[Politics] Brexit

[alfredmizen]

Thank you. I think I'll be okay but a lot of the people who work/worked for us aren't going to be and neither are their families.

Which is sad and nobody glories in it , but the I doubt very much you or your workers gave much thought to the u skilled workers whose wages have been severely Compressed since the accession could tries joined or the families waiting for social housing who have seen EU immigrants move ahead of them in the queue due to their larger number of children.

 

[Pavilionaire]

No it isn't a record low, although the Feb '85 nadir of $1.05 is now just a mere handful of Fat Fingers away...


View attachment 78667

That's one hell of a nasty looking 100-year trend isn't it.

And that's the US $ Dollar.

 

[Pavilionaire]

What a load of trollocks from a bad loser. Just keep looking on the negative side. Christ sake

And you keeping living in your Brexit fantasy land you tw*t.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Which is sad and nobody glories in it , but the I doubt very much you or your workers gave much thought to the u skilled workers whose wages have been severely Compressed since the accession could tries joined or the families waiting for social housing who have seen EU immigrants move ahead of them in the queue due to their larger number of children.

I can't speak for my employees but for myself you couldn't be more wrong. The short sightedness of successive governments to the the problems of mass immigration is nothing short of a scandals. Cameron's abandonment of the fund to compensate for immigration (albeit inadequate ) a terrible move. The failure to build more social housing (a lot more social housing) is an ideologically driven crime against the working people of this country.

For me the greedy, self serving failure of the elite to look after their own people is directly responsible for the Brexit result. They absolutely brought it on themselves.

Nor do I blame those who voted for it for the very reasons you (struggle for some unusual reason to) articulate.

But sadly I don't believe that Brexit will make it better for those we both agree have been ignored and neglected.

So if you don't mind me saying; your assumption is somewhat misplaced.

 

[The Rivet]

And that's the US $ Dollar.

If the dollar kept parity with the pound for a few years, great. I have an elderly millionaire aunt who is a resident in the US. More eventual 'bucks' for me. Sorry but I thought I would adopt the 'me' first and 'money' stance most remoaners take.............

 

[alfredmizen]

I can't speak for my employees but for myself you couldn't be more wrong. The short sightedness of successive governments to the the problems of mass immigration is nothing short of a scandals. Cameron's abandonment of the fund to compensate for immigration (albeit inadequate ) a terrible move. The failure to build more social housing (a lot more social housing) is an ideologically driven crime against the working people of this country.

For me the greedy, self serving failure of the elite to look after their own people is directly responsible for the Brexit result. They absolutely brought it on themselves.

Nor do I blame those who voted for it for the very reasons you (struggle for some unusual reason to) articulate.

But sadly I don't believe that Brexit will make it better for those we both agree have been ignored and neglected.

So if you don't mind me saying; your assumption is somewhat misplaced.

Fair enough mate , I genuinely sympathise with you , I've seen similar times I hope you pull through OK, remember , it's always darkest just before dawn.

 

[The Rivet]

I can't speak for my employees but for myself you couldn't be more wrong. The short sightedness of successive governments to the the problems of mass immigration is nothing short of a scandals. Cameron's abandonment of the fund to compensate for immigration (albeit inadequate ) a terrible move. The failure to build more social housing (a lot more social housing) is an ideologically driven crime against the working people of this country.

For me the greedy, self serving failure of the elite to look after their own people is directly responsible for the Brexit result. They absolutely brought it on themselves.

Nor do I blame those who voted for it for the very reasons you (struggle for some unusual reason to) articulate.

But sadly I don't believe that Brexit will make it better for those we both agree have been ignored and neglected. So if you don't mind me saying; your assumption is somewhat misplaced.

A very good measured response. The piece I am highlighting is also potentially true but I and other leavers would prefer we govern ourselves WHATEVER circumstances that may bring. Good luck to you personally.

 

[portslade seagull]

And you keeping living in your Brexit fantasy land you tw*t.

Nice !!

 

[The Merry Prankster]

A very good measured response. The piece I am highlighting is also potentially true but I and other leavers would prefer we govern ourselves WHATEVER circumstances that may bring. Good luck to you personally.

Whilst sympathetic I'm not as cavalier with other people's lives.

