Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Balljy said:
We have a trade deficit to the EU of more than 60 billion per year but that's about 3 to 4% of the overall EU economy. 13% of our economy is to the EU. They're a bigger customer to us than we are to them.
Click to expand...

And a huge proportion of the physical things we sell to the EU is due to companies like car assemblers who set up where they did because we are within the EU. These sorts of companies will stop setting up in the UK and many even close plants and move production to within the EU again. Services are our biggest export and we have already seen financial services companies moving overseas. So we are going to suffer there again.

The bottom line is that what now occurs isn't very important as things will change for the worse for us after Brexit. The EU may suffer as well but we haven't given them a choice - we told them we are leaving. Now it is up to them to negotiate the best deal for the EU, not the best deal for the UK.
 
Stanley Road said:
Germans definitely, our HR guy said something the other day tongue in cheek, so I asked if he was being racist.

"Of course I am, I'm German" came the reply

Whats is it tho with British people knocking their own sort all the time? I don't get it at all. Other Europeans don't do it and they are equally proud and some of them equally as natiaonalistic.
Click to expand...

It's our national sport around here. We just do it between ourselves, spanish and italians are the same.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
the cabinet are appointed by the PM the same way as the Commission is appointed.
Click to expand...

But everyone of the British cabinet are directly elected by their constituents first. The EU Commissioners are elected by nobody, in fact many of them receive their Commissioner appointment as a 'pay off,' Kinnock, Mandelson, etc. from Britain

Paul the Wolf said:
MEPs are equal to MPs
Click to expand...

Now you are really having a laugh aren't you? I'll grant that they are elected, but their role is scrutiny only, they have no ability to reject only to refer policy, regulations etc. The equivalent in Britain would be if the House of Lords (Scrutinise)were to be elected, like MEPs and the House of Commons (Law makers) appointed like the Commissioners. The elected representatives in the EU Parliament are only there as window dressing for democracy, they have no powers other than to talk and sift or proof read if you prefer and then to do their masters, the Commissioners, bidding.

Its a farce, that ironically will only have the chance of survival, if Britain leaves the EU and Germany and France in particular are free to ride roughshod over the other members.
 
I Believe said:
But everyone of the British cabinet are directly elected by their constituents first. The EU Commissioners are elected by nobody, in fact many of them receive their Commissioner appointment as a 'pay off,' Kinnock, Mandelson, etc. from Britain



Now you are really having a laugh aren't you? I'll grant that they are elected, but their role is scrutiny only, they have no ability to reject only to refer policy, regulations etc. The equivalent in Britain would be if the House of Lords (Scrutinise)were to be elected, like MEPs and the House of Commons (Law makers) appointed like the Commissioners. The elected representatives in the EU Parliament are only there as window dressing for democracy, they have no powers other than to talk and sift or proof read if you prefer and then to do their masters, the Commissioners, bidding.

Its a farce, that ironically will only have the chance of survival, if Britain leaves the EU and Germany and France in particular are free to ride roughshod over the other members.
Click to expand...

I can see you're deliberately trying to mislead your Brexit pals again - let's take it step by step.

First stage: Questions: who proposes the Commissioners? How many commissioners are there from each country? Who are the Commissioners accountable to and who can dissolve the Commission by a vote of no confidence. To enhance your last point how many commissioners are there from France and how many from Germany to disprove your masters theory of the Commissioners?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I can see you're deliberately trying to mislead your Brexit pals again - let's take it step by step.

First stage: Questions: who proposes the Commissioners? How many commissioners are there from each country? Who are the Commissioners accountable to and who can dissolve the Commission by a vote of no confidence. To enhance your last point how many commissioners are there from France and how many from Germany to disprove your masters theory of the Commissioners?
Click to expand...


No misleading Paul, EU Commissioners are appointed ( 28) nominated by their respective countries, national leaders nominate the President, he allocates Commissioners their briefs. None of the commissioners receive direct public support or are subject to direct selection from the public, either in their own countries or in the wider EU constituency. The Commission takes ideas and suggestions from a range of EU bodies/experts and turns into policies/regulations. The public in general throughout the EU never see or have a chance to debate, or more importantly reject policies, etc.

