Re: Brexit discussion
 

You sure about this? Unless our government get it together we all lose in the short and medium term.

The biggest sign of a loser is surely ignoring the evidence and refusing to accept that course of action may be wrong given the facts as they stand compared to how they were in the past.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

We can't be doing that well trading with Europe the country has been in a financial mess for years. Perhaps leaving the EU will be what stops our country sinking.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Any facts to support this?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Perhaps though there's nothing I'm aware of that points to that leaving the EU will help.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

There's things wrong with this country from income inequality to lack of affordable housing and poor productivity. But there's no magic solution to these issues and Brexit certainly is not it.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I think some genuinely think the EU is the cause and Brexit will be the cure for a lot of the problems we face today. When they find that they have dragged themselves and us into a worse position, they will says "we were betrayed!"

How can you argue or debate with those who deny reality? The analogy with religion is apt: Faith demands you to ignore evidence and common sense and it is much the case here.

Where is the evidence behind Leave slogans? We can see the evidence for the approaching train wreck but where is the counter evidence for the post-Brexit boom that was promised?

All I see on this forum and in the media are slogans and insults. If you have more than Faith, show us the evidence ..

Re: Brexit discussion
 

This. Why is there a massive need to have an 'enemy' apart from having someone to blame if things go wrong?

---------- Post added at 09:19 ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 ----------

But no leave voter made a mistake, no leave voter was taken in by lies. If this goes wrong, it will be the fault of (in no particular order)

Jeremy Corbyn (a leave tendency person himself)
The EU
The courts
Gina Miller
The WTO
The passage of time itself
Globalisation
Philip Hammond
The internet
Immigrants
Foreign investors
Car manufacturers both in the UK and abroad
Angela Merkel
The civil service (unelected bureaucrats)

Any others?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I am not exactly filled with confidence at how it's all going. Especially with all this talk of no deal from people who were saying the EU would be chomping at the bit to get a deal.

This article written by a Leaver, and who remains a backer of Leave, is pretty negative about the consequences of the no deal approach and thinks it's a certainty because of the way the government is working: http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/20...will-live.html

I am not convinced no deal is a given but I've seen his sentiments about the consequences of it echoed elsewhere. Basically with a deal we revert to WTO rules which will have a huge impact.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The EU have said they have no plan for 'no deal' but 'they'll see how things go'.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

SkyNews suggests that the Government's preparations for no deal don't run too deep!
http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-ma...-wave-11074461

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The splits in the cabinet and the Conservative Party grow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/...-a7994191.html

He's absolutely correct on both counts, however I'm sure will be accused of yet more doomsaying.

I also note that he informs he is putting no money aside in the upcoming budget for a 'no deal' scenario and won't until absolutely required:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41577065

Part of the reason for this is likely because he just doesn't have the money.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...ctivity-gloom/

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I would have thought <removed> would have more, ahem, compelling things on his mind (NSFW or mods under 18):D.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The first content of that nature I ever watched, on pilfered VHS tape, was Mr North. A true master of his craft.

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

Today has been an interesting one for a few reasons. Northern Ireland has come into the public view some more, and a number of interesting comments have come from Tory politicians.

The prize for peak stupidity goes to Norman Tebbit for his sincerely held view that Ireland should leave the EU to avoid a physical border with the UK.

The EU are not wanting the NI issue to be solved before trade talks just to be awkward, it is impossible to produce a free trade agreement that encompasses what is needed to avoid the hard border, it has to be done as part of A50 negotiations and a trade deal requires it to be resolved else it's not possible. Law requires either Northern Ireland to be in the Customs Union and the border between CU and UK to be in the Irish Sea, or customs checks.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Likewise I'm yet to see any credible report thats suggest anyone will lose from Brexit.

---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------

Yet again BBC Radio 5 Live had salty tear-eyed losers going on and on and on about another referendum.

TM has said there will NOT be another one.

Why can't they get it?

I mean perhaps I should deman another general election as I didn't get the result \i wanted?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

You will most likely get your wish fairly soon ;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If I don't can I keep demanding one until I get the result I want?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I wonder how many of are MPs voted out and how many wanted to remain in the EU. IMO the Tory's have failed the British people.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

This is a joke and I'm just not getting the punchline, right?

