Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Well the last General election would indicate a preference for the Tories despite no one party getting a majority of seats.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I do not accept they are axioms. Of these only no 1 is possible.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The chips for the nations betrayal are being lined up, ready to be played.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki...ng-870588.html

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Just call me Mystic Meg :)

Brexit: Labour would back members on new vote, says Corbyn

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The EU have looked at the 750 treaties and are acting in accordance with them. This is not theological stance but a legal one (god/religion has nothing to do with this).

The government negotiators may want X, Y or Z, but this is not within the purview of the EU negotiators to give, as they are restricted and governed by the rules. Ergo the EU are not treating the negotiations as a theological.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

If you mean ideological then use the word ideological.

They are still negotiating according to the EU rules, which has nothing to do with ideology or theology. Theoretically they could change the rules, but with 27 countries standing behind those rules they have no reason to change them for a country that wishes to leave the union under which those rules apply.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

1. Yes, her objectives are to save the Conservative Party and to try and get a deal better than was clear when she set her red lines.
2&3. I know it's Sunday but don't think religion is involved although I'm open to correction. The EU's objective is to make sure that members are to incentivise membership, ie a country is better off being a member of the EU than not being a member.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Brexit is confusing enough without introducing metaphors!
Some countries in the EU may want union but most don't so I don't think that's on the agenda. The UK would never go along with this if it remained in the EU so that's nothing I've ever worried about.
Regarding who is a true Brit or not; I suggest a re-reading of post #1 in this thread.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

My god, your ignorance is truly breathtaking.

Ever closer union is the most fundamental base reason of the EU’s existence. Full federalism of a united stated of Europe is and always has been the end game. If you sign up to be in the EU, you sign up to this.

https://researchbriefings.parliament...mmary/CBP-7230

It doesn’t matter if “most don’t” that is the target.

maybe, just maybe, that’s why we voted out???

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I've said it's not on the agenda which is correct. Ever closer union” isn’t specifically a call for political union. Hopefully you actually voted out for a valid reason and not your misunderstanding of this situation.
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaini...-closer-union/

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Whilst you are making spurious claims about the EU behemoth being able to change to suit us?

Well too bad. We will be worse off outside the EU, but this is what the majority chose. The fact those who still support leaving are trying to attribute all sorts of motives to the EU, rather than face that fact the UK government control so much we blame the EU for.

Own the change, take responsibility for that choice and stop blaming the EU for our own governments failings.

As for the last comment, I refer you to the first post rules of this discussion.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Without Chequers, we will suffer some possible temporary disruption (which will be worse if the Government hasn't properly prepared for WTO) but in the medium to long term, we will be better off.

Given the way the EU is going, we will be better out than in.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I will believe that when I see it.

Thus far, with the government negotiators I am not at all hopeful.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The Government is certainly giving the impression that it is not prepared for WTO.

However, as we have been concentrating on and hearing about nothing but Chequers, it is difficult to judge just how prepared they are.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

BREAKING: Shadow Labour Chancellor, John McDonnell tells BBC Radio 4 today that a Second Referendum backed by Labour, will be about the terms of a deal, there will be no option to Remain in the EU, we respect the 2016 Referendum result to leave EU.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I didn't vote "out"

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I voted out for the sound reason of retaing sovereignty and avoiding German hegemony.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Confusing phrasing if you didn't vote out. If you meant that the country voted out, why not state that?

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

You have totally lost it. You are not the Brexit Police so reign in the accusations.

We all have views on what is the best future for us and our children and you are certainly not the person to rule that these views are invalid.

You are entitled to your opinion but it does not make you right.

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 ----------

Care to share the Plan that details this economic model? Seems you are the only one that has a copy :)

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Not confusing in the slightest.

"we" the people, as opposed to "I" me.

Anyway, it's beside the point.

to answer you point

here is a time line of the EU, only goes up to 2009, but from 1973 when we joined up until now, it's only gone one way from a trading block to a political entity and it will ony continue to go one way.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ean-Union.html

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

That’s just more of the Original Project Fear. It was as wrong 40 years ago and it’s still wrong today.