Members of the House of Commons are elected by their constituents, the leader of the largest party becomes Prime Minister, they select MPs to serve in the cabinet. Policies of each party are discussed and agreed at annual Party Conferences and these form the backbone of the Party's Manifesto presented to the public at election time and later they become the basis for the Queens Speech, for the party that is elected, i.e. directly by the public.
 
I Believe said:
No misleading Paul, EU Commissioners are appointed ( 28) nominated by their respective countries, national leaders nominate the President, he allocates Commissioners their briefs. None of the commissioners receive direct public support or are subject to direct selection from the public, either in their own countries or in the wider EU constituency. The Commission takes ideas and suggestions from a range of EU bodies/experts and turns into policies/regulations. The public in general throughout the EU never see or have a chance to debate, or more importantly reject policies, etc.

Members of the House of Commons are elected by their constituents, the leader of the largest party becomes Prime Minister, they select MPs to serve in the cabinet. Policies of each party are discussed and agreed at annual Party Conferences and these form the backbone of the Party's Manifesto presented to the public at election time and later they become the basis for the Queens Speech, for the party that is elected, i.e. directly by the public.
Click to expand...

Right, so who in England voted for the DUP to have a veto over any government policy? Undemocratic with your understanding of democracy, surely?
 
A year later and the pound and economy has tanked making everyone poorer, I wonder how many Brexiteers have changed their minds now.
 
Anyone saying that the German car manufacturers won't want tariffs applied to the UK are missing a major point and obviously don't understand how businesses think.

Yes, tariffs for UK sales will make them slightly less competitive in the UK market (65m people). But a unilateral tariff on UK made goods into the EU (like Honda, Nissan, and most important, JLR) makes the UK made goods less competitive in the EU market (400m people). So for a German car manufacturer, tariffs actually help them to lock competitors from the UK out of the larger EU market.

That's before we even look at the difficulties it will cause for the UK manufacturers operating JIT with components crossing the UK - EU border several times before completion.

A 'no deal' scenario also locks UK manufacturers out of the numerous free trade deals which German manufacturers have benefitted from en route to becoming the biggest car producers in the world - trade deals which the UK are extremely unlikely to be able to replicate in any quick time.

If I'm VW, BMW or Mercedes I'm excited at the prospect of no deal - several competitors instantly hamstrung within the EU and wider world market at the cost of a slight decline in the UK market.
 
I Believe said:
No misleading Paul, EU Commissioners are appointed ( 28) nominated by their respective countries, national leaders nominate the President, he allocates Commissioners their briefs. None of the commissioners receive direct public support or are subject to direct selection from the public, either in their own countries or in the wider EU constituency. The Commission takes ideas and suggestions from a range of EU bodies/experts and turns into policies/regulations. The public in general throughout the EU never see or have a chance to debate, or more importantly reject policies, etc.

Members of the House of Commons are elected by their constituents, the leader of the largest party becomes Prime Minister, they select MPs to serve in the cabinet. Policies of each party are discussed and agreed at annual Party Conferences and these form the backbone of the Party's Manifesto presented to the public at election time and later they become the basis for the Queens Speech, for the party that is elected, i.e. directly by the public.
Click to expand...

You're doing it again by half answering the question. I'll get you there in the end. I fear it may be a long process.

Who appoints the Commissioners?
How many commissioners does Germany have - one out of 28 - what about France - one out of 28 but in your previous post it was the Commissioners running the EU and France and Germany riding roughshod over the others whereas for anything to pass the commission has to have a majority 15/28 - France and Germany equals 1+1 = 2/28 - so are the Commissioners the masters?
Another point you missed out again was who are the Commissioners accountable to - oh yes - The European Parliament, you know those 751 MEPs elected by their constituents. The same EU Parliament that can bring a vote of no confidence in the Commissioners.

Of course it's much more involved than that but at least we can dispel some myths. We're making a start.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Who appoints the Commissioners?
Click to expand...

They are appointed, not elected, that's the point, Paul. In a democracy we elect the law makers, we don't appoint them!

