Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35952710)

The water has been poisoned. You drink it if you want to....

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35952717)

I have to keep asking...what new trade deals??

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35952717)

That is exactly what will happen though. We will get poorer. Why? Not because we have more trade but because we will have friction and tariffs in the trade that we used to have that was open and free and because the rest already will have the trade with the bloc that used to involve us, less us after our departure.

After March 2019 we're telling the rest of the world: "we're here, come get us". We are not putting an "open for business" sign up, we are putting a "open for pillaging" sign up and that we are here for the spoils.



They will comfortably be able to take an 80 billion a year hit...easily. More fool us if we think that they will care about that. They'll make it up in other ways (at our expense) like fees / currency charges / service changes and so on.

We are never ever going to win this battle, ever.



If we decide to levy no tariffs to nations outside the EU, it would be a great thing...you know why?

Because it will put all the dead wood who all voted to leave, out of business. What is the point in bitching about EU member states undercutting us, only to have the rest of the world outside Europe, come eat our lunch???



I have to keep asking...what new trade deals?? The US is a 20 trillion dollar economy, and in the midst of the 2020 Presidential campaign there will be zero appetite for a trade deal.

Trump will wish to fleece the UK but no way does it get through the Senate, which it needs to.

Britain will not come out of this better off - the US is going to rip the UK into pieces, which it still cannot while the UK is still a part of the EU. (The largest trading bloc in the world).

Trump managed to get past Rexit eventually this year and his new negotiator / diplomat in chief is being outdone by Kim Jong Un. Brexit would be a step too far - because if he were to be outdone by this group in the cabinet then he should resign as President. It is one thing to be outdone by North Korea but by May? The Japanese would tell him to go out honorably at that point.

If Trump wins re-elect / gets through past 2021 or so and there is a transition period short enough then I suppose the UK could present itself (in the mating sense) to the US and allow Cornyn / Pence etc to get even more out of Britain before 2024 - I guess that everyone will learn the hard way in the end.

Trump is chomping at the bit here, so it Manuchin / Kudlow / Ross etc. They are just from within the cabinet. Cornyn and co want a go in the Senate...God knows what the House make all of this, too.

Do you really want to save your pride only to be cannibalized by a nation with almost 10 times the economy???

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35952659)

I have yet to be convinced that we will be worse off post Brexit, Andrew. If we get to improve our ability to trade, we will be better off.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35952773)

Imagine if they don't have an idea of what to ask for after Friday's 'discussions'? Proper drama.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35952775)

They will do. An extension. :)

---------- Post added at 22:29 ---------- Previous post was at 21:32 ----------

More procrastination/weakening the resolve of the Brexiters.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ions-sm2nv0hgl

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35952745)

Thank you for the very kind words - I have kind of been following politics since I was like 5 and have had no choice but to learn a knack for a lot of it. My husband is very into politics, too and I would not have a conversation through an entire day at times unless I got some political know-how.

The weird thing is, I just happen to know a lot about politics / law but that is not to say I have all that much interest in it, lol.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35952773)

Imagine if they don't have an idea of what to ask for after Friday's 'discussions'? Proper drama.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35952572)

Just go for the Hard Brexit then the EU negotiate against it :D

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35952789)

BREAKING: European Union starts rule-of-law procedure against Poland, which could eventually see its EU voting rights removed. Source: Associated Press.

That's Poland surely now wanting to leave the corrupted EU then for sure.

The EU deserves all it gets as far as I am concerned. My justification to vote leave grows more affirmed every day. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35952802)

So you would disagree that the judiciary should be independent of political influence and be less corrupt as per article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the UN Charter on Human Rights?

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35952812)

Haven’t you figured it out yet?

I do not recognise any judicial ruling or policy from within a corrupted entity, the EU is one such entity.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35952812)

Haven’t you figured it out yet?

I do not recognise any judicial ruling or policy from within a corrupted entity, the EU is one such entity.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35952717)

Why? Not because we have more trade but because we will have friction and tariffs in the trade that we used to have that was open and free and because the rest already will have the trade with the bloc that used to involve us, less us after our departure.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35952729)

Nice :) I wish I had the time to do the research that would allow be to write a "weapons grade" post like this.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35952821)

They are corrupt because the European Court of Auditors have found regularly that billions of Euros have not been paid in accordance with rules.

