Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Full bodied red]

I did say it was one of the reasons. I'll be waiting to find out how these people's lives have been improved by voting as they did in say 5 years time

Hope I'm still around by then !!! The way I feel this week, might not even make it to Brexit Day - Frau FBR dragged me on on a 200km 'randonne' last week through the Alps with a couple of friends, and still unbelievably stiff everywhere except where I'd love to be unbelievably stiff. Ah well.....

Even worse, off to the Dark Continent tomorrow for four or five weeks to help create a few more millionaires in the Nigerian and Angolan Customs Authorities, lol.

Hope the networks in our offices hold up - otherwise, that's it from me till I get back.

 

[Wibble]

The EU doesn't create wealth for everyone - the cake is a finite size, and everytime you give people more than they contribute to making it, it means somone else receives less that they contribute to making it.

That is how running a small corner shop might work but it is utter rubbish at the scale of a continent wide multi-nation economy.

 

[Full bodied red]

That is how running a small corner shop might work but it is utter rubbish at the scale of a continent wide multi-nation economy.

Go on then....

Convince me how the EU creates wealth in the same way that its individual members do.

It doesn't - it simply redistributes the membership fees....Some countries win, others lose out.

I remember a few months ago making you a personal offer that I thought you wouldn't be able to resist as it was based exactly on the EU's very own 'collect and spend' money carousel which you appear to think is so wonderful.

Strangely, you declined.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

true

Cameron's promise for a Brexit referendum was a centerpiece of Tory party GE strategy. It was not some ridiculous proposal buried deep in their manifesto whom no one would ever take seriously. Whoever voted that day knew exactly what they were voting for.

I agree whole heartedly with you in this post.

 

[devilish]

But would they have won the election if they hadn't, serious question, after all they needed the Liberals in 2010 and they need the DUP now.

I think they would but that's not the issue here. Whoever voted for the Tory party during that particular election was also voting for a Brexit Referendum with all the risks attached to it. Was it the only thing they voted for? Probably not. But they did vote for it.

I think that decision was even more simple to understand then Brexit itself. In the latter case the Brexiters came with a number of strategies they could make this a success (From re-negotiating with the EU for better terms, right to a cherry picking deal, EFTA, EEA and hard Brexit). In the former case it was Tory Party in government = Brexit referendum. No smokescreens, no lies, no different strategies.

 

[devilish]

I agree with you about the politicians but if you are going to vote one way or the other, make sure that you have the correct information, even now 99% of the population couldn't name an EU law that infringes on their personal life but many voted because of that amongst many other things they were lied to about.

The biggest advantage Brexiters had over the Remain camp was that they seem to have an ad hoc plan for everybody. It offered hard brexit to the isolationists. It offered a cherry picking deal to those who wanted the best of both worlds. It offered an EEA/EFTA deal to those who believed that a cherry picking deal wasn't possible and it offered to renegotiate EU membership with a stronger hand to those who wanted the UK to remain in the EU but who weren't exactly happy with the current package deal. The remainers had only 1 deal to offer and that was the current EU membership with its set of positives that were being taken for granted and its set of flaws whom everybody knew about.

That strategy won the battle but will leave a big chunk of people with a very sour taste. Its mathematically impossible to please everybody at the same time.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

It doesn't matter what your point is cos if you don't want a referendum vote someone else or don't vote at all, it's quite simple, I'd expect a five year old to understand it.

I'd go further even than this. What type of a person voted Tory (or would have if given the opportunity to vote) to enable the referendum while believing that leaving the EU would be an unprecedented disaster and then claims during the referendum that leaving is too big a risk to run?

It strikes me a pretty obvious that if you feel so strongly that there is a huge risk you don't start the whole thing rolling by voting for the referendum party.

It also makes you a massive hypocrite to then start calling those who voted leave stupid after that incredibly dumb move bites you in the ass.

Yeah if you were not that bothered either way but voted conservative even though remain edged it for you in the referendum then I can see how that works logically but to be so adamantly against leaving and vote Tory takes some pretty special thinking.

 

[rcoobc]

Go on then....

Convince me how the EU creates wealth in the same way that its individual members do.

It doesn't - it simply redistributes the membership fees....Some countries win, others lose out.

I remember a few months ago making you a personal offer that I thought you wouldn't be able to resist as it was based exactly on the EU's very own 'collect and spend' money carousel which you appear to think is so wonderful.

Strangely, you declined.

No. No no no no no no no.

The EU, the Single Market, and the Customs Union, lower the fees we all pay when purchasing goods.

With 28 sets of regulations, a TV manufacturer has a large cost to do business in Europe; they've got to comply with each set of rules and may have to find different materials to use depending on the country. Or maybe a car manufacturer would have to create 28 (or 32) different versions of their car to comply with 28 (or 32) different standards.

