[Politics] Brexit

[The Clamp]

Ask again when we have left,and the Government has a new leader.I dare say Corbin would find a handy drain to pour it in!

Oh right. Has it not been sorted yet? Just, if I was voting for something and so much money was involved I'd want to know what was going to be happening to that money before i made a decision. But I guess some people aren't bothered where it goes a long as it doesn't pass through a foreigners hands first. Seriously, it's ridiculous that nothing apart from £350m a week going to the NHS was even thought about.

 

[Baldseagull]

So we're saying to the EU, do a fair deal, or there will be no deal and it will be bad for both of us. That seems reasonable to me.

I disagree. I'd say the biggest weapon (as you put it) that we have, is that no deal will be really bad for the EU too.

No, we are saying do us an exceptional deal, or there will be no deal and it will be bad for both of us. Bad for both, yes, much more acute for us though.

 

[Baldseagull]

Sigh.I will try again.What do the Czech Republic export to the UK that we cannot get elsewhere?

Petrof Pianos.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Oh right. Has it not been sorted yet? Just, if I was voting for something and so much money was involved I'd want to know what was going to be happening to that money before i made a decision. But I guess some people aren't bothered where it goes a long as it doesn't pass through a foreigners hands first. Seriously, it's ridiculous that nothing apart from £350m a week going to the NHS was even thought about.

He's pissing in the wind, and he fully knows it.

The specific areas of funding we were discussing were research grants to Universities. Currently they get significant sums from EU grants. His view is that pointing that out was irrelevant as the money was originally ours anyway. His view is that we can just pay those funds direct, and it is a valid view, were it not based on blind faith.

The money will not be paid direct, because the post-Brexit economy will not support it. Frivolous nonsense like research grants (and spending on leisure facilities, or the arts, etc) will be at the front line of the inevitable cuts.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

He's pissing in the wind, and he fully knows it.

The specific areas of funding we were discussing were research grants to Universities. Currently they get significant sums from EU grants. His view is that pointing that out was irrelevant as the money was originally ours anyway. His view is that we can just pay those funds direct, and it is a valid view, were it not based on blind faith.

The money will not be paid direct, because the post-Brexit economy will not support it. Frivolous nonsense like research grants (and spending on leisure facilities, or the arts, etc) will be at the front line of the inevitable cuts.

Britain has been cutting leisure, arts, health and education annually for the past 10 years. The idea the post-Brexit economy, which most accept will take a pasting in the short to medium term at the very least, will magically have an abundance of newly found riches to throw around is utterly ludicrous. Just because the U.K. pays X to the EU it doesn’t mean the U.K. will have X to spend elsewhere post-Brexit. A lot of that money will go on covering the economy-of-scale savings we currently enjoy on a myriad of thing we currently, in effect, out source to the EU but will soon have to undertake ourselves....if the staff can be found that is.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Research form Warwick Uni indicating that austerity had a lot do with the Brexit vote. An extract:

This paper presents novel and comprehensive evidence suggesting that austerity induced welfare reforms brought about by the Conservative-led coalition government from late 2010 onwards are key to understanding Brexit. Austerity-induced welfare reforms are a strong driving factor behind the growing support for the populist Ukip party in the wake of the EU referendum, contributed to the development of broader anti-establishment preferences and are strongly associated with popular support for Leave. The results suggest that the EU referendum either may not have taken place, or, as a back of the envelope calculations suggests, could have resulted in a victory for remain, had it not been for austerity.

 

[Triggaaar]

No, we are saying do us an exceptional deal, or there will be no deal and it will be bad for both of us.

We really aren't asking for anything too much at all. What is it that you think we're asking for which isn't fair on the EU?

Bad for both, yes, much more acute for us though.

Yes I agree it would be worse for us. It would still be really bad for the EU though, and they'd be crazy to force it.

 

[Triggaaar]

There are huge numbers of childish posts on both sides - mostly why I leave this thread alone, the level of debate is through the floor.

