Cable Forum
Page 1 of 34 1 234511 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Brexit discussion (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33705369)

Hugh 08-09-2017 12:19
Brexit discussion
 
New thread to discuss Brexit.

Guidelines

The constant baiting, belittling of either side of the vote needs to end. The new thread must be a reasonable and a frank debate, it's impossible to agree on this topic but none of this "he/she is thick" or "you're a snowflake". This is not Facebook or twitter.

Ignitionnet 08-09-2017 12:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
For those of a legalistic mind here's a dissection of the Withdrawal Bill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4OZS_HMQ2o

Government are trying to play games with standing committees to ensure they get their way - offer some compromise on the Bill, render it pointless by trying to rig committees.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...aafcf68a04?9fg

Robert Peston of ITV looks into these here: https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/p...13633722294697

Ending with this:

Quote:
Having lost her majority in the general election she chose to call, for a while May talked the talk of reflecting the will of the people by trying to work consensually with MPs of other parties.

It is now a case of consensus conshmensus. With the aid of her most important minister, the wily chief whip, Williamson, she will attempt to rule by diktat via the gaming of parliamentary rules.

She has returned back from holiday with the spirit of the Venezuelan approach to democracy seemingly coursing through her veins.
Seems to make a mockery of demanding sovereignty and taking back control for our Parliament if we're going to simply hand it to appointed ministers. It's not much different from the EU commission - they were appointed to positions of power by elected representatives, so are ministers. MPs are elected to represent constituencies only, they are supposed to have to go through Parliament to produce legislation.

One thought: under the Bill there is nothing stopping a member of the House of Lords from being placed into the cabinet and bypassing Parliament entirely.

Another thought: would those who think all this is necessary and support the Conservatives in this trust Jeremy Corbyn and Labour with these powers? There is zero guarantee that the Conservatives will still be a minority government by 2019.

nomadking 08-09-2017 14:04
Re: Brexit discussion
 
So leaving all those thousands of regulations in the hands of the EU is grabbing back sovereignty? That is the alternative.

Love to know what other way it can be done. Nothing is actually changing other than transfer of control to the UK Parliament. With transfer of powers within the UK, eg Scottish devolution, it is a lot simpler.

There are 12,000 EU imposed regulations. The obvious simple solution is to say as the EU no longer has any say, that those are all scrapped. That would be just silly. People might agree with a lot of those regulations. Grabbing back control of those is simple. Any amendments, additions, or removal can be done later by the normal Parliamentary process. The problem with the EU regulations is they are not specified in UK law, only in general that EU rules have to be followed. It is the EU that has set those rules, and will almost certainly specify that they only apply to EU(+other specified) countries, If those rules no longer apply, then what apply does instead of them? It would be an unsatisfactory free-for-all on those issues.

Ignitionnet 08-09-2017 16:59
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35915767)
So leaving all those thousands of regulations in the hands of the EU is grabbing back sovereignty? That is the alternative.
No, it isn't. I don't think any sane person would disagree that the Henry VIII powers are required, the issue is how little oversight and how few limitations are in place.

Any safeguards built into the Bill are meaningless as Ministers can, at their discretion, amend it and remove them.

The future Conservative leader might build that straw man that it's that way or nothing but it's just wrong.

This is a wholesale power grab made all the worse by that the electorate refused to give the Conservatives a majority at the last election. If HMG didn't need this level of delegated power during either World War or during the Great Depression they don't need it now.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-doesn-t-have

What all this does prove is that we desperately need a written constitution to avoid this happening again. Right now the government of the day can, literally, re-write the rules as they go.

---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

Hat tip David Allen Green / @davidallengreen

Quote:
Imagine a general election.

Imagine Corbyn and Labour are largest party but with no overall majority.

Imagine a DUP-like deal with SNP.

Imagine Corbyn then brings forward a "Austerity (Withdrawal) Bill" providing ministers with widest powers to make or break law.

Imagine the minority Labour government rigging the committee system so that they have majorities, outside scope of that DUP-like deal.

Imagine the minority Labour government getting rid of Queen's Speech for two years, so that there was no chance it could lose that vote.

Imagine the minority Labour government legislating that *any* deal it does with EU can be implemented as law by ministerial discretion.

And now imagine what the Tories would say to any of that.

Ignitionnet 10-09-2017 13:39
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Something that came to mind earlier: if the government is serious about all this they should be preparing to leave the customs union.

By this I mean the IT, the acquisition of sites for trucks awaiting customs clearance, hiring of staff, etc should already be in progress. That's just for customs / trade borders.

Then there's all the other stuff we have to do ourselves as we can no longer use shared EU systems. We will become a third nation so will have many things that were previously dependent on EU systems.

Where is all this preparation? We can't simply copy/paste unless we plan on trying to remain in the EEA.

As of right now we've made very little preparation for the WTO scenario and, indeed, thanks to the wonders of Leave.EU, etc, some people want us to leave right now and have no idea what that would entail.

Campaign groups have no reason to be honest. HMG do. What are they up to? A transition deal requires agreement of the EU-27 and, with the current demands the government are making, no deal can be struck involving customs.

Whatever your opinion on this HMG are either being incredibly cavalier over this or are misleading the UK for political reasons and will massively backtrack, likely trying to blame others when they themselves haven't even tried to prepare for the scenario they've tried to sell us.

nomadking 10-09-2017 14:08
Re: Brexit discussion
 
So how on earth are 12,000 EU imposed regulations meant to make their way through Parliament? Just absurd. Just because something could be amended along the way, DOESN'T mean it will. If it does and in a major way, that would be the time to raise objections to that specific matter, and NOT the whole process.

It is rather perverse to argue that the UK Parliament isn't being allowed to consider matters, when it can't currently consider them anyway as they are purely under EU control.

Quote:
Article 288
To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.
A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.
A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them.
People might not really have a problem with EU regulations on labelling on food and as such would be ok with the UK initially adopting the same rules. If the UK doesn't specifically adopt those same rules, then NO rules actually would exist in the UK.

Ignitionnet 10-09-2017 16:06
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Read my post again. You are disagreeing with something I didn't say, right from the first paragraph where I remarked that delegated Henry VIII powers are necessary.

Given we are supposedly taking back control and reasserting the sovereignty of Parliament it's not perverse in the slightest to expect Parliament, not the executive, to control the process where feasible. That's a pretty strong 'what about...'.

If you object to the EU sidelining Parliament it's far more perverse to not object to the executive doing so. If one is considered wrong both are as neither group were directly elected and given their power by the UK electorate. Ministers, the same as European Union Commissioners, are appointed.

Even more exacerbated by that the electorate explicitly denied any one party a majority, there is no coalition in place, the Conservatives want to ignore recommendations and convention with regards to committees and are avoiding any Queens Speech for two years to provide fewer tests of their authority and fewer opportunities for them to be brought down.

I consider the EU to be a flawed democracy. To replace that with the model the Conservatives set on pursuing, especially given their conduct to date, is crazy. If we must do this it should be done right, bringing as much of the population as possible along, not leaving it beholden to the internal politics of one party and at best ignoring, at worst demonising, dissent.

1andrew1 10-09-2017 17:55
Re: Brexit discussion
 
I think Theresa May seems to be reverting to type, ie keep maximum control over everything with minimal involvement of others. This is a character flaw and the removal of her two advisers Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy hasn't altered.
Parliament not Theresa May and her close inner circle should control the Brexit process.

Mick 10-09-2017 18:23
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Parliament is involved in brexit process, there is a major repeal bill, 2nd reading tomorrow.

nomadking 10-09-2017 19:03
Re: Brexit discussion
 
If it was just half a dozen things to be considered then Parliament would be involved. As it is 12,000 or more, that just isn't remotely practical in the time frame. How many DECADES would it take? The intention is introduce the SAME regulations. The whinges are not about doing that, but about the POSSIBILITY of changing something at the same time. It is NOT meant to be an ongoing "power grab" by the executive, but a one-off interim measure. So many of the regulations are likely to be the sort of things that can be introduced by statutory instrument and not involve Parliament anyway.

EU directives have to be passed at national level. Therefore UK laws already exist and have been passed by UK Parliament.

An area where there are a lot of EU regulations is food safety. If no equivalents are set out in UK law, then there would be a free-for-all on food safety. Is that what people want?