At least the EU Commission is holding Poland to account for its slide to the old ways.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35952767)

In 9 months we will be out - we will have left the CU (or so May keeps saying) so how about we wait and see? At that point, you will not need to be convinced of anything - the proof will be right there to see.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35952816)

No he is talking about how the Polish government is interfering with the independence of their own courts.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35952825)

You have no idea? trade is very simple, someone has something sell, someone has money to buy. As ass the sellers terms and the buyers terms are met they will trade. I believe it has been going on for many thousands of years now.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35952829)

Trade agreements are not that simple though which is why they take so long to create.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35952830)

So we should prepare for the no-deal because that is what is going to happen, and it's not because of any particular failing of the UK government, it is because the EU do not, cannot, and will not give us a decent bespoke deal.

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35952824)

Interestingly, I was looking at the audit numbers earlier. Here's the latest 'in brief' report - https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAD...ef-2016-EN.pdf . The error rate was 3.1% in 2016 which is above the 2% threshold. It is going in the right direction though;

2016 - 3.1%
2015 - 3.8%
2016 - 4.4%

Direct payments and administration are below the material threshold at 1.3% while reimbursements are at 4.8%. This is partly why the EU anti fraud agency is busy! Unfortunately, the biggest fraud so far was by the UK at €2.7bn...

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35952824)

Interestingly, I was looking at the audit numbers earlier. Here's the latest 'in brief' report - https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAD...ef-2016-EN.pdf .The error rate was 3.1% in 2016 which is above the 2% threshold. It is going in the right direction though;

2016 - 3.1%
2015 - 3.8%
2016 - 4.4%

Direct payments and administration are below the material threshold at 1.3% while reimbursements are at 4.8%. This is partly why the EU anti fraud agency is busy! Unfortunately, the biggest fraud so far was by the UK at €2.7bn...

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35952836)

First of all, the 3.1% you mentioned still runs into over €1 billion.

Second, the alleged UK fraud you mentioned, is not part of the audit report that you referenced. In any case the UK government rejects the allegation and its methodology as reported in https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUKKCN1GK2CG

Third, on methodology, the Audit Court took 1,000 transaction samples out of the millions across the EU directorate. They then extrapolated the 1.3% across the total spend to provide their gross estimate of error. Apart from the 1,000 transactions being of questionable statistical significance for this type of investigation, I don't see where they've paid attention to where fraud or error is likely to be more easily committed. Their sampling method is questionable and I'm cynical enough to say contrived to show a benign trend.

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------



Btw the referendum was in 2016 and working backwards for decades, the error rate even using their skewed method was inexcusable.

I'm ashamed for you that you accused the UK of committing a €2.7 billion fraud. The EU is making the accusation and our guvmin is refuting that allegation.

I really do want remainers to try and make our exit work rather than keep on about how much better it will be to stay in the EU. Respect the Referendum result, please.

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35952844)

Fair enough, I am not an accountant (my experience of audits are quality system ones) and assumed that financial audits take samples and extrapolate from that (much like quality audits) rather than going line by line through the whole account book.[SEPH]: The audit methodology can be found at https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAD..._MANUAL_EN.pdf and for sample size in §2.25.. Long story short on that one, the base for the threshold % (they chose 1,000 samples for audit) is usually total expenditure; so how they arrive at an exact number such as 1,000 on "Entitlement & Administrative Payments" of €63.3 billion is somewhat opaque - especially as the total number of transactions is not stated in your link. The Audit Rules state that they usually take 2% of the total population. This would be €1.3 billion and 1,000 samples would average §1.3 million each. Without knowing what the actual average payment is, it is somewhat opaque as to the validity of the 1,000 samples

<SNIP>

I didn't accuse the UK of committing fraud BTW, OLAF did this. However, the government is quibbling on the value, not the facts. I am concerned that, if this is true, then the trust for a new trading agreement is somewhat eroded.
[SEPH]: Well, your actual words were was issued as a statement of fact: "Unfortunately, the biggest fraud so far was by the UK at €2.7bn".

I also think it is clutching at straw to say that "the level of trust for a new trading agreement is somewhat eroded". If we remained in the EU, wouldn't that erosion of trust remain? Your point seems to me to be self-defeating.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35952822)

It's not free now, it's never been free. It cost us that magical figure that escapes me £360billion or so minus the rebate.

In fact some things will be much cheaper from around the world as we can decide what tariffs to but on other goods and not the EU tariffs.

what's going to be pillaged?

and we'll be free to buy elsewhere.

you sound like a battered wife in an abusive relationship.



