
Denmark 25th (0.41%)
Portugal 33rd (0.28%)
Ireland 38th (0.23%)
Malta 99th (0.013%)
I guess the more wealth the more money they can throw at vaccines and health care, wouldn't you think Einstein?
Added: in brackets I have put the percentage of the worlds notional net assets each 'country' holds.
-
Also, Johnson , in PMQs, often reminds us that we are ahead of vaccinations because of the benefit of leaving the EUs medicine agency. We are not ahead.
BB, I said rates of vaccinations; country’s wealth, infrastructure,population etc are obviously factors as pointed out by Sydney.
-
In terms of the absolute number of vaccinations, the United Kingdom and Germany are racing ahead with immunising their people.
-
Well there's a surprise who has managed to diss Britain again and so early in the morning, looking at figures it looks like Spain could be heading for another tough time.
-
Well there's a surprise who has managed to diss Britain again and so early in the morning, looking at figures it looks like Spain could be heading for another tough time.
You're such a plonka sometimes selby, only you could construe pointing out how wealthy the UK is as a slight but investing your money in Turkey is an amazing way to show loyalty. Remind me, wasn't Turkey the country where all those that were going to flood Britain were going to come from ................. saw it on the side of a bus I think.
-
In terms of the absolute number of vaccinations, the United Kingdom and Germany are racing ahead with immunising their people.
Is this because Germany also left the EU? Shock breaking news...
-
No Wilts, but Germany did apparently violate the EU vaccine programme.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/951628/germany-buy-30-million-vaccine-jabs-outside-eu-scheme
-
So, last season (thankfully) put to bed , but not the best start for Ritchie , early days hopefully. Now, where were we?
I'm only a lad from Donny, so thus sounds like a lot of money to me.
The Bank of England announced that voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £440 million a week in lost growth since the referendum, thats £727 per second.
Why did we bote to leave the EU again?
-
So, last season (thankfully) put to bed , but not the best start for Ritchie , early days hopefully. Now, where were we?
I'm only a lad from Donny, so thus sounds like a lot of money to me.
The Bank of England announced that voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £440 million a week in lost growth since the referendum, thats £727 per second.
Why did we bote to leave the EU again?
£440 million per week, that's a whole lot of dosh washing down the Channel, Selby's our money man only he could explain how that make's us better off, with the charming assistance of bb of course, in your own time lads.
''In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[42][43]''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit
Vote brexit, you know it makes sense!
-
Meanwhile the lefties of the NE are revolting ...............
''Business chief calls on PM to save north-east from Brexit damage
James Ramsbotham, CEO of North East England Chamber of Commerce, says letter sent to Boris Johnson remains unanswered''
''Ramsbotham is the chief executive of the North East England Chamber of Commerce and speaks for thousands of businesses caught by the red tape and extra costs of complying with EU rules. In a recent survey, 38% of members said sales to Europe had fallen since January''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/09/no-strategic-plan-brexit-james-ramsbotham-north-east-chamber-of-commerce
-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1474129/eu-news-germany-eu-budget-payments-angela-merkel-boris-johnson-brexit-britain
Welcome to what was our world Germany
-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1474129/eu-news-germany-eu-budget-payments-angela-merkel-boris-johnson-brexit-britain
Welcome to what was our world Germany
It's in the Express, do you really believe it to be true? Still, now we know where you get your nonsense from!
-
It's beyond ridiculous even for The Express.
1) They quote a Green Party P who is strongly in favour of German contributions to the EU as being AGAINST German contributions. In fact, what the Green Party MP is doing is pointing out the fact that the EU should be taking action against neo-fascist governments in Poland and Hungary.
2) They quote two AfD Party MPs complaining against German contributions. The AfD is a very far-Right populist party. It is way to the Right of being a German equivalent of Farage's mob and is effectively a neo-fascist party. So of COURSE it is going to be critical of the EU. But they are not in any way representative of general mainstream German political opinion.
Typical of the Express, which has a tenuous grasp on fair reporting at the best of times, and has become an unapologetic sewer pipe for far-right opinion. Not surprsing that someone on here who is an unapologetic xenophobe and racist should quote it and think that somehow clinches an argument.
-
Good to see you back, Sydney's been struggling without you. :)
-
Italexit will be next. Just a matter of time.
-
I can get them out AL, they Love me, especially those who wake up in a morning in a country they despise, and read the Guardian for informed information that is unbiased.
-
Here's a handy video that explains, in simple terms, how the Single Market works It contains subtitles for the likes of selby.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1052592713416232960/pu/vid/1152x720/mzDu-tdnhxiolC_7.mp4?tag=5
-
Bloke who bought a holiday home in Turkey accuses people who didn't of not loving their country.
Keep that money pouring into Erdogan's pocket Selby - you fascists need to stick together.
-
NR, Poland and Hungary could run them close, they know the tap is about to be turned off and they will start to be contributors, they will hang on and milk it while it is there then do an exit stage left when the southern states hang their hands out for big bucks.
Wilts it isn't a holiday home, When I go on holiday I like to be waited on and do as little as possible.
-
NR, Poland and Hungary could run them close, they know the tap is about to be turned off and they will start to be contributors, they will hang on and milk it while it is there then do an exit stage left when the southern states hang their hands out for big bucks.
Wilts it isn't a holiday home, When I go on holiday I like to be waited on and do as little as possible.
At the last count 45% of Italians agreed or strongly agreed with leaving the bloc. A further 28% we’re undecided. They were waiting 5 yrs until after uk break to see if uk economy was ok. There will be an independence vote in Italy in a few years. It will only go one way.
-
This is good news.
40,000 students will be able to study and work abroad thanks to the government’s new Turing Scheme, with universities and schools due to be told this week that their bids for funding have been successful.
Over 120 universities, as well as schools and further education colleges across the UK, will be awarded grants from the £110m Turing Scheme – which will see 48% of places go to those from disadvantaged backgrounds
-
Hull had a bit of good news today as well.
Siemens to double the size of their wind turbine manufacturing plant and creating almost 500 new jobs.
-
NR
That's a bit like the EU ERASMUS scheme. Only smaller.
Hound. That's great. Really great. But what is it doing on a Brexit Benefits thread?
-
I see you are back posting then instead of just reading every day.
It is on this thread because the turbines that Siemens will be making were previously made abroad.
-
Hound. Touching that my presence or absence is so important to you.
Back on topic, there are thousands of business decisions every year that move work from one country to another. What has this one got to do with Brexit?
-
BST, I have ssssooooo not missed you or your antagonistic attitude.
-
Clearly.
-
Yep, you are certainly back.
Cases must be on the up then.
-
Yep. That's right. I sat twisting my fingers in knots and sticking pins in my gonads just hoping and praying the drop in COVID cases would end and more people would die just so I could come back in here and say "See!"
Strange holiday, it was.
-
At least sticking pins in your gonads stopped them talking for a while! ;)
-
Be still my aching sides.
-
Billy must have had a shit holiday.
-
The truth is he had to come back, his backing group were crap by themselves.
-
The truth is he had to come back, his backing group were crap by themselves.
They'd almost fizzled out to nothing. It was like the Beatles without Lennon. Ringo ( Sydney ) was hopeless! :lol:
-
Billy. Why are you posting anything at all on a Brexit benefit thread?
-
Billy. Why are you posting anything at all on a Brexit benefit thread?
A more appropriate question would be 'why aren't you Brexiters posting any benefits as a result of the thing you voted for?'
-
Billy. Why are you posting anything at all on a Brexit benefit thread?
A more appropriate question would be 'why aren't you Brexiters posting any benefits as a result of the thing you voted for?'
We don't need to, we're not the ones complaining.
-
Just to keep you happy, wages for HGV drivers are going through the roof.
-
Billy. Why are you posting anything at all on a Brexit benefit thread?
A more appropriate question would be 'why aren't you Brexiters posting any benefits as a result of the thing you voted for?'
How is that more appropriate?
-
Anyway, Not. Apart from Billy’s holiday return, this thread is slowing down a bit. Isn’t it about time you started a new thread about your Brexit bitterness, but under another title? Perhaps you could go for a non ironic one this time.
-
A new approach, you decide, clusterf**k ...... or not?
''Emergency Brexit powers for lorry queues to be made permanent
Exclusive: ministers to make traffic provisions indefinite in expectation of further cross-Channel disruption''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/10/emergency-brexit-powers-for-lorry-queues-to-be-made-permanent
-
Anyway, Not. Apart from Billy’s holiday return, this thread is slowing down a bit.
Exactly! Surely this thread should be buzzing, with new posts every day about all the benefits we are seeing from Brexit?
-
If you like, Bob.
-
A new approach, you decide, clusterf**k ...... or not?
''Emergency Brexit powers for lorry queues to be made permanent
Exclusive: ministers to make traffic provisions indefinite in expectation of further cross-Channel disruption''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/10/emergency-brexit-powers-for-lorry-queues-to-be-made-permanent
So which one is it: permanent or indefinite?
-
Just to keep you happy, wages for HGV drivers are going through the roof.
Because we're 100,000 drivers short of what we need.
-
So potentially, Glyn, 100,000 new jobs with excellent pay! You’re good at this Brexit benefit lark, aren’t you?
-
"Brexit lorry traffic controls to be made permanent" @standardnews
This is madness.
Stark admission of Brexit failure.
And the Brexit problems are only just beginning.
-
So potentially, Glyn, 100,000 new jobs with excellent pay! You’re good at this Brexit benefit lark, aren’t you?
The only problem is, you can't just get HGV drivers off the street. Where are they going to come from, and how is stuff going to get delivered while we're waiting for them all to get qualified?
If you haven't got an answer to that you're not very good at this Brexit lark, are you?
-
So potentially, Glyn, 100,000 new jobs with excellent pay! You’re good at this Brexit benefit lark, aren’t you?
The only problem is, you can't just get HGV drivers off the street. Where are they going to come from, and how is stuff going to get delivered while we're waiting for them all to get qualified?
If you haven't got an answer to that you're not very good at this Brexit lark, are you?
You’re not very good at coming up with your own phrases are you?
It was your Brexit benefit, not mine.
-
For job roles such as HGV and Police we should be training up soldiers about to leave the army, to give them the future they have earned, rather than leaving them to become homeless.
-
For job roles such as HGV and Police we should be training up soldiers about to leave the army, to give them the future they have earned, rather than leaving them to become homeless.
I get the sentiment AL. But some soldiers would never make cops just like some cops would never make soldiers.
Soldiers getting jobs as drivers though is pretty on point. Many do. I know of ex squaddies and ex cops who drive for a living. Not just trucks, but taxis and delivery stuff too. Problem is getting the training for those without c or c+e status.
When I left the forces some of my mates went down the hazmat route (or whatever it is called these days ) Driving tankers and the like. It was always rumoured to be very good money doing that.
-
So potentially, Glyn, 100,000 new jobs with excellent pay! You’re good at this Brexit benefit lark, aren’t you?
The only problem is, you can't just get HGV drivers off the street. Where are they going to come from, and how is stuff going to get delivered while we're waiting for them all to get qualified?
If you haven't got an answer to that you're not very good at this Brexit lark, are you?
You’re not very good at coming up with your own phrases are you?
It was your Brexit benefit, not mine.
No solution to your supposed 'benefit' I notice. Of course.
-
It wasn’t my benefit, Glyn, it was yours. I just pointed it out to you. It’s not up to me to put meat on your Brexit benefit bones.
-
It is the transport companies fault for the shortage of HGV drivers,not training them themselves over the years.
They have been quite happy to employ foreign drivers who in a lot of cases have not had the training required to get a licence in this country, and have been a source of cheap labour for the industry and kept the wage structure artificially low for years which is now being highlighted, and in some cases have been a danger to the public on the roads.
Like other trades they will have to start to train their own employees now, and stop feeding off other companies that subsidise the training of skilled workers, and an opportunity for British workers to earn a good living wage.
-
It wasn’t my benefit, Glyn, it was yours. I just pointed it out to you. It’s not up to me to put meat on your Brexit benefit bones.
You said it was a benefit, not me. It isn't. You justify it.
But you won't, because you can't.
Cue blather response.
-
Sorry Glyn, but if you can’t back up your own Brexit benefits, then they don’t count.
Try again.
-
So you agree it's not a benefit then. Good.
-
For job roles such as HGV and Police we should be training up soldiers about to leave the army, to give them the future they have earned, rather than leaving them to become homeless.
I get the sentiment AL. But some soldiers would never make cops just like some cops would never make soldiers.
Soldiers getting jobs as drivers though is pretty on point. Many do. I know of ex squaddies and ex cops who drive for a living. Not just trucks, but taxis and delivery stuff too. Problem is getting the training for those without c or c+e status.
When I left the forces some of my mates went down the hazmat route (or whatever it is called these days ) Driving tankers and the like. It was always rumoured to be very good money doing that.
My neighbour (ex RLC) did this for quite a few years but gave it up when he had paid off his mortgage and he didn't need to do it............he now drives a disability bus for the council part time and lives off his pension.
-
So you agree it's not a benefit then. Good.
You put a Brexit benefit on here and then get upset when you can’t explain why it’s a benefit. Then you say it’s not a benefit.
WUM
-
All them foreigners coming over here picking our fruit and veg and delivering our food. B****ds.
-
So you agree it's not a benefit then. Good.
You put a Brexit benefit on here and then get upset when you can’t explain why it’s a benefit. Then you say it’s not a benefit.
WUM
You think being short of 100,000 HGV drivers is a benefit? I certainly don't and have consistently said so.
If you try - yet again - to pretend that I've been giving a benefit we'll all know who the WUM is.
-
It will be a benefit to those 100,000 who get jobs as HGV drivers.
-
well, yes
-
There you go Glyn - even our Sydney thinks it’s a benefit.
-
There you go Glyn - even our Sydney thinks it’s a benefit.
I posted the non-benefit side of this:
The only problem is, you can't just get HGV drivers off the street. Where are they going to come from, and how is stuff going to get delivered while we're waiting for them all to get qualified?
Which absolutely no-one has answered. Especially you. No doubt you still won't answer it.
-
It will be a benefit to those 100,000 who get jobs as HGV drivers.
It's not a benefit to the country as a whole.
-
There is no net benefit, there is not a need for truckies due to increased trade it's because so many have chuffed off. When every job is filled there will no net gain to production it will only go towards filling the huge hole.
-
It will be a benefit to those 100,000 who get jobs as HGV drivers.
It's not a benefit to the country as a whole.
It will reduce unemployment therefore it will be a benefit to the country as a whole.
-
I mean we could just train up our unemployed as drivers, offer it as an option for school leavers etc couldn't we?
We could also treat the drivers we do have a little better couldn't we? Financially they make a very good wage but the unsocial hours and treatment could be far better. Perhaps we need to be less reliant on cheap immigrant workforces and train up our population to fulfil skills we need.
-
I mean we could just train up our unemployed as drivers, offer it as an option for school leavers etc couldn't we?
We could also treat the drivers we do have a little better couldn't we? Financially they make a very good wage but the unsocial hours and treatment could be far better. Perhaps we need to be less reliant on cheap immigrant workforces and train up our population to fulfil skills we need.
All good, positive points. Sometimes when options (cheaper ones, in this case) are removed, then it can be for the greater good.