Ignitionnet 10-09-2017 19:31
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35915988)
Parliament is involved in brexit process, there is a major repeal bill, 2nd reading tomorrow.
Parliament was involved in the Treaties of Lisbon and Maastricht, and the European Communities Act. Doesn't appear to stop people complaining about loss of parliamentary sovereignty as a result of those actions.

Perhaps this article puts it better than I am.

5 paragraphs from it:

Quote:
However, the Bill also recognises that a straightforward cut-and-paste approach would not work. Some EU law (e.g. that which relates to the single market and the customs union) is unlikely to be of any relevance post-exit, and will need to be repealed. Other EU law will need to be amended to make it fit for purpose following Brexit. Recognising that a great deal of surgery will need to be performed upon the body of EU law before exit day, and given that parliament will simply not have time to perform that surgery itself, the Bill hands the legislative scalpel to ministers, by investing them with delegated powers.

All of this is sensible. Indeed, it is imperative. If such a strategy were not adopted, then Brexit would amount to a legal cliff-edge—and falling over it would entail utter chaos, since it would open up enormous gaps in the statute book. However, the fact that the central aim of the Bill—that is, preserving EU law post-exit—is a necessary one does not place the Bill beyond criticism. And arguments to the contrary—in particular, suggestions in some quarters that objecting to the Bill equates to attempting to block Brexit—are entirely specious. Indeed, the Bill, in its present form, is profoundly problematic in legal and constitutional terms. It is an affront to parliamentary sovereignty. It eviscerates the separation of powers principle. And it risks destabilising the UK’s increasingly fragile territorial constitution.

The notion of “taking back control” was axiomatic to Leave campaigners during the EU referendum. Central to that notion was the idea of parliamentary sovereignty: of making the UK Parliament supreme again, free from interference by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and meddling judges in Luxembourg. Viewed against this background, the Bill is little short of astonishing. Far from cementing the sovereignty of parliament, it would, if enacted in its present form, result in an unprecedented transfer of power away from parliament, by placing extraordinary authority in the hands of the executive government. That, in turn, would fundamentally undermine the separation of powers—which holds, among other things, that it is for parliament to make the law.

That said, like many aspects of the British constitution, the separation of powers is not rigid, and it is far from uncommon for parliament to confer limited law-making powers on the government. But the Withdrawal Bill does not confer carefully demarcated powers: it invests the executive with immense law-making authority. As the House of Lords Constitution Committee puts it in a report published today, “The Bill weaves a tapestry of delegated powers that are breath-taking in terms of both their scope and potency.” Those powers include so-called Henry VIII powers, meaning that they can be used not only to amend EU law but also to amend, or even repeal, parliamentary legislation. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine wider executive powers: ministers are authorised to “make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament.” And it is plain that these powers will not be used merely to make minor, technical amendments to the post-exit statute book. The Bill, for instance, explicitly contemplates that ministers will be able to use their authority both to establish new regulatory regimes and institutions and to invest them with law-making authority. This amounts to a form of Henry VIII power on stilts.

One might expect such extraordinary ministerial powers to be accompanied by a correspondingly extraordinary system of parliamentary oversight and control. But one would be disappointed. A small number of matters will be subject to the so-called affirmative procedure, meaning that parliament will have to approve them—but since parliament cannot amend delegated legislation, the likelihood of outright rejection will be very slim indeed. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the law made by ministers under the Bill will be subject only to annulment by parliament, such that it remains in force unless parliament objects. But the chances of this are vanishingly small: it is nearly 40 years since the House of Commons rejected a statutory instrument. Calls for enhanced scrutiny—made by the Hansard Society and the Lords Constitution Committee, among others—have so far gone entirely unheeded. And although the exercise of these delegated powers is supposedly limited by a “sunset clause”—meaning that they lapse two years after “exit day”—ministers can choose what “exit day” means. They can even say (free from any parliamentary control) that it means different things for different purposes, thus enabling the sunset clauses to be circumvented.


---------- Post added at 19:31 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35915994)
If it was just half a dozen things to be considered then Parliament would be involved. As it is 12,000 or more, that just isn't remotely practical in the time frame. How many DECADES would it take? The intention is introduce the SAME regulations. The whinges are not about doing that, but about the POSSIBILITY of changing something at the same time. It is NOT meant to be an ongoing "power grab" by the executive, but a one-off interim measure. So many of the regulations are likely to be the sort of things that can be introduced by statutory instrument and not involve Parliament anyway.

EU directives have to be passed at national level. Therefore UK laws already exist and have been passed by UK Parliament.

An area where there are a lot of EU regulations is food safety. If no equivalents are set out in UK law, then there would be a free-for-all on food safety. Is that what people want?
3rd time's a charm: I and anyone sane would entirely agree that delegated powers are required. It's the scope of them and the lack of controls and oversight that are the problem.

A Bill that gives powers so open ended that the executive could, without recourse to Parliament at all, in theory cancel Brexit and take us into the Eurozone and Schengen, or take the UK into EEA/EFTA is not necessary.

nomadking 10-09-2017 20:16
Re: Brexit discussion
 
And how do you specify and oversee 12,000 NEW regulations?

If any untoward changes are indeed made, that is the time whinge and complain.

If Scotland had voted yes to independence, how would the Scots have dealt with the SAME situation. If anything their situation would have been worse as UK laws would also have to be transferred.

From an article about the split up of Czechoslovakia and it's relevance to Brexit.
Quote:
EU law after Brexit
From a legal point of view, one of the biggest challenges of Brexit is to ensure legal continuity in the legal system, which has incorporated many EU laws and regulations over the years.
Considering the timing of Brexit and to avoid legal loopholes, a “copy & paste approach” should be considered with respect to EU legislation effective in Britain. This is viewed as the standard approach in international law and was also used in the process of dissolving Czechoslovakia. In general, all pre-independence laws that were not in breach of the new constitution of each newly established country became part of its legal system. Some of the federal laws, albeit in amended versions, remain in effect even today, almost 25 years after the split.

heero_yuy 11-09-2017 09:57
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Part of the irony here is that many of the workers rights that Labour are worrying about would be continued and confirmed by this bill. Curious that they would oppose it and lose those rights?

Of course this has nothing to do with that and is just a cycnical ploy to try and defeat the government and get a re-run of the election. Would anybody really trust Labour when they have proved to be even more duplicitous than the Lib-Dems in abandoning their promises, particularly to the young, that were fooled into voting for them the last time?

Damien 11-09-2017 10:18
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35916033)
Part of the irony here is that many of the workers rights that Labour are worrying about would be continued and confirmed by this bill. Curious that they would oppose it and lose those rights?
But that isn't their problem is it? Their problem is the amount of leeway the bill gives to the Government to pass/amend/scrap leglislation without so much as a trigger mechanism should Parliament object to any of those actions. There is generally an understanding that the Government needs some of this power given the amount they have to do but people should rightly be concerned about the power being abused.

Maybe Labour would still object if this bill were only concerned with confirming those rights but it's rather typically disingenuous to pretend it's that that they're objecting too in this massive bill.

nomadking 11-09-2017 10:20
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35916033)
Part of the irony here is that many of the workers rights that Labour are worrying about would be continued and confirmed by this bill. Curious that they would oppose it and lose those rights?

Of course this has nothing to do with that and is just a cycnical ploy to try and defeat the government and get a re-run of the election. Would anybody really trust Labour when they have proved to be even more duplicitous than the Lib-Dems in abandoning their promises, particularly to the young, that were fooled into voting for them the last time?
Any workers rights as a result of EU directives, eg Working Time directive, are already enshrined in UK law. No changes needed.

Quote:
The Working Time Regulations (1998) implement the European Working Time Directive into GB law.
Was anybody saying that there would be a loss of workers' rights, if Scotland had voted for independence and left the EU as well as the UK? Sounds like there definitely would have been an issue as they would have lost UK laws, but lack the ability(legal competence/standing) to pass their own versions.

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35916038)
But that isn't their problem is it? Their problem is the amount of leeway the bill gives to the Government to pass/amend/scrap leglislation without so much as a trigger mechanism should Parliament object to any of those actions. There is generally an understanding that the Government needs some of this power given the amount they have to do but people should rightly be concerned about the power being abused.