 

[cunning fergus]

The one I get fed up of is "bad loser" like it was some kind of Corinthians' match. Those of us who are losing money and having to lay off good, hard working, by and large British workers who have no hope currently of re-employment have, I feel, every right to continue to make a protest against this self inflicted wound and the problems it is causing, yet I continue to hear that we should be applauding politely whilst forming a guard of honour.

**** that. Every time we have to sack someone I want to punch a Brexiteer.

The trouble is you are making the assumption that British workers have always benefitted by us being members of the EU, but this is patently not the case.

Tate and Lyle for example have had to lay off thousands of workers from its refineries as the EU limits the amount of sugar cane the U.K. can import, as it favours sugar beet which is largely grown and refined in France and Germany.

Then there are even more dubious investment and political decisions which are made in shady deals......

http://www.dailysabah.com/money/201...-about-its-40b-euro-share-in-the-eus-own-bank

Why the f*** are the EU funding developments from EU taxpayers in concert with global multinationals that will ultimate lay off workers in the EU?

You sound angry about the laying off of workers because of Brexit, but that doesn't mean it was any better before.........so, dry your eyes and go speak to those ex Ford workers in Southampton and Dagenham.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

That's enough now...........Pre entry in to the EU (if it was not the eu we entered then you can see why Brexit is required) the pound was far stronger-THREAD CLOSED.

 

[studio150]

I and other leavers would prefer we govern ourselves WHATEVER circumstances that may bring.

Ironically it could result in the UK not governing the economy.

No access to single market, no trade deals signed for some years. tariffs imposed, exodus of firms to the EU, GBP remains low, all resulting in higher inflation, higher unemployment, lower tax revenues, Government borrowing increases, interest rates rise higher mortgage defaults, higher balance of trade deficit, all result in the UK effective becoming bankrupt.

There is the need to obtain emergency funds from the IMF to try and turn the failed economy round, but loans comes with conditions which the IMF are looking to impose on the UK Government.

So you could say we are still governing ourselves as we called in the IMF, but effectively once the conditions of the IMF loan are accepted are we still governing ourselves.

Still a price worth paying and I'm sure that will be a comfort to those that face unemployment, losing their houses and other hardship that the fallout brings.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Give it a rest, you don't even live here. Stop trying to wind up those that do.

You're the only idiot who bit

 

[larus]

Ironically it could result in the UK not governing the economy.

No access to single market, no trade deals signed for some years. tariffs imposed, exodus of firms to the EU, GBP remains low, all resulting in higher inflation, higher unemployment, lower tax revenues, Government borrowing increases, interest rates rise higher mortgage defaults, higher balance of trade deficit, all result in the UK effective becoming bankrupt.

There is the need to obtain emergency funds from the IMF to try and turn the failed economy round, but loans comes with conditions which the IMF are looking to impose on the UK Government.

So you could say we are still governing ourselves as we called in the IMF, but effectively once the conditions of the IMF loan are accepted are we still governing ourselves.

Still a price worth paying and I'm sure that will be a comfort to those that face unemployment, losing their houses and other hardship that the fallout brings.

Wow, what an absolutely pathetic argument. Real emotional tantrum material.

All you need to do is jump up a lot, and start shouting "I want to remain, I want to remain", then mummy may come along and give you a sweetie.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Ironically it could result in the UK not governing the economy.

No access to single market, no trade deals signed for some years. tariffs imposed, exodus of firms to the EU, GBP remains low, all resulting in higher inflation, higher unemployment, lower tax revenues, Government borrowing increases, interest rates rise higher mortgage defaults, higher balance of trade deficit, all result in the UK effective becoming bankrupt.

There is the need to obtain emergency funds from the IMF to try and turn the failed economy round, but loans comes with conditions which the IMF are looking to impose on the UK Government.

So you could say we are still governing ourselves as we called in the IMF, but effectively once the conditions of the IMF loan are accepted are we still governing ourselves.

Still a price worth paying and I'm sure that will be a comfort to those that face unemployment, losing their houses and other hardship that the fallout brings.

Until we wipe out our existing deficit that logic applies anyway,should the UK have it's credit rating reviewed again and lifted,after all nothing has really happened yet and we are still making payments.....