We will get to decide what tariffs, to whom and how much instead of being told what to do.

ramblings

---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:01 ----------



Weapons grade? ramblings of a madman/woman

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35952829)

Trade agreements are not that simple though which is why they take so long to create. The bigger the parties involved the more complicated it gets. It's not just a case of 'we'll sell you Scotch, in return we'll buy Levi jeans' although that gets incredibly difficult as different industries within the respective nations jockey for protections e.t.c. It's also demanding political action from the governments involved. So maybe we want to ensure 'Scotch' is a protected term and want legal assurances from the other nation that their government will take action against anyone within their country from using that term for their own, non-Scottish, whisky makers. Maybe a nation wants copyright laws toughened, almost certainly regulations need to be changed and so on.

It's all very well saying 'I have something to sell, you have money to buy it' but we're dealing with billions of pounds worth of goods moving back and forth between different regulatory and legal environments. Especially when governments don't want their citizens buying from foreign rivals but simultaneously want to protect the right of their businesses to sell to foreign governments.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35952850)

Fair enough, I am not an accountant (my experience of audits are quality system ones) and assumed that financial audits take samples and extrapolate from that (much like quality audits) rather than going line by line through the whole account book.[SEPH]: The audit methodology can be found at https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAD..._MANUAL_EN.pdf and for sample size in §2.25.. Long story short on that one, the base for the threshold % (they chose 1,000 samples for audit) is usually total expenditure; so how they arrive at an exact number such as 1,000 on "Entitlement & Administrative Payments" of €63.3 billion is somewhat opaque - especially as the total number of transactions is not stated in your link. The Audit Rules state that they usually take 2% of the total population. This would be €1.3 billion and 1,000 samples would average §1.3 million each. Without knowing what the actual average payment is, it is somewhat opaque as to the validity of the 1,000 samples

<SNIP>

I didn't accuse the UK of committing fraud BTW, OLAF did this. However, the government is quibbling on the value, not the facts. I am concerned that, if this is true, then the trust for a new trading agreement is somewhat eroded.
[SEPH]: Well, your actual words were was issued as a statement of fact: "Unfortunately, the biggest fraud so far was by the UK at €2.7bn".

I also think it is clutching at straw to say that "the level of trust for a new trading agreement is somewhat eroded". If we remained in the EU, wouldn't that erosion of trust remain? Your point seems to me to be self-defeating.

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35952865)

First, a solid doffing of the cap for the research, thanks for bringing links, it's always appreciated!! [SEPH]: Cheers.

As I said, I am not a finance person, I'm a scientist so I guess I took this at face value. Is the methodology used different from that used elsewhere, i.e. commercial auditing or other governmental audits? I had a brief look and it seems sampling is used a lot but I am not familiar with what is good practice. [SEPH]: The bit I'm questioning mainly, is the sampling. In human studies, context is everything. If you needed to do a survey of, say, Christianity in major UK cities, you'd ensure that your sample represented that context. Then 1,000 random people in that context, would have statistical significance. When you are auditing EU expenditure, some areas are more prone to irregularity than others and for something as serious as this, you'd want to have proper weighting before making an across the board extrapolation. I'm saying that the statistical basis they've used is inadequate and in any case opaque to context.

On the trust issue, as a member of the EU, we have a mutually agreed remedy for disputes in the ECJ. We of course don't want any of that going forward so along with a trade deal, there is going to be a strong remedial/governance system going forward, especially if there is evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing by one party beforehand. [SEPH]: The EC is chasing money from other countries on the same customs basis. I see your point, that Brexit somewhat hinders the recoverability of any due sum. I wish they were as diligent in pursuing Germany for consistently breaking the 3% surplus rule.

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35952865)

First, a solid doffing of the cap for the research, thanks for bringing links, it's always appreciated!!

As I said, I am not a finance person, I'm a scientist so I guess I took this at face value. Is the methodology used different from that used elsewhere, i.e. commercial auditing or other governmental audits? I had a brief look and it seems sampling is used a lot but I am not familiar with what is good practive.