Maybe Labour would still object if this bill were only concerned with confirming those rights but it's rather typically disingenuous to pretend it's that that they're objecting too in this massive bill.
So have any changes been suggested? NO. Nothing being abused at all.

As I've already highlighted with regards to the split up of Czechoslovakia, the procedure is standard and accepted practice in international law.

Mick 12-09-2017 00:43
Re: Brexit discussion
 
BREAKING: Government wins EU Withdrawal Bill 2nd Reading. 326 For. 290 Against.

Labour loses Amendment vote.

Bill now passes to committee stage.

Ignitionnet 12-09-2017 08:30
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Where hopefully it will be amended somewhat to rein it in and remove the worst of the excesses.

---------- Post added at 08:27 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35916039)
Any workers rights as a result of EU directives, eg Working Time directive, are already enshrined in UK law. No changes needed.
I believe the point I and others have been trying to make is that the Bill gives Ministers the right to do almost literally anything they want, whether needed or not, and leaves whether it's necessary at their sole discretion.

It may also be used to completely remove any Parliamentary involvement in the end result of the process.

---------- Post added at 08:30 ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35916039)
So have any changes been suggested? NO. Nothing being abused at all.
Again, this is the point. There's no need to suggest anything, Ministers can just go ahead and do it.

If they feel changes are necessary why would they bother announcing them when they can amend at their leisure once this process is done? Since when have politicians announced things that might be unpopular in advance?

Liam Fox is on record as saying the UK's labour market needs deregulation in order to make a success of the UK's departure from the EU. The 6 Labour MPs and the UKIP member for Vauxhall just voted to provide him and his party the authority to carry out that deregulation without further intervention of accountability to Parliament.

nomadking 12-09-2017 09:00
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35916124)
Where hopefully it will be amended somewhat to rein it in and remove the worst of the excesses.

---------- Post added at 08:27 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------



I believe the point I and others have been trying to make is that the Bill gives Ministers the right to do almost literally anything they want, whether needed or not, and leaves whether it's necessary at their sole discretion.

It may also be used to completely remove any Parliamentary involvement in the end result of the process.

---------- Post added at 08:30 ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 ----------



Again, this is the point. There's no need to suggest anything, Ministers can just go ahead and do it.

If they feel changes are necessary why would they bother announcing them when they can amend at their leisure once this process is done? Since when have politicians announced things that might be unpopular in advance?

Liam Fox is on record as saying the UK's labour market needs deregulation in order to make a success of the UK's departure from the EU. The 6 Labour MPs and the UKIP member for Vauxhall just voted to provide him and his party the authority to carry out that deregulation without further intervention of accountability to Parliament.
All previous Statutory Instruments were not subject to a vote, so why is it an issue now? EU regulations and even to a degree the Directives and Treaties, are also not subject to a Parliamentary vote. Although the directives have to be passed by individual national governments, the core principles that have to be included are set in stone before any Parliament gets a say.

Mick 12-09-2017 09:17
Re: Brexit discussion
 
There was 7 Labour rebels in last nights vote. Staunch Pro-Brexit MPs such as, Mann, Hoey, Field etc.

Dennis Skinner is a surprise rebel, he normally rallies around Corbyn.

Osem 12-09-2017 14:02
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Analysis of Robert Peston's Tweets on the subject of Brexit to date makes interesting if not surprising reading:

Quote:
Peston has sent 284 tweets about Brexit since 24 June 2016.
3 tweets had a positive sentiment, that’s just 1% of his total tweets.
47 tweets were neutral, that’s 17%.
234 tweets were negative, remarkably that is 82% of his total Brexit tweets having a negative sentiment.
https://order-order.com/2017/09/12/b...n-82-negative/

Not much sign of anything positive to say there but then he did attend Universite Libre du Bruxelles... :)

TheDaddy 12-09-2017 16:32
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35916130)
All previous Statutory Instruments were not subject to a vote, so why is it an issue now? EU regulations and even to a degree the Directives and Treaties, are also not subject to a Parliamentary vote. Although the directives have to be passed by individual national governments, the core principles that have to be included are set in stone before any Parliament gets a say.
Wasn't that a massive part in some people's rationales to leave so parliament would be making the decisions and here at the first opportunity we're allowing them to be by passed. Out of the frying pan into the fire potentially.

pip08456 12-09-2017 19:21
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35916187)
Wasn't that a massive part in some people's rationales to leave so parliament would be making the decisions and here at the first opportunity we're allowing them to be by passed. Out of the frying pan into the fire potentially.
So let me get this right.

Rather than a Minister with an oversight committee fast tracking approx 12.000 EU rules, regulations and laws onto the statute books to comply with UK law instead of an EU body or the ECJ being the arbiter you'll be happy.

The alternative is introducing each and every one to parliament for discussion and amendment which will take years.

All the time that takes they will be null and void as we will no longer be members of the EU leaving a very large black hole in our statutes.

The Great Repeal bill has a limited time of application (the opponents don't mention that do they?) and ends on Brexit day whenever that may be.

Any of the rules regulations or laws that have been adapted can be modified by due process in parliament as and when they deem necassary just like any other laws.

So, what is your alternative?

heero_yuy 13-09-2017 09:27
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Bill Gates believes Britain’s science and tech sector will boom after Brexit despite previously warning against voting leave.

The Microsoft founder and world’s richest man reckons the UK will *continue to attract talent and excel at research.

Gates, 61, said he had donated £750billion to the top universities in Britain “because they’re the best”.

Microsoft founder Gates had said leaving the EU could jeopardise our booming science community but now feels the excellence of research can continue.

He highlighted universities in Liverpool, Edinburgh and London as well as Cambridge and Oxford where his philanthropic organisation has donated £750million.

The 61-year-old told the Telegraph he chose them “because they’re the best at doing lots of this important work”.
Source

So even the mighty Gates now sees the sense in Brexit. :)

ianch99 13-09-2017 10:21
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35916266)
Source

So even the mighty Gates now sees the sense in Brexit. :)
£750billion .. really?

daveeb 13-09-2017 10:35
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35916275)
£750billion .. really?
That's quite generous. :)

I hope scence does boom, but if so it'll be despite Brexit not because of it.

Mick 13-09-2017 11:14
Re: Brexit discussion
 
I think Juncker has had too much from the bottle again. "Brits will soon regret their vote to leave."

Not this Brit! Up yours Juncker. :2up:

Osem 13-09-2017 12:05
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916279)
I think Juncker has had too much from the bottle again. "Brits will soon regret their vote to leave."

Not this Brit! Up yours Juncker. :2up:
Yep, been listening to it on the Beeb all morning. Not a word of comment from our supposed journalists about the huge problems which remain in the EU. Just repeat after repeat of how well it's all going over there. If it'd been the PM saying all this about the UK, there'd have been the inevitable other side of the argument put forward by whoever the Beeb could invite to do so. It's also in stark contrast to their treatment of any good news which happens in the UK when it's either in spite of Brexit or caveated in some way with dire warnings about something or other.

One thing I'm grateful to Junker for however is his confirmation, if one were needed, that the EU is totally committed to more integration and that would be the reality if the UK doesn't get out while it can. By hook or by crook and with, I'm sure, the co-operation of certain of our own politicians who refuse to accept the Brexit vote, we would be inevitably drawn further into the whole thing making leaving or even reform of the EU a practical impossibility. That's of course what they all want and if we were to remain inside the EU doing so would become a priority for the Eurocrats. The EU refused reform even in the face of the club's second largest contributor and world's 5th largest economy leaving. How much less likely would they be to accept change were we to give in to their threats and remain?...

pip08456 13-09-2017 13:36
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35916280)
Yep, been listening to it on the Beeb all morning. Not a word of comment from our supposed journalists about the huge problems which remain in the EU. Just repeat after repeat of how well it's all going over there. If it'd been the PM saying all this about the UK, there'd have been the inevitable other side of the argument put forward by whoever the Beeb could invite to do so. It's also in stark contrast to their treatment of any good news which happens in the UK when it's either in spite of Brexit or caveated in some way with dire warnings about something or other.