---------- Post added at 12:47 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

If you choose not to believe unbiased fact-checking sites then I’m wasting your time in providing you with counter arguments.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

You don't actually need the technical detail to appreciate that our ability in the future to forge new trade deals and alliances will amount to more trade.

Most of our trade with the EU will remain as it is now, and Barnier has already told us there will be no tariffs.

The risk really is in the necessity to have robust arrangements for goods passing back and forth. This is the case both for UK and EU manufacturers. If the EU play silly beggars on that one, it will cause some disruption, but to both UK and EU traders. Given this, I don't think that will be a problem in the end.

The models predicting economic difficulties for the UK when we leave only do so because of the assumptions built into the algorithms.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Tell me why then did the EEC, a trading bloc of nations, need to evolve into a political entity?

Also, given the evidence and history of how it has thus evolved from a free trade association over the past 40 odd years into a quasi - Federal State, why would you think that it would not evolve further? Why would it stop now?


Perfect example of "don't worry it will never happen" is outlined in the two articles below.

1. Where Euro-fanatic Nick Clegg taunts Farage over his claim that there will be an EU military force. Stating that it is "inconceivable"

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnis...ises-350m-nhs/

2. Forward six months, and suddenly not only is it conceivable but has the backing of the two ring masters France and Germany.

https://www.politico.eu/article/emma...military-plan/

other revealing snippets from that interview are the formation of a European Monetary Fund

for the above read "Greece". We'll keep you in our back pocket, and you will do as we say if want any cash.

another reveal was this too:

Make of that what you will.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

There was me thinking she meant that other power blocs (USA, China, Russia) can't "divide and conquer" individual countries if the EU had agreed a common foreign policy, as she was discussing a proposed joint military force (which we may need if Trump carries through his statements about not supporting NATO).

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Or EU members wont be allowed to have differing view?

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Trouble with our island mentality is that some people think and believe that we still have an Empire or that we are a super power. I am a pro-European and believe that unity is strength and to keep the other three super powers in check. What we should have done was to be running the EU with the French and Germans in the first place instead of sitting on the fence like we seem to do all the time on different matters/scenarios.


Hey ho... down the pan we will all go... don't look back in anger I heard them all say.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

To be fair, that was purely due to DeGaulle and his "non".

Yet once we were in, the UK was one of the main drivers of the ECHR.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The main part of the ECHR before the EU but there is of course the single market. That was Mrs Thatchers big push, liberalising trade across the EU

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Leave Trump out of this. :D
There's nowt selective about my use of an independent fact-checking source to back up an accurate representation of the facts.
I've never disputed that the EU has evolved and that's never been in question. You've chosen to project it evolving into something that there is no plan to happen. Even in some fantasy scenario it did, the UK would not be a part of if it had remained a member.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

You make some interesting points but still nothing there to back up a long-term plan for a United States of Europe.
In a world of large super powers (China, Russia, US) then speaking with one voice makes sense. United we stand, divided we fall and all that. But doubtless EU countries won't agree on everything.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I don’t think anyone thinks that.

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:57 ----------

Well there is but you refuse to acknowledge it, which is fine.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

If there was definitive evidence rather than your interpretation of the evidence everyone would acknowledge it including me.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Pierre rationally chronicled the evolution from common market to army & foreign policy desiring Union. What were Juncker’s words earlier this month if not a further step along the road to a superstate?

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Juncker says a lot of words; which speech are you referring to?
Two countries expressing agreement over something doesn't make it EU policy or strategy.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

True.

I do think one problem we have always had is a lack of understanding on how the people we elect actually work within the EU parliament.

Politics here are pretty much a 2 party system with some fringe groups (which can be right in the middle of the political spectrum). Where the EU is run on PR lines, with groupings according to general political flavour. So trying to explain how a multi party PR elected grouping works bears no relation to the old fashioned adversarial and undemocratic system we have for Westminster.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

There may not be a detailed public plan, Andrew, but if you really do not think that the EU, if it remains in tact for long enough, won't end up as the United States of Europe, you are definitely in the minority on that one.