But it won’t be a quick fix. Mentalities of employers and potential employees would need to change - that will take time. Bur who said Brexit would be a short term, quick fix?
-
There jobs a plenty in Lincolnshire. For the first time ever, one of the local big veg producers (Clements) have a big advertising hoarding near their factory in Wrangle wanting food processing operatives and tractor drivers. They have never needed to advertise before in this way. Sign of the times I guess.
-
I mean we could just train up our unemployed as drivers, offer it as an option for school leavers etc couldn't we?
We could also treat the drivers we do have a little better couldn't we? Financially they make a very good wage but the unsocial hours and treatment could be far better. Perhaps we need to be less reliant on cheap immigrant workforces and train up our population to fulfil skills we need.
All good, positive points. Sometimes when options (cheaper ones, in this case) are removed, then it can be for the greater good.
But it won’t be a quick fix. Mentalities of employers and potential employees would need to change - that will take time. Bur who said Brexit would be a short term, quick fix?
Many people during the leave campaign. Not least of all David Davis, Brexit Minister - “there will be no downside to Brexit at all, and considerable upsides”.
-
Let's take back control .................
If anyone offered a deal such as brexit to a business, we're going to take you away from your major market and give you enough paperwork to keep you busy for a couple of years, give your competitors the chance to grab your customers .............
ooh yes please, do it now
-
I mean we could just train up our unemployed as drivers, offer it as an option for school leavers etc couldn't we?
We could also treat the drivers we do have a little better couldn't we? Financially they make a very good wage but the unsocial hours and treatment could be far better. Perhaps we need to be less reliant on cheap immigrant workforces and train up our population to fulfil skills we need.
All good, positive points. Sometimes when options (cheaper ones, in this case) are removed, then it can be for the greater good.
But it won’t be a quick fix. Mentalities of employers and potential employees would need to change - that will take time. Bur who said Brexit would be a short term, quick fix?
Many people during the leave campaign. Not least of all David Davis, Brexit Minister - “there will be no downside to Brexit at all, and considerable upsides”.
Not. I can’t shake of this nagging feeling that you don’t really want to hear about any Brexit benefits.
-
I mean we could just train up our unemployed as drivers, offer it as an option for school leavers etc couldn't we?
We could also treat the drivers we do have a little better couldn't we? Financially they make a very good wage but the unsocial hours and treatment could be far better. Perhaps we need to be less reliant on cheap immigrant workforces and train up our population to fulfil skills we need.
All good, positive points. Sometimes when options (cheaper ones, in this case) are removed, then it can be for the greater good.
But it won’t be a quick fix. Mentalities of employers and potential employees would need to change - that will take time. Bur who said Brexit would be a short term, quick fix?
Many people during the leave campaign. Not least of all David Davis, Brexit Minister - “there will be no downside to Brexit at all, and considerable upsides”.
Not. I can’t shake of this nagging feeling that you don’t really want to hear about any Brexit benefits.
You are so wrong Belton. I can't wait to here all these benefits we've achieved. After all, we were promised so much. Got any to report?
-
Let's take back control .................
If anyone offered a deal such as brexit to a business, we're going to take you away from your major market and give you enough paperwork to keep you busy for a couple of years, give your competitors the chance to grab your customers .............
ooh yes please, do it now
Problem is SR, people who have been conned typically find it very hard to admit they've been conned. Happens all the time - which is of great benefit to the conmen.
-
I mean we could just train up our unemployed as drivers, offer it as an option for school leavers etc couldn't we?
We could also treat the drivers we do have a little better couldn't we? Financially they make a very good wage but the unsocial hours and treatment could be far better. Perhaps we need to be less reliant on cheap immigrant workforces and train up our population to fulfil skills we need.
All good, positive points. Sometimes when options (cheaper ones, in this case) are removed, then it can be for the greater good.
But it won’t be a quick fix. Mentalities of employers and potential employees would need to change - that will take time. Bur who said Brexit would be a short term, quick fix?
Many people during the leave campaign. Not least of all David Davis, Brexit Minister - “there will be no downside to Brexit at all, and considerable upsides”.
Not. I can’t shake of this nagging feeling that you don’t really want to hear about any Brexit benefits.
You are so wrong Belton. I can't wait to here all these benefits we've achieved. After all, we were promised so much. Got any to report?
LOL
-
Let's take back control .................
If anyone offered a deal such as brexit to a business, we're going to take you away from your major market and give you enough paperwork to keep you busy for a couple of years, give your competitors the chance to grab your customers .............
ooh yes please, do it now
Problem is SR, people who have been conned typically find it very hard to admit they've been conned. Happens all the time - which is of great benefit to the conmen.
It's either that, or as billy said they didn't know they've been had. Now of course we are all stuck with a government that doesn't know what to do next a government that needs scientists to tell them the difference between shit and clay and yet still grab handfuls of the wrong stuff.
-
I mean we could just train up our unemployed as drivers, offer it as an option for school leavers etc couldn't we?
We could also treat the drivers we do have a little better couldn't we? Financially they make a very good wage but the unsocial hours and treatment could be far better. Perhaps we need to be less reliant on cheap immigrant workforces and train up our population to fulfil skills we need.
All good, positive points. Sometimes when options (cheaper ones, in this case) are removed, then it can be for the greater good.
But it won’t be a quick fix. Mentalities of employers and potential employees would need to change - that will take time. Bur who said Brexit would be a short term, quick fix?
Many people during the leave campaign. Not least of all David Davis, Brexit Minister - “there will be no downside to Brexit at all, and considerable upsides”.
Not. I can’t shake of this nagging feeling that you don’t really want to hear about any Brexit benefits.
You are so wrong Belton. I can't wait to here all these benefits we've achieved. After all, we were promised so much. Got any to report?
LOL
LOL? Ah, yes, leave voters believed Lots Of Lies..... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/list-of-brexit-lies&ved=2ahUKEwjJ4r3zwbLyAhUMTsAKHcTbDvwQFnoECDQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2dLeP7mRn5yCO5DsETowAn&cshid=1629013548222
-
I mean we could just train up our unemployed as drivers, offer it as an option for school leavers etc couldn't we?
We could also treat the drivers we do have a little better couldn't we? Financially they make a very good wage but the unsocial hours and treatment could be far better. Perhaps we need to be less reliant on cheap immigrant workforces and train up our population to fulfil skills we need.
All good, positive points. Sometimes when options (cheaper ones, in this case) are removed, then it can be for the greater good.
But it won’t be a quick fix. Mentalities of employers and potential employees would need to change - that will take time. Bur who said Brexit would be a short term, quick fix?
Many people during the leave campaign. Not least of all David Davis, Brexit Minister - “there will be no downside to Brexit at all, and considerable upsides”.
Not. I can’t shake of this nagging feeling that you don’t really want to hear about any Brexit benefits.
You are so wrong Belton. I can't wait to here all these benefits we've achieved. After all, we were promised so much. Got any to report?
LOL
LOL? Ah, yes, leave voters believed Lots Of Lies..... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/list-of-brexit-lies&ved=2ahUKEwjJ4r3zwbLyAhUMTsAKHcTbDvwQFnoECDQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2dLeP7mRn5yCO5DsETowAn&cshid=1629013548222
lol
-
Here's a Brexit benefit. It clearly keeps vulnerable, low skilled people off the dole.
Think what Clive Hammond here would be doing to put a roof over his head if The Express didn't pay him to pour this sort of dogshite into people's heads.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1476897/eu-news-sweden-swexit-threat-brexit-uk-politics-european-commission-latest-spt/amp?__twitter_impression=true
"EU On The Brink: Sweden Tipped For Heartbreaking Divorce After Brexit"
Have a read. This article, published today, is based on a report written 5 years ago by some American kid a year out from graduation.
And then think what on earth Clive Hammond could possibly offer the world if he wasn't poisoning folks' brains with this cack.
Good old Brexit.
-
I have found a genuine benefit from Brexit. Seriously, a very real and genuine benefit....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-ireland-portugal-eurosceptic-poll-a8888126.html
Just don't tell Selby. It'll spoil his dream of the EU breaking up.
-
I have found a genuine benefit from Brexit. Seriously, a very real and genuine benefit....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-ireland-portugal-eurosceptic-poll-a8888126.html
Just don't tell Selby. It'll spoil his dream of the EU breaking up.
And other countries lining up to become members to gain member benefits, sort of like a giant Amazon prime that allows delivery without borders.
-
Kato, a lot of those people have not had to pick the tab up yet, it won't be long.
-
Kato, a lot of those people have not had to pick the tab up yet, it won't be long.
There's plenty in the UK doing just that though aye selby?
-
Kato, a lot of those people have not had to pick the tab up yet, it won't be long.
There's plenty in the UK doing just that though aye selby?
Not you, though.
-
I have found a genuine benefit from Brexit. Seriously, a very real and genuine benefit....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-ireland-portugal-eurosceptic-poll-a8888126.html
Just don't tell Selby. It'll spoil his dream of the EU breaking up.
Isn't that link over two years old?
-
It could be six years old BB as they have been pedalling the same crap for that long since their world came crashing down.
Trade with the EU significantly down, and trade with the rest of the world significantly up, that is why we left, and we are only just beginning.
-
Here you go selby, this is 3 days old, read it and give us the benefit of your financial brain.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57282379
-
I've found another genuine benefit from Brexit, and this time it's us in the UK that really do benefit....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9843155/UK-shoppers-save-20p-bottle-Australian-wine-trade-deal.html
Yes, we're going to save a whopping 20p, (that's a whole twenty new pence), on a bottle of Australian wine thanks to the new Brexit driven trade deal we've struck with them. I mean, WOW! You leavers ought to arrange a street party to celebrate, what a cracking good job you've done for the country - I'm just surprised you haven't been shouting a success like this from the rooftops.
-
The main benefit (and only one I am interested in) is that we are no longer part of the, in my opinion, inevitable march to a United States of Europe.
-
The main benefit (and only one I am interested in) is that we are no longer part of the, in my opinion, inevitable march to a United States of Europe.
You'd have to define exactly what a 'United states of Europe' means Ldr, Brexit wasn't defined and look at the mess.
-
I've found another genuine benefit from Brexit, and this time it's us in the UK that really do benefit....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9843155/UK-shoppers-save-20p-bottle-Australian-wine-trade-deal.html
Yes, we're going to save a whopping 20p, (that's a whole twenty new pence), on a bottle of Australian wine thanks to the new Brexit driven trade deal we've struck with them. I mean, WOW! You leavers ought to arrange a street party to celebrate, what a cracking good job you've done for the country - I'm just surprised you haven't been shouting a success like this from the rooftops.
No thanks, not at any price. I've had enough of whines from Australia on this forum to last a lifetime.
-
The main benefit (and only one I am interested in) is that we are no longer part of the, in my opinion, inevitable march to a United States of Europe.
You'd have to define exactly what a 'United states of Europe' means Ldr, Brexit wasn't defined and look at the mess.
Simply put Syd, a federal European state
-
The main benefit (and only one I am interested in) is that we are no longer part of the, in my opinion, inevitable march to a United States of Europe.
You'd have to define exactly what a 'United states of Europe' means Ldr, Brexit wasn't defined and look at the mess.
Simply put Syd, a federal European state
And where, apart from in your mind or the Daily Mail, do you get that from?
-
The main benefit (and only one I am interested in) is that we are no longer part of the, in my opinion, inevitable march to a United States of Europe.
You'd have to define exactly what a 'United states of Europe' means Ldr, Brexit wasn't defined and look at the mess.
Simply put Syd, a federal European state
And where, apart from in your mind or the Daily Mail, do you get that from?
Could you be any more condescending?
-
I've never understood that argument Ldr.
In principle, it means that you are prepared here and now to take on all the costs of leaving the EU, in order to avoid a hypothetical scenario years in the future, which we would have been able to address if and when it happened.
In practice, there is absolutely zero momentum anywhere in EU countries towards deeper integration for the foreseeable future. And the idea that the British would have signed up for that anyway even if there were, given the current UK political landscape, is beyond credence.
-
I've never understood that argument Ldr.
In principle, it means that you are prepared here and now to take on all the costs of leaving the EU, in order to avoid a hypothetical scenario years in the future, which we would have been able to address if and when it happened.
In practice, there is absolutely zero momentum anywhere in EU countries towards deeper integration for the foreseeable future. And the idea that the British would have signed up for that anyway even if there were, given the current UK political landscape, is beyond credence.
Given the binary nature of the choice I cannot argue with what you say BST.
-
The main benefit (and only one I am interested in) is that we are no longer part of the, in my opinion, inevitable march to a United States of Europe.
You'd have to define exactly what a 'United states of Europe' means Ldr, Brexit wasn't defined and look at the mess.
Simply put Syd, a federal European state
And where, apart from in your mind or the Daily Mail, do you get that from?
Could you be any more condescending?
It wasn't meant to be condescending.
-
I've again found a real Brexit benefit, and yet again it's a benefit for the UK....
https://mailchi.mp/caa/revised-visibility-distance-from-cloud-minima?e=f702e53d60
Basically, it means certain former EU driven safety restrictions have been binned for those of us who are lucky enough to be able to afford our own light aircraft or microlight whilst flying in daylight within the British Isles.
Come on leavers, you must be overjoyed at this wonderful news, taking back control at its very best.
-
Not. Read your last two posts together.
Genius.
-
Not. Read your last two posts together.
Genius.
Are you saying my last two posts were not about benefits for the UK?
-
Not. Read your last two posts together.
Genius.
I got what you meant
-
Here's another real win
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bij-JjzCa7o
#Winning
-
According to a report in the Telegraph, financial exports to EU countries have improved and increased.
-
Above what they were before brexit selby?
-
It's all in the Telegraph Syd, find it and read it.
-
Cheers lads, Heineken to invest £38 million in Britain and create 500 to 700 jobs.
-
Cheers lads, Heineken to invest £38 million in Britain and create 500 to 700 jobs.
But not because of Brexit selby.
-
Genuine question Kato, is everything that is bad because of Brexit, and everything that is good in spite of it?
Seeing as how the Americans especially see the UK as their preferred place to invest their money in business rather than in the EU slowly but surely the benefits of being out of an undemocratic bureaucracy is becoming evident, and the hell on Earth the UK was predicted to be after our exit has not materialised.
Please tell me if you know anyone whose life has been directly affected by the fact we have come out of the EU.
-
There is no economic benefit to be had from Brexit. This has been pretty much agreed by every single economist who has opined on the matter. Even Professor Patrick Minford, the only dissenting voice among economists, has gone quiet; he hasn't peddled his arguments for years. So I don't understand why people quote individual economic or commercial stats as a benefit. It's a bit like the jobs watch they used to have on ITV News in the 80s when every new job was reported but we had unemployment of 3 million. A pointless exercise.
The one advantage, or benefit if you will, is that we now have greater control over immigration. It might be notional, that is we may need to increase immigration to enable parts of our economy to function, but it is our government's decision as to how it exercises control.
In a nutshell, Brexit has boiled down to a trade-off; trading future economic prosperity for greater control over immigration.
Here endeth the lesson :chair:
-
Genuine question Kato, is everything that is bad because of Brexit, and everything that is good in spite of it?