---------- Post added at 21:18 ---------- Previous post was at 21:16 ----------

You can keep demanding one all you want. It's called democracy.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Treasury minister changes mind on brexit. Seems like things won't be as bad as some predict.


http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics...exit-1-5232380

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I'll bite. What source would you regard as credible? Academics, finance institutions, government departments? Would you accept single reports or a meta analysis? I found a brief presentation which covers all three - https://benefitcostanalysis.org/site...1%20Brexit.pdf

Good use of the word 'scenarii' in there :D

Re: Brexit discussion
 

There are no credible sources, don’t care how expertly opinionated some group or professional or someone may be, they don’t have a bloody clue, no one does.

All I know is that people who were alive decades before the EU existed came to be, they have some experience in what life was like before the EU. They say we managed then and I’m sure we will manage again.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

On that l think we can agree as how can anyone know what the consequences are when we have never ventured down this path before.

---------- Post added at 10:49 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

And vice versa there are equally just as many who have only experienced life being in the EU so whether ones experience of one is better then the other is all down to ones personal experiences and preferences.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

So faith will get us through the process?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

No. Being optimistic and wanting the Country to succeed when we leave should be the priority now. Going over old arguments as to staying in the EU, that boat has sailed. Talk of being in the single market, customs union, this is not leaving tbe EU.

I and millions of people took part in a huge democratic process. There was two options. The option I voted for, won. I’m not interested in the arguments as to why people voted the way they did, the rules before the vote, were the same and both sides used questionable tactics. Both sides told porkies to get their side more votes.

So a democratic process took place, one result was final and it should be enacted because if we don’t then let’s just piss all over the graves of all those people who fought and died, for the right to a free, stable democracy.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Mick, you cannot use Nostalgia as a basis for predicting the future especially when the period you are referring is decades ago. The world has changed in all recognition and assumptions made then just do not apply today.

Also sources are not credible just because they says things you do want to hear, that is just denial. If you think they are wrong, tell us why they are wrong. Our whole society is based on the ability to predict events in the short to medium term. The City use Actuaries to do exactly this.

If you went to the Doctor and he said that he thinks that, in his opinion, something will happen to you in 6 months time if you do not change your lifestyle, would you tell him/her that he/she "doesn't have a bloody clue"?

Also, I do not want my children to just "manage" and be grateful that they may be worse off in all sorts of ways but they have "taken back control". There are people who are content to be poorer after Brexit as long as their have their "control" .. I am not one of them and when I see people forcing their extreme Brexit path on the country when they know it is going to make the Country worse off then something has to change.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I'm afraid the rest of your post and your final paragraph don't mesh at all. A free and stable democracy is not one where dissent is disallowed, and is not one where people aren't allowed to question the legality and methods of campaigns.

The result of that one vote is final, the situation following is not set in aspic. Should circumstances change democracy demands that the country is permitted to change course.

I also disagree on your definition of leaving the European Union and, in a free, stable democracy, it is absolutely my right to do so.

I'm not into authoritarianism whether based on a referendum result or not - I'd hope your knowledge of history would show you that that's a bad idea. It is your demands in your post that are disrespecting democracy. Those who fought in the Second World War would be very, very aware of what happens when a referendum is considered irreversible.

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 13:48 ----------

There are plenty of credible sources though there is plenty of cynicism about them, especially from one point of view, due to that virtually none of them say what those on one side of the debate want to hear. There is a very Trumpian tendency now to seize upon the slightest inaccuracy from experts and try and use it, whether legitimately or by mischaracterising it, to completely discredit everything they say - see recent climate change research.

Are the various companies that make their money through forecasts about the future some kind of illuminati trying to subvert democracy? They make money either way, if anything many are likely to make more money should the UK's economy go completely pearshaped.

Experts were among those ridiculing the comprehensively and legitimately discredited nonsense spouted during the campaign.

The last paragraph is crazy. People who were alive in the early 70s have absolutely no relevant experience to how the post-EU world will be in the late 2010s and the time after because the world of the 2010s bears very little resemblance to the one of the early 70s and before.

If it's fine for us to just 'manage' rather than prosper perhaps we should start looking at the whole thing again? I personally would rather my daughter did more than just 'manage'. YMMV.

---------- Post added at 14:03 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Yes. Liz Truss. A true intellectual powerhouse.



---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:03 ----------

This does make me think, though. Let's have some conspiratorial fun and look at our free, stable democracy in the context of that referendum. This is extremely long, so I've 'spoilered' it.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Ah, the Tinkerbell effect - believe it strongly enough and it will happen...

You are of course right, the leave campaign won. The problem is that no one really defined what leave means. Simply invoking article 50 and walking away is of course a simple concept but the reality of things are much more complicated than that.