One thing I'm grateful to Junker for however is his confirmation, if one were needed, that the EU is totally committed to more integration and that would be the reality if the UK doesn't get out while it can. By hook or by crook and with, I'm sure, the co-operation of certain of our own politicians who refuse to accept the Brexit vote, we would be inevitably drawn further into the whole thing making leaving or even reform of the EU a practical impossibility. That's of course what they all want and if we were to remain inside the EU doing so would become a priority for the Eurocrats. The EU refused reform even in the face of the club's second largest contributor and world's 5th largest economy leaving. How much less likely would they be to accept change were we to give in to their threats and remain?...
In a nutshell, yes.

Mr K 13-09-2017 13:39
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916279)
I think Juncker has had too much from the bottle again. "Brits will soon regret their vote to leave."

Not this Brit! Up yours Juncker. :2up:
Not very nice Michael, you've been reading too many tabloids again ;) Tbh, I think he's right.

I was in Europe last week, there was almost pity for us, apart from the French who are glad to see the back of us ! The EU will lose and we'll lose, but they are in a much better position to recover by virtue of size. The signs are already there, the EU economy is storming ahead and ours is stagnating.

Osem 13-09-2017 15:25
Re: Brexit discussion
 
And here's the analysis of Robert Peston's Tweets on the subject of Brexit. Anyone care to guess how what percentage have been positive?

Quote:
Robbo has sent 157 tweets about Brexit since 24 June 2016.
3 tweets had a positive sentiment, that’s just 2% of his total tweets.
65 tweets were neutral, that’s 41%.
89 tweets were negative, that is 57% of his total Brexit tweets having a negative sentiment.
https://order-order.com/2017/09/13/b...o-not-neutral/

Yes he's twice as positive as his ITV counterpart, not that it means much as can be seen above. Did anyone really expect more balance amongst these media heavyweights?

Damien 13-09-2017 16:25
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Why is it his duty to be positive? He's a reporter not a cheerleader. I imagine you could take a lot of topics and find that reporter sentiment is largely negative from the NHS to transport. Things make news when they're going wrong, not when everything is working smoothly, and for that matter the reporting can reflect the reality of the situation.

This is about trying to shut people up from criticising the government by pretending balanced coverage means 50% positive and 50% negative reporting.

pip08456 13-09-2017 17:09
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35916313)
Why is it his duty to be positive? He's a reporter not a cheerleader. I imagine you could take a lot of topics and find that reporter sentiment is largely negative from the NHS to transport. Things make news when they're going wrong, not when everything is working smoothly, and for that matter the reporting can reflect the reality of the situation.

This is about trying to shut people up from criticising the government by pretending balanced coverage means 50% positive and 50% negative reporting.
A good reporter is totally neutral and doesn't allow his own POV to interfere.
Unfortunately they are few and far between from both sides of the argument/discussion.

denphone 13-09-2017 17:13
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35916318)
A good reporter is totally neutral and doesn't allow his own POV to interfere.
Unfortunately they are few and far between from both sides of the argument/discussion.
Summed up perfectly.

Osem 13-09-2017 17:19
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35916313)
Why is it his duty to be positive? He's a reporter not a cheerleader. I imagine you could take a lot of topics and find that reporter sentiment is largely negative from the NHS to transport. Things make news when they're going wrong, not when everything is working smoothly, and for that matter the reporting can reflect the reality of the situation.

This is about trying to shut people up from criticising the government by pretending balanced coverage means 50% positive and 50% negative reporting.
Who said it was his duty to be positive? Being even slightly impartial, if only out of professional ethics, oughtn't to be too much to expect but that just an opinion Damien that's all. This is just an interesting discussion point, especially given the distinct impression of pro-EU media reporting bias many people have complained of and the denial thereof from remain supporters. Frankly I'd expect anyone to be able to concede that more than 2% of the Brexit outcome being positive but that's just silly me. I'd happily concede that Brexit, even the best outcome, is going to have significant downsides. How's any of this about shutting anyone up? They're going to continue doing what they've done and nobody's going to stop them are they. Pointing out the statistics about their Tweets, which is all this is, isn't going to make a jot of difference to them but I think a lot of people will be interested what they really think when judging their 'professional' commentary on these events.

Mick 13-09-2017 17:55
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916297)
Not very nice Michael, you've been reading too many tabloids again ;) Tbh, I think he's right.

I was in Europe last week, there was almost pity for us, apart from the French who are glad to see the back of us ! The EU will lose and we'll lose, but they are in a much better position to recover by virtue of size. The signs are already there, the EU economy is storming ahead and ours is stagnating.
I've told you, I don't read any tabloids. And Juncker cannot be possibly right, I won't regret leaving.

Welcome back from your trip away btw.

Osem 13-09-2017 21:11
Re: Brexit discussion
 
And just in case anyone's in any doubt about Juncker's plans for the EU and where it's heading they include further expansion, moving towards compulsory membership of the Euro for all member states and an end to national vetoes.

https://order-order.com/2017/09/13/j...-its-own-army/

RizzyKing 13-09-2017 23:04
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Where's Nick Clegg to tell us again that an EU army is a dangerous fantasy, everything Juncker said today shows exactly why brexit is happening and also shows the EU hasn't learnt a damn thing just gone back to their usual expantionist federal head in the sand approach.

1andrew1 13-09-2017 23:23
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35916313)
Why is it his duty to be positive? He's a reporter not a cheerleader. I imagine you could take a lot of topics and find that reporter sentiment is largely negative from the NHS to transport. Things make news when they're going wrong, not when everything is working smoothly, and for that matter the reporting can reflect the reality of the situation.

This is about trying to shut people up from criticising the government by pretending balanced coverage means 50% positive and 50% negative reporting.
Agreed. Surely reporters are there as checks and balances to keep Government in check. So they will be critical about things and seek out problems that the Government would prefer were avoided.
On Brexit, we know some of what we're losing but pretty little of what we're gaining. City AM, one of the many pro-Brexit media, made the point reluctantly in an editorial that it had not seen a business case for Brexit for the UK service industry. That sector makes up 80% of the UK's exports. If a pro-Brexit publication can be critical about the Government's efforts here, rest assured less biased ones will be even more critical.

---------- Post added at 23:23 ---------- Previous post was at 23:17 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35916338)
Where's Nick Clegg to tell us again that an EU army is a dangerous fantasy, everything Juncker said today shows exactly why brexit is happening and also shows the EU hasn't learnt a damn thing just gone back to their usual expantionist federal head in the sand approach.
The Clegg family are promoting Bloodwise at the moment due to their son's fight against cancer. I imagine an EU army is not at the forefront of their minds.

pip08456 14-09-2017 01:02
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35916340)
---------- Post added at 23:23 ---------- Previous post was at 23:17 ----------

[/COLOR]
The Clegg family are promoting Bloodwise at the moment due to their son's fight against cancer. I imagine an EU army is not at the forefront of their minds.
Nick Clegg is quite rightly doing what any parent should do, putting his child first.

Doesn't change the fact that he is a liar though.

denphone 14-09-2017 05:35
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35916344)
Nick Clegg is quite rightly doing what any parent should do, putting his child first.

Doesn't change the fact that he is a liar though.
Are not most politicians liars?.

Ken W 14-09-2017 06:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35916349)
Are not most politicians liars?.


No they are not liars, they just cannot tell the truth!

Hugh 14-09-2017 07:41
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35916349)
Are not most politicians liars?.
No - some are, but tarring them all with the same brush is just like saying because some people on CF are obnoxious that means that most people in CF are obnoxious.

Mr K 14-09-2017 09:49
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35916354)
No - some are, but tarring them all with the same brush is just like saying because some people on CF are obnoxious that means that most people in CF are obnoxious.
mmmm , well, no- must resist and say nothing ;)

Most politicians lie to varying extents, they have to or the mugs wouldn't vote for them. Reporters would tear them to shreds if they honestly answered questions (e.g. what do you think of job your PM is doing ? ). Most try to not answer questions than outright lie, but don't always succeed. Our crappy media culture is partly to blame.

denphone 14-09-2017 09:51
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35916354)
No - some are, but tarring them all with the same brush is just like saying because some people on CF are obnoxious that means that most people in CF are obnoxious.
l never said all politicians are liars but a fair few many are and as for CF well most members are very nice apart from a few members.:)

Ignitionnet 14-09-2017 10:44
Re: Brexit discussion
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_JNrgHvqk

Be good to hear some substantial comments on why Norgrove's fears are unfounded rather than the platitudes and insults we're currently getting from HMG.

