[Politics] Brexit

[daveinprague]

You havnt kept up with the thread then, the remoaners are livid we are leaving, we are just here nowadays to point out their lies and ruin their day with facts,.......... they hate that.

Im not livid? I have not seen anybody on NSC who is 'livid'. Theatrical much?

 

[Baldseagull]

Its clear from yesterdays exchange a few of the remainers are unable to see the differences between being a member of the EU and not being in the EU on the date of leaving (29th march 2019) and cant distinguish between various statuses and arrangements that will need to be negotiated as part of the withdrawal during the implementation as it runs its course to expiration (currently 31 dec 2020).
Thinking we have extended our membership when we have left membership is comical, some people should keep track of the legislation going through the motions

For me, the significance is that if we enter a transition phase, rather than just extending membership to facilitate negotiations, we will probably have passed the point of no return, at least no return to the current status of membership, where we are not required to join the Euro, have a rebate on contributions, have a veto on other issues etc.

 

[pastafarian]

Yeah, wanting equality is definitely hateful.

You lied and said the bloke was kicked to death when you had no evidence to support it because of equality?.....FFs
just admit you were race bating and you were rumbled and you fvcked up because you were full of shit

 

[The Rivet]

 

[BigGully]

Sorry mate, I can't quite get what you are saying. I was stating, that in Trade deals between 2 parties, generally there is a greater benefit to the larger party.
In a trade deal between the USA and us, they would be the larger party and most likely get the greater benefit, in a trade deal between USA and the EU, the EU is the larger party and so it would be more likely that the EU gets the greater benefit. A member state of the EU is likely to have better trading terms with the USA than we will, if and when we both have trade deals with the USA.

I will try again, the leaked draft paper suggests that the UK's global trade will increase whilst not being a member of the EU at a rate higher than if we stay within it, the proposed 2% increased with a trade deal with the US and the other 0.1% to 0.4% is a consequence of leaving not a set of figures that then might be compared to another forecast of staying, this paper is a direct consequence of Brexit scenarios which in turn invalidates your statement that being in a larger country/bloc is preferable in this instance.

On the plus side, the analysis assumes in all scenarios that a trade deal with the US will be concluded, and that it would benefit GDP by about 0.2% in the long term. Trade deals with other non-EU countries and blocs, such as China, India, Australia, the Gulf countries, and the nations of Southeast Asia would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term.

Unless you are trying to disqualify this morsel of a positive forecast for Brexit by questioning the quality of those deals in terms other than growth, where although there is increased trade to the UK you have decided that there will be toxic regulation etc. which might outstrip any economic advantages.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I see HMG is considering raising our animal welfare standards by banning the export of live animals for slaughter. Only possible when we leave the EU/single market obviously. #takebackcontrol

 

[daveinprague]

You lied and said the bloke was kicked to death when you had no evidence to support it because of equality?.....FFs
just admit you were race bating and you were rumbled and you fvcked up because you were full of shit

Let me repeat, you seem a bit slow. I did not lie, I repeated was was in the media at that time. I have no need to 'race bait'. I was not 'rumbled', you are a #anker

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You are celebrating that?............get a fvcking life !

What you having? It’s on me.

 

[Baldseagull]

I see HMG is considering raising our animal welfare standards by banning the export of live animals for slaughter. Only possible when we leave the EU/single market obviously. #takebackcontrol

Whilst it would be a good start, wouldn't it be better to lobby our MEP's and campaign for this to be an EU wide ban?

 

[Baldseagull]

I will try again, the leaked draft paper suggests that the UK's global trade will increase whilst not being a member of the EU at a rate higher than if we stay within it, the proposed 2% increased with a trade deal with the US and the other 0.1% to 0.4% is a consequence of leaving not a set of figures that then might be compared to another forecast of staying, this paper is a direct consequence of Brexit scenarios which in turn invalidates your statement that being in a larger country/bloc is preferable in this instance.

On the plus side, the analysis assumes in all scenarios that a trade deal with the US will be concluded, and that it would benefit GDP by about 0.2% in the long term. Trade deals with other non-EU countries and blocs, such as China, India, Australia, the Gulf countries, and the nations of Southeast Asia would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term.

Unless you are trying to disqualify this morsel of a positive forecast for Brexit by questioning the quality of those deals in terms other than growth, where although there is increased trade to the UK you have decided that there will be toxic regulation etc. which might outstrip any economic advantages.

Thanks, I think I get the jist of your post now.

I think the report is not accounting for the EU striking any further trade deals, I would go along with the Brexit position that as the UK alone we could get deals done quicker than the EU, but I think the deals the EU gets will be better.

 

[BigGully]

Thanks, I think I get the jist of your post now.

I think the report is not accounting for the EU striking any further trade deals, I would go along with the Brexit position that as the UK alone we could get deals done quicker than the EU, but I think the deals the EU gets will be better.

It does factor in likely future EU trade deals that is exactly what it is comparing the UK performance against, it has three scenarios of differing Brexits, it then compares those economic impacts against if we had stayed, mostly it showed a negative impact but not in global trade, why would it leave out likely future EU trade deals when it is exactly that it is comparing against.

How exactly does the UK if still in the EU not receiving an increase of 0.2% gdp from a trade deal with the USA and a further 0.1% - 0.4% gdp globally show a better position for the UK compared to a Brexit UK that would receive it, that doesnt make sense on this specific issue.