 

[Gazz15]

I blame the Goldman Sachs ex employee Mark Carney, the Canadian Governor of the Bank of England for the £'s collapse.

Can anyone explain following Brexit, and a 10% drop in the €/£ from 1.27/£ to €1.15, WHY on earth he cut our silly 0.5% interest rate in half to 0.25% knowing this would smash our currency?

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I blame the Goldman Sachs ex employee Mark Carney, the Canadian Governor of the Bank of England for the £'s collapse.

Can anyone explain following Brexit, and a 10% drop in the €/£ from 1.27/£ to €1.15, WHY on earth he cut our silly 0.5% interest rate in half to 0.25% knowing this would smash our currency?

Sure, to encourage growth and investment to compensate for the negative effects of Brexit. Quite frankly, Mark Carney was one of the only people in power to come out of Brexit with their reputation slightly intact. Changing the interest rates isn't a perfect science as there are always negative and positive consequences whichever way you go - he's clearly decided, probably rightly, that the pound was always going to take a hit anyway, so he may as well continue to encourage investment.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Boris: my case for Britain to stay in Europe

Secret article reveals his argument for ‘remain’

Boris Johnson’s secret newspaper column, urging Britain to stay in the European Union, is published by The Sunday Times today.

The man who led the Brexit campaign before becoming foreign secretary declared: “Britain is a great nation, a global force for good. It is surely a boon for the world and for Europe that she should be intimately engaged in the EU.”

Johnson’s unpublished article rehearsed warnings that Brexit could lead to an economic shock, Scottish independence and Russian aggression, only two days before he concluded that Britain would be better off out.

The article is revealed in an explosive new book that also discloses how David Cameron’s aides blamed two of Britain’s top mandarins for vetoing tougher demands in his renegotiation with Brussels.

The two men, Sir Ivan Rogers, now Britain’s ambassador to the European Union, and Tom Scholar, the senior civil servant at the Treasury, were accused this weekend of still seeking to weaken Theresa May’s plans for leaving the EU.

The book, All Out War, by Tim Shipman, political editor of The Sunday Times, also reveals that:

■ Johnson “wanted to punch” Michael Gove after he tried to apologise for knifing him on the morning of his leadership launch

■ Lynton Crosby, the Tories’ election guru, advised Johnson to support Brexit once Cameron had ignored Crosby’s advice to delay the referendum

■ Cameron would have made Johnson defence secretary if he had won and remained prime minister

■ The “remain” campaign’s digital chief, Jim Messina, called Andrew Cooper, Cameron’s pollster, “the worst I’ve ever worked with” for getting his forecasts so wrong.

The text of Johnson’s column is published in this section. Its existence was known but its contents, which contradict positions the foreign secretary has adopted since he joined the cabinet, have remained secret.

He wrote it on February 19, two days before shocking Cameron by opting publicly for the “leave” campaign. He had already penned one piece arguing the case for “out”, then wrote the “remain” article as a way of clarifying his thoughts, before composing a final article backing Brexit for publication.

The book dispels the myth that Johnson’s case for “remain” was better than his argument to “leave”. In fact the article was dashed off quickly and seems to be an attempt by Johnson to convince himself the case for staying in was weak. But it nonetheless shows some of the concerns he had about leaving the EU.

Johnson, now a proponent of a “hard Brexit” that would take Britain out of the European single market, put the opposite argument in his “remain” column.

“This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms. The membership fee seems rather small for all that access. Why are we so determined to turn our back on it?” he wrote.

He also warned that Brexit would cause an “economic shock” and could lead to the “break up” of the United Kingdom.

The book challenges the idea that Johnson was motivated solely by his ambition to be prime minister. It reveals that Ben Wallace, the MP running his leadership campaign, warned him that backing Brexit would damage his hopes of replacing Cameron.

Being associated with Nigel Farage, George Galloway and older Eurosceptic Tories would mean he was campaigning with a “cast of clowns”, Wallace said in an email.

Both Johnson and Wallace expected at that stage that “leave” would lose the referendum, but Wallace added: “The upside is that if the ‘outers’ win, then you will be master of all.”