Paul the Wolf said:
so are the Commissioners the masters?
Click to expand...

Indeed they are, they make the policy and I never said there were more commissioners for Germany or France, every country nominates one, the President dishes out the briefs. I was making the point Germany has (perhaps we ought now to say had) more influence, with France a close second, on what the Commissioners consider in terms of strategy and policy, the National Leaders see to that, which is the 'roughshod' bit!
Macron must be having 'wet dreams' about the power he will garnish from Mrs Merkel experiencing her little local difficulties, at home, but if he doesn't get the UK to 'stump-up' and rattles his sabre too much, he will get the blame for the chaos that will ensue. Of course Mrs Merkel knows a thing or two about how and when to keep her head down!

Paul the Wolf said:
The same EU Parliament that can bring a vote of no confidence in the Commissioners.
Click to expand...

When did that last happen? Nearest thing to it, the Santer Commission Resignations, with Edith Cresson escaping real punishment with the help of the ECJ. Corruption and incompetence all rolled into one!
 
Abizzz said:
Right, so who in England voted for the DUP to have a veto over any government policy?
Click to expand...

Nobody, I suspect in England, but quite a few in NI, which if you are not familiar, is part of the UK and actually takes its seats in the Westminster Parliament.
 
I Believe said:
Nobody, I suspect in England, but quite a few in NI, which if you are not familiar, is part of the UK and actually takes its seats in the Westminster Parliament.
Click to expand...
That was a rhetorical question as a response to your rant about commissioners.
 
There's definitely been an imperial arrogance in the way the British government and Brexiteers have approached the whole issue. Right from the 'easiest deal in history' spiel, the whole thing seems to have been conceived and thus far undertaken by people who think the whole thing is just a matter of time before stupid Johnny Foreigner comes to his senses and realises just how big and important we really are and how much he needs us.
 
2mufc0 said:
A year later and the pound and economy has tanked making everyone poorer, I wonder how many Brexiteers have changed their minds now.
Click to expand...

The majority of Brexit voters were elderly so those who are still alive will be protected by triple lock pensions.

The working poor are the group who voted for it and are most affected. They just want their brexit and seemingly don't care how it affects them. This is why we have a representative democracy - reactionary idiots who need protecting from the consequences of their choices and actions.
 
KM said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/brit...rexit-trade-deals-india-liam-fox-2017-11?IR=T

Ouch.
Click to expand...
This news was in circulation since a few weeks. What has also perhaps contributed to this stance is the tightening of the Tier 2 visa rules which has certainly affected the IT firms in India.

Will be interesting to see how this will unravel, especially since Brexit was so much about being protectionist and the only way to get free trade deals from new emerging economic powerhouses would be to accept that for these countries their workforce is of highest importance and for this Britain will need to compromise.
 
I am pretty sure that the average Brexiteer (who had assured us time and time again that they aren't racist) would be happy to replace the French and the Germans with commonwealth people such as the Indians and the Pakistanis
 
NK86 said:
This news was in circulation since a few weeks. What has also perhaps contributed to this stance is the tightening of the Tier 2 visa rules which has certainly affected the IT firms in India.

Will be interesting to see how this will unravel, especially since Brexit was so much about being protectionist and the only way to get free trade deals from new emerging economic powerhouses would be to accept that for these countries their workforce is of highest importance and for this Britain will need to compromise.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If Britain thinks they can get favorable trade deals AND they can also tighten the visa rules, then I guess they're really deluded.
 
Drainy said:
The majority of Brexit voters were elderly so those who are still alive will be protected by triple lock pensions.

The working poor are the group who voted for it and are most affected. They just want their brexit and seemingly don't care how it affects them. This is why we have a representative democracy - reactionary idiots who need protecting from the consequences of their choices and actions.
Click to expand...

exactly. The elderly won't bulge because its simply not affecting them. The working poor still think that things might getting worse but will soon get better once they get rid of the EU. I wonder if they will still think the same once the benefits get a hit and they get the same working rights of a US worker
 
Last edited:
I Believe said:
They are appointed, not elected, that's the point, Paul. In a democracy we elect the law makers, we don't appoint them!