I am concerned that the clock is ticking here and there doesn't appear to be much action. Lots of talk, but no action and that's from both the EU and UK. If there isn't a solution to the issue of our one land border between the UK and EU yet then I don't feel very condfident on harmonisation and mutual recognition of standards for computerised systems used in pahrmaceutical production as an example

Re: Brexit discussion
 

No, democracy doesn't demand that. We were told that if we voted out, we would be out. It was made crystal clear to us all before we voted.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

That really doesn't matter. Leave (as we were repeatedly told) means leave :shrug:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Couldn't be clearer.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The vote means we have to Leave, what takes it's place is up to everyone. In the future what can be done by democracy and be undone by democracy. We joined the EU, we're leaving the EU, we can later vote to enter new arrangements or whatever.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Indeed. Once we've left the whole thing.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Equally we can vote not to. It depends on what the future brings.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Yeah but if we were to vote to go back in there'd need to be another vote after that just to make sure we all understood the question.

Maybe it could be the best of 3... :D

It looks like Keir Starmer's confused by it all anyway:

https://order-order.com/2017/10/12/s...lock-progress/

Ah well...

Re: Brexit discussion
 

That's part of the issue, there are hard line remainers wanting to keep one foot in the door, by staying in the single market and customs union and this is not acceptable at all because this is not considered leaving.

Sure, if it all goes tits up, then we choose to have another vote down the road and decide to rejoin, if that is what democracy decides. I would still vote to remain out of it, I do not like being associated in with corrupted entities and the EU is just this, it's proven this over it's lack of input with Spain and Catalonia.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Of course it does but he or she who puts their faith in politicians might be pretty disappointed at the end of the day.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Source

Looks like the EU is doing the Brexiteers work for them.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

As always it depends on how the question is phrased, on how it's answered. Usually determined by whoever commissioned the survey to get the headline they want. If it was phrased, would you prefer no deal if it made you £11,500 worse off ? (which is the estimate), then you might get a different answer.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/11/hard-b...ssion-6994076/

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Exactly as it would be nice if it was carried out by a independent source who have not got a bias one or tother.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Ah, the use of the average wage to come up with a figure. Forget the average wage includes the high flyers earning over £250,000 a year quite a few of which earn over £100.000.000.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Of course that question has enormous built in assumptions and bias.

Any how here's what the poll asked:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...8&d=1507888930


Attachment 27108

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Still think that's very biased. Implying you want a 'bad deal' makes you look a numpty, which people don't like.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Enough of the sanctimonious name calling. :nono:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I think the question is a bit meaningless without having 'deal' and 'no deal' specified. Looking at the press there is an assumption things will continue as they are without any deal but it would mean trade defaulting to WTO rules at the very least. Customs check on NI Border? Chaos in Dover/Calais ETC.

It's also hard to define what is a 'bad deal'

Re: Brexit discussion
 

As you well know Mick, the word 'numpty', was referring to anybody responding to this survey might feel about themselves, if they said they wanted a 'bad deal'. Not directed at anybody on this thread.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Yes, we did. Why would it need to be scary? Why would it need to be dire chaos? Why is it that parting with the EU can't be better than what we had within, albeit different? Only those who refuse to contemplate the reality of the EU paint that picture. Leaving the EU means nothing unless those we're trying to negotiate it want to make it harder than it needs to be and create problems for both sides. The Eurocrats would want to do that to send messages to other nations who might be tempted to leave. Let's face it we've never heard the EU talk about anything other than more of the same, expansion, single European state etc etc. There is no status quo option, just an inexorable march towards the final goal. It's their way or the highway so in what way can the UK be blamed for that particular brand of intransigence and in what way would the UK's future be better/more secure/less scary within a political union which is clearly heading, by its own admission, in only one direction? Frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing one Eurocrat or another telling the UK that they won't do this, won't have that, won't accept the other and blaming us for the lack of progress. It's laughable. They're the ones who're reusing to negotiate at every turn and whatever people think about the ineptitude or otherwise of the UK's approach to this. It's perfectly obvious to anyone who isn't in denial that the EU's own dogma is the reason for any lack of progress.