That adds cost. By setting the same requirement across the board, those costs are removed (or at least, reduced greatly)

When shipping goods, running into customs adds a fair amount of cost, both to the shipping companies and to the governments running them. I'm not even talking about import and export duties here, I'm talking about the physical costs of goods being checked (even electronically) and the hours wasted talking to manufacturers, and hauliers, and customs agents, and HMRC. etc. It probably isn't an understatement to say that customs costs at least £500 per load of goods. Now if the average sales cost of those goods is £50,000 that obviously isn't breaking the bank (adding only 1% to the total cost), but a cost it is.

Now let's have a look at what happens when you increase cost to no gain.

Increasing costs puts pressure on businesses. These businesses pass these costs onto the consumers, who are then poorer. The consumers will then purchase less of the product, which will again put pressure onto businesses. Some companies who operate on slim margins simply won't be able to continue, which will result in job-losses and further economic downturn.

So let's reverse that.

Reduced costs relieves pressure on businesses. A greater margin for profits allows new businesses to be created and new investment to come in. Jobs and opportunities will be created which in turn will make people richer, and continue the upward trend.

To take things to extremes; no one would import goods from abroad if it cost £1m per item to do so. No one could afford to buy an iPhone if a Lion battery cost £100k. People will have less money to spend if the government pointless charges them lots of tax.

So yes, the EU creates wealth. The single market creates wealth. The Customs Union creates wealth.

 

[rcoobc]

Now obviously there are downsides to the EU too.

Cheap Eastern European labour puts a downward trend on wages of people in Western Europe. That makes more money for big business in the short term, but takes jobs and money away from consumers, which also hurts the big business.

EU regulations that are over zealously applied without thought cause problems (fish being thrown back, diesel cars being purchased, maybe even cladding being put on buildings)

It adds another layer of government to pay for

I'm not going to including manufacturing being moved to Eastern Europe... because I don't think that happens that much. Eastern Europe probably isn't cheap enough to really compete with China.

 

[devilish]

I'd go further even than this. What type of a person voted Tory (or would have if given the opportunity to vote) to enable the referendum while believing that leaving the EU would be an unprecedented disaster and then claims during the referendum that leaving is too big a risk to run?

It strikes me a pretty obvious that if you feel so strongly that there is a huge risk you don't start the whole thing rolling by voting for the referendum party.

It also makes you a massive hypocrite to then start calling those who voted leave stupid after that incredibly dumb move bites you in the ass.

Yeah if you were not that bothered either way but voted conservative even though remain edged it for you in the referendum then I can see how that works logically but to be so adamantly against leaving and vote Tory takes some pretty special thinking.

I geniunely struggle to understand why the Tories are constantly being voted in. Their hero is Maggie Thatcher the person responsible of sending half the UK into poverty. They are the people who made tertiary education among the most expensive in Europe. They constantly mismanage the NHS and they only seem to care about those who are filthy rich and the old. Never had been a party in Europe who personificates Mr Burns (Simpsons) better then the Tories

Some might say that the left is too left for their taste (and I agree especially with JC in command). But for christ sake there are other parties that can be voted in.

 

[Full bodied red]

No. No no no no no no no.

The EU, the Single Market, and the Customs Union, lower the fees we all pay when purchasing goods.

With 28 sets of regulations, a TV Manufacture has a large cost to do business in Europe; they've got to comply with each set of rules and may have to find different materials to use depending on the country. Or maybe a car manufacturer would have to create 28 (or 32) different versions of their car to comply with 28 (or 32) different standards.

That adds cost. By setting the same requirement across the board, those costs are removed.

When shipping goods, running into customs adds a fair amount of cost, both to the shipping companies and to the governments running them. I'm not even talking about import and export duties here, I'm talking about the physical costs of goods being checked (even electronically) and the hours wasted talking to manufacturers, and hauliers, and customs agents, and HMRC. etc. It probably isn't an understatement to say that customs costs at least £500 per load of goods. Now if the average sales cost of those goods is £50,000 that obviously isn't breaking the bank (adding only 1% to the total cost), but a cost it is.

Now let's have a look at what happens when you increase cost to no gain.

Increasing costs puts pressure on businesses. These businesses pass these costs onto the consumers, who are then poorer. The consumers will then purchase less of the product, which will again put pressure onto businesses. Some companies who operate on slim margins simply won't be able to continue, which will result in job-losses and further economic downturn.

So let's reverse that.

Reduced costs relieves pressure on businesses. A greater margin for profits allows new businesses to be created and new investment to come in. Jobs and opportunities will be created which in turn will make people richer, and continue the upward trend.

To take things to extremes; no one would import goods from abroad if it cost £1m per item to do so. No one could afford to buy an iPhone if a Lion battery cost £100k. People will have less money to spend if the government pointless charges them lots of tax.