Seeing as how the Americans especially see the UK as their preferred place to invest their money in business rather than in the EU slowly but surely the benefits of being out of an undemocratic bureaucracy is becoming evident, and the hell on Earth the UK was predicted to be after our exit has not materialised.
Please tell me if you know anyone whose life has been directly affected by the fact we have come out of the EU.
Mine has, much more difficult to take our dog on holiday to France with us
-
Macron's fault.
-
So if we were still in the EU ravenrover would still find it just as difficult?
-
Recruiting truck drivers
-
This trouble with getting truck drivers, is it because the country is Busier than it was in the EU? and if we get thousands of truck drivers does that mean we have thousands of trucks on the our already overcrowded polluted roads with trucks?
Just stand on any motorway bridge and tell me there is a shortage.
-
Genuine question Kato, is everything that is bad because of Brexit, and everything that is good in spite of it?
Seeing as how the Americans especially see the UK as their preferred place to invest their money in business rather than in the EU slowly but surely the benefits of being out of an undemocratic bureaucracy is becoming evident, and the hell on Earth the UK was predicted to be after our exit has not materialised.
Please tell me if you know anyone whose life has been directly affected by the fact we have come out of the EU.
So if nothing has changed - the EU didn't rule our lives then?
-
and - everybody in Northern Ireland is the answer to your question.
-
Macron's fault.
I think you should look at it a little deeper then Selby if you think that
-
I'm waiting for selby to share with us the financial tips from the brexit bonanza that will see money pouring into DRFC coffers.
-
This trouble with getting truck drivers, is it because the country is Busier than it was in the EU? and if we get thousands of truck drivers does that mean we have thousands of trucks on the our already overcrowded polluted roads with trucks?
Just stand on any motorway bridge and tell me there is a shortage.
If it comes to you on a motorway bridge or the Freight Haulage Association telling me whether there's a shortage or not, it's not you I'm going to believe.
-
"The country is busier than it was in the EU".
How do some people function in the real world?
-
They function by making shit up in an attempt to be a WUM. It's a crap hobby but it's the only way they can cope.
-
This thread is 37 pages of pure nonsense.
The decision to leave or stay in the EU was a long term one. Anybody who believed that 5 years after our departure we'd either be in 1930s style economic penury (as predicted by Osbourne and Cameron) or basking in economic 'sunlit uplands' is a fool.
The key question of the referendum was whether we'd be happier (and probably but not necessarily more prosperous) long term living in a free, democratic, independent state or in a centralized, undemocratic but more politically stable EU with shared economic risks.
Of course there have been short term downsides and upsides through rupturing our political and economic status quo but arguing over each individually in a competition of one-upmanship is both pointless and misses the wider long term point.
-
The economic consequences of leaving the Single Market that we're seeing now in the short-term are very much long-term in nature.
-
The economic consequences of leaving the Single Market that we're seeing now in the short-term are very much long-term in nature.
The real world is not quite so cut and dried as your statement suggests. SOME of the short term economic consequences of leaving the Single Market may be long term, covered in my comment re the EU's shared economic risk, but some (assuming you are wholly talking downsides) may be overcome long term through internal solutions, forging new alliances or indeed coming to specific, mutually beneficial agreements with the EU itself.
-
This thread is 37 pages of pure nonsense.
The decision to leave or stay in the EU was a long term one. Anybody who believed that 5 years after our departure we'd either be in 1930s style economic penury (as predicted by Osbourne and Cameron) or basking in economic 'sunlit uplands' is a fool.
The key question of the referendum was whether we'd be happier (and probably but not necessarily more prosperous) long term living in a free, democratic, independent state or in a centralized, undemocratic but more politically stable EU with shared economic risks.
Of course there have been short term downsides and upsides through rupturing our political and economic status quo but arguing over each individually in a competition of one-upmanship is both pointless and misses the wider long term point.
Of the positive promises it was all to happen almost as soon as the ink dried, wasn't it? As far as gains are concerned there haven't been any because as everyone knows the UK hasn't made up for the losses incurred since the vote and is unlikely to do so if the pace and value of and at which trade deals are signed is to continue.
What you pose as the key question could be answered by anyone that was around before the UK joined, we were unlikely to get any more freedoms than those that were allowed then.
-
This thread is 37 pages of pure nonsense.
The decision to leave or stay in the EU was a long term one. Anybody who believed that 5 years after our departure we'd either be in 1930s style economic penury (as predicted by Osbourne and Cameron) or basking in economic 'sunlit uplands' is a fool.
The key question of the referendum was whether we'd be happier (and probably but not necessarily more prosperous) long term living in a free, democratic, independent state or in a centralized, undemocratic but more politically stable EU with shared economic risks.
Of course there have been short term downsides and upsides through rupturing our political and economic status quo but arguing over each individually in a competition of one-upmanship is both pointless and misses the wider long term point.
Of the positive promises it was all to happen almost as soon as the ink dried, wasn't it? As far as gains are concerned there haven't been any because as everyone knows the UK hasn't made up for the losses incurred since the vote and is unlikely to do so if the pace and value of and at which trade deals are signed is to continue.
What you pose as the key question could be answered by anyone that was around before the UK joined, we were unlikely to get any more freedoms than those that were allowed then.
I'd suggest the key, fundamental positive of leaving the EU is, to quote the glib but effective slogan, 'Take Back Control' i.e. restoring powers to our democratic government and ultimately therefore the people. In of itself this positive did come into effect immediately as you suggest but it is what we do with this re won freedom over the longer term that counts.
I agree with you that in the short term the economic downsides have exceeded any upsides and we are currently net worse off than we would have been otherwise. This was to be expected. However as per my first post the net downside from Brexit (ignoring the impact of the pandemic) has been nowhere near the scale of the 1930s depression (as was suggested in the referendum campaign) or indeed of any recent recessions in fact. Therefore to state that leaving the EU is unlikely to be beneficial long term off the back of the so far relatively mild short term consequences is not a supportable argument IMO.
-
This thread is 37 pages of pure nonsense.
The decision to leave or stay in the EU was a long term one. Anybody who believed that 5 years after our departure we'd either be in 1930s style economic penury (as predicted by Osbourne and Cameron) or basking in economic 'sunlit uplands' is a fool.
The key question of the referendum was whether we'd be happier (and probably but not necessarily more prosperous) long term living in a free, democratic, independent state or in a centralized, undemocratic but more politically stable EU with shared economic risks.
Of course there have been short term downsides and upsides through rupturing our political and economic status quo but arguing over each individually in a competition of one-upmanship is both pointless and misses the wider long term point.
Of the positive promises it was all to happen almost as soon as the ink dried, wasn't it? As far as gains are concerned there haven't been any because as everyone knows the UK hasn't made up for the losses incurred since the vote and is unlikely to do so if the pace and value of and at which trade deals are signed is to continue.
What you pose as the key question could be answered by anyone that was around before the UK joined, we were unlikely to get any more freedoms than those that were allowed then.
I'd suggest the key, fundamental positive of leaving the EU is, to quote the glib but effective slogan, 'Take Back Control' i.e. restoring powers to our democratic government and ultimately therefore the people. In of itself this positive did come into effect immediately as you suggest but it is what we do with this re won freedom over the longer term that counts.
I agree with you that in the short term the economic downsides have exceeded any upsides and we are currently net worse off than we would have been otherwise. This was to be expected. However as per my first post the net downside from Brexit (ignoring the impact of the pandemic) has been nowhere near the scale of the 1930s depression (as was suggested in the referendum campaign) or indeed of any recent recessions in fact. Therefore to state that leaving the EU is unlikely to be beneficial long term off the back of the so far relatively mild short term consequences is not supportable IMO.
I beg to differ, in no way did the proponents of brexit tell anyone to expect a downside long or short term. As for benefits you would have to dig a bit deeper and explain where any of these upsides are going to come from and who the beneficiaries are going to be, because as a business proposition brexit never made sense.
-
Sydney I'm giving my own views here. I didn't campaign for Brexit and am not answerable for what people who did may have said or promised.
In my view it was obvious that short term the economic (if not political) consequences would be negative.
The main potential (note potential) upsides IMO, as I think can be inferred from my first post, are via a change in our political organization rather than our trading relationships.
Any student of history knows democracies are the happiest and most prosperous of nations (from Ancient Greece and Rome, North v South Korea, the USA now etc etc). The higher the level of democratic accountability, the closer the rules and laws that govern us match our own beliefs, the happier we are, the happier the more productive, the more productive the more prosperous.
Leaving the EU unarguably increases the level of democratic accountability in the UK. We have become a more democratic nation therefore in of itself happier and potentially more prosperous in the long term.
Also of course we can set rules and laws that benefit the UK rather than have laws set by the EU which are a compromise between many nations with different needs which may not therefore be completely in our interest.
-
Sydney I'm giving my own views here. I didn't campaign for Brexit and am not answerable for what people who did may have said or promised.
In my view it was obvious that short term the economic (if not political) consequences would be negative.
The main potential (note potential) upside IMO, as I think can be inferred from my first post, is via a change in our political organization rather than our trading relationships.
Any student of history knows democracies are the happiest and most prosperous of nations (from Ancient Greece and Rome, North v South Korea, the USA now etc etc). The higher the level of democratic accountability, the closer the rules and laws that govern us match our own beliefs, the happier we are, the happier the more productive, the more productive the more prosperous.
Leaving the EU unarguably increases the level of democratic accountability in the UK. We have become a more democratic nation therefore in of itself happier and potentially more prosperous in the long term.
Also of course we can set rules and laws that benefit the UK rather than have laws set by the EU which are a compromise between many nations with different needs which may not therefore be completely in our interest.
Maybe you should look at what our parliament, mainly johnson did to achieve brexit and examine the laws enacted or being proposed since and the impossible promises made and think again about this more democratic nation that is emerging from the debris. I'm not sure what any of the examples you have pointed out have got to do with being a member of the EU.
-
I think you may have got the false impression here that I'm a rabid Brexiteer. My 1st post was a balanced one suggesting this was a long term decision and perhaps we should wait long term before coming to emphatic judgement.
You've picked up on my balanced view and as you're seemingly a rabid Remainer (not a criticism btw) led me down a path of purely defending why Brexit may be beneficial long term.
As for our current parliament, well parliaments come and go, again this is short-termism. Its what our parliaments do long term that counts in this matter.
Re the referendum. It was a free and fair election there can be no complaints. Both sides made outlandish claims, as sadly is the wont of modern politicians, one side on economics the other on EU grants and immigration numbers. Both sides had ample opportunity to question and ridicule the others claims. Our free press also effectively queried them too.
Personally I believe that the outlandish claims were counterproductive on both sides both anecdotally and also due to my overwhelming faith in the common sense of the majority of people. You may think me naive which is fair enough.
-
The economic consequences of leaving the Single Market that we're seeing now in the short-term are very much long-term in nature.
The real world is not quite so cut and dried as your statement suggests. SOME of the short term economic consequences of leaving the Single Market may be long term, covered in my comment re the EU's shared economic risk, but some (assuming you are wholly talking downsides) may be overcome long term through internal solutions, forging new alliances or indeed coming to specific, mutually beneficial agreements with the EU itself.
There is absolutely NO WAY the trade barriers that we have now reverted to what they were before the Single Market will ever be removed without rejoining the Single Market. That is why the Single Market was created - to remove them in the first place. No country outside the Single Market will have those barriers removed. That is the real world, and yes it IS cut and dried.
We voted to be treated in exactly the same way that we treated non-EU countries when we were in the EU. I cannot understand why people are surprised by that.
-
The economic consequences of leaving the Single Market that we're seeing now in the short-term are very much long-term in nature.
The real world is not quite so cut and dried as your statement suggests. SOME of the short term economic consequences of leaving the Single Market may be long term, covered in my comment re the EU's shared economic risk, but some (assuming you are wholly talking downsides) may be overcome long term through internal solutions, forging new alliances or indeed coming to specific, mutually beneficial agreements with the EU itself.
There is absolutely NO WAY the trade barriers that we have now reverted to what they were before the Single Market will ever be removed without rejoining the Single Market. That is why the Single Market was created - to remove them in the first place. No country outside the Single Market will have those barriers removed. That is the real world, and yes it IS cut and dried.
We voted to be treated in exactly the same way that we treated non-EU countries when we were in the EU. I cannot understand why people are surprised by that.
I'm not suggesting that the trade barriers in place now we are outside the Single Market will be removed. I'm suggesting that some of the short term problems arising from this maybe solved long term through alternate routes.
-
I'm not suggesting that the trade barriers in place now we are outside the Single Market will be removed. I'm suggesting that some of the short term problems arising from this maybe solved long term through alternate routes.
'Maybe'. Hmmm.
What sort of alternate routes will make the re-imposed Customs Declarations and associated movement paperwork disappear again? Even the deal we have with the EU that idiots are still calling a Free Trade Deal (but is in fact only a Preference Deal) requires mountains of extra evidential paperwork to claim the benefit of. I can't think of an alternative route to get rid of that, can you? One that isn't just based on vague wishful thinking but in the real world you talk about would be nice.
-
Well clearly, to suit your argument which is fair enough, with Customs Declarations and associated paperwork you've chosen an issue that cannot be removed entirely. But I'll play along using each of the 3 routes I suggested we can mitigate the cost and time of this to businesses in the long term: -
- Internally - the UK could provide some kind of online portal and advice to help with the paperwork
- New alliances - if the % trade (not necessarily total) with the EU falls then this comparatively becomes less of an issue esp if new trade links are formed with countries with less onerous Customs paperwork requirements.
- Agreement with the EU - remembering this impacts EU exports to the UK equally. Between us devising an online, digital platform plus negotiating a simple, more streamlined approach with less paperwork benefiting companies either side of the Channel.
Of course the issue you raised is small fry compared to the potential down and up sides of leaving the EU long term.
-
I think you may have got the false impression here that I'm a rabid Brexiteer. My 1st post was a balanced one suggesting this was a long term decision and perhaps we should wait long term before coming to emphatic judgement.
You've picked up on my balanced view and as you're seemingly a rabid Remainer (not a criticism btw) led me down a path of purely defending why Brexit may be beneficial long term.
As for our current parliament, well parliaments come and go, again this is short-termism. Its what our parliaments do long term that counts in this matter.
Re the referendum. It was a free and fair election there can be no complaints. Both sides made outlandish claims, as sadly is the wont of modern politicians, one side on economics the other on EU grants and immigration numbers. Both sides had ample opportunity to question and ridicule the others claims. Our free press also effectively queried them too.
Personally I believe that the outlandish claims were counterproductive on both sides both anecdotally and also due to my overwhelming faith in the common sense of the majority of people. You may think me naive which is fair enough.
No I don't think you are a rabid anything, I think you've gone from 'this whole thread is a total waste' into 'I'm not talking about the economics' on to some possible personal democratic improvements sometime in the future.
This government broke the law in the name of democratic freedoms, fighting for peace? etc.
Wasn't Rome the original EU? except of course it was imposed by force.
And the vote itself may have been free but if you had read only half of the previous pages there is enough information to show you the main lies were perpetrated by the proponents.
Also if you had read some of the pages you would have read about one of the main benefits of the EU to which bst has written extensively and accurately and that is that not a single member of the EU has been at war with another member and please compare that to what went before, that in itself brings more democratic freedoms to the average person than a whole pile of new laws.