On the trust issue, as a member of the EU, we have a mutually agreed remedy for disputes in the ECJ. We of course don't want any of that going forward so along with a trade deal, there is going to be a strong remedial/governance system going forward, especially if there is evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing by one party beforehand.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35952969)

It's Britain's biggest car manufacturer employing 40,000 people in this great country of ours and supports a further 300,000 people. A great British success story, exporting all around the world. Fantastic brand names and a strong heritage and owned by a company based in a Brexiter's favourite country for a deal., India
What did that company say about a hard Brexit today?

https://www.ft.com/content/d077afaa-...5-50daf11b720d

To those gathering at Chequers on Friday, if you see this by any slim chance, I urge you to think of those impacted by your decisions.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35952971)

they will still ignore any evidence as they always do Andrew

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35952969)

It's Britain's biggest car manufacturer employing 40,000 people in this great country of ours and supports a further 300,000 people. A great British success story, exporting all around the world. Fantastic brand names and a strong heritage and owned by a company based in a Brexiter's favourite country for a deal., India
What did that company say about a hard Brexit today?

https://www.ft.com/content/d077afaa-...5-50daf11b720d

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35952977)

Would this be the same Company that dumped Corus (British Steel) after buying them and 'stealing' the technology required to improve their steel plants in India? Surely you remember the anguish caused by that :shocked:

Jaguar, owned by Tata . . . Jaguar, the prestige car that turned into a Mondeo chassis under a Jaguar shell :p:

Have a look at the 'products' owned by the Great Tata Corporation, you may see a few surprises in there :naughty:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35952980)

How can you steal the technology if you own it? :dunce:
Tata Steel has not been dumped, it's merged with Thyssen Krupp Steel.
Jaguar and LandRover are two great British car brands. No amount of mud-throwing will take that away from us. And hopefully a sensible pro-jobs Brexit won't either.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35952981)

Is that it?

Stolen . . . probably not the correct word, but you know what I meant :rolleyes:

Tata were dumped? Did you not see the news down south? It was in all the papers I'm sure, the long drawn out negotiations to prevent closure of most of the steel making plants.

Jaguar and LandRover were two great British car brands, now they're average.

And please desist from calling foreign owned companies British :D

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35952985)

oh well they were right . . . bye

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35953000)

Here's an interesting conundrum from the EU Withdrawal Act:

10 Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements

(1) In exercising any of the powers under this Act, a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must—

(a) act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and

(b) have due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

(2) Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which—

(a) diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or

(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35953016)

The incompetence of my guvmin is shocking. On a democratic basis, if there was to be no second referendum, one would have wanted the outcome to suit the Referendum result.

There is no doubt in my mind nor any Brexit supporters to whom I have spoken that leaving all the EU institutions is what Brexit means. Now the NI border outcome is enshrined in law and so the guvmin is unable to deliver Brexit - even if the EU were to stop saying "no".

I also have to say that Parliament is an unedifying spectacle. The main Opposition instead of mocking, should be helping; the Conservatives instead of entrenching, should back the Referendum result. I can't see a parliamentary way out of this even if May is toppled unless we hold a second Referendum.

Much as I hate the Brussels lot, I'd be almost as happy staying in and using picador sticks to keep them honest and keep the derogations we currently have.

Btw, I was never against EU freedom of movement. But I am totally against the EU Parliament having sovereignty over ours, which is the current EU policy of "ever closer union". An inner and outer EU wouldn't be a bad solution.

We're in a very difficult position. Brexit cannot now be delivered. A pity.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953026)

WTO, here we come! Then we wait for Brussels to crawl back, wanting to make some deals.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953026)

I think what TM is trying to prove is that 'no deal' is the only way of securing what the people of this country voted for. Brexit! :D

WTO, here we come! Then we wait for Brussels to crawl back, wanting to make some deals.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35953013)

In the latest development, the man who has to sell the “best of both worlds” plan that Mrs May is cooking up, says that he can't sell it :erm:

David Davis says May's new Brexit customs plan is unworkable

Davis 'tells May customs plan is unworkable' on eve of crunch Brexit meeting

Oh dear ..

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35953027)

I think we've overestimated our hand, hence the EU hardly coming to us in desperation. The idea that the EU will be begging for a trade deal seemed to inform our approach for the last few years and it wasn't happened.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953035)

Not at all. The electorate voted for Brexit - a straight divorce. It is the government that has been trying to get the best of both worlds, and why not try, indeed?

Whether or not the EU decides to sacrifice a limb so that it can feel satisfied with itself that it has given us a black eye and deterred others from attempting an escape will not alter the bright future we have outside the EU. We've done it before and we will do it again.