So yes, the EU creates wealth. The single market creates wealth. The Customs Union creates wealth.

Agree with some of what you say, and disagree with the rest because everything you say could be achieved without the EU and, instead, a straightforward Trading Bloc that doesn't need its own Parliament, its own defence force, its own Courts of Law and Judiciary, its own Foreign Ambassadors, etc, etc, etc.

But guess what....It's your lucky day....Wibble's place on my Wealth Creation Club is still vacant....You want to join instead of him ?

 

[rcoobc]

Agree with some of what you say, and disagree with the rest because everything you say could be achieved without the EU and, instead, a straightforward Trading Bloc that doesn't need its own Parliament, its own defence force, its own Courts of Law and Judiciary, its own Foreign Ambasadors, etc, etc, etc.

But guess what....It's your lucky day....Wibble's place on my Wealth Creation Club is still vacant....You want to join instead of him ?

Indeed, and that's the crux really. The leavers see the EU as a big waste (because it is). The remainers see the EU as saving them money and creating wealth (because it does). In the end, both of those things are true.

The EU needed reforming, but I can't comprehend how we are going to save more than we lose with Brexit. It's not going to happen. Reform had to happen from the inside.

 

[rcoobc]

Bad analogy time

10 people live in a house. The first earns £1500, the second £1600, the third £1700, etc.

The landlord charges £1000, leaving the first with £500 to live on. The richest amongst them has £1400 left over, and he often buys everyone in the house gifts.

The landlord puts the rent up to £1100. The person earning only £1500 can no longer afford to live there, and moves out. The person earning £2400 is a bit poorer and buys everyone remaining less presents. The landlord actually takes less rent, as the man earning £1000 can no longer live there; the total rent is reduced from £10000 to £9900.

So the landlord changes his mind, and reduces his rent to £900. The man earning £1500 moves back in along with his friend earning £1400. At the end of that new month, the landlord takes in £9900 again and is a bit annoyed his cunning plan hasn't earnt him more money, but everyone else is richer, and everyone gets gifts

 

[711]

The biggest advantage Brexiters had over the Remain camp was that they seem to have an ad hoc plan for everybody. It offered hard brexit to the isolationists. It offered a cherry picking deal to those who wanted the best of both worlds. It offered an EEA/EFTA deal to those who believed that a cherry picking deal wasn't possible and it offered to renegotiate EU membership with a stronger hand to those who wanted the UK to remain in the EU but who weren't exactly happy with the current package deal. The remainers had only 1 deal to offer and that was the current EU membership with its set of positives that were being taken for granted and its set of flaws whom everybody knew about.

That's a good analysis.

On a separate note I see you've joined the crowd who think Tories look after the old. I'll give you the old and rich, but they're quite a minority, most old are in the just managing, with an awful lot in simple poverty. Historically it's the left that have helped the old (including the Liberals), introducing pensions, housing subsidy, the NHS and free travel, all vital to them. That's all just extra taxes to the Tories, if they dare cut them out they would.

 

[devilish]

That's a good analysis.

On a separate note I see you've joined the crowd who think Tories look after the old. I'll give you the old and rich, but they're quite a minority, most old are in the just managing, with an awful lot in simple poverty. Historically it's the left that have helped the old (including the Liberals), introducing pensions, housing subsidy, the NHS and free travel, all vital to them. That's all just extra taxes to the Tories, if they dare cut them out they would.

So who vote for them? I genuinely interested to know

 

[Full bodied red]

Indeed, and that's the crux really. The leavers see the EU as a big waste (because it is). The remainers see the EU as saving them money and creating wealth (because it does). In the end, both of those things are true.

The EU needed reforming, but I can't comprehend how we are going to save more than we lose with Brexit. It's not going to happen. Reform had to happen from the inside.

And pigs might fly.

The EU is only going to move in one direction - more integration, more centralisation, more 'harmonisation', and yet more one-size-fits-all economic and political policies as long as they fit France and Germany.

If the UK really could have reformed things from within, those reforms would already have happened.

They couldn't and they didn't - even when Cameron and the EU knew the high risks of not reforming, Cameron couldn't and the EU wouldn't.

Equally bad analogy time....

Don't like the management and the way they run things at your Golf Club ?

Go join a different club ! Until you get used to the new course, your scores are not going to be as good, obviously, but eventually you get the hang of the new course, your scores eventually get back to the levels they were before, you'll make new friends and partners, and you won't spend all your time between games grumbling about what the set of stupid areseholes who run the club are doing with the money you pay them every year for your membership while other members are playing for free.

 

[rcoobc]

That's a good analysis.