Which brings me around to my final point ............ what are these democratic freedoms of which you speak which will make life better for yourself if speaking personally or the average joe if speaking more broadly?
-
I think you may have got the false impression here that I'm a rabid Brexiteer. My 1st post was a balanced one suggesting this was a long term decision and perhaps we should wait long term before coming to emphatic judgement.
You've picked up on my balanced view and as you're seemingly a rabid Remainer (not a criticism btw) led me down a path of purely defending why Brexit may be beneficial long term.
As for our current parliament, well parliaments come and go, again this is short-termism. Its what our parliaments do long term that counts in this matter.
Re the referendum. It was a free and fair election there can be no complaints. Both sides made outlandish claims, as sadly is the wont of modern politicians, one side on economics the other on EU grants and immigration numbers. Both sides had ample opportunity to question and ridicule the others claims. Our free press also effectively queried them too.
Personally I believe that the outlandish claims were counterproductive on both sides both anecdotally and also due to my overwhelming faith in the common sense of the majority of people. You may think me naive which is fair enough.
No I don't think you are a rabid anything, I think you've gone from 'this whole thread is a total waste' into 'I'm not talking about the economics' on to some possible personal democratic improvements sometime in the future.
This government broke the law in the name of democratic freedoms, fighting for peace? etc. Sorry don't know what you're talking about here. Again though long term means not just considering the current government
Wasn't Rome the original EU? except of course it was imposed by force. I was referring of the benefit to the Romans themselves. Of course you're right they used their prosperity formed off the back of democracy to take much of Europe by force. We didn't benefit at all from Roman supremacy forged off democracy 'What did the Romans do for us?' A pedant would point out that Rome successfully invaded England after democracy fell and was replaced by dictator Emperors of course
And the vote itself may have been free but if you had read only half of the previous pages there is enough information to show you the main lies were perpetrated by the proponents. Nonsense. There were lies on both sides. The Tory government led by Cameron/Osbourne based their whole campaign on economic consequences in turn based on insane, over the top, doom-laden predictions which were laughable and as I say wholly counterproductive IMO. Predictions that very few other Remain campaigners had the guts to repudiate btw
Also if you had read some of the pages you would have read about one of the main benefits of the EU to which bst has written extensively and accurately and that is that not a single member of the EU has been at war with another member and please compare that to what went before, that in itself brings more democratic freedoms to the average person than a whole pile of new laws. Ah but also no 2 democracies have ever been to war with each other throughout history. Are you seriously suggesting that the UK will abandon democracy and become a war-mongering dictatorship after Brexit
Which brings me around to my final point ............ what are these democratic freedoms of which you speak which will make life better for yourself if speaking personally or the average joe if speaking more broadly? We have regained democratic freedoms over a whole host of areas of policy including trade, consumer rights, environmental rights, farming, fisheries, immigration, sales tax. In each of these areas our democratically elected government can now change the law to suit the country and please the populace making the UK happier and more prosperous as I previously argued
-
Well clearly, to suit your argument which is fair enough, with Customs Declarations and associated paperwork you've chosen an issue that cannot be removed entirely. But I'll play along using each of the 3 routes I suggested we can mitigate the cost and time of this to businesses in the long term: -
- Internally - the UK could provide some kind of online portal and advice to help with the paperwork
- New alliances - if the % trade (not necessarily total) with the EU falls then this comparatively becomes less of an issue esp if new trade links are formed with countries with less onerous Customs paperwork requirements.
- Agreement with the EU - remembering this impacts EU exports to the UK equally. Between us devising an online, digital platform plus negotiating a simple, more streamlined approach with less paperwork benefiting companies either side of the Channel.
Of course the issue you raised is small fry compared to the potential down and up sides of leaving the EU long term.
Your Route 1 and 3 'solutions' are exactly the same thing and we had electronic declarations over ten years ago so Brexit hasn't changed that apart from now having to have declarations for trade both ways with EU countries that weren't necessary before.
Route 2 doesn't address trade with the EU at all. It talks about trade with non-EU countries, which has been entirely unaffected by Brexit - the barriers there are exactly the same as they were before Brexit. Your line about countries with 'less onerous Customs paperwork requirements', I'm sorry but there aren't any and you thinking there might be just tells me that you're back to the wishful thinking again.
-
You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.
Added: I suggest if you wants to discuss the benefits on a whole host of stuff, which you didn't want to before then you show proof not just fisheries etc did this or that, show what the results are, show if the fishermen are happy, what the benefits are exactly, how the catch changed, who owns the boats and the licences, this has all been discussed, not just your version, put some proof on the table.
-
You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.
Reading between the lines we finally come to an agreement - I have won this argument hands down. Thank You for chatting.
-
You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.
Reading between the lines we finally come to an agreement - I have won this argument hands down. Thank You for chatting.
Yes you have won you are a right champ.
And just for the record I'll put my whole comment up
You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.
Added: I suggest if you wants to discuss the benefits on a whole host of stuff, which you didn't want to before then you show proof not just fisheries etc did this or that, show what the results are, show if the fishermen are happy, what the benefits are exactly, how the catch changed, who owns the boats and the licences, this has all been discussed, not just your version, put some proof on the table.
-
400 businesses and between 5000 & 7000 jobs have moved to the EU, are we having fun yet?
-
You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.
Reading between the lines we finally come to an agreement - I have won this argument hands down. Thank You for chatting.
Yes you have won you are a right champ.
And just for the record I'll put my whole comment up
You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.
Added: I suggest if you wants to discuss the benefits on a whole host of stuff, which you didn't want to before then you show proof not just fisheries etc did this or that, show what the results are, show if the fishermen are happy, what the benefits are exactly, how the catch changed, who owns the boats and the licences, this has all been discussed, not just your version, put some proof on the table.
TBF I initially responded before you added the last paragraph to your post.
You're trying to reel me in to making comments on short term benefits/costs which I've already stated is a pointless exercise given IMO this is a long term decision which should be analyzed and concluded on in the long term. You won't catch me out.
Anyhow we've already established that I agree with you that short term overall there has been a net cost to the decision.
Quite why you can't come to terms with the very basic notion that the more democratic a nation is the more successful it is and the happier its peoples are is totally beyond me however.
-
you're David Davis and I demand my £5
-
you're David Davis and I demand my £5
Bugger wish you'd said Jacob Rees-Mogg and I could have replied that I was so shocked by your accusation that my monocle dropped off into my bouillabaisse.
-
Unfortunately, hstripes, it doesn’t matter how many times you eloquently explain your personal opinion - the remoaners on here think that if you are not a rabid remoaner, then you MUST be a rabid Brexiter. For them, there is simply nothing in between.
-
you're David Davis and I demand my £5
Bugger wish you'd said Jacob Rees-Mogg and I could have replied that I was so shocked by your accusation that my monocle dropped off into my bouillabaisse.
For someone that can confuse Rome and a democracy and a fishing agreement and democratic reform, my money is on you being David Davis now pay up.
-
Unfortunately, hstripes, it doesn’t matter how many times you eloquently explain your personal opinion - the remoaners on here think that if you are not a rabid remoaner, then you MUST be a rabid Brexiter. For them, there is simply nothing in between.
And the mad myopic Brexiteers believe that unless you worship at the cradle of Brexit and praise every decision the glorious Johnson has ever made - you are a remoaner.
Good luck.
-
A question for you Hstripes.
Give me an example of any major action that a UK Government has ever wanted to take, which it was unable to do so because of the primacy of the EU.
-
you're David Davis and I demand my £5
Bugger wish you'd said Jacob Rees-Mogg and I could have replied that I was so shocked by your accusation that my monocle dropped off into my bouillabaisse.
For someone that can confuse Rome and a democracy and a fishing agreement and democratic reform, my money is on you being David Davis now pay up.
You really need to study history before accusing others of confusion starting I suggest with the attached https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic. Also the UK is now an independent coastal state following our withdrawal from the EU who has subsequently come to a fishing agreement with the EU.
If ignorance is bliss I envy your supreme levels of happiness.
-
Unfortunately, hstripes, it doesn’t matter how many times you eloquently explain your personal opinion - the remoaners on here think that if you are not a rabid remoaner, then you MUST be a rabid Brexiter. For them, there is simply nothing in between.
And the mad myopic Brexiteers believe that unless you worship at the cradle of Brexit and praise every decision the glorious Johnson has ever made - you are a remoaner.
Good luck.
Are you saying that all Brexiteers are mad myopics or that it’s only the Brexiteers who are mad myopics who think this way?
-
The mad pack disciples out hunting one again I see. Six years of hurt.
-
A question for you Hstripes.
Give me an example of any major action that a UK Government has ever wanted to take, which it was unable to do so because of the primacy of the EU.
Sorry but this is a preposterous question. When and why would a UK government (historically all pro EU) announce things it wanted to do but couldn't because EU law prevented it?
I can answer your point another way by stating some of the things I would propose were I a politician. (Like a politician note how I am changing the point of reference of the question to suit myself)
1) Pursue an international trade strategy based on liberal free trade and an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs as opposed to a protectionist strategy pursued by the EU for most of its existence
2) Pursue free trade deals based solely on British interests i.e. financial services rather than centred on German Engineeing or French and Italian farm produce
3) Positively pursue a free trade deal with the US something the EU has spectacularly failed on over 40 years with our closest ally and the biggest economy in the world
4) Even more importantly pursue a free trade deal with India in conjunction with encouraging UK firms to have their products manufactured in the Indian democracy where workers van vote to improve their rights as opposed to in a despotic Communist regime in China
5) Remove unfair VAT on things such as feminine hygiene products and domestic gas and electric supplies
6) Have a wholescale review of which VAT band all products are placed in again for fairness but in relation to food to help encourage a better diet and a reduction to the obesity epidemic that is crippling the NHS
7) A worldwide focussed immigration policy that doesn't encourage companies to prioritise workers from the EU on administrative cost grounds and therefore encourages the employments of the best from around the world improving economic outcomes.
8) An immigration policy which doesn't incentivise low skilled workers to migrate into areas of relatively low wages and high unemployment such as Doncaster where they are not needed and their presence artificially dampens wages and puts pressure on public services in our poorest areas.
9) An agricultural policy better at encouraging farmers to carry out 'good' for the environment from flood protection, maintenance of hedgerows and protection of wildlife habitats - as opposed to one based on grants per acre of land held
10) A fisheries policy which better protects our fish stocks for the long term with a ban on 'factory ships' for instance
11) Allow the dredging and clearance of riverbeds where it will prevent potential flooding
12) Oh and of course saving 1,000s of lives by acting soon as possible in the procurement of vaccines or other drugs during a medical crisis including actively supporting the pharmaceutical industry in both it's development of any medicine and in bolstering its supply chains
And that's off the top of my head without doing any deep thinking or external studying.
-
I'm not asking what YOU would like to see happen that's entirely irrelevant to the question I asked.
And your response to my question really stretches credibility. Are you REALLY saying that no Govt in the 45 years from 1975 to 2020 EVER had to do something that it really didn't want to because the EU insisted, without any hint of displeasure being released? Really? Only in my experience, Governments seem eager to pin the blame for ANY unpalatable decision on anyone they can.
But I'll play along. Let's try an easier question.
Can you give me an example of any policy that a British Govt has been forced into by the EU against the will of Parliament?
-
I knew it would happen hstripes, anyone who thinks for themselves are like a new kill for the pack, I can see the next few days being entertaining, your every word will be being checked and dissected as we type all over the world.
-
Not at all Selby.
Hstripes is perfectly at liberty to claim the EU overrode our democracy. I am at liberty to ask for examples.
You could join in. I'm sure Mike Graham has told you plenty of examples.
-
Guter Gott!
My response was entirely relevant to the discussion. I have opined that winning back democratic powers will allow the government to make rules and laws in the better interest of the country. You have queried this, albeit crack-handedly, by querying in effect 'how' through asking the question you did originally. I explained quite clearly why this was a preposterous question (you may disagree but that is hardly going to encourage me to answer no matter how you reword or make it 'easier' for someone apparantly like me to understand). I then gave a quite a detailed list of specifically how and what laws the government could introduce to do this underlining the central theme of my argument.
I do wonder if you simply don't like my detailed response and so respond back in the manner that you do in order to suggest some base lack of intelligence in me in order to bolster your own viewpoint? Note I clearly stated why I felt your question was silly and why I wasn't responding to it directly.
You do understand that under the EU our democratically elected politicians in Parliament did not have the power to approve or disapprove of EU Regulations decided on by unelected politicians in Brussels?? (Important to ask this as your latest question suggests you may have been at a misapprehension on this matter).
-
I knew it would happen hstripes, anyone who thinks for themselves are like a new kill for the pack, I can see the next few days being entertaining, your every word will be being checked and dissected as we type all over the world.
….with more condescending tone and questions too I bet.
-
A question for you Hstripes.
Give me an example of any major action that a UK Government has ever wanted to take, which it was unable to do so because of the primacy of the EU.
Sorry but this is a preposterous question. When and why would a UK government (historically all pro EU) announce things it wanted to do but couldn't because EU law prevented it?
I can answer your point another way by stating some of the things I would propose were I a politician. (Like a politician note how I am changing the point of reference of the question to suit myself)
1) Pursue an international trade strategy based on liberal free trade and an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs as opposed to a protectionist strategy pursued by the EU for most of its existence
2) Pursue free trade deals based solely on British interests i.e. financial services rather than centred on German Engineeing or French and Italian farm produce
3) Positively pursue a free trade deal with the US something the EU has spectacularly failed on over 40 years with our closest ally and the biggest economy in the world
4) Even more importantly pursue a free trade deal with India in conjunction with encouraging UK firms to have their products manufactured in the Indian democracy where workers van vote to improve their rights as opposed to in a despotic Communist regime in China
5) Remove unfair VAT on things such as feminine hygiene products and domestic gas and electric supplies
6) Have a wholescale review of which VAT band all products are placed in again for fairness but in relation to food to help encourage a better diet and a reduction to the obesity epidemic that is crippling the NHS
7) A worldwide focussed immigration policy that doesn't encourage companies to prioritise workers from the EU on administrative cost grounds and therefore encourages the employments of the best from around the world improving economic outcomes.
8) An immigration policy which doesn't incentivise low skilled workers to migrate into areas of relatively low wages and high unemployment such as Doncaster where they are not needed and their presence artificially dampens wages and puts pressure on public services in our poorest areas.
9) An agricultural policy better at encouraging farmers to carry out 'good' for the environment from flood protection, maintenance of hedgerows and protection of wildlife habitats - as opposed to one based on grants per acre of land held
10) A fisheries policy which better protects our fish stocks for the long term with a ban on 'factory ships' for instance
11) Allow the dredging and clearance of riverbeds where it will prevent potential flooding
12) Oh and of course saving 1,000s of lives by acting soon as possible in the procurement of vaccines or other drugs during a medical crisis including actively supporting the pharmaceutical industry in both it's development of any medicine and in bolstering its supply chains
And that's off the top of my head without doing any deep thinking or external studying.
As you keep using the phrase 'free trade deal', I'd like to know what you consider what that consists of.
-
Glyn see point 1 'an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs'
-
I think they have got their hands full with this lad Hound, the call will be going out for the reserves to be brought up, oops here we go again too late.
-
Glyn see point 1 'an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs'
I don't know what quotas you're talking about so I can't comment on that.
