Cable Forum - UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Britannia Unchained, a book written (published) in 2012, slated in parts for its poor research and factual errors.

I'd never heard of the book until now, but seemingly (7 years later) it's become something that is making guest appearances in the Brexit circus :rolleyes:

Maybe their words are making an appearance because it shows what they really think and imo that's especially important now considering we're giving these people control over workers rights and conditions, the workers they think are idling in bed rather than "grafting", considering the reviews you found I'd say these people are the lazy ones though

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36015129)

When was it ever in the legal agreement?:confused:
The only references to "level playing field" were in the customs arrangements for NI.

When it was part of the binding withdrawl agreement, iirc they moved it from there to the non binding political declaration

Hugh	27-10-2019 16:30

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36015138)

so why give it the nod without reading it? Incompetence?

I don’t know - you’d have to ask the 285 Conservative MPs, the 19 Labour MPs, and the 25 Independent MPs who voted for it...

OLD BOY

27-10-2019 19:21

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36015073)

An absolute irrelevance against the point you made!

I have to laugh at the English though, when you consider Old Boy incorrectly calling Jeremy Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser, surely the right of the Palestinian people or Irish people to govern themselves is the same?

If other people's blood is the price to pay in an armed cause so be it. Indeed, research shows that the English won't mind violence if it delivers Brexit. It's a queer paradox.

Your perversity knows no bounds, jfman. Whose blood is being spilt over Brexit?

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:07 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36015083)

You've made a selective misrepresentation. Nomad's sentence was:

"If the EU was ever to introduce something that was actually beneficial to businesses, they wouldn't want anybody else to introduce it. The aim is to put the same restrictions on EU businesses, that the French and Germans put on their own businesses. They don't want anybody else to have an economic advantage over them."

i.e. by introducing 4 weeks annual leave and a maximum 48 hour week across the EU, they wanted to ensure that the level playing field was maintained - something anti-competitive. "Luckily" we gained an opt-out.

And what many do not understand is that the 'opt-outs' are very limited and restricted to only certain defined provisions.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36014969)

It's hardly right to create an unwanted, arbitrary deadline that nobody will take seriously in any case. Parliament, and the country, needs a general election. A false deadline and no agreement only sees a further extension, a later election and a later conclusion to the whole debacle.

The EU get accused of forcing countries into second referendums until they get the result they want. In this case they can leave us to this farce all by themselves.

Deadlines are only ineffective if no-one takes them seriously. As a negotiator myself, I have found deadlines to be very effective - they concentrate minds.

But you have to mean it when you set a deadline.

---------- Post added at 19:21 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36014999)

Your position is expected as you are happy with any cost to the country to achieve the result you crave for. For the majority of the country, their view is different, they do not wish to be poorer and so No Deal needs to go.

Britain will not be poorer. More lies from Project Fear, stoked by the economic forecasts that give attention only to the benefits we will lose.

What about those we will gain? You can't get your head around that, can you?

jfman

27-10-2019 19:24

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

The EU don’t have to “mean it” though. The longer we waste time we remain a net contributor to the EU. The longer the farce continues we demonstrate to other countries that leaving the EU is incredibly difficult, which suits their needs.

As for the part in bold you can see I’m referring to polling.

nomadking

27-10-2019 19:29

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36015140)

Where precisely?
From the old WA.

Quote:

ARTICLE 6 Single customs territory, movement of goods
1. Until the future relationship becomes applicable, a single customs territory between the Union
and the United Kingdom shall be established ("the single customs territory"). Accordingly,
Northern Ireland is in the same customs territory as Great Britain.
...

The rules set out in Annex 2 to this Protocol shall apply in respect of all trade in goods between the
territories referred to in the second subparagraph, as well as, where so provided, between the single
customs territory and third countries. With a view to ensuring the maintenance of the level playing
field conditions required for the proper functioning of this paragraph, the provisions set out in
Annex 4 to this Protocol shall apply. Where appropriate, the Joint Committee may modify Annex 4
in order to lay down higher standards for these level playing field conditions.

1andrew1

27-10-2019 20:45

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36015138)

so why give it the nod without reading it? Incompetence?

Incompetent in that it damages the country more than Theresa May's deal but less than a no-deal. But ideologically fine if they believe in Brexit at any cost.

nomadking

27-10-2019 20:49

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36015167)

Incompetent in that it damages the country more than Theresa May's deal but less than a no-deal. But ideologically fine if they believe in Brexit at any cost.

Both "deal" and "no deal" end up the same, except with "no deal" it costs us less.
People are being deliberately misled into believing that the "deal" is some magical thing that solves everything for eternity. It is legally meant to be "Transitional, and unambiguously limited in time".

People are being led to believe that any "deal" is the "promised land".

1andrew1

27-10-2019 20:56

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36015169)

Both "deal" and "no deal" end up the same, except with "no deal" it costs us less.