On a separate note I see you've joined the crowd who think Tories look after the old. I'll give you the old and rich, but they're quite a minority, most old are in the just managing, with an awful lot in simple poverty. Historically it's the left that have helped the old (including the Liberals), introducing pensions, housing subsidy, the NHS and free travel, all vital to them. That's all just extra taxes to the Tories, if they dare cut them out they would.

Id say the Tories have been screwing over the elderly the least of any group though.

Back before Tony Blair came in, the Tories were proposing scrapping the state pension (replacing it with a work-earned pension, of "equal or greater value"). Tony Blair ran on a policy of keeping the state pension, and allowing disruptive kids who harass pensioners to be jailed easier.

Whether pensioners are mostly "just managing" or "living in poverty" as you say, I haven't seen much media evidence of that, but you might be right. What I often see is pensioners owning a house worth £300k with little or no mortgage, and not being able to afford to keep it. I mean isn't that what the Dementia tax was all about, allowing the elderly to keep their houses whilst they are alive.

Can someone who owns their own property be "just about managing" when the youth today have nothing saved in the bank and are stuck renting?

In other countries where it would be standard for elderly parents to live with their elder children, this isn't a problem. The children help the elderly parents with day to day life (instead of just sticking them in a home), and the elderly parents have some money from selling their houses to pay for medical treatment.

British culture is simply wrong here, and I suspect there is a lot of resentment between generations because of it. Older generations need to live with younger generations.

 

[rcoobc]

And pigs might fly.

The EU is only going to move in one direction - more integration, more centralisation, more 'harmonisation', and yet more one-size-fits-all economic and political policies as long as they fit France and Germany.

If the UK really could have reformed things from within, those reforms would already have happened.

They couldn't and they didn't - even when Cameron and the EU knew the high risks of not reforming, Cameron couldn't and the EU wouldn't.

Don't like the management and the way they run things at your Golf Club ?

Go join a different club ! Until you get used to the new course, your scores are not going to be as good, obviously, but eventually you get the hang of the new course, your scores eventually get back to the levels they were before, and you won't spend all your time between games grumbling about what the set of stupid areseholes who run the club are doing with the money you pay them every year for your membership while other members are playing for free.

The EU is young though. We aren't talking about the House of Lords that have existed for hundreds of years without being reformed.

2004 - Eastern Block join (without below)
2007 - Lisbon Treaty
2007 - Bulgaria and Romania join
2012 - Treaty on the functioning of the EU (makes negotiating FTAs easier)
2012-14 - Bulgaria and Romania Free Movement lifted
2013 - Croatia join
2018 - Croatia free movement lifted

I don't understand the criticism of the rate of European reform. It happens far faster than the rate of UK reform. Since 2007 the treaties have pretty much stopped, it is true, for two reasons:

1) The EU is at a crossroads.
2) The 2008 global financial crisis.

The EU is only going to move in one direction - more integration, more centralisation, more 'harmonisation', and yet more one-size-fits-all economic and political policies as long as they fit France and Germany.

And that's... bad? Sorry, but I've just spent the last 5 posts giving examples of economic theory about how harmonisation is good, integration is good, and so on. The UK has always been the wet blanket to this slumber party, but I can't really see why.



Let's talk defence. Why do we not want an EU Army? Would that be so bad? Why not spend 20% of our defence budget on EU Defence? I mean firstly, it's a fun bit of sport amongst leavers to blame the EU for what happened in Yugoslavia (quite why I don't know) despite the blame really lying at everyone from Bill Clinton to the United Nations. Maybe the EU could have done something there with an EU army and an EU foreign policy. But quite besides that, Russia are still a real threat to the Eastern Bloc countries (as we've seen in Ukraine, and Georgia, and elsewhere). Having a united EU army that can quickly respond to an event seems quite sensible all things considered.

Go join a different club ! Until you get used to the new course, your scores are not going to be as good, obviously, but eventually you get the hang of the new course, your scores eventually get back to the levels they were before, and you won't spend all your time between games grumbling about what the set of stupid areseholes who run the club are doing with the money you pay them every year for your membership while other members are playing for free.

Thats the problem isn't it, very few MPs or businesses wanted to leave.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I think they would but that's not the issue here. Whoever voted for the Tory party during that particular election was also voting for a Brexit Referendum with all the risks attached to it. Was it the only thing they voted for? Probably not. But they did vote for it.

I think that decision was even more simple to understand then Brexit itself. In the latter case the Brexiters came with a number of strategies they could make this a success (From re-negotiating with the EU for better terms, right to a cherry picking deal, EFTA, EEA and hard Brexit). In the former case it was Tory Party in government = Brexit referendum. No smokescreens, no lies, no different strategies.