Indeed they are, they make the policy and I never said there were more commissioners for Germany or France, every country nominates one, the President dishes out the briefs. I was making the point Germany has (perhaps we ought now to say had) more influence, with France a close second, on what the Commissioners consider in terms of strategy and policy, the National Leaders see to that, which is the 'roughshod' bit!
Macron must be having 'wet dreams' about the power he will garnish from Mrs Merkel experiencing her little local difficulties, at home, but if he doesn't get the UK to 'stump-up' and rattles his sabre too much, he will get the blame for the chaos that will ensue. Of course Mrs Merkel knows a thing or two about how and when to keep her head down!

When did that last happen? Nearest thing to it, the Santer Commission Resignations, with Edith Cresson escaping real punishment with the help of the ECJ. Corruption and incompetence all rolled into one!
Click to expand...

The cabinet ministers in the UK are not elected into their posts, they are appointed by the PM. The Commissioners are not elected either and are appointed as well, one from each country based on their ability to perform the roles they been assigned to.
Yes the ministers are elected as MPs but that's it, to represent their constituents.
Let's take the 3 musketeers as an example . Safe seat MPs, you could put a shop dummy with a party rosette stuck on and they'd be voted as MPs.
Who in the UK has voted for them to be ministers ? Davis( who has no idea how the EU works) Fox (who has no idea about international trade) and Johnson (who has no idea about international relations or diplomacy). If that was put to a vote I doubt even the Brexiters would vote for them but they are leading the Uk towards catastrophe.

You have said again that the commissioners are the masters , how, it's not true. Who are these invisible invented people Brexiters talk about.

Germany and France (the UK did as well) have more MEPs because they have larger populations, that's where they have more influence, the same way as London has more MPs than Exeter or Norwich or Blackpool.

The Santer resignations were in 1999 and the Commissioners resigned before a no confidence vote was brought, even before those dreaded east Europeans joined.
Just as well British politics is whiter than white.

Next elections for the EU parliament are in 2019 just after the UK have left, and the EU commissioners will be appointed later in the year based on the election results, seats etc, Juncker will not be there after 2019.
 
Hooray. Prince Harry to marry an American lass and not a French, or worse. Another Royal Wedding, with all the pageantry, this time half American too, so probably cheerleaders or something, and Europe will watch on, faces green with envy. Honeymoon rumoured to be in Malta.
 
712 said:
Hooray. Prince Harry to marry an American lass and not a French, or worse. Another Royal Wedding, with all the pageantry, this time half American too, so probably cheerleaders or something, and Europe will watch on, faces green with envy. Honeymoon rumoured to be in Malta.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

TBF Queen Elizabeth is a big fan of the islands too. She describes her period there as the best of her life.
 
712 said:
Hooray. Prince Harry to marry an American lass and not a French, or worse. Another Royal Wedding, with all the pageantry, this time half American too, so probably cheerleaders or something, and Europe will watch on, faces green with envy. Honeymoon rumoured to be in Malta.
Click to expand...
Well I guess they needed to get it done before brexit when uk turns into a dustbowl and there is no tax money for their jolly.
 
712 said:
Nah, tradition is mother's family pays here. We might bung in a bit of extra pageantry for free as goodwill. The commonwealth countries will fight cat and dog and marsupial over the right to give them a free honeymoon though.
Click to expand...

The state will likely pay with the royal family 'contributing'. I found this about the last one..

Observers have suggested that the total will run into tens of millions of pounds, with one estimate putting the figure at £80 million for security alone.

The likely budget will not be known until the detailed arrangements for the event have been announced.

But Prince William and Kate Middleton have already come under pressure to rein in the costs, at a time of severe public spending cuts and high rates of unemployment.

A spokesman for St James’s Palace said the couple were "mindful of the economic situation" and insisted that the Royal family would pay their share.

“Both the Prince of Wales and the Queen are likely to contribute towards the cost of the wedding. It will be a family contribution but no final decision had been made,” he said.