In fact, it is the only way this failed project ever has the chance of working, and given the type of 'democracy' it will be, I wouldn't wish to be a part of it.

---------- Post added at 08:04 ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 ----------

Proportional representation leads to weak coalition style governments in perpetuity. We have one at the moment, due to a lack of a majority in the House of Commons, and look at how irritated we all are with that. Fortunately, issues such as these do not occur very often and it is when we have a strong government we are most successful.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I don't. Can you quote the relevant passage and link to it, please?

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Is that not a United States of Europe?

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release...17-3165_en.htm

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Go find it and read it for yourself, please. Might also be on a BBC newsclip.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

If you're trying to prove a point, that's one way of not doing it.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The five most healthy and stable governments have PR. Consensus builds in voter engagement and long term planning. With the political swings less extreme governments have to listen to the electorate. Every vote matters.

What we have is not a PR elected system. No one in GB could not vote for any of the candidates currently propping up the Tories. Much as no one anywhere but Scotland could vote for the SNP. Yet because of these area specific parties we have a messy and inconclusive confidence & supply arrangement, with a party that cannot bend enough to run the NI government.


When 57% of Cornwall did not vote Tory, why should they have 100% Tory representation? This is neither representative or democratic.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

[QUOTE=Angua;35964377]The five most healthy and stable governments have PR. Consensus builds in voter engagement and long term planning. With the political swings less extreme governments have to listen to the electorate. Every vote matters.

What we have is not a PR elected system. No one in GB could not vote for any of the candidates currently propping up the Tories. Much as no one anywhere but Scotland could vote for the SNP. Yet because of these area specific parties we have a messy and inconclusive confidence & supply arrangement, with a party that cannot bend enough to run the NI government.


When 57% of Cornwall did not vote Tory, why should they have 100% Tory representation? This is neither representative or democratic.[/QUOTE]

Because that's what the majority voted for as their selected political party.

I'm not sure which countries you have in mind when you talk about 'the five most healthy and stable governments'. They might be 'stable' because no-one can ever change anything.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Well we had the chance for PR, The LibDems forced a referendum post 2010 election, prior to it public opinion was in favour. However the 2 main parties and their media pals vigorously campaigned against and the sheeple obeyed.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Not surprised you can see nothing wrong with our broken democracy. Change when gradual is still change, but the benefits are in long term planning. Rather than lurching from election to election spending half the time undoing what the previous incumbents did, screwing too much up in the process.

Consensus government means people can choose what suits them, rather than choosing X because they think Y is worse, but not really approving of X either.

---------- Post added at 17:57 ---------- Previous post was at 17:56 ----------

Arrrrggggggghhhhhh!!

The 2011 Alternative Vote (AV) Referendum was on a system which, by David Cameron's own admission, is often less proportional than FPTP. If AV had been used in 2015 it would have given the Conservatives an even larger majority on the same vote share (according to analysis by the Electoral Reform Society).

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Well, yes, the Tories made sure of that !

totally agree with you btw, the system is broken. Although I'm certainly no fan of them, UKIP, in the 2015 election got 13% of the vote and 0.15% of the MPs !

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Why the stuck record of "we had a vote on PR" is really a nonsense because we have never had a proper vote on genuine PR systems.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Well, apparently you can only have one go, because circumstances never change...

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

You wouldn't be trying to bring this thread back to Brexit would you Hugh ? ;) It'll end in an argument, i can guarantee...

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The problems with PR are that you have weak government, nothing moves very fast and nobody gets the policies they voted for because there is a permanent coalition.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

If you think recent governments have been in any way strong let alone stable, I would suspect you are living somewhere other than the UK.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

My point exactly. We have had coalition governments recently and they don't work very effectively.