But this all revisionism which is trying to put all the blame totally on the tories (and trying to drag me in, haha). Brexiters have no plan now, nevermind at the time of the referendum and even less so at the time of the GE2015.
I understand what people are saying - and if I had been around at the time who knows because I have no idea what was in the liberal or labour manifestos or even in the tory manifesto. The last PM who got in that I voted for was Major in 1992 and that didn't turn out well followed by 10 years of Blair before I left. The same people who were hailing Blair at the time can't stand him now.

You say other parties can be voted in, who? Labour no, UKIP definitely not. Liberals and Greens and so on, waste of a vote.

Sorry but the problems of Brexit are firmly in the hands of those who voted for it, but apparently they couldn't help themselves , so I was right all the time, they have no mind of their own.

 

[devilish]

But this all revisionism which is trying to put all the blame totally on the tories (and trying to drag me in, haha). Brexiters have no plan now, nevermind at the time of the referendum and even less so at the time of the GE2015.
I understand what people are saying - and if I had been around at the time who knows because I have no idea what was in the liberal or labour manifestos or even in the tory manifesto. The last PM who got in that I voted for was Major in 1992 and that didn't turn out well followed by 10 years of Blair before I left. The same people who were hailing Blair at the time can't stand him now.

You say other parties can be voted in, who? Labour no, UKIP definitely not. Liberals and Greens and so on, waste of a vote.

Sorry but the problems of Brexit are firmly in the hands of those who voted for it, but apparently they couldn't help themselves , so I was right all the time, they have no mind of their own.

They were the only mainstream party who was willing to offer a Brexit referendum. Once they offered such referendum they used it as a catfight even though very few of them genuinely believed in Brexit. So seriously they are the ones to blame.

And before you say I am pro labour I assure you that I am not. The last warning I got was because I went too hard (in my opinion I didn't) on JC.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

They were the only mainstream party who was willing to offer a Brexit referendum. Once they offered such referendum they used it as a catfight even though very few of them genuinely believed in Brexit. So seriously they are the ones to blame.

And before you say I am pro labour I assure you that I am not. The last warning I got was because I went too hard (in my opinion I didn't) on JC.

I agree they were stupid to offer the referendum but even if they didn't someone would have at some point, say Labour got in under JC , wouldn't he do it. Why do you think he kept so quiet during the run-up to the referendum. I don't blame any particular party, apart from UKIP of course, because it's right across the board. Some tories voted for Brexit as did some Labour and some Liberal and most of UKIP.
It's like blaming a car manufacturer because you deliberately drove one of their cars into a brick wall.

 

[devilish]

I agree they were stupid to offer the referendum but even if they didn't someone would have at some point, say Labour got in under JC , wouldn't he do it. Why do you think he kept so quiet during the run-up to the referendum. I don't blame any particular party, apart from UKIP of course, because it's right across the board. Some tories voted for Brexit as did some Labour and some Liberal and most of UKIP.
It's like blaming a car manufacturer because you deliberately drove one of their cars into a brick wall.

If JC did then I would be blaming him instead. You don't toy with populism without risking of biting your arse back really hard especially since it was the Tories who created this inequality in the UK between London and, well, the rest

 

[Paul the Wolf]

If JC did then I would be blaming him instead. You don't toy with populism without risking of biting your arse back really hard especially since it was the Tories who created this inequality in the UK between London and, well, the rest

I'm not saying it wasn't a mistake and populism raised it's head in various different places. The USA ended up with Trump, the Uk got Brexit. France could have got Le Pen, Holland could have got Wilders but they didn't because enough people didn't vote for them. Remember Brexit is supposedly the "will of the people" so denying the opportunity would supposedly be undemocratic.

 

[Stanley Road]

France could have got Le Pen, Holland could have got Wilders but they didn't because enough people didn't vote for them. Remember Brexit is supposedly the "will of the people" so denying the opportunity would supposedly be undemocratic.

Holland is still without government, France got an unpopular ex banker. The dutch have refused to deal with the 2nd biggest party which, imo, is refusing to recognise the votes of many people.

And with all these elections EU leaders stuck their fkin noses in and so did Obama, disgraceful.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Holland is still without government, France got an unpopular ex banker. The dutch have refused to deal with the 2nd biggest party which, imo, is refusing to recognise the votes of many people.

And with all these elections EU leaders stuck their fkin noses in and so did Obama, disgraceful.

Isn't Holland always like that?
France could have got the most incompetent president ever, would have made Hollande look like a genius.
Who was to blame if those two had got elected?

 

[711]

In other countries where it would be standard for elderly parents to live with their elder children, this isn't a problem. The children help the elderly parents with day to day life (instead of just sticking them in a home), and the elderly parents have some money from selling their houses to pay for medical treatment.

British culture is simply wrong here, and I suspect there is a lot of resentment between generations because of it. Older generations need to live with younger generations.

You should love me then rube, I've got two very grown-up children living with me!

 

[rcoobc]

You should love me then rube, I've got two very grown-up children living with me!