For those who really believe the UK would be better off in the EU just have a think about where it's headed and how it's gone about it so far. Do you seriously think that if we were to remain and at some future point decide we don't like it, that leaving would be somehow easier that it's proving now? Well if you don't think it'd be easier and you're already of the opinion that the current situation is untenable how on Earth would we ever be able to get out of the club at some future point years down the line? The EU's raison d'etre isn't to allow members to freely come and go, it's to force them to stay together by hook or by crook. It's that intransigence and utter contempt for the nation state which is going to be the EU's ultimate downfall and it isn't going to be pretty.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Because we're leaving the world's largest single market. We're counting on a vague frictionless trade deal to compensate.

What happened before we joined is rather immaterial as we don't live in a 1950s world anymore and irrespective of what people 'felt' back then post-War Britain was not a thriving, economically successful, place anyway and pre-War we had an Empire.

And we were told by Brexiters they would be desperate for a deal. Now we're told we shouldn't want one anyway. Project Fear were warning that striking a deal with the EU, who have a vested interest in making it difficult. The only advantage we have is the recovery of the Eurozone makes them less cornered but at the same time might leave them feeling more confident.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If all that's the case why are we the only one out of 27 countries that wants to leave and there are others desperate to join ? Do they know something we don't ? There are bureaucrats everywhere; the govt. is desperately trying to hire masses of them to replace the eurocrats, after making many redundant over the last 20 years. i'm not kidding you people are having to share desks, sit in corridors because they haven't planned for such an influx of staff, most of them young poor quality degree graduates that have been rejected from elsewhere and don't know their backside from their elbow. It is utter panic stations in Whitehall, no preparations were made for Brexit, and no plans have been made for 'no deal'. The politicians bluster and lie, but it is the 'faceless bureaucrats' that will have to pick up the pieces and no doubt get the blame. At least they'll be British I suppose, however all the quality British bureaucrats took redundancy or went to the private sector long ago...

Re: Brexit discussion
 

We didn't join the EU until 1974 so it's relevent to consider the UK's fortunes in the early seventies to that shortly after joining: The UK experienced the highest inflation rate in it's history for several years peaking at a mind boggling 25%, stagnant growth and industrial chaos. A co-incidence?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

What's the 1950's got to do with it?

All of that is just fine but based upon the EU being a better, more secure, more stable place to be and it just isn't. Look around and see what's happening there right now - politically as well as socially. In spite of all the unemployment, right wing extremism, simmering financial woes etc etc you seem to think that the EU is impervious to disaster, financial or otherwise. The UK can negotiate perfectly adequate trade deals with other nations or trade with the EU just the same as many other non-EU countries do without a trade deal. How on Earth does anyone else survive outside the EU I wonder?

Anyway there really is no point in going over this stuff again and again. I have my opinion you have yours we're not going to agree so time to call it a day methinks. ;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I couldn't agree more.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Not acceptable to you and not considered leaving by you. It obeys the result of the referendum just fine and, across the populace, the 'Norway' option is, or at least was, the most acceptable option.

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Yes, democracy does demand that. Democracy is an ongoing process that doesn't stop at one point and no democratic decision should be unable to be undone by democracy.

EDIT: Wait a minute? It's hard line to want to remain in the SM/CU? Dread to think what the opinion of those who want to remain in the EU and all its institutions is.

Hard line is those people who want to leave now, no deal, nothing, in complete contravention of the evidence. Flights would be grounded, we'd have no way of obtaining nuclear fuel, we'd have no way of trading internationally having left the CU as no-one has systems in place to trade with the UK and the UK has no systems in place to trade worldwide but it's hard line to want to remain in the SM/CU?

EEA membership carried 2/3rds support pre-referendum and is the least-damaging option economically for the UK while permitting the UK to make its own trade deals, including with the EU, and retain the benefits of the Single Market. It does not mean remaining in the Customs Union so Liam Fox gets to carry on his taxpayer funded jollies, done via EFTA it means dispute resolution is not through the ECJ. It opens up Articles 112-113 of the EEA agreement permitting unilateral measures to control FoM, which is not unlimited, and who knows perhaps even the immigration target obsessive Theresa May would direct the Home Office to use the powers we've always had to control immigration from the EEA - have no job you're out after 6 months, crack down on abuse of self-employment, properly count people in an out.

Pretty funny that so many of those more zealous about Freedom of Movement of labour have been huge fans of a former Home Secretary that never bothered to enforce the controls she did have over immigration from the EU.

---------- Post added at 13:59 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

It doesn't need to be scary unless we make a mess up of it, which we are doing.

As far as trade and relationships with the EU goes it can't be better than what we had within.

The UK negotiating team agreed months ago to the sequencing of the talks: financial settlement, rights of citizens and Northern Ireland to be resolved before talks on future relationship. Shouldn't have agreed to that if we weren't going to follow it.