If you choose to to take this paper as relevent you have lots to shout/moan about but global trade isnt one of them.

 

[Two Professors]

The Waffen SS was specifically formed for foreigners, ie other European rightwing, nationalistic nutjobs. Its about the doctrine, not the nationalities you halfwit.

If the halfwit comment was directed at me,at least try checking your facts before hurling insults.The Waffen SS was originally formed in 1934 from only pure-blooded Germans who could prove their 'untainted' origins back over two centuries.The first non-Germans allowed in were those of proven German descent from conquered territories,like the country you now live in,the Reichs Protektorate Bohmen-Mahren.The first truly foreign elements joined in late 1941/1942 with recruits from many western countries.Try as you may,you cannot re-write history.

 

[Two Professors]

Whilst it would be a good start, wouldn't it be better to lobby our MEP's and campaign for this to be an EU wide ban?

What,with the amount of live exports to North Africa from France,and Ukraine/Eastern Europe/Arabia from Germany?No chance whatsoever!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

23.51 dutch courage ?

One pale ale last night. In now in London having lunch....feeling a little tipsy now though.

 

[BigGully]

One pale ale last night. In now in London having lunch....feeling a little tipsy now though.

Uh-oh I await the onslaught a bit later, am I allowed to mention your mangled sentence or not, enjoy

 

[daveinprague]

If the halfwit comment was directed at me,at least try checking your facts before hurling insults.The Waffen SS was originally formed in 1934 from only pure-blooded Germans who could prove their 'untainted' origins back over two centuries.The first non-Germans allowed in were those of proven German descent from conquered territories,like the country you now live in,the Reichs Protektorate Bohmen-Mahren.The first truly foreign elements joined in late 1941/1942 with recruits from many western countries.Try as you may,you cannot re-write history.

Which army unit was the the only German army unit that foreigners could join?
Waffen SS. 1940. Previously, it was Leibstandartet and the other mongrols and not known as Waffen SS.
Its about doctrine, not nationality.

As for your news regarding the SS Skanderbeg carrying out one of the first massacres, despite not being formed until 1944. Tell me more.

 

[Two Professors]

Which army unit was the the only German army unit that foreigners could join?
Waffen SS. 1940. Previously, it was Leibstandartet and the other mongrols and not known as Waffen SS.
Its about doctrine, not nationality.

Have you been hitting the Pilsener early?Quite what doctrine the various European nazis had in common with Albanian moslems I would doubt even Leon Trotsky could fathom out.Waffen means armed,and the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler SS bodyguard were armed ,with the agreement of the German Army,to deal with the threat of the SA under Ernst Rohm (Night of the Long Knives,also in history books,1934).Oh,and the normal German army had loads of foreigners in.When you are sober look up Hilfs-freiwilligen-you will find dozens of nationalities,including Indians.

 

[daveinprague]

Have you been hitting the Pilsener early?Quite what doctrine the various European nazis had in common with Albanian moslems I would doubt even Leon Trotsky could fathom out.Waffen means armed,and the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler SS bodyguard were armed ,with the agreement of the German Army,to deal with the threat of the SA under Ernst Rohm (Night of the Long Knives,also in history books,1934).Oh,and the normal German army had loads of foreigners in.When you are sober look up Hilfs-freiwilligen-you will find dozens of nationalities,including Indians.

never heard the expression Islamo Fascists, even here? Theres your comparison.

Tell me more about SS Skanderbeg committing the first massacre...

 

[Two Professors]

never heard the expression Islamo Fascists, even here? Theres your comparison.

Tell me more about SS Skanderbeg committing the first massacre...

They were a mountain warfare unit formed specifically to fight Tito's partisans in the former Yugoslavia,which given the treatment afforded to Albanian moslems by the Slavs,seemed like a good idea to the Germans.As I remember,they had a training camp at Le Puy in France,where they and Bosnians from Handschar Division,mutinied,slit their officers throats,and then turned on the locals.End of 1943,beginning of '44.The Grand Muffti of Jerusalem was their religious authority.

 

[Baldseagull]

It does factor in likely future EU trade deals that is exactly what it is comparing the UK performance against, it has three scenarios of differing Brexits, it then compares those economic impacts against if we had stayed, mostly it showed a negative impact but not in global trade, why would it leave out likely future EU trade deals when it is exactly that it is comparing against.

How exactly does the UK if still in the EU not receiving an increase of 0.2% gdp from a trade deal with the USA and a further 0.1% - 0.4% gdp globally show a better position for the UK compared to a Brexit UK that would receive it, that doesnt make sense on this specific issue.

If you choose to to take this paper as relevent you have lots to shout/moan about but global trade isnt one of them.

I respectfully disagree that the report takes account of likely future EU trade deals.

I think I might be misunderstanding you still, but not receiving the 0.2 to 0.6 per cent boost to global trade that leaving the EU might bring, leaves us worse off because we miss out on the greater boost to GDP available a member of the EU.
Are you suggesting that a UK/USA trade deal would be 0.2% more valuable to us, than trade with the US would be by being a member of the EU with a US/EU trade deal? If so then the report is making its assessment based purely on what sort of deal we would be able to do alone, versus what sort of deal the EU would be able to do. I do not believe this to be the case.