Dan Hannan utterly failed to supply anything of substance yesterday in his debate with Ian Dunt on LBC. This is a guy who has had an awful lot of time to put flesh on the Brexit bones.

I'm very open to being convinced that EFTA/EEA isn't the best way forward for the UK. I'm yet to hear anything substantial to indicate otherwise.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

Actually let me ask peeps here - if we go WTO, which it looks like we will, the EU's tariffs kick in on our exports to them. What would people have us do in response?

heero_yuy 14-09-2017 10:52
Re: Brexit discussion
 
For those of you who thought voting "remain" was for the status quo, here's Juncker's latest booze fuelled vision:

Quote:
He signalled Brussels should seize greater control over corporation tax and VAT across the bloc, create a European ‘FBI’ and an EU Army by 2025.

The bureaucrat added that he wanted more member states should adopt the Euro and the passport-free ‘Schengen’ zone expanded to include Romania and Bulgaria.

He spoke of his desire for the EU to expand beyond 27 countries post-Brexit by welcoming in western Balkan states such as Serbia.

And while saying the door to Turkey joining the EU was closed “for the foreseeable future” he said there would “always be an outstretched hand” to the Turkish people.

He added it was time to combine the roles of the President of the Commission – essentially the EU’s civil service – and the President of the EU Council – the body of the leaders of each member state.
Source

Ignitionnet 14-09-2017 11:20
Re: Brexit discussion
 
It was for the status quo, at least in the short term. The above we either had opt-outs on, a veto, or would've triggered a referendum here if they were enacted. Every EU member state has committed to joining the Euro besides those with opt-outs, and those can't be circumvented. Schengen much the same.

Without our influence, votes and veto the EU can take a different path if it so chooses.

It's worth remembering that, contrary to the opinions of some, Juncker can say whatever he pleases as far as his vision of the EU goes but he doesn't have the power to implement it. He doesn't get to decide what actually happens, that's down to the Council of Ministers, the elected heads of state of each member state, and the EU Parliament.

It's fair to say, though, that Juncker's comments don't set out whatever the future of the UK within the EU would've been.

EDIT: If I remember at some point I'll find an article that focuses on what he said and its ramifications seriously. The article linked made me feel dumber having read it.

Osem 14-09-2017 11:24
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35916338)
Where's Nick Clegg to tell us again that an EU army is a dangerous fantasy, everything Juncker said today shows exactly why brexit is happening and also shows the EU hasn't learnt a damn thing just gone back to their usual expantionist federal head in the sand approach.
People like Clegg and Blair will say and promise anything in order to get their way - that's the sort of democracy they believe in. I really can't understand how anyone can deny where the EU is heading, but of course these people are only concerned with making it a 'fait accompli'. They'll lie and spin until they get their way and then it'll be too late for us to do anything about it. How much more evidence do people need to accept that this is their agenda? There's no evidence at all that they've actually learned anything from what's happened in the EU, the only answer they have to anything is 'more of the same'. If anyone wanted a perfect example of unerring political dogma and intransigence I'd say the EU is it.

Mr K 14-09-2017 11:30
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Meanwhile, back in the real world, away from 'hatred' of individuals, John Lewis profits have fallen 50% and are blaming the uncertainty caused by Brexit. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41264277

denphone 14-09-2017 11:37
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916370)
Meanwhile, back in the real world, away from 'hatred' of individuals, John Lewis profits have fallen 50% and are blaming the uncertainty caused by Brexit. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41264277
No doubt other companies in the coming months will be reporting reduced profits as well with the impact of the weaker pound . higher inflation and political uncertainty.

Ignitionnet 14-09-2017 11:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35916372)
No doubt other companies in the coming months will be reporting reduced profits as well with the impact of the weaker pound . higher inflation and political uncertainty.
Yeah indeed. It was inevitable.

Mr K 14-09-2017 11:48
Re: Brexit discussion
 
This is a bit concerning too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7945956.html
Quote:
But earlier this year David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, admitted no impact assessment had been undertaken by the current administration, probing the potential effects to the economy of a “no deal” scenario.
We keep threatening to walk away if we don't get what we want like a spoilt child. But it turns out we don't have a plan if there's no deal ! Bit of an empty threat ! Bit like when the Govt. had no plan if we voted for Brexit. :rolleyes:
Our negotiators - headless chickens, running about, giving interviews about how brilliantly everything is going and achieving nothing..... Meanwhile the EU carries on as usual, economies growing, while time runs out for us.

pip08456 14-09-2017 12:00
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35916364)
[url]
Actually let me ask peeps here - if we go WTO, which it looks like we will, the EU's tariffs kick in on our exports to them. What would people have us do in response?
Although I studied economics at school I am far removed from being an economist. Statistics can be used to "prove" any POV without context. Once context is entered into the equation conclusions and forecasts tend to change.

Remainers keep harping on about the service industry and how vital it is to the UK economy. I do not deny there's money to be made there but now let's put it into context.

Goods and services exports to the EU only account to 12-15% of the UK's export market. Even that figure is skewed by any exports via ports such as Rotterdam which then become part of EU export figures not the UK's.

Quote:
The £240 billion exports of goods and services to other EU countries were worth about 12% of the value of the British economy in 2016. It’s been at around 12-15% over the past decade.
As to any tariffs the EU imposes if we go WTO agreements I would do nothing in response.

There is a fallacy that tariffs cost businesses billions, they don't. There is only one person who pays the tariff and that is the end consumer.

If the goods and services that this country exports are superior to any other product then the end user will pay for them, this will push innovation and development in this country to be better than anyone else.

As regards a "tit for tat" response to tariffs and the need to do nothing, this can only lead to reduced prices for the consumer.

See, I can put forward a reasoned contribution to a debate.:D

Before I forget, the LINK where I got the total export figures from.

Ignitionnet 14-09-2017 12:16
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35916380)
Goods and services exports to the EU only account to 12-15% of the UK's export market. Even that figure is skewed by any exports via ports such as Rotterdam which then become part of EU export figures not the UK's.

Before I forget, the LINK where I got the total export figures from.
I'd have another look at those figures. They account for 12-15% of the UK economy, not UK exports. The first line of the article you linked indicates 44% of exports, with the 'Rotterdam effect' accounting for about 2% of that 44%.

Osem 14-09-2017 12:17
Re: Brexit discussion
 
I may be missing something but any fall in profits (c. £30m) due to Brexit/Sterling suffered by John Lewis is dwarfed by the £56m restructuring charge isn't it. What's the actual cost to JLP of the fall in Sterling since the Brexit vote? Unless we know that figure we can't judge what negative effect there's actually been.

Hugh 14-09-2017 12:28
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35916361)
l never said all politicians are liars but a fair few many are and as for CF well most members are very nice apart from a few members.:)
you said 'most'...

Osem 14-09-2017 12:30
Re: Brexit discussion
 
I'm sure none of us have lived our lives entirely 'lie' free. Some are just a lot more practiced at it than others. ;)

pip08456 14-09-2017 12:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35916384)
I'd have another look at those figures. They account for 12-15% of the UK economy, not UK exports. The first line of the article you linked indicates 44% of exports, with the 'Rotterdam effect' accounting for about 2% of that 44%.
My bad and I grant you that correction, so that means the total effect to UK economy if we left with no trade agreement would be a maximum of 12-15%.

However, WTO rules would kick in and would to some extent reduce that figure as would trade under WTO with the rest of the world until trade agreements were finalised. This (potentially) could mean a boom in the UK economy.

Not so much of the "Doom and Gloom" scenario now is there?

Is there nothing else in my post you disagree with?

Osem 14-09-2017 12:55
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Leave campaigner Sir James Dyson expects the UK to leave the EU with no deal, and trade to default to World Trade Organization rules and tariffs.
Sir James, who founded the engineering firm Dyson, told the BBC such an arrangement would "hurt the Europeans more than the British".
Brexit uncertainty is an opportunity for firms to forge links with fast-growing economies, Sir James said.
However, John Lewis has said Brexit uncertainty was hitting the UK economy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41265718

Brexit uncertainty is hitting all sorts of things here and in the EU, you wouldn't think that latter though. We rarely hear about the worries of or the effects on EU businesses but I don't see that changing. Brexit uncertainty won't last forever however. When the deal is done in whatever form it takes, there'll be no more. At that point we'll start hearing more about EU uncertainty and all the huge problems they're going to be grappling with whilst we get on with dealing with all the realities of an uncertain world.