Industry will react positively to having the shackles of the EU removed. The government is here to aid those industries in the short term who are having difficulty in making a quick adjustment.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35953044)

https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status...72751377707014

Lol ok

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35953027)

I think we've overestimated our hand, hence the EU hardly coming to us in desperation. The idea that the EU will be begging for a trade deal seemed to inform our approach for the last few years and it wasn't happened.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35953044)

https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status...72751377707014



Lol ok

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35953059)

Andrew Neil is discussing a Spector blog that is claiming that Mrs May's "deal" will preclude a US trade deal

Breaking: James Forsyth in Spectator Coffee House: Theresa May’s Brexit paper could mean no US trade deal

I think that JRM and co. will try and bring Mrs May down over this if it true. This is their red line. Trading with the "rest of the world" is their essential hope ..

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35953061)

If May cannot get cabinet agreement, then the matter might better be handed over to Parliament at this stage. An election should only be called if Parliament do anything more drastic that call for a second Referendum.

If the leaks about the "third way" are true, she cannot obtain agreement in Cabinet. So she's up Schmitt creek nix paddle.

What a pity that she has betrayed the Referendum result.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35953062)

The referendum result was a slim majority for leave, whatever that meant, not an overwhelming majority (ie 2/3) for a hard Brexit.
I contend she's honouring the referendum result.
Any hard Brexit will fail as industry will suffer in the long term and people didn't vote to be worse off.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35953065)

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35953068)

What is sad is that, during the 2016 campaign (also known as "Project Fear"), it was pointed out that we would be in trouble if we leave with no deal which now looks more and more likely:

EU referendum: CBI warns of UK exit 'serious shock'

Brexit 'huge blow' warns ex-World Trade Organisation boss

I guess people cannot complain that they were not told?

The biggest con in this whole debacle is that the Leave campaign did not have a plan, a real world, financially costed and detailed plan. I, for one, would have no complaints if everyone was given a detailed viable strategy on how we could transition from an EU member state to one operating as a "third country" without a serious cost to the country and its citizens.

FFS even Corbyn put together a costed manifesto at the last election and he's an idiot! What did Leave give us? Look here and you can see the master plan in all its glory:

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35953066)

I've not said anything about a second referendum. :confused: I've explained how she's honouring the referendum result.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35953068)

What is sad is that, during the 2016 campaign (also known as "Project Fear"), it was pointed out that we would be in trouble if we leave with no deal which now looks more and more likely:

EU referendum: CBI warns of UK exit 'serious shock'

Brexit 'huge blow' warns ex-World Trade Organisation boss

I guess people cannot complain that they were not told?

The biggest con in this whole debacle is that the Leave campaign did not have a plan, a real world, financially costed and detailed plan. I, for one, would have no complaints if everyone was given a detailed viable strategy on how we could transition from an EU member state to one operating as a "third country" without a serious cost to the country and its citizens.

FFS even Corbyn put together a costed manifesto at the last election and he's an idiot! What did Leave give us? Look here and you can see the master plan in all its glory:

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35953070)

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35953068)

<SNIP>

The biggest con in this whole debacle is that the Leave campaign did not have a plan, a real world, financially costed and detailed plan. I, for one, would have no complaints if everyone was given a detailed viable strategy on how we could transition from an EU member state to one operating as a "third country" without a serious cost to the country and its citizens.
[SEPH]: The Leave campaign was pathetic and yet the Referendum result was LEAVE. The real con was May's "Brexit means Brexit" whereby the guvmin did not plan properly for the potential outcomes and thus triggering Article 50 too early.

<SNIP

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35953062)

The referendum result was a slim majority for leave, whatever that meant, not an overwhelming majority (ie 2/3) for a hard Brexit.
I contend she's honouring the referendum result.
Any hard Brexit will fail as industry will suffer in the long term and people didn't vote to be worse off.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35953080)

It will not suffer - this is just you and your "Worse off" rubbish.

NO such thing as Hard Brexit either. Sick of telling you this.

The result was not a slim majority either, over one million people voted to leave than Remain - the result was binary, the answer was to leave, not leave but let's stay in parts of the EU.

You do know what "Leaving" something means don't you ?

If 17.4 Million people do not get the Brexit they voted for, do you honestly think we are just going to sit there and smile and say, ok then just ignore the what I voted for, betray me and what we voted for, there will be a revolt and riots will quite possibly happen and I will be there because what I voted for, that WON, in a Democracy is being denied and that is NOT acceptable!!!