Fortunately in the UK we normally get strong governments with a decent majority in Parliament.

The Blair and Thatcher governments are good examples of administrations with large majorities being able to get things done and make a real difference.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I hope you're not defying the will of the people, Hugh. :)

---------- Post added at 20:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------

Good find. But the two points I raised - the UK would never agree to incorporation in a United States of Europe and that that is not on the agenda are not disproved by this.

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:33 ----------

Yes. Switzerland, Israel, Belgium and Denmark are all weak countries doing badly economically. ;)

---------- Post added at 20:57 ---------- Previous post was at 20:52 ----------

More confusion on this point today.

https://www.ft.com/content/04aa7766-...5-54197280d3f7

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

For the avoidance of doubt that Juncker is advocating centralised control, here is a small extract from his address (my italics):


A STRONGER UNION

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want our Union to be stronger and for this we need a stronger single market.
When it comes to important single market questions, I want decisions in the Council to be taken more often and more easily by qualified majority – with the equal involvement of the European Parliament. We do not need to change the Treaties for this. There are so-called “passerelle clauses” in the current Treaties which allow us to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in certain cases – provided the European Council decides unanimously to do so.

I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax.

Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively, and this also applies to the Economic and Monetary Union.

The euro area is more resilient now than in years past. We now have the European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM). I believe the ESM should now progressively graduate into a European Monetary Fund which, however, must be firmly anchored in the European Union's rules and competences. The Commission will make concrete proposals for this in December.

We need a European Minister of Economy and Finance: a European Minister that promotes and supports structural reforms in our Member States. He or she can build on the work the Commission has been doing since 2015 with our Structural Reform Support Service. The new Minister should coordinate all EU financial instruments that can be deployed if a Member State is in a recession or hit by a fundamental crisis.
I am not calling for a new position just for the sake of it. I am calling for efficiency. The Commissioner for economic and financial affairs – ideally also a Vice-President – should assume the role of Economy and Finance Minister. He or she should also preside the Eurogroup.

The European Economy and Finance Minister must be accountable to the European Parliament.

…...

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

185-days 2-Hrs 47-Min 10-Seconds . :D

Man it's getting close and already super excited. :) I'v got my Union Jack flags,socks,t-shirts,hoodys and all i'm waiting on now is me nan making me Union Jack pants and I'm all sorted . :)

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

He may well be, but that's not in dispute. But is it on the EU agenda? Nope.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

A speech from the unelected president of the unelected EU Commission. Even if it was on the “agenda” and you didn’t agree with it. What powers as an electorate would you have to do anything about It!???????

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

No, we have had coalitions of convenience. Not chosen by the positive PR vote, but by the negative "alternative is worse" voting that FPTP forces voters to make.

Over 64% of the votes cast at the last general election made no difference to the outcome. With PR those votes would actually make a positive difference because people could vote for what they genuinely want. It would teach politicians to negotiate and compromise, rather than dictate and destabilise.

FPTP only works in 2 party situations, it creates political parties that lack conviction. When one main side lurches one way, the other lurches in the opposite direction.

This is why we have ended up with remain leader May trying to negotiate to leave the EU, whilst also trying to keep all the people in her group together, when really they are pulling in different directions, undermining May at every turn.

Cameron started the whole issue with the EU referendum, in attempting to keep the Tories together by the will of the people vote. Sadly May then went to the electorate again, with a strange manifesto including things people really do not want

We are where we are, with a government that really is still not listening to the population, voted for out of fear of the alternative, but not by a sufficient majority of constituencies.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Using your logic, the British PM is "unelected" and the Cabinet is also "unelected". Good to know ...

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2016/...d-bureaucrats/

Here's some bedtime reading for you:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-...slative-powers

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

But I don't want to vote for a party, I want to elect my local MP.

And you can't say that n% of votes didn't count. They all did, they elected their local MP who (should) represent them.