Qtx 14-09-2017 13:01
Re: Brexit discussion
 
At this point I think it goes without saying that no agreement will be made in time with regards to a Brexit deal.

Mick 14-09-2017 13:05
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35916384)
I'd have another look at those figures. They account for 12-15% of the UK economy, not UK exports. The first line of the article you linked indicates 44% of exports, with the 'Rotterdam effect' accounting for about 2% of that 44%.
I read that the EU membership fee we pay each year, is equivalent to 7% in a trade tariff fee with the EU, outside customs union.

Once we leave and are outside the customs union, we would expect to be charged and pay around 2.5% in trade tariff revenues. The article said, the membership of the EU, along with it's hefty fee compared paying just 2.5% in revenues, is the biggest case of mis-selling that dwarfs the banking PPI scandal. If I can find the article I will link to it.

pip08456 14-09-2017 13:49
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916394)
I read that the EU membership fee we pay each year, is equivalent to 7% in a trade tariff fee with the EU, outside customs union.

Once we leave and are outside the customs union, we would expect to be charged and pay around 2.5% in trade tariff revenues. The article said, the membership of the EU, along with it's hefty fee compared paying just 2.5% in revenues, is the biggest case of mis-selling that dwarfs the banking PPI scandal. If I can find the article I will link to it.
I look forward to the link as it is facts like this that diminish the "Doom and Gloom" scenario that remainers are consistantly putting forward.

Once both brexiteers and remoaners wake up to the fact it is going to happen then sensible discussion can then take place.

Igni quite rightly picked me up on an error in my previous post in that the EU is responsible for 44% of exports, it still doesn't change the fact that it is only responsible of 15% of the economy and WTO rules could balance that 15% out.

If anyone else sees a mistake in my post or can post a genuine rebuttal I look forward to it.

The debate awaits.

Ignitionnet 14-09-2017 15:07
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35916390)
My bad and I grant you that correction, so that means the total effect to UK economy if we left with no trade agreement would be a maximum of 12-15%.

However, WTO rules would kick in and would to some extent reduce that figure as would trade under WTO with the rest of the world until trade agreements were finalised. This (potentially) could mean a boom in the UK economy.

Not so much of the "Doom and Gloom" scenario now is there?

Is there nothing else in my post you disagree with?
You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it, in large part because most of the evidence is to the contrary of it and I've no idea where you get the idea that WTO rules would balance out loss of trade with the EU, but don't see any point in getting hung up recycling old debates.

---------- Post added at 15:07 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916394)
I read that the EU membership fee we pay each year, is equivalent to 7% in a trade tariff fee with the EU, outside customs union.

Once we leave and are outside the customs union, we would expect to be charged and pay around 2.5% in trade tariff revenues. The article said, the membership of the EU, along with it's hefty fee compared paying just 2.5% in revenues, is the biggest case of mis-selling that dwarfs the banking PPI scandal. If I can find the article I will link to it.
As the guy in the video I linked noted tariffs are nothing in the grand scheme. Non-tariff barriers are far more of an issue.

If it were as black and white as that it would make no sense for the various forecasts to be predicting the worst outcome for the UK being reverting to WTO. Pretty much the only group making economic forecasts that believe WTO is the best option for the UK is hyper-partisan. Everyone else from dedicated internationalists to those entirely indifferent consider things the opposite way.

There's a really good reason why Leave.EU and Vote Leave didn't campaign on the economy.

Osem 14-09-2017 16:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
And here's the stats re Faisal Islam's Tweets on Brexit. It'd be difficult for them to be less positive than his esteemed journalist colleagues wouldn't it so:

Quote:
Faisal has sent 1,467 tweets about Brexit since 24 June 2016.
87 tweets had a positive sentiment, that’s just 6% of his total tweets.
697 tweets were neutral, that’s 47.5%.
683 tweets were negative, that is 46.5% of his total Brexit tweets having a negative sentiment.
https://order-order.com/2017/09/14/b...ce-referendum/

He's the most positive about it of the three but it's perfectly obvious that none of them are happy and are finding it hard to hide that fact judging by their output.

Mr K 14-09-2017 17:08
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35916420)
And here's the stats re Faisal Islam's Tweets on Brexit. It'd be difficult for them to be less positive than his esteemed journalist colleagues wouldn't it so:



https://order-order.com/2017/09/14/b...ce-referendum/

He's the most positive about it of the three but it's perfectly obvious that none of them are happy and are finding it hard to hide that fact judging by their output.
Call me cynical, might the 'order-order' website itself be biased ? i'm sure it's not, but you never know... This Guido Fawkes guy, is he a Lib Dem ??? ;) He seems to have a repeated problem with alcohol related convictions...

People tend to only read the views they want to hear.

denphone 14-09-2017 17:25
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916424)
Call me cynical, might the 'order-order' website itself be biased ? i'm sure it's not, but you never know... This Guido Fawkes guy, is he a Lib Dem ??? ;) He seems to have a repeated problem with alcohol related convictions...

People tend to only read the views they want to hear.
That is certainly true Mr K.;)

Osem 14-09-2017 18:23
Re: Brexit discussion
 
The facts re the Tweets are the facts there's no disputing that and there's plenty of anti-Tory stuff and a lot more on Guido's site for those who bother to look. But of course it's easier for some folks to just dismiss the stuff they don't like. They ridicule the notion that there's any media bias whatsoever against Brexit then when some evidence is put forward in relation to leading journalists they claim it's biased. I'm sure if the journalists concerned have been terribly misrepresented they'll be telling us all about it. Let's wait and see shall we...

Mick 14-09-2017 18:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
The £ vs $ is higher than it's ever been since brexit. Currently $1.34 to the £1. This is on the news that interest rates may increase next month, after they were held today.

This time 10 years ago. When I went to US for a month, the exchange rate was $2 to the pound. :erm:

Mr K 14-09-2017 18:57
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916444)
The £ vs $ is higher than it's ever been since brexit. Currently $1.34 to the £1. This is on the news that interest rates may increase next month, after they were held today.

This time 10 years ago. When I went to US for a month, the exchange rate was $2 to the pound. :erm:
Didn't get much value for my devalued pound on the continent last week ! Interest rate increases might mean trouble for anyone with a mortgage or loan, aswell as increasing inflation. Hard times ahead, all part of the Brexit dividend. Fortunately paid my mortgage off long ago.

heero_yuy 14-09-2017 18:59
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Unemployment fell to a new 42-year low as employment increased by another 125,000 people in the three months to June.

An additional 338,000 people are in work now compared with last summer, with a total of 32.07m people employed, the Office for National Statistics said.

The employment rate is at a record high of 75.1pc, while unemployment is at 4.4pc, its lowest level since 1975.
Source

So lower than all the time we have been in the EU.

Osem 14-09-2017 19:04
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916444)
The £ vs $ is higher than it's ever been since brexit. Currently $1.34 to the £1. This is on the news that interest rates may increase next month, after they were held today.

This time 10 years ago. When I went to US for a month, the exchange rate was $2 to the pound. :erm:
It's swings and roundabouts. If Sterling were to rise appreciably we'd all be getting dire warnings about the negative effects on UK PLC's exports. Currencies rise and fall for all sorts of reasons and when the next bit of really bad EU news hits home on the markets so the Euro will fall. Germany has been a major beneficiary of a lower than would be the case currency simply because the DM would a lot higher as a stand alone currency. Try telling Merkel that a lower currency is all bad news.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how much the rise in Sterling has actually cost JLP because it's easy for companies to report a large fall in profits and blame it all on Brexit without backing that up, especially if the leadership of those companies happens to have a pro-EU agenda.

Mr K 14-09-2017 19:33
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35916449)
Source

So lower than all the time we have been in the EU.
And what quality of jobs are they ? Zero hours contracts and people struggling on the minimum wage.