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35953081)

1. It's not just me who says this. Pretty much every economist says this as does the Government's own analysis. Time to face the facts and listen to people like Jaguar LandRover who actually make things in this country and less to daydreamers like Rees-Mogg.

2. Hard Brexit is an accepted term used in publications and other media throughout the world. I've given you links to prove this but you may not have had the opportunity to read them so I get your exasperation. Here they are:
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-14/what-is-hard-brexit/
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-is-hard-brexit/
http://time.com/4635762/theresa-may-...rexit-britain/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...et-immigration

3. 52-48 is slim compared to a two-thirds majority. In Norway there was a similarly slim majority to join the EU. So the country decided not to as it was not a compelling majority but instead opted to join the EEA.

4. I know what leave means Mick. Some may not like it but the can will be kicked gradually down the road, and there won't be one sudden flare-up point.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35953091)

Happy Government decides what to ask for day (and it only took two years)! Will May survive until the weekend?

---------- Post added at 08:36 ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 ----------

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/stat...29187395481600

Ministers who resign will not be allowed to use Government cars to return to London. Instead the number for a local taxi firm will be used. Lol.

Claims that Cameron met Boris last night to persuade him to accept May's Brexit Plan: https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/s...36404840607745

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35953100)

It’s irrelevant who accepts what here, any attempt to keep the UK, in any part of the EU is unacceptable and will be met with public revolt as it should!

Democracy must be respected, we must leave the EU in its entirety!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35953101)

You better tell that to the PM and her warring cabinet as thus so far all we have had is a total omnishambles since the referendum result..

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35953100)

It’s irrelevant who accepts what here, any attempt to keep the UK, in any part of the EU is unacceptable and will be met with public revolt as it should!

Democracy must be respected, we must leave the EU in its entirety!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953107)

It's called 'getting it right', Den. Brexit was never going to be easy, whoever was in charge. Theresa May is correct in her determination to explore all the options on the best deal we can get with the EU while leaving the EU, single market and customs union. You would expect her to do that, right?

If the EU is not prepared to budge, at least she tried, and tried hard. But Brexit will not be a disaster if we fall back on WTO rules, as some people claim. And as far as the border with the Republic of Ireland is concerned, we can put in place technological systems which will enable a 'virtual' border to be in place without the need for physical checks at the border. If the EU don't like it, they can put up the border and that will be down to them.

I still think a deal can be done with the EU, as does Theresa May, to this day. However, if they are intransigent enough to want to shoot off their own foot in an attempt to make an example of us, I know who will end up being embarrassed in the end.

Theresa May is pulling out all the stops to try to implement the wishes of the electorate. We should be supporting her for these valiant attempts to get a good deal with the EU alongside the Brexit objective. We should be getting behind her and cheering her on rather than criticising her at every twist and turn.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35953131)

I know Brexit votes that wanted to stay in single market so not all brexiteers voted for same thing and why people want uk to fall over cliff edge is beyond me

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35953131)

not if the reports about wanting cake and eat it they wont

---------- Post added at 13:02 ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 ----------

'Worst of both worlds': Boris Johnson and David Cameron savage Theresa May's Brexit plan

https://news.sky.com/story/worst-of-...-plan-11427859

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953134)

That's an interesting comment, Dave. You know people who wanted to remain in the common market? That would be the worst of all worlds and it will be a contradiction in terms. There would be absolutely no benefit to staying in the Common Market and Brexiting, because there would be no benefits for the UK. In fact, that would be the 'cliff edge' that you keep going on about. Still paying into the EU, still in the customs union and still accepting EU laws (but without having a say in them) and unable to make our own trade deals. Who the heck would vote for that?

Brexit means leaving the EU and its institutions and going it alone as we did prior to our joining the common market. That's what people who want to leave voted for, albeit for different reasons. Nothing to be afraid of, old chap.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------


What's this obsession with cake? Is this connected to the obesity crisis, I wonder? :D I don't like the stuff anyway.

I am surprised by your attitude, Dave, really. Do you not want what's best for Britain? Continued co-operation with the EU, but not within the EU, frictionless borders and yet the ability to make our own trade deals? Why shouldn't we strive for that?