Same.

I just thought you were rational, level-headed and above all that. Oh well.

Blimey, you had expectations of me as high as my mum's. Only you held on to the dream even longer than she did.

 

[larus]

There are huge numbers of childish posts on both sides - mostly why I leave this thread alone, the level of debate is through the floor.

I only comment on here occasionally now as I have not seen one person changed their view over the last 2 years. It’s become too tribal.

I accept that there will be disruption if we leave with no deal. Some things will be short term and other may last medium term.
I accept that there will be an initial economic impact to the country, but, IMO, the projections from the remainers are extreme and often covered in weasel words like could, may, possibly, research, models etc.

However, what very few remainers will admit is that the people who are in control of the process (May, Hammond and Robbins) are all remainers by heart. The standard response is that it’s Brexiteers who are f*cking this up, but the reality is the people interfacing with the EU are remainers and have rolled over too much and not wanted to be tough with them.

Davis was undermined by May as she allowed Robbins to really be the negotiator with the EU.

Hammond has not prepared the country for the possibility of No Deal. If we’d prepared, then the impact woul be mitigated (just to clarify before the rabid mob jump on this, I’m saying mitigated and not eliminated). We’ve done virtually no preparation and the people in charge of this are May/Hammond (yep, them remainers again).

So I agree with your views that this threat is pointless. The polarised views are divorced from the reality of what is happening and what will happen. Team May/Hammond/Robbins are making a complete balls-up of this. It’s pathetic.

Brexit would never have been easy but it didn’t have to be this clusterf*ck that they have allowed it to be. No planning appears to have been done.

 

[Mellotron]

Same.

Blimey, you had expectations of me as high as my mum's. Only you held on to the dream even longer than she did.

I still maintain that - if you had a really good go at it - you could be a doctor. I believe in you.

 

[Baldseagull]

The EU will be gagging to get that money don't you worry about that. No deal? So be it.

In most deals you have to weigh up pros and cons, what you have to give in order to get. Economically, there is no benefit and a huge cost, so we have to move on to look for other benefits, as far as I can tell, for most leavers this is control of immigration and sovereignty.
Whilst we should have the ability to control immigration, economics come into it, if there are jobs available and low unemployment, immigration will be high, or businesses will not be able to grow and the balance of employed tax payers to retired pension takers will cause problems in maintaining the countries finances. The system as we have it has higher net immigration from the rest of the world than it does from the EU, EU workers are more fluid and come and go as employment situations change, migrants from other parts of the world are more likely to remain if they can. The immigration argument is therefore also majorly flawed.
Sovereignty then. We have it, we might have more or less of it depending on the outcome of the negotiations, at the moment some aspects of our sovereignty are shared with the other member states and we make the decisions together, in most areas it is our Parliament alone. Once out, any lawmaking influence we have in Europe is almost gone, but we can take control of laws here that were previously in the EU remit, things like wether we will allow a fizzy wine to be called champagne, but where we differ could cause problems for any trade deal we have with the EU, so we are likely to be tied to the EU's rules quite closely and therefore will have lost sovereignty here too in effect, fishing rights is about the peak of gains, but where are we going to sell the fish?
I can understand that some things are worth any price, but to me it seems we get almost nothing for a horrific price.

 

[GT49er]

I only comment on here occasionally now as I have not seen one person changed their view over the last 2 years. It’s become too tribal.

I accept that there will be disruption if we leave with no deal. Some things will be short term and other may last medium term.
I accept that there will be an initial economic impact to the country, but, IMO, the projections from the remainers are extreme and often covered in weasel words like could, may, possibly, research, models etc.

However, what very few remainers will admit is that the people who are in control of the process (May, Hammond and Robbins) are all remainers by heart. The standard response is that it’s Brexiteers who are f*cking this up, but the reality is the people interfacing with the EU are remainers and have rolled over too much and not wanted to be tough with them.