You won't get a blanket removal of tariffs with another country or bloc of countries without being in a Customs Union with them - like the Single Market, for instance.
Oh, and as for India, as they are a GSP country they already get non-reciprocal import preference. I can't see them throwing that away for the sort of reciprocal trade agreement that you're proposing.
PS Would you also be wanting to get rid of Anti-Dumping Duty?
-
Hstripes.
Forgive me if this sounds condescending (I do get accused of that) but I think you are making a fundamental error of definition here.
Your long list of what you believe to be benefits of being outside the EU is fine. Folk will have different opinions on them and that also is fine.
But in every case, (apart from one or two which are simply wrong) these were policies that we voluntarily agreed to. They were not imposed upon us by an undemocratic behemoth. They were agreements that we made because our Parliament judged that the benefits flowing from the EU more than balanced the costs of collective agreements.
So I'll ask again. Has the EU ever imposed a requirement on us either to act or not to act that our Parliament was against? Because if it hasn't, the argument that "we had to leave the EU to restore democracy" looks a bit threadbare.
-
Glyn see point 1 'an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs'
I don't know what quotas you're talking about so I can't comment on that.
You won't get a blanket removal of tariffs with another country or bloc of countries without being in a Customs Union with them - like the Single Market, for instance. hence the use of the term 'wherever possible'. Many tarriffs are removed in international free trades. PS The Single Market is not a Customs Union. The EU Customs Union and Single Market are separate things - google this if you wish
Oh, and as for India, as they are a GSP country they already get non-reciprocal import preference. I can't see them throwing that away for the sort of reciprocal trade agreement that you're proposing. India's GSP status was revoked in June 2019. GSP status is hardly a significant barrier to agreeing trade deals regardless
-
The government seems to think India is a GSP country!
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trading-with-developing-nations
Imports from these countries have reduced rates of import duty on certain goods outlined in the UK GSP tariff rates.
Algeria
Congo
Cook Islands
Ghana
India
Indonesia
Jordan
Kenya
Micronesia
Nigeria
Niue
Syria
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
-
Hstripes.
Forgive me if this sounds condescending (I do get accused of that) but I think you are making a fundamental error of definition here.
Your long list of what you believe to be benefits of being outside the EU is fine. Folk will have different opinions on them and that also is fine.
But in every case, (apart from one or two which are simply wrong) these were policies that we voluntarily agreed to. They were not imposed upon us by an undemocratic behemoth. They were agreements that we made because our Parliament judged that the benefits flowing from the EU more than balanced the costs of collective agreements. These were things our parliament may or may not have agreed with. If they disagreed with then they were signed up to for what they considered 'the greater good'. A judgement with which the people in a democratic vote rejected.
So I'll ask again. Has the EU ever imposed a requirement on us either to act or not to act that our Parliament was against? Because if it hasn't, the argument that "we had to leave the EU to restore democracy" looks a bit threadbare.As part of our EU membership we signed up to things that an independent UK with democratic choice would not have done so of course by leaving the EU we are restoring our democratic rights in these areas. Your thought process is exceptionally muddled here I'm afraid
-
You won't get a blanket removal of tariffs with another country or bloc of countries without being in a Customs Union with them - like the Single Market, for instance. hence the use of the term 'wherever possible'. Many tarriffs are removed in international free trades. PS The Single Market is not a Customs Union. The EU Customs Union and Single Market are separate things - google this if you wish
So what you're wanting isn't free trade agreements but preferential trade agreements - or is it something else? Just trying to understand what you're wanting to get.
-
What I find fascinating about the responses to me on this thread is that my original post (post 1093 on the thread) was entirely neutral and I thought fairly uncontroversial simply stating Brexit was a long term decision and we should wait till the longer term before assessing its success or failure. Nowhere have I expressed how I voted or how perhaps I would vote now in hindsight.
And yet I'm getting queried quite aggressively (at times) and insistently by people who are clearly dyed-in-the-wool remainers who cannot seemingly accept even a neutral viewpoint on this subject. This has led me down a rabbit warren of defending why Brexit may be a success long term where again I have initially expressed only neutral views. Leading to further queries and on and on ad nauseum.
There is a strange unhealthy bitterness and lack of respect for democracy and people's collective and individual views that afflicts certain Remain voters which goes beyond plain understandable disappointment at the outcome of the vote.
This bitterness is unhealthy for our country and our democracy as this very affliction is what led the Labour Party to commit political suicide at the last election with its ridiculous 2nd referendum policy. A death by suicide which may last for the next one or two elections and is not healthy in a country with effectively a 2 party system. A death by political suicide that can even seemingly survive the cataclysmic way the Tories have dealt with the pandemic.
-
"As part of our EU membership we signed up to things that an independent UK with democratic choice would not have done so."
Yes. Of course. Because having left the EU and lost the benefits which came with membership, we will now judge in a different light the costs and compromises which were the corollary to that.
In simple terms, you are confusing apples with oranges.
Just as you are confusing "choosing to accept collective policies" with "having those policies undemocratically imposed on us."
-
The government seems to think India is a GSP country!
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trading-with-developing-nations
Imports from these countries have reduced rates of import duty on certain goods outlined in the UK GSP tariff rates.
Algeria
Congo
Cook Islands
Ghana
India
Indonesia
Jordan
Kenya
Micronesia
Nigeria
Niue
Syria
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Damn you've caught me out! Well done! Doesn't alter my view that a free trade deal or preferential free trade deal or whatever you want to call it (lets not boringly argue over semantics) with India should be a priority.
-
It might be a priority for you but it certainly won't be for India.
No country will want to negotiate a new trade deal with the UK that would be worse for them than what they already have.
-
"As part of our EU membership we signed up to things that an independent UK with democratic choice would not have done so."
Yes. Of course. Because having left the EU and lost the benefits which came with membership, we will now judge in a different light the costs and compromises which were the corollary to that.
In simple terms, you are confusing apples with oranges.
Just as you are confusing "choosing to accept collective policies" with "having those policies undemocratically imposed on us."
Like many poorly argued cases you are going round in circles and basing your argument solely on semantics rather than actual fact.
Do you agree that on many areas of policy including trade, consumer rights, environmental rights, farming, fisheries, immigration, sales tax etc etc the UK Parliament can now vote to change the law where it couldn't before as an EU member state under EU law? If the answer is yes than THAT is an increase in our democratic rights and THAT is a potential (depending on how effectively these powers are wielded) benefit of leaving the EU. It is a simple point and not difficult to understand. Come on!! Now who is condescending??
-
We CHOSE to accept collective decisions and to be bound by them. It was a conscious decision of Parliament (the sovereign body of the nation) to cede some of that sovereignty because it judged the benefits to justify that.
The right that we now have to make our own decisions on those issues can only be considered a benefit if it is weighed in the balance with what is lost. Saying it "may" be a benefit is bleeding obvious but not helpful. Any decision made by any Govt "may" be beneficial if the wind blows in the right direction. But you don't usually choose to make policy on blind hope.
Back to the question I posed about whether the EU had ever actually had primacy over the UK Parliament on matters which our own Parliament hadn't chosen to pool sovereignty. I note that you've not provided a single example.
Interestingly, there is a massive counterexample of the UK and others smashing an EU regulation and not being prevented from doing so. The EU Stability Pact required countries to keep their fiscal deficits below 3% of GDP. Countries which broke this limit could be sanctioned and fined.
When the Great Recession hit, our Govt ran a deficit of nearly 11% as tax take collapsed and welfare costs rocketed. We HAD to run higher deficits because not to have done so would have turned a recession into a depression. When it really mattered, we basically gave the rods to the EU regulation. And we were never sanctioned or fined.
Because that's how real politics works. We give and take and play by the rules on a day to day basis. We ceded some sovereignty and stuck to EU rules in normal times because it was judged (rightly or wrongly) to be in our interests to do so. But when it WASN'T in our interests, we ripped up the rules and did exactly as we wished.
Which says to me that the argument that the EU emasculated our democracy and that throwing off these shackles was a great restatement of our democratic freedoms is simplistic to the point of being meaningless.
-
Your argument is contradicted and proven entirely wrong in only the 2nd sentence of your response.
"It was a conscious decision of Parliament (the sovereign body of the nation) to cede some of that sovereignty" for sovereignty of course read democratic rights. E.g. the right to alter which bands products fall into under VAT - this democratic right, or element of sovereignty if you like, was 'ceded' to the EU. For 40-odd years the undemocratic EU could change the law in this area but our elected Parliament could not.
Leaving the EU means Parliament can now change what band products fall into under VAT - as it already has done with female sanitary products.
If a democratically elected Parliament chose to cede this sovereignty/democratic right in the first place then the Brexit vote affirmed by said Parliament is quite clearly by your own admission here a decision to regain this sovereignty/democratic right (and many more besides). Which is essentially my argument.
I believe having these rights under the power of a democratically elected, UK focussed Parliament should be beneficial over having them in the hands of non-democrats with a whole continent's views to consider. Time will tell if I am right and if said benefits outweigh the negatives of Brexit - going back to my initial post Brexit therefore needs to be assessed as a success or failure in the longer term.
At no point have I argued that the UK was forced to accept EU membership undemocratically or that our membership didn't have democratic legitimacy in this country. Of course a democratic parliament signed up to EEC (later EU) membership and the ensuing EU treaties. I'm not as daft as you seem to think I am you know!
-
It's essentially a matter of emphasis.
Every international agreement imposes limits on our freedom to make unilateral decisions. Our membership of NATO being a prime example. NATO membership requires our armed forces to be supplied and organised according to STANAG requirements, rather than as we would choose to do so for specifically British requirements. Personally, I'd consider the decision on the standard of vehicle protection for our soldiers against IEDs to be at least on a par with the decision of what VAT we charge on tampons as an issue of sovereignty.
Similarly, our post-Brexit trade agreement with the EU requires us to impose a boundary between GB and NI, arguably a greater loss of democratic independence than anything we ceded as EU members.
It's fundamentally a question of to what extent we see the benefits of collectivism against the benefits of unilateralism. Dressing that up as a matter of democratic principle is a rhetorical device which clearly works politically, but obscures the real issues to be considered. What we gain or lose by working together, with all the compromises that entails, or working alone with all the difficulties that imposes. I prefer to consider real, practical issues than airy notions of supposed democratic principles. Because the latter are never as simple or inviolate as the advocates would like to claim.
-
That's the problem with soveriegnty - its meaningless in a global trading environment. There are rules and obligations that have to be followed, whatever the VAT on sanitary products. You either have agreements with neighbouring countries to lower these costs - or you make your own businesses pay them with the resultant implication for that business:
Brexit paperwork to cost UK business £7.5bn every year - say UK businesses
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/annual-7-5bn-cost-of-eu-trade-as-bad-for-business-as-no-deal-brexit-jd7llrtb6
-
Its now a war of attrition hstripes, and only half the pack are in the game yet, after a couple of years you will get the jist of the game, if they say black is white its white mate, in their eyes anyway, and everyone else is wrong.
keep going buddy but I am afraid your trying to sow seeds on fallow ground.
-
whereas listening to the chipmunks makes for great entertainment, one gets his ideas from RT radio and the other can't tell the difference between boris johnson and david lammy.
-
Here is the news. Brexit happened, move on there's plenty of other stuff going on you can get outraged about.
-
I can tell the difference Syd, and in a two horse race and with I play the racial card idiot Lammy Boris takes the vote.
Him and his sidekick from the metropolis Emily are two big reasons why the labour party are still in the doldrums, and while they get air time will stay there.
-
It's essentially a matter of emphasis.
Every international agreement imposes limits on our freedom to make unilateral decisions. Our membership of NATO being a prime example. NATO membership requires our armed forces to be supplied and organised according to STANAG requirements, rather than as we would choose to do so for specifically British requirements. Personally, I'd consider the decision on the standard of vehicle protection for our soldiers against IEDs to be at least on a par with the decision of what VAT we charge on tampons as an issue of sovereignty.
Similarly, our post-Brexit trade agreement with the EU requires us to impose a boundary between GB and NI, arguably a greater loss of democratic independence than anything we ceded as EU members.
It's fundamentally a question of to what extent we see the benefits of collectivism against the benefits of unilateralism. Dressing that up as a matter of democratic principle is a rhetorical device which clearly works politically, but obscures the real issues to be considered. What we gain or lose by working together, with all the compromises that entails, or working alone with all the difficulties that imposes. I prefer to consider real, practical issues than airy notions of supposed democratic principles. Because the latter are never as simple or inviolate as the advocates would like to claim.
I am in favour of countries working together towards common goals where appropriate and where the terms of reference for any such agreement have appropriately limited scope. I am therefore in favour of NATO, the UN, the World Bank and international trade deals.
Your argument ignores some key facets of the EU which differentiate it from other supranational organizations or indeed free trade agreements. These differences mean membership of the EU impacts democratic accountability in ways membership of NATO or an FTA simply do not.
1) When a country agrees to join most supernationals or enters into a free trade agreement the terms of the agreement are set and settled and where there are any changes these are generally agreed upon by the democratically elected government. Hence democratic accountability is present.
This is not the case with the EU which has a very active Legislature. The EU laws in place when a country signs up to the EU or latest treaty are subject to change. And change they do with incredible alacrity - over a 1,000 new EU regulations every year. Each one of these may have democratic legitimacy as each member state has signed up to be bound by them, but not democratic accountability as they are proposed by non-democrats and cannot be rejected by the democratically elected governments.
2) The EU's power is much broader in scope than any other supranational or the terms of an FTA dealing just with trade between 2 countries. You glibly say vehicle protection against IEDs is as important as VAT on sanitary ware. A more correct comparison is the limited NATO rules on defence policy vs the EU's varied levels of competency on trade policy, economic policy, environmental policy, tax policy, immigration policy, workers rights etc etc etc. In each of these areas, and more, the EU can and does create new laws as per point 1.
3) 'Ever closer union' a stated aim of the EU - no other supranational has such an aim nor is it inbuilt in FTAs. Not only does a EU member state sign away it's democratic rights to make decisions in a broad range of areas it does so to an entirely limitless degree in said areas. The ultimate, logical if extreme destination being that a democratically elected government has no powers and all decisions in these areas are made by an undemocratic EU. This is a clear and most worrying piecemeal threat to democracy.
4) The cost of departure from the EU is far more profound than from any other supranational or FTA which can be walked away from relatively easily. Membership of the EU bounds a country to its economic structures (Single Market/Customs Union) plus encourages inter-EU trade over non-EU trade. A democratically elected government and population may positively detest undemocratic law emanating from the EU but this cost of departure financially gives them little option but to accept them - the potential democratic decision to withdraw being intolerable for most.
These facts render your argument simplistic and facile.
As for suggesting democratic principle is 'an airy notion' or merely 'a rhetorical device'. As a committed democrat I find these views offensive. Our right to vote in free and fair elections to change our rulers is key to our freedom, prosperity and happiness. I suggest you study some history in terms of how peoples can be treated outside of democracy in totalitarianist dictatorships.
Exactly how much of our 'airy' democratic rights/sovereignty would you deem it acceptable, in the name of 'Collectivism', for our parliament to cede to an undemocratic organization with an intensely active legislature and limitless ambition in terms of power from whom it is exorbitantly expensive to remove ourselves from? 25%? 50%? 75% 100%?? Would the extreme scenario I highlight in my 3rd point be acceptable to you?? From the manner of your post I would assume so.