It sounds to me that you are just hoping that this whole thing will be a disaster.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35953101)

You better tell that to the PM and her warring cabinet as thus so far all we have had is a total omnishambles since the result..

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35953137)

jumping of a cliff edge is not whats best for Britain OB and you even will agree with that pm talked about hard Brexit before general election wanting a mandate for it and lost her majority having to go to DUP to stay in office so lost mandate for hard Brexit both sides need to compromise.

she just trying to do what best to keep her party together and not whats best for country like Cameron did with doing referendum it didn't work for him as more divided now as always and it wont work now

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35953137)

jumping of a cliff edge is not whats best for Britain OB and you even will agree with that pm talked about hard Brexit before general election wanting a mandate for it and lost her majority having to go to DUP to stay in office so lost mandate for hard Brexit both sides need to compromise

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------



she just trying to do what best to keep her party together and not whats best for country like Cameron did with doing referendum it didn't work for him as more divided now as always and it wont work now

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35953152)

Exactly. Compromise is the only solution. Let's hope that's what's happening now.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953153)

The decision of the voters was to leave the EU. Your compromise would not achieve that, so it is not a credible alternative.

TM is attempting to thrash out a deal with the EU, but it takes two to tango.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953153)

How is seeking a deal with the EU while Brexiting a 'cliff edge', Dave? You'll need to explain that to me! This is the Government's stated intention, but of course we can't force the EU to do what it doesn't want to do. So, the only alternative for us if the voters' wishes are to be implemented is WTO conditions, and despite the labels put on this option, it is most certainly not a cliff edge. It is a wonderful opportunity.

Seriously, what else would you have the government do? Give up and say, "Voters, you lose?"

All the Brexiters on Theresa's team are saying is "Adhere to the wishes of the British people" and that is exactly what she is doing.

Rather than slagging the government off at every turn, it might be rather more productive to say what you would advocate in order to bring about the result of the referendum - to leave the EU.

---------- Post added at 15:40 ---------- Previous post was at 15:37 ----------



The decision of the voters was to leave the EU. Your compromise would not achieve that, so it is not a credible alternative.

TM is attempting to thrash out a deal with the EU, but it takes two to tango.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35953158)

em she hasn't even started trying to get a deal with EU it her own party she trying to deal at moment that what todays you forgetting the FACTS again OB

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953134)

That's an interesting comment, Dave. You know people who wanted to remain in the common market? That would be the worst of all worlds and it will be a contradiction in terms. There would be absolutely no benefit to staying in the Common Market and Brexiting, because there would be no benefits for the UK. In fact, that would be the 'cliff edge' that you keep going on about. Still paying into the EU, still in the customs union and still accepting EU laws (but without having a say in them) and unable to make our own trade deals. Who the heck would vote for that?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35953157)

It's May's compromise and she needs to thrash it out with the cabinet before she can offer it to the EU.

This thread seems to be completely detached from what is happening.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953170)

Isn't that what today's meeting at Chequers is all about? Working out a plan of the most likely deal the EU will accept while achieving Brexit?
That's what we've been talking about, surely?

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35953158)

em she hasn't even started trying to get a deal with EU it her own party she trying to do a deal at moment that what todays about you forgetting the FACTS again OB

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35953168)

How about Boris Johnson - http://uk.businessinsider.com/boris-...s-union-2018-1
How about Nigel Farage, Daniel Hannan, Owen Patterson and Arron Banks who favoured a Norway style relationship (single market) with the EU - https://quotebrexit.wordpress.com/20...single-market/

They all seemed keen a while back on the single market.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953176)

What TM is trying to do as of today is thrash out the type of deal that would not betray the British electorate whilst being as close to what the EU will accept.

The EU have already rejected previous proposals, and so the idea is to seek a deal as close to what they may accept as possible, while divorcing ourselves from the EU, single market and customs union. That's what Cabinet are debating today and that will be put to the EU.

That's what I have been talking about. What have you been talking about?

You are trying to over-simplify the [B]task ahead in dealing with the EU. It's difficult. Ask Jeremy, he'll know. :erm:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35953177)

project fear oh hang on

---------- Post added at 16:36 ---------- Previous post was at 16:34 ----------



em please remind us who said it be easiest deal in history OB

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35953180)

Boris Johnson's quoted comments were before the referendum.

The electorate voted Brexit, and now he's batting for them.

What's wrong with that?

As for Nigel Farage, I will let him speak for himself. He is not in government and he is not part of these talks.