The top mandarins blamed by Cameron’s aides for vetoing a much tougher EU renegotiation are now involved in May’s preparations for Brexit. Rogers and Scholar, who was Cameron’s adviser on Europe and is now permanent secretary at the Treasury, faced claims this weekend that the civil service establishment is seeking to water down May’s plans.

A minister said: “Ivan *Rogers is dragging his feet. He didn’t want the prime minister to reveal her hand on article 50 so quickly, which shows what he knows about the politics of the situation.”

Scholar has been accused of “egging on” the chancellor Philip Hammond to emphasise the economic dangers of withdrawing from the single market. The book reveals the two civil servants repeatedly clashed with Daniel Korski and Mats Persson, advisers to Cameron on EU affairs, who wanted to demand more from Brussels.

“We were too beholden to Tom Scholar and Ivan Rogers,” one Cameron adviser said.

“They were status quo. They were happy to take ‘No’ for an answer, happy to believe things weren’t possible when they could be possible. I’ve lost count of the number of times Ivan threatened to resign.”

May will travel to Brussels on Thursday and explain what Britain wants from a new relation*ship with the EU, emphasising that she would like “close links” but has to put immigration control first.

She will seek to maximise the gains of Brexit by launching a trade mission to India next month to pave the way for a new free-trade deal. The prime minister will take a delegation of small and medium-sized businesses with her when she meets Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, and opens a tech summit in Delhi on November 6.

May said: “As we leave the European Union we have the chance to forge a new global role for the UK — to look beyond our continent and towards the economic and diplo*matic opportunities in the wider world.” But she faces a new challenge to reveal her plans for Brexit.

Former party leaders Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, plus leading Tory Nick Herbert and Brexiteer Stephen Phillips will table a motion for a backbench debate and a substantive vote to force the government to publish an outline of its negotiation plan — the equivalent of a white paper — and for this to be agreed by the House of Commons prior to negotiations.

Miliband told The Sunday Times: “‘Leave’ and ‘remain’ voters are united in their belief that the government must get a mandate for their Brexit negotiating plan from parliament.”

Clegg added: “The government should not take decisions that will have massive econo*mic consequences, such as leav*ing the single market, with*out seek*ing parliament’s approval.”

Keir Starmer, Labour’s spokes*man on Brexit, said he will endorse the plans, making it possible that the government would be defeated if enough Tory “remainers” rebel.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-my-case-for-britain-to-stay-in-europe-f7qgrvtps

 

[ManOfSussex]

Cripes! I jolly nearly backed Dave on Europe

It’s the article Boris Johnson tried to bury — the case for remaining in the EU, written at the same time as one backing Brexit. Could these words have changed British history?

OK OK, I admit it. If you gave him a truth drug, or hypnotised him, I don’t think even the prime minister would really deny it.

This European Union deal is not perhaps everything that we would have liked. It is not what we Eurosceptics were hoping, not when the process kicked off. We were hoping he was going to get really deep down and dirty, in the way that the Bloomberg speech seemed to indicate. He was going to probe the belly of the beast and bring back British sovereignty, like Hercules bringing Eurydice [sic] back from the underworld. I had the impression that this was going to be the beginning of a wholesale repatriation of powers — over fisheries, farming, the social chapter, border controls, you name it: all those political hostages joyfully returning home like the end of Raid on Entebbe.

It was going to be a moment for the ringing of church bells and bonfires on beacons, and union flags flying from every steeple, and peasants blind drunk on non-EU approved scrumpy and beating the hedgerows with staves while singing patriotic songs about Dave the hero.

I don’t think we can pretend that this is how things have turned out. This is not a fundamental reform of Britain’s position in the EU, and no one could credibly claim it is.

It is not pointless; it is not wholly insignificant; it is by no means a waste of time. But it will not stop the great machine of EU integration, and it will not stop the production of ever more EU laws — at least some of which will have deleterious effects on the economy of this country and the rest of Europe.

Never mind the Tusk deal; look at the elephant in the room: the great beast still trampling happily on British parliamentary sovereignty, and British democracy. So there are likely to be a significant number of people — perhaps including you — who will feel that in all honour we can now only do one thing.

We said we wanted a reformed EU. We said that if we failed to get reform, then Britain could have a great future outside. We have not got a reformed EU — so: nothing for it, then — ho for the open seas! Viva Brexit! That would seem to be the logic, and yet I wonder if it is wholly correct.