Too much in Europe is divorced from the electorate. How can we affect outcomes individually against a wider majority if our representation is elected more widely? This isn't to say minority issues should overrule but they should be heard.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

But your local MP will only represent, in political terms, a part of his constituency. If your MP gets 55% of votes then 45% of the voters are not represented and their votes did not count.

The party affects your future far more than your local MP does so it makes no sense to vote for your local MP as an individual.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Well while Corbyn has the current anti Brexit stance and calling of a general election.

I will never vote Labour ever again.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Nice try. Keep drinking the cool aid.

The Prime Minister and the cabinet are elected members of parliament

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2016/...d-bureaucrats/

from your link, thanks for researching it for me.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Nice try but no cigar.

MP's are elected to represent their constituencies and their party. They are not elected to become PM or to serve in Cabinet. You can even have the case of a MP becoming PM that did not lead the party and win the General Election.

If Boris becomes PM, no one voted for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson with the corresponding change in policy & direction that such a appointment would bring.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Truly 64% of votes made absolutely no difference to the outcome. That is 64% of people needn't have bothered to vote and the result would have been just the same.

I may have a constituency MP but I have not voted for any MP I have been lumped with since first I could vote. So how do they truly represent me or my politics? With PR there could be a choice of MPs to contact, one of whom would nearer represent me politically.

The EU works on political groupings and work for the good of the whole of Europe. Similarly the voters of England and Wales have voted to take the UK out of EU. Scotland, NI and Gibraltar have no choice in the matter. The majority have voted against their wishes.

---------- Post added at 15:44 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------

Odd how few seem to understand that only the various party mechanisms actually choose and vote for the party leaders. The general public have no say at all.

Only the electorate in that chosen leaders constituency get a direct choice otherwise.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

https://euobserver.com/elections/142946

EU court delivers transparency blow on MEP expenses

The General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg in a press release on Tuesday dismissed the case brought by the reporters against the European Parliament in 2015.

But after some three years of deliberations, the court sided with the parliament, echoing similar arguments prioritising the protection of personal data over the wider public interest.

"By today's judgment, the general court dismisses the actions and confirms the parliaments' decisions refusing access to the documents requested," the statement said.

The court said that parliament was entitled to claim that the documents concerned contain personal data.

In other words, it's not the MEP's private spending that is being protected, but the money they spend that has been taken from our pockets as taxpayers should be open to scrutiny as to propriety.

Remainers: You still want to be part of this crooked regime? Snouts in the trough.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Ah, so that's what the General Data Protection Regulation was all about! Might have known it wasn't for our benefit!

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

For the hard of thinking, to serve as PM or a minister they have to be elected members of parliament, elected by their constituents.

They are not “appointed” to parliament.

EU commissioners are appointed not elected.

You do understand the difference?

Also as opposed to say, the US presidential elections where you vote for an actual individual.

In the UK you vote for a party. The party then decides who their leader is, and therefore who the PM is.

You are also voting on a party manifesto, it shouldn’t really matter who delivers as PM on that manifesto as long as it delivered.

If the party itself decides that the leader is not doing a good job, they can replace him.

So there you have two mechanisms where by you can remove a government or the government can replace a leader.

Which is two more than you get with an EU commissioner

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

For the sake of clarity, unelected bureaucrats do not make decisions in the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi...endum-36429482

But that's all looking backwards. Looking forward to hearing more of people's vision for the UK post-29/3.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Simples - well not really but if there's No Deal then it's got to be something like:

1. Take the initial No Deal hit.
2. Use the saved initial withdrawal dosh to stimulate the economy.
3. Adjust to the change.
4. Move forward as we know we can.
5. Rejoice in being free from their shackles.

I expect the naysayers to trot out links to articles that put figures to misery. But said naysayers have to recognise that the Referendum voted Leave and that's what we must do. And this country is not going to collapse in a heap, even with an inept government and a bunch of Commie Trots in waiting.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The European Commission sets the agenda in the EU, not the politicians. That is the complaint.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

UK appoints food supply minister amid fears of a no deal Brexit.