Davis was undermined by May as she allowed Robbins to really be the negotiator with the EU.

Hammond has not prepared the country for the possibility of No Deal. If we’d prepared, then the impact woul be mitigated (just to clarify before the rabid mob jump on this, I’m saying mitigated and not eliminated). We’ve done virtually no preparation and the people in charge of this are May/Hammond (yep, them remainers again).

So I agree with your views that this threat is pointless. The polarised views are divorced from the reality of what is happening and what will happen. Team May/Hammond/Robbins are making a complete balls-up of this. It’s pathetic.

Brexit would never have been easy but it didn’t have to be this clusterf*ck that they have allowed it to be. No planning appears to have been done.

Very much agree with this. One thing I would say is about Theresa May. Granted all ambitious politicians want to be Prime Minister one day, so taking on the job was a matter of achieving her ambition certainly - but I also believe she took on the job with a "Well, that's what's been decided by the electorate and someone's got to do it" attitude, and that she's genuinely trying to do her best to manage Brexit in very difficult circumstances. I agree that her best isn't very good at all, but what is even more certain is that the difficult circumstances are deliberately made more difficult by desperate and devious remainers in Westminster and Whitehall doing their level best to hinder progress every step of the way.

 

[Baldseagull]

We really aren't asking for anything too much at all. What is it that you think we're asking for which isn't fair on the EU?

Yes I agree it would be worse for us. It would still be really bad for the EU though, and they'd be crazy to force it.

Essentially, all the benefits of membership, without having to be subject to the ECJ, pay as much money or allow workers to come here to fill job vacancies. We are trying to replicate membership as a non member, to avoid some responsibilities. We are asking for a better deal than has been done with anyone else including the Japan deal which has a GDP twice the size of ours, and the proposed TTIP deal with the US (7 times our GDP) that was close before Trump got elected. Even with the back down on services, the deal wanted on "a" customs union rather than "the" customs union is asking for us as a non member to be able to set rules for the 27 members. It is entirely unreasonable to expect to get that.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I only comment on here occasionally now as I have not seen one person changed their view over the last 2 years. It’s become too tribal.

I accept that there will be disruption if we leave with no deal. Some things will be short term and other may last medium term.
I accept that there will be an initial economic impact to the country, but, IMO, the projections from the remainers are extreme and often covered in weasel words like could, may, possibly, research, models etc.

However, what very few remainers will admit is that the people who are in control of the process (May, Hammond and Robbins) are all remainers by heart. The standard response is that it’s Brexiteers who are f*cking this up, but the reality is the people interfacing with the EU are remainers and have rolled over too much and not wanted to be tough with them.

Davis was undermined by May as she allowed Robbins to really be the negotiator with the EU.

Hammond has not prepared the country for the possibility of No Deal. If we’d prepared, then the impact woul be mitigated (just to clarify before the rabid mob jump on this, I’m saying mitigated and not eliminated). We’ve done virtually no preparation and the people in charge of this are May/Hammond (yep, them remainers again).

So I agree with your views that this threat is pointless. The polarised views are divorced from the reality of what is happening and what will happen. Team May/Hammond/Robbins are making a complete balls-up of this. It’s pathetic.

Brexit would never have been easy but it didn’t have to be this clusterf*ck that they have allowed it to be. No planning appears to have been done.

Maybe. But what, in practical terms, would 'being tough with them' actually mean? Negotiations would probably break down and we'd be faced with no deal. Almost everyone accepts that this scenario would be terrible. My take is that May, running scared of the ERG, painted herself into a corner with the red lines which she should have known from day one would be unacceptable to the EU. Too much sabre-rattling, not too little.

 

[larus]

Maybe. But what, in practical terms, would 'being tough with them' actually mean? Negotiations would probably break down and we'd be faced with no deal. Almost everyone accepts that this scenario would be terrible. My take is that May, running scared of the ERG, painted herself into a corner with the red lines which she should have known from day one would be unacceptable to the EU. Too much sabre-rattling, not too little.