Osem 14-09-2017 20:09
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35916449)
Source

So lower than all the time we have been in the EU.
But you're forgetting that Brexit is destroying the UK and our only hope is that those kindly humble folke running the Brussels show take pity on us and allow us to stay in their club, give up control of our laws, currency etc. and pay them for the privilege. Silly you!!!

Mick 14-09-2017 21:21
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 35916393)
At this point I think it goes without saying that no agreement will be made in time with regards to a Brexit deal.
Would be no big deal according a leading British businessman and inventor, Sir James Dyson.... He claims Europe is a declining part of world trade....

Quote:
Britain should make a "clean break" from the European Union instead of pursuing any kind of interim deal, according to one of the country's best-known businessmen.

Sir James Dyson told Sky News that a transitional agreement would be "a muddle".

"You end up having to do one transitional arrangement, and then another one. So just have a clean break, it's not a big deal."

Sir James, who backed the Brexit campaign in 2016, said he was comfortable with Britain instead switching to the tariff system used by the World Trade Organisation, and to turning its attention away from Europe.

"Europe is a declining part of world trade," he said.

"It's now down to 12% and in about five years' time it will be 9% of world trade. The fastest growing sector is, of course, in the far east, China and the far eastern countries where we're growing by about 80% or 90% a year. That's where the opportunities are - not Europe."

Sir James said he had no regrets about Brexit but stressed the need for international talent.

Dyson employs around 3,500 people in the UK, and that figure is expected to almost double in the coming four or five years.
http://news.sky.com/story/uk-should-...dyson-11034559

Mr K 14-09-2017 21:37
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916496)
Would be no big deal according a leading British businessman and inventor, Sir James Dyson.... He claims Europe is a declining part of world trade....



http://news.sky.com/story/uk-should-...dyson-11034559
Wouldn't take any notice of Dyson, his vacuums are expensive 'must haves' that everyone can replicate now for a fraction of the price.

denphone 14-09-2017 21:41
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916505)
Wouldn't take any notice of Dyson, his vacuums are expensive 'must haves' that everyone can replicate now for a fraction of the price.

You sure about that as some of the other makes are crap IMO as you get what you pay for l always say.

Osem 14-09-2017 21:41
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916496)
Would be no big deal according a leading British businessman and inventor, Sir James Dyson.... He claims Europe is a declining part of world trade....



http://news.sky.com/story/uk-should-...dyson-11034559
No, you're wrong, he's wrong, everyone who disagrees is wrong. The EU is going from strength to strength according to Juncker and his ilk and it's patently obvious. There are no structural problems, no skeletons in the EU cupboard, no potential conflict with Russia. We just need to realise that it's all tickety boo over there and we'd be mad not to stay part of the Brussels fan club. All the problems lie within the UK and which will suffer forever more when we leave their warm, cuddly, generous embrace. Our only hope of salvation is the EU...

Mr K 14-09-2017 21:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35916508)
You sure about that as some of the other makes are crap IMO as you get what you pay for l always say.
Usually said by those that have overpaid for a brand name ;)

Osem 14-09-2017 21:43
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35916508)
You sure about that as some of the other makes are crap IMO as you get what you pay for l always say.
I wouldn't take any notice of that because Bosch, Miele and Siemens aren't overpriced brand names... ;)

denphone 14-09-2017 21:44
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916511)
Usually said by those that have overpaid for a brand name ;)
What is your definition of overpaying Mr K?.;)

Mr K 14-09-2017 21:49
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35916514)
What is your definition of overpaying Mr K?.;)
Well anything that is the same as another product but has a different name and costs more Den ! ;)

Mick 14-09-2017 22:06
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916505)
Wouldn't take any notice of Dyson, his vacuums are expensive 'must haves' that everyone can replicate now for a fraction of the price.
I trust a successful billionaire who knows the world markets better than you do, I would think it was his duty to sustain his business entity. Besides, if he says Europe trade is in decline, he would know that if he is doing better trade with the Far East. 80 to 90 % is a massive difference to just 12% within the EU.

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 22:02 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916518)
Well anything that is the same as another product but has a different name and costs more Den ! ;)
They are not the same. The technology within them is patent protected and Dyson has robustly defended his products from being copied.

daveeb 14-09-2017 22:09
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35916508)
You sure about that as some of the other makes are crap IMO as you get what you pay for l always say.
I realise this is gradually moving in a non Brexit discussion direction, but seeing as we're discussing hoovers, my experience of (two) Dysons has not been good and you don't get what you pay for with Dyson. Great for the first few months but then you have to take the ruddy complicated things apart on a regular basis to remove all sorts of junk wedged inside them to get any semblance of performance.

Mr K 14-09-2017 22:10
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916524)
I trust a successful billionaire who knows the world markets better than you do, I would think it was his duty to sustain his business entity. Besides, if he says Europe trade is in decline, he would know that if he is doing better trade with the Far East. 80 to 90 % is a massive difference to just 12% within the EU.

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 22:02 ----------



They are not the same. The technology within them is patent protected and Dyson has robustly defended his products from being copied.
Can only say as i find Mick. Had a Dyson, it broke down just out of warranty. Bought a Vax for the fraction of the price, cleans better and has lasted years.

Mick 14-09-2017 22:16
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveeb (Post 35916527)
I realise this is gradually moving in a non Brexit discussion direction, but seeing as we're discussing hoovers, my experience of (two) Dysons has not been good and you don't get what you pay for with Dyson. Great for the first few months but then you have to take the ruddy complicated things apart on a regular basis to remove all sorts of junk wedged inside them to get any semblance of performance.
I see where it is going. Hardline remainers just cannot get behind brexit if they died trying. So they then attempt to mock Dyson products to some how discredit his view on Brexit. Not going to work with me. Dyson is an intelligent guy. A successful entrepreneur.

Bottom line is. We will be better out.

1andrew1 14-09-2017 22:18
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916394)
I read that the EU membership fee we pay each year, is equivalent to 7% in a trade tariff fee with the EU, outside customs union.

Once we leave and are outside the customs union, we would expect to be charged and pay around 2.5% in trade tariff revenues. The article said, the membership of the EU, along with it's hefty fee compared paying just 2.5% in revenues, is the biggest case of mis-selling that dwarfs the banking PPI scandal. If I can find the article I will link to it.
I look forward to the link and like others will maintain my healhy sceptical view until such a time.
The most important thing for the UK is service industries which account for 80% of our exports. These require common standards and freedom of movement helps too. Tariffs are less important. Hence this is a key predicament that the UK faces post-Brexit which is currently sitting in David Davis's too-difficult pile.

Mick 14-09-2017 22:23
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916528)
Can only say as i find Mick. Had a Dyson, it broke down just out of warranty. Bought a Vax for the fraction of the price, cleans better and has lasted years.
Strange because my vax cleaner broke within a few times of using it, it got took right back. Each to their own I guess. None of this talk on product quality nullifies Dysons views on world trade and I said I trust his views on world trade over yours any day.

daveeb 14-09-2017 22:32
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916530)
I see where it is going. Hardline remainers just cannot get behind brexit if they died trying. So they then attempt to mock Dyson products to some how discredit his view on Brexit. Not going to work with me. Dyson is an intelligent guy. A successful entrepreneur.

Bottom line is. We will be better out.
It's got zero to do with Brexit from my perspective ! I didn't start the hoover debate.
I'm just stating my own experience with his hoovers as others had, if you think i have an agenda on this issue then you're getting a bit touchy.
I don't like Vax hoovers for the same reason either and I have no idea what allegiance "Mr Vax" has.

Mr K 14-09-2017 22:37
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Can we have a separate vacuum cleaner thread ? There are many issues to discuss, what's wrong with a dustpan and broom for example ? ;)

Mick 14-09-2017 22:41
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveeb (Post 35916537)
It's got zero to do with Brexit from my perspective ! I didn't start the hoover debate.
I'm just stating my own experience with his hoovers as others had, if you think i have an agenda on this issue then you're getting a bit touchy.
I don't like Vax hoovers for the same reason either and I have no idea what allegiance "Mr Vax" has.
I did not bring 'hoovers' in to the debate. I brought Sir James Dyson views on Brexit in to this debate. I think it was Mr K who then started his assault on his actual Hoovers. ;)

---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916539)
Can we have a separate vacuum cleaner thread ? There are many issues to discuss, what's wrong with a dustpan and broom for example ? ;)
I prefer the old dust pan and still use them, given I don't have carpets downstairs.

daveeb 14-09-2017 22:47
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916542)
I did not bring 'hoovers' in to the debate. I brought Sir James Dyson views on Brexit in to this debate. I think it was Mr K who then started his assault on his actual Hoovers. ;)

---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------



I prefer the old dust pan and still use them, given I don't have carpets downstairs.
Agreed, i didn't say you did mention hoovers, anyway I think we've covered most models now. :)

Good to see you and MrK agree on the merits of dust pans.