You'll forgive me if I don't take too seriously the views of someone posting the kind of material you did on the Catalonia thread as far as the UK-EU relationship goes. I see absolutely no acknowledgement that the UK isn't helping itself in these negotiations, blame being shifted to 100% the other side, and the attitude that they should give us all we want and be grateful.

That's not happening. Time to get real, we're running out of time and must get this right.

I'm aware some on this forum are of the opinion that they will never regret their vote to leave the European Union, presumably whether the economy see a recession, trade becomes difficult, unemployment spikes, etc, they'll still be proud that they stuck it to the Eurocrats, but I am not one of them.

I never foresaw anything other than EEA membership as the result, the most appropriate place for a nation that should've never left EFTA.

---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

Yes. I believe you are old enough to remember the issues surrounding the UK's economy at that time. I believe unions received much of the blame, closed shops, heavy state subsidy of industries, too much was nationalised, etc. To try and imply that the UK joining the EEC was to blame for the UK's extreme structural problems, at the time, and by implication that the UK had no issues before 1973 (we joined the EEC in 73, not 74) that would be responsible is crazy.

Pretty funny that people blamed Labour and were fans of Thatcher for what she did to transform our economy and apparently the 70s are now the EU, or EEC as it was then's fault. :)

EU evidently caused the UK's structural problems of the 60s and 70s, including the 1972 miners' strike, Three-Day Week, the worldwide energy crisis and the extreme industrial strife of the 70s.

The EU have a lot to be criticised for. That however is a silly insinuation backed by zero evidence.

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:15 ----------

Mostly within multi-lateral trading blocs.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2017/10/7.png

Your suggestion that a 'perfectly adequate' trade deal along the lines of, say, CETA, would be okay for the UK is simply wrong. That would be second only to 'no deal' in terms of damage to our economy. Whether you like it or not our economy is heavily intertwined with the EEA's and untangling that without causing damage takes time and, if the end result is not a deep trade deal well beyond a standard FTA, a lot of time.

I've no interest in changing your mind, it's very clear your opinion is not based on evidence so further evidence isn't going to do anything. In common with many others that desire the 'hardest of hard' exits from the EU you're unable to supply anything but platitudes and 'faith' to support it.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

"no way of obtaining nuclear fuel" Are you sure about that?

It will end up as a "Quid pro Quo", europe needs somewhere to recycle nuclear waste and we've been doing it for them since 1957.

The EU seems to be the one who wants it cake and eat it ATM.
So, they want us to take ownership and control of material owned by Euratom! Better to return it to Euratom and say, it's yours, you won't deal with us have it back. Or they can say "You're doing this for us and we'll deal with you if you continue to do so".

Even forgetting about the present european stockpile awaiting recycling at Sellafield what is the EU going to be doing with the rest they produce after brexit? It's not just a matter of setting up a recycling plant.

Link (may be firewalled.)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If the EU export raw materials to the UK without agreement they are breaching Euratom. It's not there for comedy value. There's no 'quid pro quo' to be had, a comprehensive agreement has to be struck.

The alternative is we just walk off and the UK AEA see 2/3rds of their turnover disappear. We aren't reprocessing for free. Good plan.

Incidentally, we refuse to take their waste they can always send it to the La Hague site instead - it has 200 tonnes of capacity per year free apparently, then the plutonium to Marcoule.

So, yeah, that's probably what'd be done with at least some of the waste. We don't have a monopoly on reprocessing in Euratom.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Austria on course to elect worlds youngest leader and it could be more bad news for the EU.

http://news.sky.com/story/austria-on...eader-11082955

Re: Brexit discussion
 

How a no-deal vote could stop Brexit and make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister

http://news.sky.com/story/how-a-no-d...ister-11082601

Re: Brexit discussion
 

One major mistake that was made was issuing Article 50 before they clearly knew what they wanted and then calling an election that made matters worse!.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I make that two major mistakes. :)There have been numerous more including having a stand-alone Brexit department.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The only thing that is certain, is that we know more what we don't want from brexit than what we do.

Staying within the single market is impossible, as that is tied to freedom of movement.
Staying within the customs union is impossible, as that would tie our hands in dealmaking.
Paying a fortune in settlement or subscription is unacceptable

Re: Brexit discussion
 

On the other hand, there is no mandate for a cliff-edge Brexit.