I won't ask you if there is resentment between you and the kids

 

[711]

I won't ask you if there is resentment between you and the kids

 

[Mozza]

Go on then....

Convince me how the EU creates wealth in the same way that its individual members do.

It doesn't - it simply redistributes the membership fees....Some countries win, others lose out.

I remember a few months ago making you a personal offer that I thought you wouldn't be able to resist as it was based exactly on the EU's very own 'collect and spend' money carousel which you appear to think is so wonderful.

Strangely, you declined.

If you belive that the EU doesn't create wealth than you must also belive that no Government spending does

 

[Mozza]

Agree with some of what you say, and disagree with the rest because everything you say could be achieved without the EU and, instead, a straightforward Trading Bloc that doesn't need its own Parliament, its own defence force, its own Courts of Law and Judiciary, its own Foreign Ambassadors, etc, etc, etc.

But guess what....It's your lucky day....Wibble's place on my Wealth Creation Club is still vacant....You want to join instead of him ?

If it could be achieved without the EU why wasn't it done before the EU? Why hasn't it been done in other parts of the world?

 

[Stanley Road]

Isn't Holland always like that?
France could have got the most incompetent president ever, would have made Hollande look like a genius.
Who was to blame if those two had got elected?

No its not always like that, last one was the 2 biggest parties, labour and center right. It was fkin awful.

If the other 2 would have got elected it would have been interesting, not the usual middle of the road neoliberal crap we've all got tired of.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

.

If the other 2 would have got elected it would have been interesting, not the usual middle of the road neoliberal crap we've all got tired of.

Wonderful, far right Nazi style incompetence, like voting for Trump and Brexit, vote for a change, vote for something worse, voted by the people, grass is always greener

 

[Oscie]

Davis promised within days of the vote the car manufacturers would be banging on Merkel's door demanding Britain have unfettered access to the single market. He said that negotiations over the final settlement would be concluded almost immediately. He said that by now we'd be balls deep into negotiating new and exciting trade deals with foreign markets.

Personally I think this at worst arrogance, at best incompetence, is actually great news for the country. I feared it would take years for people to realise that leaving was a massive mistake. This shambles is making it likely that people realise it before we actually leave and put a stop to the nonsense.

Davis seems pissed all the time too. Not an angry, slurring way. But he's always smirking and aloof. Turns up at negotiations for twenty minutes, doesn't bring any notes with him. Former advisors suggest he only works part time. He doesn't seem to even know what the process is, let alone make progress within it. Even on television his demeanour is someone who's just had a couple of nice sherries. I'm not convinced we having got a a piss-head leading our negotiations.

 

[Stanley Road]

Davis promised within days of the vote the car manufacturers would be banging on Merkel's door demanding Britain have unfettered access to the single market. He said that negotiations over the final settlement would be concluded almost immediately. He said that by now we'd be balls deep into negotiating new and exciting trade deals with foreign markets.

Personally I think this at worst arrogance, at best incompetence, is actually great news for the country. I feared it would take years for people to realise that leaving was a massive mistake. This shambles is making it likely that people realise it before we actually leave and put a stop to the nonsense.

Davis seems pissed all the time too. Not an angry, slurring way. But he's always smirking and aloof. Turns up at negotiations for twenty minutes, doesn't bring any notes with him. Former advisors suggest he only works part time. He doesn't seem to even know what the process is, let alone make progress within it. Even on television his demeanour is someone who's just had a couple of nice sherries. I'm not convinced we having got a a piss-head leading our negotiations.

Well I agree we have some nobs on our side but look at the garbage on the other side. Fkinell, how I hate them despicable cnuts.

Incidentally I have a few friends from the Philippines that think Duterte is doing a fantastic job. So you see, getting something different is not always bad for all people.

 

[Oscie]

Well I agree we have some nobs on our side but look at the garbage on the other side. Fkinell, how I hate them despicable cnuts.

Incidentally I have a few friends from the Philippines that think Duterte is doing a fantastic job. So you see, getting something different is not always bad for all people.

Which side, EU or Labour?

 

[rcoobc]

If it could be achieved without the EU why wasn't it done before the EU? Why hasn't it been done in other parts of the world?

At a tangent to your question, if Trumpeconomics and Brexiteconomics don't prove to have long term popularity, I suspect we could see a 40-50 nation free trade area in 20 years time (2-3 generations in politics)

We already see the beginnings of it with the EU, EFTA, USA, Canada, Mexico, Japan and South Korea. All of whom are expected to have FTA with nearly all the others over the next few years. Then just add Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Singapore, and maybe a few others.

That would account for 60% of the worlds GDP.

At which point, you might begin to wonder if it's worth having separate customs policies. Incidentally, the one country that doesn't belong on that list is Mexico, their GDP per capita is a magnitude lower than all the others... but they are already a part of it so not much you can do there.