I accept you want to remain and you know I want to leave.

IMO, what we should have done is:
1. Prepare for No Deal. I accept the even with 2 years worth of preparations there will be issues. However, people/companies are very good at overcoming challenges. Yes, the initial few days/weeks would create wonderful headlines for the "I told you so" brigade, but the fact is leavers accept there will be a period of change but see the destination as important and not the short-term impact. I accept you may disagree with my views, but that's your opinion.
2. Said to the EU, if they want to play hard-ball then we have things we can play hard-ball over. Security, money, five eyes, defence forces stationed around the EU. This is a negotiation between adversaries. That is how they have treated us, so we should do the same. For example, the Galileo project has had a huge amount of UK funding/expertise and they want to kick us out based on spurious rules. They have threatened us with planes not flying FFS. That's not allies having a discussion.
3. We should say to the EU, there will not be infrastructure on the NI border. If this falls foul of WTO rules, then both parties are impacted. The UK and the EU.

At every stage we have rolled over (see my previous post about remainers running the negotiations) and not stood up to them. TM is useless and her track record is a disaster. Crap home secretary, totally inept election campaign and like a rabbit in the headlights trying to run the Brexit process. I'm usually a Tory supporter and I despise her - nearly as much as Bliar

 

[The Clamp]

I only comment on here occasionally now as I have not seen one person changed their view over the last 2 years. It’s become too tribal.

I accept that there will be disruption if we leave with no deal. Some things will be short term and other may last medium term.
I accept that there will be an initial economic impact to the country, but, IMO, the projections from the remainers are extreme and often covered in weasel words like could, may, possibly, research, models etc.

However, what very few remainers will admit is that the people who are in control of the process (May, Hammond and Robbins) are all remainers by heart. The standard response is that it’s Brexiteers who are f*cking this up, but the reality is the people interfacing with the EU are remainers and have rolled over too much and not wanted to be tough with them.

Davis was undermined by May as she allowed Robbins to really be the negotiator with the EU.

Hammond has not prepared the country for the possibility of No Deal. If we’d prepared, then the impact woul be mitigated (just to clarify before the rabid mob jump on this, I’m saying mitigated and not eliminated). We’ve done virtually no preparation and the people in charge of this are May/Hammond (yep, them remainers again).

So I agree with your views that this threat is pointless. The polarised views are divorced from the reality of what is happening and what will happen. Team May/Hammond/Robbins are making a complete balls-up of this. It’s pathetic.

Brexit would never have been easy but it didn’t have to be this clusterf*ck that they have allowed it to be. No planning appears to have been done.

You mention short and mid-term effects but nothing of long- term. Is it your belief that there will be absolutely no long term negative effects of Brexit?

 

[Two Professors]

He's pissing in the wind, and he fully knows it.

The specific areas of funding we were discussing were research grants to Universities. Currently they get significant sums from EU grants. His view is that pointing that out was irrelevant as the money was originally ours anyway. His view is that we can just pay those funds direct, and it is a valid view, were it not based on blind faith.

The money will not be paid direct, because the post-Brexit economy will not support it. Frivolous nonsense like research grants (and spending on leisure facilities, or the arts, etc) will be at the front line of the inevitable cuts.

 

[The Clamp]

View attachment 99369

I’m sure jobseekers in Bury will be delighted at this news.

 

[Two Professors]

One of the 'grizzlers' on here was on about PMI's,but doesn't seem to have posted this one,so I will save him some effort.



Hope DR doesn't mind me borrowing Grizzlers,such a descriptive word,almost addictive.GRIZZLERS

 

[Two Professors]

I’m sure jobseekers in Bury will be delighted at this news.

Why,are you moving?Lovely place,Bury.Very friendly people.