Shut your eyes. Hold your breath. Think of Britain. Think of the rest of the EU. Think of the future. Think of the desire of your children and your grandchildren to live and work in other European countries; to sell things there, to make friends and perhaps to find partners there.

Ask yourself: despite all the defects and disappointments of this exercise — do you really, truly, definitely want Britain to pull out of the EU ? Now? This is a big thing to do, and there is certainly a strong political- philosophical imperative leading us to the door.

We are being outvoted ever more frequently. The ratchet of integration clicks remorselessly forward. More and more questions are now justiciable by the European Court of Justice, including that extraordinary document, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. This bestows on every one of our 500m EU citizens a legally enforceable right to do all sorts of things across all 28 states: to start a business, to choose any occupation they like, to found any type of religious school, to enjoy “academic freedom”. I shudder to think what is going to happen when UK citizens start vindicating these new “rights” in Luxembourg.

There is going to be more and more of this stuff ; and I can see why people might just think, to hell with it. I want out. I want to take back control of our democracy and our country.

If you feel that, I perfectly understand — because half the time I have been feeling that myself. And then the other half of the time, I have been thinking: hmmm. I like the sound of freedom; I like the sound of restoring democracy. But what are the downsides — and here we must be honest.

There are some big questions that the “out” side need to answer. Almost everyone expects there to be some sort of economic shock as a result of a Brexit. How big would it be? I am sure that the doomsters are exaggerating the fallout — but are they completely wrong? And how can we know?

And then there is the worry about Scotland, and the possibility that an English-only “leave” vote could lead to the break-up of the union. There is the Putin factor: we don’t want to do anything to encourage more shirtless swaggering from the Russian leader, not in the Middle East, not anywhere.

And then there is the whole geostrategic anxiety. Britain is a great nation, a global force for good. It is surely a boon for the world and for Europe that she should be intimately engaged in the EU. This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms: the membership fee seems rather small for all that access.

Why are we so determined to turn our back on it? Shouldn’t our policy be like our policy on cake — pro having it and pro eating it? Pro Europe and pro the rest of the world?

If sovereignty is the problem — and it certainly is — then maybe it is worth looking again at the prime minister’s deal, because there is a case for saying it is not quite as contemptible as all that. He is the first prime minister to get us out of ever closer union, which is potentially very important with the European Court of Justice and how it interprets EU law. He has some good stuff on competition, and repealing legislation, and on protecting Britain from further integration of the euro group.

Now if this were baked into a real EU treaty, it would be very powerful. Taken together with the sovereignty clauses — which are not wholly platitudinous — you can see the outlines of a new role for Britain: friendly, involved, but not part of the federalist project.

Yes, folks, the deal’s a bit of a dud, but it contains the germ of something really good. I am going to muffle my disappointment and back the prime minister.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cripes-i-jolly-nearly-backed-dave-on-europe-wbcqd6b6c

 

[beorhthelm]

Cripes! I jolly nearly backed Dave on Europe
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cripes-i-jolly-nearly-backed-dave-on-europe-wbcqd6b6c

well its hardly an emphatic endorsement, is it? its saying if the EU was different, it would be OK.

If sovereignty is the problem — and it certainly is — then maybe it is worth looking again at the prime minister’s deal, because there is a case for saying it is not quite as contemptible as all that. He is the first prime minister to get us out of ever closer union, which is potentially very important with the European Court of Justice and how it interprets EU law. He has some good stuff on competition, and repealing legislation, and on protecting Britain from further integration of the euro group.

Now if this were baked into a real EU treaty, it would be very powerful. Taken together with the sovereignty clauses — which are not wholly platitudinous — you can see the outlines of a new role for Britain: friendly, involved, but not part of the federalist project.

the PMs deal wasn't in a treaty and there was little prospect of it being. many of the consessions were immediatly challenged and the package went against the principles of the EU. if they'd really want to, they could have accelerated some form of mini-treaty to enshrine the consessions into EU law - and create a two tier EU at a stroke.

Yes, folks, the deal’s a bit of a dud, but it contains the germ of something really good. I am going to muffle my disappointment and back the prime minister.

and that's the conclusion on the EU and "deal": a bit of bud.