Where China will be in 20 years though who knows.

 

[Full bodied red]

And that's... bad? Sorry, but I've just spent the last 5 posts giving examples of economic theory about how harmonisation is good, integration is good, and so on. The UK has always been the wet blanket to this slumber party, but I can't really see why.

Because the majority of the citizens of the UK want to remain citizens of the UK - not the 28th State of The United States of Europe.

We can argue amongst ourselves until the cows come home whether they are right / wrong / deluded / living in the past / selfish / what-have-you, but that's the reality. And the more the EU pushes its ideology on those people, the more those people in the UK pushed back. For some people, and the majority in the UK and an ioncreasing minority in other EU States, there's more to life and personal identity than money.


Let's talk defence. Why do we not want an EU Army? Would that be so bad? Why not spend 20% of our defence budget on EU Defence? I mean firstly, it's a fun bit of sport amongst leavers to blame the EU for what happened in Yugoslavia (quite why I don't know) despite the blame really lying at everyone from Bill Clinton to the United Nations. Maybe the EU could have done something there with an EU army and an EU foreign policy. But quite besides that, Russia are still a real threat to the Eastern Bloc countries (as we've seen in Ukraine, and Georgia, and elsewhere). Having a united EU army that can quickly respond to an event seems quite sensible all things considered.

That's too idealistic and too unrealistic by far. An EU Defence Force would need to get the OK from 28 ( OK, now 27 ) different Governements before it got round to firing its first shot in anger / retaliation - the Russians could be at Calais and the disparates within the 27 different National Governments would still be arguing at a National Level, let alone an EU level, what action to take. Or are you saying that the EU should take precedence over independent and sovereign states when it comes to deciding who to shoot at ?

The famous argument....

Would you die for your country ?

Well....Don't want to, but if I had to....

Would you die for the EU ?

No feckin' chance !


If you belive that the EU doesn't create wealth than you must also belive that no Government spending does

Governements can create wealth ( or poverty ) through economic policy.

The EU does not have a 28-fold economic policy - so how can it be said to be creating wealth ? It might contribute, as Roobc says says, in laying down the rules for potential exporters to the EU.

But the EU is not ( or better phrased, SHOULD NOT BE ) a Government - it simply collects cash from other governments and countries and, indirectly, me and you as tax payers - all those parts of society that actually create wealth - and then dibs it out as it wants.

Unless, of course, the EU really does have a common, one-size-fits-all-as-long-as-its-the-right-size-for-France-and-Germany economic policy.


If it could be achieved without the EU why wasn't it done before the EU? Why hasn't it been done in other parts of the world?

Well it was - in Europe it was called the Common Market.

And in Asia its called AFTA - Asian Free Trading Area

And in N America it's called NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement

And in Africa it's called AFTZ - African Free Trade Zone.

None of them require members to provide financial support to each other; none of them require Freedon of Movement of economic migrants; none of them have a common currency; none of them has its own parliament, foreign ambassadors, national anthem and flag; and none of them have their own, combined defence force.

 

[rcoobc]

And that's... bad? Sorry, but I've just spent the last 5 posts giving examples of economic theory about how harmonisation is good, integration is good, and so on. The UK has always been the wet blanket to this slumber party, but I can't really see why.

Because the majority of the citizens of the UK want to remain citizens of the UK - not the 28th State of The United States of Europe.

We can argue amongst ourselves until the cows come home whether they are right / wrong / deluded / living in the past / selfish / what-have-you, but that's the reality. And the more the EU pushes its ideology on those people, the more those people in the UK pushed back. For some people, and the majority in the UK and an increasing minority in other EU States, there's more to life and personal identity than money.

The EU pushes it's ideology? What ideology? The only pushing going on is from the Telegraph, Express and Daily Mail having printing their daily Euro-lie.

I really worry about education in this country. I learnt nothing about the EU at school.. it needs to be taught in primary and secondary. Well, before anyway.

Because the majority of the citizens of the UK want to remain citizens of the UK - not the 28th State of The United States of Europe.

Yeah, and that's fair enough, but we had an opt-out for that. So again, what's the problem.

A United States of Europe is exactly what Churchill called for (although he didn't think we'd be in it). Still, he once floated the idea of merging with France, so to assume Churchill wouldn't want that is folly too.

Let's talk defence. Why do we not want an EU Army? Would that be so bad? Why not spend 20% of our defence budget on EU Defence? I mean firstly, it's a fun bit of sport amongst leavers to blame the EU for what happened in Yugoslavia (quite why I don't know) despite the blame really lying at everyone from Bill Clinton to the United Nations. Maybe the EU could have done something there with an EU army and an EU foreign policy. But quite besides that, Russia are still a real threat to the Eastern Bloc countries (as we've seen in Ukraine, and Georgia, and elsewhere). Having a united EU army that can quickly respond to an event seems quite sensible all things considered.