Your opinion is put eruditely and at first glance appears reasonable but applying a modicum of intelligence and taking it to it's logical conclusion I'm afraid your view, like those of all who support the suppression of democratic rights, is one of idealogical extremism.
-
I'll make a much less erudite post this time then.
You are clearly very exercised by the degree to which we ceded decision making to the EU, over which we had no direct democratic control.
You clearly think we should be able to form our own policy on important issues, and not have decisions imposed on us.
In that case, I assume, given the requirements of Article V, you'd be equally (in fact, far more) passionate about wanting us out of NATO? Because Article V basically removes our control over THE most basic power that a state has.
And yet I have never once heard the democratic accountability argument used against NATO. Because the overwhelming majority see that it is a pragmatic decision, to cede sovereignty in the interest of collective benefit.
-
Regarding the principle of democracy, I do not think that is an airy notion. It's one of the most precious things that humanity has ever produced. The airy notions I was describing are the lopsided, context-free ways that people with a political point to make appropriate and define "democracy".
-
The fact that you bring NATO up again, an organization I'm very much in favour of as previously stated, suggests you either haven't read or haven't understood my prior post. I'm happy to explain more succinctly.
- A democratically elected government signed us up to NATO
- The terms of reference of NATO are appropriately limited in scope
- The NATO rules we must comply to are largely fixed and unchanging
- NATO cannot unilaterally change the rules (e.g Article 5) without reference to the democratic governments of member states
- NATO has no stated ambitions to increase its powers over us - no 'Ever Closer Union'
- A democratically elected government could at any time (heaven forbid!) withdraw us from NATO and do so relatively quickly
- Outside of what is lost from the agreement itself there would be no major costs e.g. potential major recession from leaving NATO hence no intolerable disincentive to democratic action if we decided being in NATO wasn't in our best interests.
The counter applies to all the above bar the first for the EU.
I would suggest the reason why you've not heard the 'democratic accountability' argument against NATO is that it would have no intellectual basis to it.
You like asking questions and I have no problem in answering them. Would you mind answering some questions from me?
1) Given the opportunity would you vote for the UK to rejoin the EU?
2) If the answer is yes - given the nature of the EU how does this tally with the view that democracy is 'one of the most precious things that humanity has ever produced'? Or is that just empty rhetoric?
3) Again if the answer to 1) is yes. Where do you think parliament should draw a line in the sand in terms of the level of democratic rights/sovereignty that it hands over to the EU? An important question given the EU's supposed limitless political ambitions i.e 'Ever greater Union'.
-
Forgive me but I couldn't get past this.
"The terms of reference of NATO are appropriately limited in scope"
Article V, if invoked by ANY NATO members, requires us to take military action.
It is THE very essence of the point that I am making. We CHOSE to agree to an international treaty whereby the very survival of our nation could hinge on the actions of others over which we have zero control.
If that is fine realpolitik, but ceding far lesser powers to the EU is an affront to the very concept of democracy, then I think we are working in different logical universes.
-
You misundertand my point. Limited in scope in that NATO deals with issues round defence only as opposed to the myriad policy areas the EU has control over.
As in: -
Scope (noun): the extent of the area or subject matter that something deals with or to which it is relevant.
So: The terms of reference of NATO are appropriately limited in scope
Not: -
Significance (noun): the quality of being worthy of attention; importance.
So not: The terms of reference of NATO are appropriately limited in significance
I can see why this may have confused you as the two words do begin with the same letter.
-
That's the problem with soveriegnty - its meaningless in a global trading environment.
This is patently nonsense. Sovereignty has to lie somewhere. Somebody ultimately has to have responsibility over decisions. With more global trade and hence more international agreements the subject of where this sovereignty lies actually becomes ever more important. This issue was behind the Brexit vote in the first place.
Please can you explain to me why you think unelected people with no democratic mandate or democratic accountability are better suited to the role of making decisions in relation to global trade than people who are both democratically elected and democratically accountable.
-
sometimes it's just the numbers, buying in bulk, having more clout.
-
Sorry Sydney my question wasn't about the size of the country/organization making the decisions but the level of democratic accountability of those making the decisions.
-
sorry stripy, I was just referring to the obvious advantages of being part of the wealthiest trading group in the world without trading borders and tariffs.
-
Not when it comes to Sunderland Hospice Syd, they pay 66p a bog roll, the brown envelope wins the day Syd in big organisations especially the NHS and government departments, and is rife in local government.
-
I'd agree with this also - I manage some purchases for the military and we are tied into several contracts that can be up to 50% higher than if we went out and bought independently. The problem being that the military want an amount of surety that goods will be readily available and therefore pay a premium for these...
-
Not when it comes to Sunderland Hospice Syd, they pay 66p a bog roll, the brown envelope wins the day Syd in big organisations especially the NHS and government departments, and is rife in local government.
wtf has that got to do with what we are talking about
-
I'd agree with this also - I manage some purchases for the military and we are tied into several contracts that can be up to 50% higher than if we went out and bought independently. The problem being that the military want an amount of surety that goods will be readily available and therefore pay a premium for these...
wtf has that got to do with what we are talking about
-
sometimes it's just the numbers, buying in bulk, having more clout.
Sorry did we interrupt the Syd show...?
-
sometimes it's just the numbers, buying in bulk, having more clout.
Sorry did we interrupt the Syd show...?
I think you'd be better talking to selby mm
-
I will make it easy just for you Syd, you seem to think buying in bulk is cheaper, the Sunderland hospice don't at 66p a bog roll. And it isn't when there is a back hander flying about.
-
Fine line on mass purchasing isn't there? Too high and actually you don't get the economies of scale impact or supremacy. Didn't vaccine procurement tell us that?
As a business do you want to sell 10 million units at 1% margin or 1 million at 10%?
-
Latest from Reuters :
“Britain is on course to lose its status as one of Germany’s top 10 trading partners this year for the first time since 1950, as Brexit-related trade barriers drive firms in Europe’s largest economy to look for business elsewhere”
Just another Brexit Benefit right?!
but , hey , we've cast off those 'shackles '
-
Latest from Reuters :
“Britain is on course to lose its status as one of Germany’s top 10 trading partners this year for the first time since 1950, as Brexit-related trade barriers drive firms in Europe’s largest economy to look for business elsewhere”
Just another Brexit Benefit right?!
but , hey , we've cast off those 'shackles '
Foxbat, you missed this comment when you copied & pasted from the article
He voiced hope that some of the decline might be temporary. "Companies are normally always in a good position to adapt quickly – but this needs time."
So maybe this is only temporary?
-
sorry stripy, I was just referring to the obvious advantages of being part of the wealthiest trading group in the world without trading borders and tariffs.
Hi Sydney. I agree with you that, in of itself, being part of a trading bloc is beneficial. I've not said otherwise anywhere on this thread.
Let me re-frame my question to you then.
Would it be preferable for those making the decisions in the EU to be democratically elected? Thanks.
-
yes as in the house of lords
-
Interesting Michel Barnier appears to have changed some views now he's got other things to focus on.
-
Interesting Michel Barnier appears to have changed some views now he's got other things to focus on.
Or has he had these views all along but was able not allow them to get in the way of his work.
The rest of the EU can see what a mess England has made of it's hokey cokey EU negotiations and knows now exactly what stabbing yourself in the eyes must feel like.
-
Interesting Michel Barnier appears to have changed some views now he's got other things to focus on.
Or has he had these views all along but was able not allow them to get in the way of his work.
The rest of the EU can see what a mess England has made of it's hokey cokey EU negotiations and knows now exactly what stabbing yourself in the eyes must feel like.
Well if he did have them it's not a positive for the EU if even those fully integrated barely believe in the principles they publicly stated couldn't be moved is it?
-
Blue passports. Crown marks on pint pots. When will these glorious positives ever stop, eh?
https://twitter.com/JonnElledge/status/1437349349433004037
-
the link is not working billy, not that I can access the express.
-
Latest from Reuters :
“Britain is on course to lose its status as one of Germany’s top 10 trading partners this year for the first time since 1950, as Brexit-related trade barriers drive firms in Europe’s largest economy to look for business elsewhere”
Just another Brexit Benefit right?!
but , hey , we've cast off those 'shackles '
Yes Lidl and Aldi really suffering here NOT!
-
the link is not working billy, not that I can access the express.
Fixed
-
the link is not working billy, not that I can access the express.
You don’t need to access it. Just ask Billy - he’s an avid reader, apparently.
-
Blue passports. Crown marks on pint pots. When will these glorious positives ever stop, eh?
https://twitter.com/JonnElledge/status/1437349349433004037
The 'glorious positive' is that in a wide range of policy areas decisions can now be made by the democratically elected in this country rather than having over 1,000 new regulations being made each year by people with no democratic accountability.
After all democracy is "one of the most precious things that humanity has ever produced".
-
And ratified by 798 unelected members of the house of lords.
-
Blue passports. Crown marks on pint pots. When will these glorious positives ever stop, eh?
https://twitter.com/JonnElledge/status/1437349349433004037
The 'glorious positive' is that in a wide range of policy areas decisions can now be made by the democratically elected in this country rather than having over 1,000 new regulations being made each year by people with no democratic accountability.
After all democracy is "one of the most precious things that humanity has ever produced".
You clearly don't know how the EU works or how all the positions from MEP's upwards are all elected, so this may help you....
https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/default/files/docs/body/treaty_establishing_a_constitution_for_europe_en.pdf
Unlike the UK system where NONE of the senior positions are elected, they are all appointed by the Prime Minister who isn't elected to that post by the people. Did you know that we have had several Prime Ministers who were members of the House of Lords and not sitting MP's in the House of Commons? Also, that one Prime Minister in fairly recent times, (Alec Douglas-Home), who was Prime Minister for a short while whilst being neither a member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, (he had rejected a Peerage), until he contested and won a bi-election for Kinross and West Perthshire? Had he lost that bi-election he would still have been able, under our unwritten constitution, to continue as PM?
And we've even had one UK Prime Minister who was leader of the party that came second in a general election.
Oh, and there are two current sitting UK Cabinet Ministers appointed by Boris who aren't even elected MP's and haven't been elected to anything by anyone, Lord Frost - Minister of State and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park - Lord Privi Seal.
It's a disgrace that the UK doesn't have a written constitution to be held account to. The EU, having one, and following it, is far more democratic than the UK - unless of course you believe the Daily Mail and/or the Express!
-
Thanks Kato, that's gobsmacking stuff.
-
Ultimately the UK government can't enact policies without Mps say so, thus there is democracy in play. Not as bad as you'd think and our system does work (an elected house of lords could cause huge problems - America anyone?)
There's a valid point about how big you go though. Should laws be done on the size of Europe given the huge cultural differences? I think not. Others may disagree.
I maintain I had no issue with connections to Europe, but most decisions should be held at local levels and individual countries (not just us), could be overruled in Europe. It is on a smaller scale also a valid point for the Scots, though they did choose to remain in the UK.
-
This is how democratic our country is at the moment.
The New Statesman has employed election specialists to produce a predictor of how many seats each party would win, based on an assumption of the percentage vote share.
I've just put in the results from the latest YG poll.
Lab 35
Con 33
LD 10
Green 9
REFUK 5
The predictor says Lab would get 2 more seats than Con.
But if you switch Con to 35 and Lab to 33, it says Con would get 56 more seats than Lab.
Have a go. It's very eye opening.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2021/08/election-win-calculator
-
Read some things on this thread but claiming the UK is not a democracy whilst the EU is. Mon Dieu!
Let me deal with your unbelievable levels of ignorance one point at a time.
The Executive of the UK is the Government derived from the House of Commons. All members of the Commons are democratically elected. All laws must pass by majority vote. All debates can be accessed by the public and the record of how all members vote recorded.
The Executive of the EU is the Commission. EU Commissioners are not democratically elected. The Commission does not hold public meetings or even make public minutes of it's meetings. There is no requirement for Commissioners to declare their views on any laws proposed. The EU Commission is fundamentally undemocratic from every angle.
Elected MEPs have no power to propose legislation - the elected European Parliament is an equivalent to the House of Lords.
Parliament Acts can be used by the House of Commons to overrule the House of Lords veto where necessary. The House of Lords is effectively a check on the detail/wording of Acts passed by the Commons which it can pass back to be reconsidered - it cannot block the law indefinitely should the Commons choose.
Having a written Constitution does not make a country a democracy. Even Communist and Fascist dictatorships can have written constitutions if they wish.
In the UK each parliamentary seat is contested individually and democratically. Collectively the politicians who win these seats form the House of Commons who like I say make decisions on laws by majority vote. This is democratic regardless of the narrowness or otherwise of the margin of victory of each constituency MP.
I am not claiming the UK is a perfect democracy. I'd much rather see a democratically elected House of Lords and a system of Proportional Representation. But it is demonstrably a democracy whilst the EU is demonstrably not. To claim otherwise is ignorant, ill educated nonsense.
-
The Executive of the UK is the House of Commons.
Your very first 'fact' is completely and utterly wrong. And you have the gall to accuse someone else of having an unbelievable level of ignorance!!
Hint: The House of Commons is part (only part, mind) of the Legislature. It is not part of the Executive in any way.
-
The fact that so much of our parliamentary procedure and government is built around 'convention' rather than legislation is what has allowed johnson to ride roughshod over it.
-
Read some things on this thread but claiming the UK is not a democracy whilst the EU is. Mon Dieu!
Let me deal with your unbelievable levels of ignorance one point at a time.
The Executive of the UK is the House of Commons. All members are democratically elected. All laws must pass by majority vote. All debates can be accessed by the public and the record of how all members vote recorded.
The Executive of the EU is the Commission. EU Commissioners are not democratically elected. The Commission does not hold public meetings or even make public minutes of it's meetings. There is no requirement for Commissioners to declare their views on any laws proposed. The EU Commission is fundamentally undemocratic from every angle.
Elected MEPs have no power to propose legislation - the elected European Parliament is an equivalent to the House of Lords.
Parliament Acts can be used by the House of Commons to overrule the House of Lords veto where necessary. The House of Lords is effectively a check on the detail/wording of Acts passed by the Commons which it can pass back to be reconsidered - it cannot block the law indefinitely should the Commons choose.
Having a written Constitution does not make a country a democracy. Even Communist and Fascist dictatorships can have written constitutions if they wish.
In the UK each parliamentary seat is contested individually and democratically. Collectively the politicians who win these seats form the House of Commons who like I say make decisions on laws by majority vote. This is democratic regardless of the narrowness or otherwise of the margin of victory of each constituency MP.
I am not claiming the UK is a perfect democracy. I'd much rather see a democratically elected House of Lords and a system of Proportional Representation. But it is demonstrably a democracy whilst the EU is demonstrably not. To claim otherwise is ignorant, ill educated nonsense.
Firstly, I didn't say the UK wasn't democratic, do try to read what is written and comment accordingly, otherwise you just look plain stupid.
Secondly, try reading that PDF I linked to, then you'll understand how positions in the EU are elected, the powers MEP's have and how the EU operates democratically instead of spouting absolute rubbish you've clearly gleaned from the likes of the Daily Mail and the Express!