Fresh food, unlike other supplies has a limited shelf life, so this makes sense. I just wonder why, without agreement, suppliers will still attempt to deliver food to the UK at the end of March?

You never know, maybe milk will actually get to a realistic price where farmers can make a bit of profit.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

When Jacob Rees-Mogg says we may not see the benefits for 50 years, 'initial hit' is a fairly broad brush. I might be 97 before we reap the benefits. My 12 year old daughter will be nearing retirement!

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The nearly instant benefit will be the release of the shackles.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

so, an intangible benefit...

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The negativity of these posts is incredible. 97 years before we see any benefit of being out of the EU? Christ, talk about lack of imagination! How can anyone seriously come up with such a precise figure of 97 years anyway when there are so many different possibilities? I think these forecasters are simply making it up as they go along.

A short term hit is possible, but our enterprising nature will see off any longer term issues - unless, of course, Corbyn gets in and frightens all our investors away.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

No, he said he would be 97 years old based on Rees-Mogg's 50 year time scale.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Are you saying that Rees-Mogg made this up? We're in danger of agreeing! :D

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

So what. A huge sigh of relief to be free from the shackles and a first step forward from the half step back the economy MIGHT take.

Yes, I know, the naysayers will say more than one step back; they don't know that any more than I know the half step.

But we will be free from German hegemony, French skewing of the CAP to suit them and free from Irish perfidy.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Less of the patronising tripe please.

You hate the EU, I do not. You will never convince me that leaving the EU based on the agenda of moving to a right wing, low tax, low regulated free market paradise is the right thing to do.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I don't know where the 97 years came from. In any case, what he said, according to the Guardian at least, was that it would take 50 years before the full economic benefit was felt.

Between 2020 and 2025, we would be many billions of pounds better off.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...t-will-pay-off

By 2025

By the mid-2020s, we should see “a post-Brexit dividend of £135bn just between 2020 and 2025, with a further £40bn a year from then on”, according to Rees-Mogg, who was quoting figures from the pro-Brexit group Economists for Free Trade.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I may not have that long..

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Comedy contradiction OB :)

When you like the predictions, it is going to happen:

but when when you don't, it isn't:

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I will assume I am on ignore, but just in case.

The 97 years was the age the poster would be by the time Rees-Mogg's 50 year claim for post Brexit prosperity would be fully felt

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

"For the hard of thinking" was provocative and undermined the quality of debate.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Strange comment. I was just correcting a previous post. I didn't say that I believed Rees-Mogg's prediction, or any other prediction.

---------- Post added at 18:05 ---------- Previous post was at 18:03 ----------

Thank you for clarifying where the 97 years came from!

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I don’t hate the EU, where have I ever said that? I have said many times Since the vote that I voted remain, because I did.

But now, what 2 years on?, I have fully come to terms with the result, and fully got on board.

It would have been easier to stay in and sail the the river Rio Status Quo, but a different path has been chosen and it will work if we look forward and not back.

We are leaving the EU.....it is law........regardless of whatever deal or no deal, that is irrelevant. Giving parliament a vote on whether they like the the deal is irrelevant.

That’s why all the current debate around it pointless. We are leaving to not do so would be unlawful, so we better get used to it........

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Seems some Brexiteers would be happy to renege on the NHS bus idea all together. Suggesting letting American firms run NHS hospitals.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

so only ones with a credit card get seen to no thanks

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

British Businesses seem very unprepared for a no deal Brexit. No doubt people will whinge about scare mongering, but many SMEs have little capacity to plan for Brexit and government seem to have their heads in the sand over this.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

It won't be the first time that governments have introduced laws that don't give businesses much time to comply.

Not satisfactory, but they'll cope.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The important thing here is to get over the line and leave the EU. Transitional arrangements: fine. Chequers - if the EU agreed to it, very reluctantly fine provided it doesn't lock us into anything permanent; we can always change things later.

Just let's leave the EU behind - get away from German hegemony, French self-protection, ever closer union and all the baggage associated with the EU.