That's too idealistic and too unrealistic by far. An EU Defence Force would need to get the OK from 28 ( OK, now 27 ) different Governements before it got round to firing its first shot in anger / retaliation - the Russians could be at Calais and the disparates within the 27 different National Governments would still be arguing at a National Level, let alone an EU level, what action to take. Or are you saying that the EU should take precedence over independent and sovereign states when it comes to deciding who to shoot at ?

Unrealistic? An EU Defence force is happening IMO. Countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Romania, etc, cannot compete with Russia. NATO is also not a complete deterrent (or any deterrent at all) - Russia can meddle with the internal structure of the country.

The EU Army will likely be entirely used for defence and peace-keeping, not waging war elsewhere, and use only a fraction of the resources of the member states, but it would be a formidable opponent altogether.

Also... we have coalitions of countries waging wall all the time. Not only in obvious places like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan... but you've got American planes refilling Saudia Arabian bombers in mid-air as the strike Yemen targets. There is nothing to stop an EU army functioning... although you're right, no one country would likely be able to have veto power

 

[Mozza]

Governements can create wealth ( or poverty ) through economic policy.

The EU does not have a 28-fold economic policy - so how can it be said to be creating wealth ? It might contribute, as Roobc says says, in laying down the rules for potential exporters to the EU.

But the EU is not ( or better phrased, SHOULD NOT BE ) a Government - it simply collects cash from other governments and countries and, indirectly, me and you as tax payers - all those parts of society that actually create wealth - and then dibs it out as it wants.

Unless, of course, the EU really does have a common, one-size-fits-all-as-long-as-its-the-right-size-for-France-and-Germany economic policy.

This I'd getting daft now. It's spending is the physical result of it's economic policy, it doesn't collect money for shits and giggles.
If it's policy only suits France and Germany how are they net contributors to its budget. Surely they should be getting more out of the EU than they put in?

You're sounding like a true Tory, 'it's not government's that create wealth but private business'. They are not mutually exclusive

Well it was - in Europe it was called the Common Market.

And in Asia its called AFTA - Asian Free Trading Area

And in N America it's called NAFTA - North American Trade Agreement

And in Africa it's called AFTZ - African Free Trade Zone.

None of them require members to provide financial support to each other; none of them require Freedon of Movement of economic migrants; none of them have a common currency; none of them has its own parliament, foreign ambassadors, national anthem and flag; and none of them have their own, combined defence force.

Non are as comprehensive as the EU

Fredom of movement is a good thing. I could go tomorrow to Germany to make a deal for my business, I wouldn't need a visa, wouldn't need a permit. If that right didn't exist everything takes more time, and that is the greatest non tariff barrier of all

The common currency helps facilitate trade

The Parliament mostly deals with delivering a better single market

You are against the existence of NATO too then?

 

[Full bodied red]

The EU pushes it's ideology? What ideology? The only pushing going on is from the Telegraph, Express and Daily Mail having printing their daily Euro-lie.

I really worry about education in this country. I learnt nothing about the EU at school.. it needs to be taught in primary and secondary. Well, before anyway.

Hey....Much as I detest the HateMail and Express, the UK needs something to balance against the rabidly pro-EU Guardian, Independent and BBC.

There was an old saying about newspapers - people buy those that papers which refelect their own views.

Seeing as the ToryGraph, HateMail and Express outsell the Guardian by about 10 to 1; the Independent was so pro-EU that enough of its readers gave up buying it that it's now on-line only; and the BBC is so chock full of luvvy, liberal, I-can-afford-to-be-left-wing, media drama queens, doesn't that tell us something about what the majority people in the UK think of the EU ?

It's not all lies, you know....


Unrealistic? An EU Defence force is happening IMO. Countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Romania, etc, cannot compete with Russia. NATO is also not a complete deterrent (or any deterrent at all) - Russia can meddle with the internal structure of the country.

Not just in Central and Eastern Europe - it's fair to say that Netherlands, Sweden, Malta, etc, ( in fact any country smaller than Russia ) couldn't individually face up to Putin either witout a nuclear capability. So as France is the only nuclear capable country in the EU once the UK has left, it seems ias though the rest of the EU is going to have to put all its eggs in France's basket, and it's going to be basically France v Russia for WW3, then.

From my own experience, NATO has protected and kept the peace in Europe during my lifetime - not an EU Defence Force.....And if only some of the more important EU countries paid their fare share, it could be even more of a deterrent against Putin and psychopaths such as Yung Fat Wun....

Your comments about the Middle East - quite agree.....

But if you think Putin or N Korea would give a feck about an EU Defence Force....NATO perhaps....EU, no chance....