Thirdly, try visiting the EU's web site where you'll have access to a wealth of information, all officially recorded.... https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
While you're at it, have a look at https://europa.eu/european-union/documents-publications/official-documents_en where you'll have full access to the official journal of the EU, the European Parliament register of documents, Agendas, Minutes of meetings, Reports of Proceedings, Legislative Texts, Council Minutes, a Register of Commission Documents, Green Papers, White Papers, Minutes and Agendas for the EU Commissioners Weekly Meetings, (those things you claim they don't produce but that are freely downloadable), Audit Reports and much much more, (all in a choice of 24 languages).
But I doubt you will, after all, it's easier to believe your prejudices than it is to deal with facts.
-
This is how democratic our country is at the moment.
The New Statesman has employed election specialists to produce a predictor of how many seats each party would win, based on an assumption of the percentage vote share.
I've just put in the results from the latest YG poll.
Lab 35
Con 33
LD 10
Green 9
REFUK 5
The predictor says Lab would get 2 more seats than Con.
But if you switch Con to 35 and Lab to 33, it says Con would get 56 more seats than Lab.
Have a go. It's very eye opening.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2021/08/election-win-calculator
Really interesting that BST but nothing new is it. Just have a look at the 2005 general election result....it was a bit more than 56 then.
-
BFYP
With respect that is missing the point.
What would the outcome have been in 2005 if the Lab/Con vote share had been reversed?
(And for the record, I think the fact that Blair won a majority of 60 on a vote share of 35% in 2005 was an outrage. That's why I have argued for years that we should have a serious PR system.)
-
BFYP
With respect that is missing the point.
What would the outcome have been in 2005 if the Lab/Con vote share had been reversed?
(And for the record, I think the fact that Blair won a majority of 60 on a vote share of 35% in 2005 was an outrage. That's why I have argued for years that we should have a serious PR system.)
I have no idea what it would have been. Remember in England the Tories that year had a higher vote share than labour and won less seats...
I don't have an answer on abetter system but neither main party would allow one and there's of course pros and cons to each.
-
Posted without comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/15/von-der-leyen-eu-state-of-union-speech-political-will-build-own-military?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral
-
Posted without comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/15/von-der-leyen-eu-state-of-union-speech-political-will-build-own-military?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral
Interesting, and round about the same time the UK, USA & Australia 'join forces' to protect ourselves from, it seems, China https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58564837
The latter will most certainly happen, the former will have too many within the EU opposing it so far less certain.
Neither bodes well for the future IMO.
-
Meanwhile, more Brexit benefits https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58582860
Brexit, the gift that keeps on giving taking.
-
Posted without comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/15/von-der-leyen-eu-state-of-union-speech-political-will-build-own-military?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral
Interesting, and round about the same time the UK, USA & Australia 'join forces' to protect ourselves from, it seems, China https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58564837
The latter will most certainly happen, the former will have too many within the EU opposing it so far less certain.
Neither bodes well for the future IMO.
[/quote
The French are not too happy about losing an £80 Billion contact for Diesel subs, interesting that since we cast off the shackles we have secured £Billions in contracts to assist building 15 Frigates for Canada 12 for Australia and now 8 Nuclear Subs, wouldn't be surprised to see Canada buying next and they need at least 8!
-
Kato
The base requirement for democratic legitimacy is that the citizens are able, under free and fair elections, to both elect and unelect their lawmakers.
If UK citizens are unhappy with the current Tory Government then in the next General Election they can vote against the Conservative Party and remove them from power. The UK is therefore a democracy.
EU citizens unhappy with EU laws have no such opportunity as the EU Commission, the law making body of the EU, is not democratically elected.
This in itself totally undermines any argument, at the most basic level, that the EU is democratic and renders your argument that “the EU is far more democratic than the UK” as completely laughable nonsense.
However you cite the EU written constitution – perhaps it's content can help bridge this fundamental democratic deficit at the heart of the EU through allowing citizens indirectly but easily to remove or appoint the EU's lawmakers? Except it doesn't. Quite the reverse is true.
The one institution in the EU which is directly elected by citizens is the EU Parliament. So disgruntled citizens at the ballot box can vote in MEPs expressly promising to remove and replace the Commission. Except they can't: -
i) Under the EU constitution the terms of the Parliament and Commission run concurrently (give or take a few months). At the point of EU parliamentary elections the incumbent Commission is practically at the end of it's term of office. Therefore there is no direct or indirect opportunity for citizens through the ballot box to replace the undemocratically appointed Commission at any point of it's term of appointment. This is not democracy.
MEPs, democratic representatives of the people, can however vote to remove the EU Commission in it's entirety. Hurrah! The EU Commission can be held democratically to account. Except it can't:
ii) The EU constituion states that the vote to remove the Commission from power needs a 2/3rds majority of MEPs. Not 50% plus 1. 2/3rds. This is not democracy.
Unsurprisingly the Parliamant has never voted to remove a Commission. But say it did. Then the EU Parliament can replace the Commission with one that reflects the politics of the citizens yes? Except it can't:
iii) Under the EU constitution the democratically elected EU Parliament has no say over the lawmaking Commissioners who are appointed. This is not democracy.
There is one exception to point iii) in that the Parliament does vote for the EU Commission President. The most powerful political individual in the European Union. So some democratic legitimacy for the Commission then. Except there really isn't:
iv) Under the EU constitution the EU Parliament has no say in the candidate who is put forward to be Commission President. Neither may they be given a choice of candidates to choose from. Basically they are given a take it or leave it option. This is not democracy.
You naively assert that the fact the EU has a written constitution defines it as a democracy. This could not be further from the truth. The terms of said constitution, as outlined above, clearly define the EU as not being a democracy but in fact being a meritocracy.
I would suggest you don't just read the content of some of the links you have posted but actually consider how they apply in practical reality, rather than simply making assumptions to confirm your own vehement prejudices that are evident on every one of your posts on this thread from the OP downward.
Oh and just to bust another of your prejudices: No I do not, and never have, read the Mail or Express. Neither, if this is what you are implying, are my political views in any way right wing.
-
UK citizens do not vote for or can vote out the UK Executive, just as they can't vote for or vote out the EU Executive.
Or are you going to embarrass yourself by saying the Executive is the House Of Commons again?
-
Nonsense. The Executive is derived from the Party/parties who wins the most seats in the House of Commons. Seats in The House of Commons are democratically elected through elections where the citizens vote for candidates largely based on what party they represent i.e. which party they would like to see in power i.e. in government i.e. in the executive.
No the public don't vote for which individual MPs are appointed to cabinet if that's what you mean but it's a thin argument against the ability through the ballot box to decide the politics of the executive - clearly stated in manifestos and campaigning. As opposed to the EU Commission which is wholly unelected.
Are you seriously suggesting that in 2019 the public did not vote in a Tory Government or in 1997 did not vote in a Labour Government for instance.
Anyone can make a mistake. You clearly did with the assertion in your first sentence.
-
Just because some members of the Executive sit in the Legislature doesn't turn the Legislature into the Executive. Parliament is the LEGISLATURE NOT THE EXECUTiVE.
So, in your long-winded essays about how the EU is diferent to the UK, not once are you directly comparing arms of government like-for-like.
And NOBODY is elected to the Executive, they are elected to the LEGISLATURE. If you think otherwise, please tell me when you last elected anyone to be a Minister in the Executive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_in_the_United_Kingdom
"The executive comprises all official and public authorities (including local authorities) that govern the UK, from initiating and implementing legislation to the running of local and national services, such as rubbish collections and the police. The civil service remains non-partisan (having little in common with the Cabinet and Prime Minister in that respect). The executive also exercises a number of powers under the Royal Prerogative, including foreign relations; many other actions are taken in the sovereign's name, from whom executive power is derived."
-
Er I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer which clearly covers off all the points you have raised.
Are you suggesting that if the public in a General Election vote in the majority of parliamentary seats for Labour the Executive would somehow not be under the control of the Labour Party and Labour would therefore be prevented from carrying out the program it outlined in it's manifesto voted on by said public?
PS my latest 'long-winded' essay refers to law makers. i.e. EU Commission v UK Government quite clearly.
-
Are you seriously suggesting that in 2019 the public did not vote in a Tory Government or in 1997 did not vote in a Labour Government for instance.
They voted in a Legislature that would enact the policies of an Executive that would put legislaton they agreed with in front of said Legislature. The programme of legislation to be voted on is decided by the Executive, just as it is in every other parliamentary democracy I can think of. Just like in the EU too.
-
Er I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer which clearly covers off all the points you have raised.
Are you suggesting that if the public in a General Election vote in the majority of parliamentary seats for Labour the Executive would somehow not be under the control of the Labour Party and Labour would therefore be prevented from carrying out the program it outlined in it's manifesto voted on by said public?
Yes, but the important point is that the Executive would be APPOINTED by the Labour party throught their majority in the Legislature, not the electorate.
Just as the EU executive is APPOINTED by elected representatives in the EU Parliament.
Even then, Parliament only appoints the very top layer of the executive. The vast majority of the Executive is the Civil Service. Who votes them in?
-
"The Government runs the country and has responsibility for developing and implementing policy and for drafting laws. It is also known as the Executive.
The Government is usually formed by the party that gains the most seats in the House of Commons at a general election."
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/government/
-
Yes, but the important point is that the Executive would be APPOINTED by the Labour party throught their majority in the Legislature, not the electorate.
Just as the EU executive is APPOINTED by elected representatives in the EU Parliament.
Even then, Parliament only appoints the very top layer of the executive. The vast majority of the Executive is the Civil Service. Who votes them in?
[/quote]
The Labour Party would have a majority in the Commons due to the democratic decision of the electorate and would use this majority to control policy 'the executive' as the electorate voted for them to do.
At a UK General Election the electorate respond to manifestos and campaigning to decide who they want to run the country. This is democracy
There is no direct EU election to decide on the political direction taken by the EU Commission. The elected European Parliament cannot appoint Commissioners except the President of the Commission on whom they have no choice and a 'take it or leave it' option. This is fundamentally undemocratic. (The highlighted bit above is therefore plain wrong)
-
"The Government runs the country and has responsibility for developing and implementing policy and for drafting laws. It is also known as the Executive.
The Government is usually formed by the party that gains the most seats in the House of Commons at a general election."
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/government/
Yes, the Government is the Executive, as it is pretty much everywhere else. It just happens to be a UK anomaly that some of the Government are also members of the Legislature - which still doesn't make the Legislature part of the Executive. And also that most of the governing party's MPs aren't in the Government. The Legislature isn't the Government, most of the governing party's MPs aren't in the Government either. So, your point is?
-
Just pointing out to you that the politics of the UK Government in place is decided (ok indirectly via the Legislature) at the ballot box.
This is not the case in the EU with the EU Commission
-
Yes, but the important point is that the Executive would be APPOINTED by the Labour party throught their majority in the Legislature, not the electorate.
Just as the EU executive is APPOINTED by elected representatives in the EU Parliament.
Even then, Parliament only appoints the very top layer of the executive. The vast majority of the Executive is the Civil Service. Who votes them in?
The Labour Party would have a majority in the Commons due to the democratic decision of the electorate and would use this majority to control policy 'the executive' as the electorate voted for them to do.
At a UK General Election the electorate respond to manifestos and campaigning to decide who they want to run the country. This is democracy
There is no direct EU election to decide on the political direction taken by the EU Commission. The elected European Parliament cannot appoint Commissioners except the President of the Commission on whom they have no choice and a 'take it or leave it' option. This is fundamentally undemocratic. (The highlighted bit above is therefore plain wrong)
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
The Council of the European Union then nominates the other members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and the 27 members as a single body are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament
That's more democratic that the UK, unless you can tell me when the democratically elected UK Legislature will get to have a say on yesterday's reshuffle appointments or any other appointments to the UK executive.
-
Just pointing out to you that the politics of the UK Government in place is decided (ok indirectly via the Legislature) at the ballot box.
This is not the case in the EU with the EU Commission
In BOTH cases any proposed policy CANNOT be enacted without being passed by a democratically elected Parliament.
Even the ability to have delegated legislation has be enabled by Parliament.
Oh, and I was pointing out to you that comparing the UK Legislature to the EU Executive and vice versa doesn't show you in a good light as you're not comparing like-for-like. And the House Of Commons is not the Executive as you claimed and never has been.
-
There is no direct EU election to decide on the political direction taken by the EU Commission unlike in the UK re the UK Government, and neither instead can the elected EU Parliament decide which individuals are in the Commission (it does get a take it or leave it vote on the Commission President). Unlike the UK Government there is therefore no democratic legitimacy to the EU Commission or the laws it proposes.
-
There is no direct EU election to decide on the political direction taken by the EU Commission unlike in the UK re the UK Government, and neither instead can the elected EU Parliament decide which individuals are in the Commission (it does get a take it or leave it vote on the Commission President). Unlike the UK Government there is therefore no democratic legitimacy to the EU Commission or the laws it proposes.
It makes no difference to how the Executive operates whether they were appointed by a Legislature or not if a democratically elected Legislature votes down what they propose. They then have to go away and come back with something the Legislature will vote through. The UK system just makes it more likely that the Legislature will vote for their proposals.
The UK Parliament has NO SAY whatsoever on which individuals are in the Government and never has. It is the convention that the leader of the majority party is given the chance to form a Government, nothing more than that. At least the EU Parliament is a little more democratic than us in that respect.
Did the 2010-2015 Government have democratic legitimacy given that no-one in the electorate voted for the Government they got?
-
"The UK Parliament has NO SAY whatsoever on which individuals are in the Government"
But the UK electorate do have a say as to the politics of the Executive/Government by voting for candidates from the party they would prefer to be in office because as you say "the leader of the majority party is given the chance to form a Government". So the political direction taken by the UK Government does have democratic legitimacy. This is my point.
So you're claiming it's ok that there is no direct EU election to decide on the political direction taken by the EU Commission (and hence no democratic legitimacy for the Commission as there is for the UK Government see paragraph above) as all their proposed laws can be voted down anyway??
In addition within the UK constitution individual MPs can propose legislation through Private Members Bills there is no such possibility open to MEPs.
-
Here is the reaction of our current Prime Minister to the exit pool predicting the results of the last General Election.
I do hope somebody was in the room to calm him down and point out that the election was not held to confirm (or not) his party in Government for the next 5 years allowing them to carry out their program of government. But was in fact an election of the Legislature.
PS I haven't managed to find a photo of Ursula von der Leyen's reaction to the result of the democratic electoral event that confirmed her position of legislative power in the European Union. Funny that.
-
A General Election is an election of MPs, not the members of the Executive. Some MPs become members due to their election to Parliament but neither the electorate nor Parliament itself has any part of the decision as to which MOPs get which job in the Executive except the indirect appointment of the Prime Minister, and even then not always do they get that. When did the Electorate have a say in James Callaghan, John Major, Gordon Brown, Teresa May or indeed Boris Johnson getting the job as Prime Minister when they first became PM?
Or are you still saying the House of Commons is the Executive?
-
Latest benefit. Looks like we are going back to imperial measurements.
That'll do wonders for our Global Britain theme. But it will be great news for the Little England Society for the Abolition of the Second Half of the Twentieth Century.
-
Latest benefit. Looks like we are going back to imperial measurements.