1andrew1 14-09-2017 22:50
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916539)
Can we have a separate vacuum cleaner thread ? There are many issues to discuss, what's wrong with a dustpan and broom for example ? ;)
You're a sucker for a new thread. :)

daveeb 14-09-2017 22:52
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35916545)
You're a sucker for a new thread. :)
But he needs to promise there won't be any dust ups :)

1andrew1 14-09-2017 23:00
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveeb (Post 35916546)
But he needs to promise there won't be any dust ups :)
Let's not brush any controversy under the carpet though. :)

daveeb 14-09-2017 23:05
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35916547)
Let's not brush any controversy under the carpet though. :)
yes that would be dyson with death for the thread.

denphone 15-09-2017 04:25
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35916528)
Can only say as i find Mick. Had a Dyson, it broke down just out of warranty. Bought a Vax for the fraction of the price, cleans better and has lasted years.
Well we had a Vax and one or two other brands and they certainly don't measure up to a Dyson but each to their own likes and dislikes.:)

---------- Post added at 04:25 ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916530)
I see where it is going. Hardline remainers just cannot get behind brexit if they died trying. So they then attempt to mock Dyson products to some how discredit his view on Brexit. Not going to work with me. Dyson is an intelligent guy. A successful entrepreneur.

Bottom line is. We will be better out.
Well Mick we are going out whether it is for better or for worse as no one knows exactly how the game will play out as they say.:)

jonbxx 15-09-2017 09:07
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35916364)
Actually let me ask peeps here - if we go WTO, which it looks like we will, the EU's tariffs kick in on our exports to them. What would people have us do in response?
Sorry, just catching up here. If you go WTO, it's not just the costs of the tariffs which will be borne by the customer, it's the non-tariff barriers to trade we really need to look out for.

Here's an article for example on the concerns for Dover - https://www.ft.com/content/f308e8bc-...c-9588e51488a0

The HMRC does not think it will be ready for the sheer volume of customs checks needed for cross channel trade. On top of this is the potential divergence of standards between the EU and UK. If we start to separate ourselves from EU standards, then the EU will require inspections to ensure conformity to their standards to make sure we don't sneak a bendy banana or 2kW vacuum cleaner over the water.

This will suddenly affect 44% of our exports and 53% of our imports where before, it was frictionless.

Of course, we do this for the current 56% and 47% but this is an effective doubling of the load on customs and regulatory agencies.

In addition, to customs and conformity, it will seriously affect manufacturer supply chains. Manufacturers warehouse materials with hours worth of stock and rely on a smooth supply chain for efficient running. Delays of a few hours of delivery of materials can shut down production. This worries car manufacturers for example.

Finally, we can't ignore the 'Rotterdam Effect' and non-EU imports through ports not in the UK but in the EU. Joining the WTO tariff plan will remove EU ports from the equation..

Think tanks like Economists For Brexit have proposed zero import tariffs as a libertarian response but this still doesn't answer the question of conformity and traceability (plus zero import tariffs will destroy what's lefts of our manufacturing and agriculture)

Ignitionnet 15-09-2017 12:29
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35916577)
Sorry, just catching up here. If you go WTO, it's not just the costs of the tariffs which will be borne by the customer, it's the non-tariff barriers to trade we really need to look out for.

Here's an article for example on the concerns for Dover - https://www.ft.com/content/f308e8bc-...c-9588e51488a0

The HMRC does not think it will be ready for the sheer volume of customs checks needed for cross channel trade. On top of this is the potential divergence of standards between the EU and UK. If we start to separate ourselves from EU standards, then the EU will require inspections to ensure conformity to their standards to make sure we don't sneak a bendy banana or 2kW vacuum cleaner over the water.

This will suddenly affect 44% of our exports and 53% of our imports where before, it was frictionless.

Of course, we do this for the current 56% and 47% but this is an effective doubling of the load on customs and regulatory agencies.
Thanks.

Think I made the point earlier that it's very confusing that on one hand HMG are claiming to be ready for any result while on the other they are making no substantial preparations. When talking about doubling load you have to also remember that the load is unevenly spread - ports like Dover where the vast majority, 80-90%+, of imports are from within the customs union need quadrupling of customs capacity and so far nothing has been done.

In other news a little reminder that, for all the rhetoric, neither Juncker or the Commission get to decide what happens within the EU, the member states via their MEPs and heads of government do - paywalled:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...ears-3v6v3vnqf

Quote:
France and Germany are demanding the right to suspend the European Union’s passport-free travel zone for up to four years at times of crisis amid fears over terrorism and migration.

A confidential diplomatic paper seen by The Times reveals that the EU’s two biggest countries are pushing for the Schengen zone to be suspended in “exceptional circumstances”, making all travellers subject to border checks as they enter a country.

The European Commission is pushing for an end, within weeks, to emergency frontier controls introduced after terrorist attacks and during the EU’s migration crisis.

The demand will be a blow to Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the commission, who said on Wednesday that the passport-free travel zone, alongside the euro, was a foundation for a future federal Europe. He was accused of drawing up a blueprint for a “United States of Europe” with more centralised powers, as he called for Bulgaria and Romania to join Schengen.

Under the border-check proposals, which are also supported by the Schengen members Austria, Denmark and Norway, governments would be allowed to introduce frontier controls for years rather than months and to keep their reasons for the checks secret.


---------- Post added at 12:29 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35916530)
I see where it is going. Hardline remainers just cannot get behind brexit if they died trying. So they then attempt to mock Dyson products to some how discredit his view on Brexit. Not going to work with me. Dyson is an intelligent guy. A successful entrepreneur.

Bottom line is. We will be better out.
On the flip side of that, however, are hardline leavers who won't consider the possibility that we may be worse out. It's impossible to say unequivocally that the UK would benefit either way, however the weight of forecasts from those who should, in theory, be unbiased leans heavily towards the UK being economically worse off until at least 2030.

As I've said a couple of times it's noteworthy that neither of the two major leave campaigns attempted to campaign on economic grounds.

Whether the benefits of leaving the EU will balance this is probably subjective.

Extreme opinions from people willing to completely disregard any evidence that doesn't agree with their point of view abound on both sides of the argument with zero possibility of being dissuaded so it's a busted flush as far as discussion goes.

I'm not going to disagree with Dyson. He is not an unbiased observer in this - his issues with EU regulations governing his products are well known - but he is putting his money where his mouth is which should be respected.

TheDaddy 16-09-2017 08:03
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35916206)
So let me get this right.

Rather than a Minister with an oversight committee fast tracking approx 12.000 EU rules, regulations and laws onto the statute books to comply with UK law instead of an EU body or the ECJ being the arbiter you'll be happy.

The alternative is introducing each and every one to parliament for discussion and amendment which will take years.

All the time that takes they will be null and void as we will no longer be members of the EU leaving a very large black hole in our statutes.

The Great Repeal bill has a limited time of application (the opponents don't mention that do they?) and ends on Brexit day whenever that may be.

Any of the rules regulations or laws that have been adapted can be modified by due process in parliament as and when they deem necassary just like any other laws.

So, what is your alternative?
You're not right. No where did I state I was a particular fan of the EU or the ECJ in fact truth be known I dislike them almost as much as our own politicians who we've decided to give up scrutinizing on the understanding that they've given their word they won't abuse the privilege

Mr K 16-09-2017 10:54
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Bonkers Boris has repeated the £350m for the NHS lie. More to do to with leadership ambitions than any desire to help the NHS, when did he last use it ? If there was any money it would of course go on tax cuts for high earners, who most need it. Great timing too, just after a terrorist attack. I think Kermit would make a better PM...


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02.
Page 1 of 34 1 234511 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.