But no deal will see the closure of companies like Vauxhall Ellesmere Port so I'm not sure how that's cheaper.

nomadking

27-10-2019 21:22

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36015172)

But no deal will see the closure of companies like Vauxhall Ellesmere Port so I'm not sure how that's cheaper.

"Deal" still means we end up in the same position, just at the end of next year instead.

There is a general collapse in the car industry, so either way it is likely to close, especially if the unions have their way. Ellesmere Port was in trouble long before now.

TheDaddy

27-10-2019 21:34

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36015158)

Where precisely?
From the old WA.

Unless bozo rewrote the whole thing it's in there somewhere...

In Mr Johnson's Brexit deal, references to a level playing field - the idea that the UK and EU countries keep their rules and standards close to prevent one trying to gain a competitive advantage - were removed from the legally binding withdrawal agreement.

Instead, they were put into the non-binding "political declaration", which describes the potential future relationship between the UK and EU.

1andrew1

27-10-2019 21:51

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36015175)

The unions don't want Ellesmere Port to close. Its owners don't want it to close.
No deal saves no money, it just adds uncertainty and reduces jobs.

ianch99

28-10-2019 08:19

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36015126)

Sounds reasonable I guess, they must be hoping that the students have been sufficiently brainwashed to vote their way ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36015127)

Hoping the lecturers have done a good job eh;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36015169)

Evidence please that No Deal is the bargain you claim?

---------- Post added at 08:19 ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36015152)

Britain will not be poorer. More lies from Project Fear, stoked by the economic forecasts that give attention only to the benefits we will lose.

What about those we will gain? You can't get your head around that, can you?

Yet again, the childlike tropes are wheeled out. You need to apply science and not faith to this process. Without evidence backed up by authoritative reasoning, all you have are aspirations ..

OLD BOY

28-10-2019 08:30

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36015183)

It is sad albeit amusing that there are people in this country that actually believe this rubbish. This sort of stuff only really belongs in the Daily Mail readers comments ..

---------- Post added at 08:14 ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 ----------

Evidence please that No Deal is the bargain you claim?

---------- Post added at 08:19 ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 ----------

Yet again, the childlike tropes are wheeled out. You need to apply science and not faith to this process. Without evidence backed up by authoritative reasoning, all you have are aspirations ..

It is well known that when you remove restrictions and reduce taxes for business, entrepreneurs respond. It is not possible to forecast how they will respond in most cases but it is possible to determine the overall likely benefit. With something big like this, and with the additional incentives Boris would put in place, the benefits could be huge.

We will be trading with more countries, not less, and our trade with the EU will remain largely the same. So the absence of the 'science' to prove the point is on your side, old chap.

The economic forecasts are heavily weighted towards the benefits we would lose, not the benefits we would gain, so these are very skewed forecasts.

---------- Post added at 08:30 ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36015156)

The EU don’t have to “mean it” though. The longer we waste time we remain a net contributor to the EU. The longer the farce continues we demonstrate to other countries that leaving the EU is incredibly difficult, which suits their needs.

As for the part in bold you can see I’m referring to polling.

Polling or trolling?

Hugh	28-10-2019 09:12

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

‘It is well known" = "can’t find any recent examples, so will resort to cliches"... ;)

Here’s a recent example that begs to differ that tax cuts help the economy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/trum...tudy-says.html

Quote:

The study indicated that the tax changes contributed only marginally to the overall economic economic gains — maybe 0.3% of a “feedback effect.” The economists say that for the tax cuts to pay for themselves, as Trump has promised, GDP would have to rise by 6.7%.

“The initial effect of a demand side is likely to be reflected in increased consumption and the data indicate little growth in consumption in 2018,” the report said. “Much of the tax cut was directed at businesses and higher-income individuals who are less likely to spend. Fiscal stimulus is limited in an economy that is at or near full employment.”

At the same time, tax receipts from 2018 indicate that corporations got an even bigger break than expected.

While the Congressional Budget Office had forecast a $94 billion break that still would have generated $243 billion in corporate revenues, the actual total was $205 billion, or 16% lower than projected.

Meanwhile, in a totally unrelated area

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/13/69419...dicted-to-fall

Quote:

The U.S. government's public debt is now more than $22 trillion — the highest it has ever been. The Treasury Department data comes as tax revenue has fallen and federal spending continues to rise. The new debt level reflects a rise of more than $2 trillion from the day President Trump took office in 2017.

Despite being in the second-longest economic expansion since the post–World War II boom, the U.S. is projected to rack up annual deficits and incur national debt at rates not seen since the 1940s, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Over the next 10 years, annual federal deficits — when Congress spends more than it takes in through tax revenues — are expected to average $1.2 trillion, which would be 4.4 percent of gross domestic product. That's far higher than the 2.9 percent of GDP that has been the average for the past 50 years.

OLD BOY

28-10-2019 09:16

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36015194)

‘It is well known" = "can’t find any recent examples, so will resort to cliches"... ;)

Ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what happens to government income when you reduce high levels of taxation.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02.

Page 115 of 369

« First

105

111