“In particular, if the reception is held at Buckingham Palace, the Queen will pay for that.”
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-Charles-to-pay-their-share-of-the-bill.html
 
Kentonio said:
Oh yes..
Click to expand...

Seriously why should the taxpayer pay? She's probably well off and the royal family has enough money (either in the UK or in some tax haven) to foot the bill. FFS Harry is not even heir to the throne and by his looks I sometimes doubt if he's Charles son at all.
 
devilish said:
Seriously why should the taxpayer pay? She's probably well off and the royal family has enough money (either in the UK or in some tax haven) to foot the bill. FFS Harry is not even heir to the throne and by his looks I sometimes doubt if he's a Windsor too.
Click to expand...

I personally enjoyed the part about 'insisted that the Royal family would pay their share'. I might start doing that, next time I buy new clothes. I'll offer to pay 20% as my share, seems reasonable, as the public will be the ones getting to witness the glorious spectacle of seeing me wearing them.
 
Kentonio said:
I personally enjoyed the part about 'insisted that the Royal family would pay their share'. I might start doing that, next time I buy new clothes. I'll offer to pay 20% as my share, seems reasonable, as the public will be the ones getting to witness the glorious spectacle of seeing me wearing them.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. If the UK was filthy rich then by all means pay his damn wedding and let ua get over it. However the UK has been in austerity for years. Soon enough there will be a big political change which even the most staunch of Brexiters believe that it will have some negative impact on the economy (remainers and leavers differ on the scale/time). Why should the taxpayers pay for some rich person's wedding?
 
devilish said:
That's the thing. If the UK was filthy rich then by all means pay his damn wedding and let ua get over it. However the UK has been in austerity for years. Soon enough there will be a big political change which even the most staunch of Brexiters believe that it will have some negative impact on the economy (remainers and leavers differ on the scale/time). Why should the taxpayers pay for some rich person's wedding?
Click to expand...

The royal family are experts at getting the public to want to pay for things for them. I'm not even anti-monarchy, but it does piss me off.
 
Apparently she's 36, so it will likely be Royal Wedding followed by Royal Babies. The country will make billions from yanks coming over to see Kensington palace. On the debit side she sounds a bit Welsh, and Jeremy Kyle viewers are complaining their programme was interrupted by a newsflash. Who cares, I'm off to buy shares in Wedgwood pottery.
 
devilish said:
Jeez Brit taxpayers do love being taken for suckers.
Click to expand...

Kentonio said:
Oh yes..
Click to expand...

I was very anti monarchy when I was growing up. I still have little interest in them but it can't be denied that a lot of people take a lot of emotional value from them.

Keeping them is of small cost to the tax payer on an individual level. The Royals add value to the economy, how much I'm not sure but they carry a more intangible value for many people too.
 
Kentonio said:
The royal family are experts at getting the public to want to pay for things for them. I'm not even anti-monarchy, but it does piss me off.
Click to expand...


neither am I. Actually it makes sense to have people who are groomed since childhood to represent the country. Malta's president is a decent person but jeez she's all over the place in terms of etiquette, diplomacy etc.

However there should be a limit of how many family members the British taxpayer should fork money for. Maybe 3 (queen/king, 2nd in line and 3rd in line?). Some of the extended family could be employed on civil servants conditions (same salary and perks) while the others should find a job like the rest of us.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I was very anti monarchy when I was growing up. I still have little interest in them but it can't be denied that a lot of people take a lot of emotional value from them.

Keeping them is of small cost to the tax payer on an individual level. The Royals add value to the economy, how much I'm not sure but they carry a more intangible value for many people too.
Click to expand...

And they bring the generations together, which is something we need, apparently. Look at the cheering throngs that gather along the palace railings, they're from every generation. Actually when they're interviewed half of them are foreigners as well, you could say the Royal Family is our gift to the world.
 
712 said:
And they bring the generations together, which is something we need, apparently. Look at the cheering throngs that gather along the palace railings, they're from every generation. Actually when they're interviewed half of them are foreigners as well, you could say the Royal Family is our gift to the world.
Click to expand...

More importantly, she's probably the hottest royal bint in living memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.