That'll do wonders for our Global Britain theme. But it will be great news for the Little England Society for the Abolition of the Second Half of the Twentieth Century.
Does that mean when I take a measurement of say an inch and a couple of millimetres it will be acceptable? Or do I need to still say an inch and a gnats cock?
-
Latest benefit. Looks like we are going back to imperial measurements.
That'll do wonders for our Global Britain theme. But it will be great news for the Little England Society for the Abolition of the Second Half of the Twentieth Century.
Where did you learn this, Billy?
Everyone else - if Billy’s still behaving like a school boy, could someone ask him on my behalf and answer on his behalf.
Then tell him his mam smells, no backchat.
-
Makes you wonder how the USA manage with feet and inches doesn't it?
-
Are you seriously suggesting that in 2019 the public did not vote in a Tory Government or in 1997 did not vote in a Labour Government for instance.
We given that in both years, around 57% of those who voted chose candidates from parties other than the one that ended up forming a virtually unchallenged executive, I think you've just opened up a whole new aspect of the "democracy" argument.
-
Meanwhile, some of the more democratically equitable voting systems that we do have, have just been quietly abolished and replaced by the indefensible first past the post.
https://mobile.twitter.com/josiahmortimer/status/1438429071499747329
-
Makes you wonder how the USA manage with feet and inches doesn't it?
90% of the world uses the metric system.
-
Makes you wonder how the USA manage with feet and inches doesn't it?
90% of the world uses the metric system.
2 countries use the Imperial system as standard.
USA and Myanmar.
Source: This from a UK Inspector of Weights and Measures.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PippaMusgrave1/status/1438560618580168712
-
It' handy to know both, 25.4 millimetre's to an inch don't forget, not 25.
-
Makes you wonder how the USA manage with feet and inches doesn't it?
90% of the world uses the metric system.
2 countries use the Imperial system as standard.
USA and Myanmar.
Source: This from a UK Inspector of Weights and Measures.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PippaMusgrave1/status/1438560618580168712
Rename the match day thread the Lucky 568 millilitre.
-
Are you seriously suggesting that in 2019 the public did not vote in a Tory Government or in 1997 did not vote in a Labour Government for instance.
We given that in both years, around 57% of those who voted chose candidates from parties other than the one that ended up forming a virtually unchallenged executive, I think you've just opened up a whole new aspect of the "democracy" argument.
I wholly agree with your point. I'm not claiming the UK's democracy is perfect far from it. Like you I'd much prefer we had a Proportional Representation system and thereby a truer democracy *. The majority of constituencies voted for said parties in a free and fair vote. There is no such semblance of democratic legitimacy to the virtually wholly unchallengeable executive of the EU.
* There is a way through our democratic system that a PR system could be brought into being. If a single issue party stood on implementing PR and either won a majority in Parliament or won enough support to encourage Labour or the Tories to adopt this policy (as UKIP did on Brexit through the Tories). The fact we haven't had such a party (or one of prominence) suggests that sadly there is no groundswell of opinion within the public for PR. Therefore by default our (IMO and yours somewhat flawed) current electoral system does have democratic legitimacy.
-
Glyn your argument is as repetitive as it is spurious.
As well as legalistically voting for a parliamentary candidate we also vote for the party they're standing for. The party that wins the most seats (a democratic majority) under our constitution forms the government. Therefore which party forms the government is wholly dependent on the votes cast. Therefore through this mechanism we de facto elect our party of Government. Therefore the UK government is democratically elected.
This mechanism, which seems to have passed you by, is understood by society. Consider how a General Election is pitched in the media and by politicians, including local candidates, as a choice of who runs the country. Ask a sample of people 'who did they vote for in the last election?' and (other than 'mind your own business' or 'I didn't bother') the majority will name the party they voted for not the individual candidate.
We vote for said parties based on their political principles and their plans for government from their manifestos. The winning party's implementation of these give the UK governments actions democratic legitimacy.
In the following General election the public judge the party of government against how it performed against it's political principles and manifesto promises plus how it dealt with other issues arising (from pandemics and recessions to a shortage of lorry drivers). Therefore the UK government is democratically accountable
None of the highlighted points above can be reasonably applied to the wholly appointed EU Commission which is not selected by any kind of similar democratic mechanism through an electoral vote.
-
Of course our government is decided by a democratic vote.
I suppose our FPTP system is ok if your preferred Party wins but it is deemed to be flawed or outdated if they lose.
Unless there are only two Parties involved there are always going to be votes cast for those that have no chance of an overall victory, which could obviously lead to a government being elected but getting less than 50% of the total votes cast.
To suggest our system is undemocratic is just being unrealistic.
-
If there is one thing this interesting debate on sovereignty and democracy across various threads on the off topic has shown is that those declaring that brexit was going to give britain glorious freedoms didn't really have a clue what they were voting for and why.
The debate has not been convincing by those declaring the above and it appears that those in power would rather not discuss it further and blame for the many problems is being directed at anyone and everything except of course themselves.
Certainly not worth the loss in growth/gdp it has and is costing as shown by the BOE.
A loss of wealth by those that can least afford it will mean in the end a loss of democracy to them as Austerity has shown they be reduced to serfdom.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/finance/brexit
Austerity & Brexit will bring you us freedom
Vote tory.
-
A General Election is an election of MPs, not the members of the Executive. Some MPs become members due to their election to Parliament but neither the electorate nor Parliament itself has any part of the decision as to which MOPs get which job in the Executive except the indirect appointment of the Prime Minister, and even then not always do they get that. When did the Electorate have a say in James Callaghan, John Major, Gordon Brown, Teresa May or indeed Boris Johnson getting the job as Prime Minister when they first became PM?
Or are you still saying the House of Commons is the Executive?
I've stopped responding to him Glyn. He clearly doesn't understand how either the UK or the EU operate and isn't prepared to learn from those who do or from the information they provide, well, it's that or he's a WUM; either way, best ignored.
-
Latest benefit. Looks like we are going back to imperial measurements.
That'll do wonders for our Global Britain theme. But it will be great news for the Little England Society for the Abolition of the Second Half of the Twentieth Century.
(https://i.imgur.com/YSlw8wA.jpg)
-
Will I still be able to measure my nob in dog inches?
-
I've stopped responding to him Glyn. He clearly doesn't understand how either the UK or the EU operate and isn't prepared to learn from those who do or from the information they provide, well, it's that or he's a WUM; either way, best ignored.
This post is as hilarious as the assertion that the EU is a democracy.
If we have to reduce ourselves to name calling then IMO you are a blinkered ideologue who simply does not like having their 'certain' world view challenged and is also unable to respond to logical argument.
Prove me wrong. Please use your superior wisdom to explain to a misunderstanding fool like me: -
1) Through what mechanism is the politics and policies of the EU Commission decided upon by the EU electorate via a free and fair democratic electoral vote?
2) Where do the decisions of the EU Commission derive democratic legitimacy from?
3) How can EU citizens hold the EU Commission's performance and decision-making to democratic account?
I believe you claimed on an earlier thread that the EU is far more democratic than the UK. Well on my last post I explained how the UK Government is democratic in relation to the above 3 points so please do the same for the EU to legitimise your argument.
If Mr Kato, as I imagine he will be, is incapable of answering these 3 questions in relation to the EU I'm happy to open them to the floor.
-
I've stopped responding to him Glyn. He clearly doesn't understand how either the UK or the EU operate and isn't prepared to learn from those who do or from the information they provide, well, it's that or he's a WUM; either way, best ignored.
This post is as hilarious as the assertion that the EU is a democracy.
If we have to reduce ourselves to name calling then IMO you are a blinkered ideologue who simply does not like having their 'certain' world view challenged and is also unable to respond to logical argument.
Prove me wrong. Please use your superior wisdom to explain to a misunderstanding fool like me: -
1) Through what mechanism is the politics and policies of the EU Commission decided upon by the EU electorate via a free and fair democratic electoral vote?
2) Where do the decisions of the EU Commission derive democratic legitimacy from?
3) How can EU citizens hold the EU Commission's performance and decision-making to democratic account?
I believe you claimed on an earlier thread that the EU is far more democratic than the UK. Well on my last post I explained how the UK Government is democratic in relation to the above 3 points so please do the same for the EU to legitimise your argument.
If Mr Kato, as I imagine he will be, is incapable of answering these 3 questions in relation to the EU I'm happy to open them to the floor.
He’ll probably say “ not now”
-
Two more benefits of Brexit:
1) I won't be putting on the kilos pounds at Christmas because M&S have cancelled their order service here in Northern Ireland
2) I get to put up video's like this from 2019:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Yv24cM2os
-
well , I suppose people's pets will be pleased
Doncaster fireworks firm says Brexit import rules mean Bonfire Night could be cancelled
Doncaster-based firework supplier Fireworks Kingdom has revealled that Brexit and poorly written new import legislation has caused the severe lack of fireworks in the UK, reducing supply to 30 per cent of the usual stock.
Richard Hogg of Fireworks Kingdom said: “Importing fireworks has become very difficult and unstable in the wake of Brexit.
"It’s gutting to see the shelves empty at stores across the UK when we’d usually be preparing for our busiest season.
-
well , I suppose people's pets will be pleased
Doncaster fireworks firm says Brexit import rules mean Bonfire Night could be cancelled
Doncaster-based firework supplier Fireworks Kingdom has revealled that Brexit and poorly written new import legislation has caused the severe lack of fireworks in the UK, reducing supply to 30 per cent of the usual stock.
Richard Hogg of Fireworks Kingdom said: “Importing fireworks has become very difficult and unstable in the wake of Brexit.
"It’s gutting to see the shelves empty at stores across the UK when we’d usually be preparing for our busiest season.
Whilst it is an unintended effect of Brexit, personally, I class it as a benefit. The almost year-round use, (abuse?), of fireworks has become a pain in the arse! Especially for animals.
-
Fireworks cause extensive air pollution and their absence is a good thing for all living creatures. People who disagree are crackers.
-
Fireworks cause extensive air pollution and their absence is a good thing for all living creatures. People who disagree are crackers.
You’re gonna get a rocket from everyone who is in favour of fireworks.
-
Always banging on
-
Some of these jokes are going down like a damp squib.
-
Aldi show lack of confidence in future of post Brexit UK by announcing 100 new stores to be opened and 2,000 new jobs created! Much to the chagrin of most posters on this thread
-
Aldi show lack of confidence in future of post Brexit UK by announcing 100 new stores to be opened and 2,000 new jobs created! Much to the chagrin of most posters on this thread
you can get plenty of chagrin at food bank apparently sprot
https://www.statista.com/statistics/382695/uk-foodbank-users/
-
Sproty. I know I'm pissing in the wind here but I'll keep trying.
No-one ever said that there would be no investment in the UK after Brexit. What matters is the amount of investment relative to before.
https://i0.wp.com/commonslibrary.parliament.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FDI-5.png?fit=800%2C556&ssl=1
The effect of Brexit will be a long, slow, grinding reduction in our standard of living, relative to what it would have been. Yes, some companies will see opportunities to invest. A cut price supermarket chain expanding in the UK makes perfect sense if you stop and think for a moment. But more companies that before are already choosing not to invest in the UK, because we have chosen to make ourselves poorer over the next generation than we could have been.
So shout out the individual positives by all means. But you are keeping yourself in blissful, blinkered ignorance if you don't step back and look at the overall picture.
-
Britain controls £9.4 trillion of financial assets in the EU 37% of the total assets up 11% in the last twelve months second only in value to the USA and more than double France on 17%.
Another lie shot down from the remainders.
-
Selby. If you don't understand why that post has bugger all to do with what we are talking about then there's not really much point in answering is there?
-
Why do I have to be bothered about what you are talking about all the time Billy lots of us are not, in fact your boring.
-
Britain controls £9.4 trillion of financial assets in the EU 37% of the total assets up 11% in the last twelve months second only in value to the USA and more than double France on 17%.
Another lie shot down from the remainders.
Err no. This is exactly what the 'remainers; said would happen - British companies would move their European operations to the EU to continue trading in the EU.
More making rubbish up without a shread of evidence from the Brexiteers.
-
Why do I have to be bothered about what you are talking about all the time Billy lots of us are not, in fact your boring.
So what is this "Remainer lie" that you are talking about then?
-
Britain controls £9.4 trillion of financial assets in the EU 37% of the total assets up 11% in the last twelve months second only in value to the USA and more than double France on 17%.
Another lie shot down from the remainders.
Err no. This is exactly what the 'remainers; said would happen - British companies would move their European operations to the EU to continue trading in the EU.
More making rubbish up without a shread of evidence from the Brexiteers.
It's more than just companies moving operations. It's companies moving investments. Presumably because they expect to make better returns in the EU than in the UK. Which is precisely the point.
-
The transactions and the money being made is in London.
-
well , I suppose people's pets will be pleased
Doncaster fireworks firm says Brexit import rules mean Bonfire Night could be cancelled
Doncaster-based firework supplier Fireworks Kingdom has revealled that Brexit and poorly written new import legislation has caused the severe lack of fireworks in the UK, reducing supply to 30 per cent of the usual stock.
Richard Hogg of Fireworks Kingdom said: “Importing fireworks has become very difficult and unstable in the wake of Brexit.
"It’s gutting to see the shelves empty at stores across the UK when we’d usually be preparing for our busiest season.
While Brexit is absolutely hideous, if this reduces the amount of knobheads setting off fireworks for two months, well I’ll drink to that!
-
well , I suppose people's pets will be pleased
Doncaster fireworks firm says Brexit import rules mean Bonfire Night could be cancelled
Doncaster-based firework supplier Fireworks Kingdom has revealled that Brexit and poorly written new import legislation has caused the severe lack of fireworks in the UK, reducing supply to 30 per cent of the usual stock.
Richard Hogg of Fireworks Kingdom said: “Importing fireworks has become very difficult and unstable in the wake of Brexit.
"It’s gutting to see the shelves empty at stores across the UK when we’d usually be preparing for our busiest season.
While Brexit is absolutely hideous, if this reduces the amount of knobheads setting off fireworks for two months, well I’ll drink to that!
I will join you sir.
-
The transactions and the money being made is in London.
Where is the most money made, the company itself or a trade in its shares?
-
Britain controls £9.4 trillion of financial assets in the EU 37% of the total assets up 11% in the last twelve months second only in value to the USA and more than double France on 17%.
Another lie shot down from the remainders.
Selby, this is bare faced nonsense and you know it.
The numbers you refer to reflect the asset management industry (i.e. pension funds, insurers, wealth managers and the like):
UK Investor FUM -2020 Source: Investment Association
"Assets under management (AUM) held by IA members increased to £ 9.4 trillion in the UK by the end of 2020. This is also an 11% increase compared to the previous year.
The United Kingdom continues to be the second largest investment management center in the world after the United States.
With a 37% market share, it is also Europe’s largest investment management center."
This is part of the UK financial services industry - not "Britain" - that takes in investor funds from the UK and internationally. If you want the real facts behind the story go to:
https://www.theia.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/20200924-imsfullreport.pdf
not the dogsh*t 'Brexit-Facts' site that you quote: https://facts4eu.org/news/2021_sep_uk_manages_eu_money
-
Seriously, I hope this isn't true....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/government-hands-brexit-helpline-contract-to-company-in-india-293105/
Otherwise it's a Brexit benefit to India!