If you feel that there is a majority in favour of a cliff-edge Brexit with the additional costs and job losses that it will cause, why not ask the public with a referendum on this very point?

Yes, the Britsih electorate have spoken. But they didn't say what you think they may have said.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Lets go for the cliff-edge then? clearly the EU just wants money, It's all they ever talk about.

I don't think we will get any sort of deal from them, once the money is handed over they'll not move on with talks regarding trade they'll ask us to look the other way while they run.

Germany wants to Rule the EU I say let them it won't be off our backs. I reckon once we do finally go the rest will follow they are just sitting back and watching what happens. We are the first test case these are always harder.

If anything this has shown we are not welcome in their little club lets face it as it was said "the english language is a dying language around here"

I think they'll find it harder the UK not being around and they are making it as difficult as possible to leave.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

4 out of 41 position papers published by the EU are directly financial and only one that I can see is about the financial settlement, the other are around procurement. Have a gander here https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brex...s_tid_i18n=351

What evidence is there for this? Did Germany propose dissolving the European Council when we didn't notice?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

This what you get with a yes or no question in a referendum..no allowances for nuances and no precise underlining of what the issues are..or the pitfalls.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Spot on. Spouting something so controversial without evidence is pointless.
Until recently the great hope was a trade deal with the US. Now that the reality of the US's approach to trade has become apparent I've seen nothing else to go on bar a wing and a prayer.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

This was only ever going to end one way.
https://www.ft.com/content/8f331a3a-...8-73d59db9e399

---------- Post added at 23:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:55 ----------

Totally agree. The FT had a great article today about this situation today.
https://www.ft.com/content/524ae104-...8-73d59db9e399

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I'm afraid the EU seem to have shown more solidarity among 27 nations than the 27 members of our cabinet have. The evidence that the EU is imploding based on Brexit is sparse.

What exactly do you think will happen if we leave right now? As you're in favour of it you must have a good idea of the consequences. What are you expecting to happen?

Regarding what the EU wants they set 3 requirements to progress, our politicians agreed with them then have reneged.

If you think the UK leaving the EU in a disorganised way would inspire other states to leave you're likely to be disappointed. A number of them are far more tightly integrated than we are, only those on the very periphery are less integrated and many of them are even more reliant than we are on the Single Market.

---------- Post added at 10:15 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------

We know what some don't want at least. As far as the entire country goes your guess is good as mine what the population as a whole want.

Based on polling it seems like a substantial minority of people are happy to be poorer in return for ditching all of the above, however I very much doubt the entire population would go along with that.

Either way all we have is what polls say. If we're honest no-one really has any idea what the UK wants right now, from the cabinet downwards. When that ridiculous referendum was thrown together no-one actually bothered to consider what we were voting for beyond leave or remain, and no-one actually even bothered to make the thing legally binding.

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 ----------

If you're a pensioner congratulations: your triple-lock means, again, you get to avoid some of the consequences of your likely vote to leave.

if you're of working age your pay almost certainly isn't keeping pace with this, and if you're on welfare that's not a state pension you've no chance.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2017/10/14.jpg

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Thank god for National Savings Index linked Bonds; best purchase ever; unless UK plc goes bust of course......

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Two recent news items sum up the choice we face:

1. Continue along the Brexit route and continue to face increasing inflation and low growth.
UK inflation hits five-year high of 3% as food prices rise


2. Cancel Brexit and reap the benefits in terms of more jobs and taxes to pay for public services like the NHS.
Brexit reversal would boost UK growth

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Well the second one won't happen Andrew l can assure you of that.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Yes staying within the EU would be a veritable panacea - no inflation, no unemployment, no political turmoil. no Greek debt crisis, no Italian bank problems, no migration crisis, no right wing swing. Yes I can see how some people might see that as a safe option especially when they know, because Juncker has told everyone, that every member state will have to use the Euro with all that entails and the extra difficulties that would present to any state which decided to leave for whatever reason.

Yes I really can see what a safe, comforting and rosy prospect all that is... :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Sigh. Looks like some are still trying spread BS to scupper Brexit. :rolleyes:

Brexit is happening as it should. You cannot hold a democratic process, tell the people, the government will act on what is decided and then over a year later, don’t do it because some don’t like the decision that was voted for.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

A Paris based think tank. I can see that as totally un-biased.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Quelle surprise. Once again no real account taken of any longer term risks of being trapped within the EU straight jacket and increasingly finding the rules changed to our disadvantage and to prevent any realistic prospect of ever leaving. No risk of that at all. We all know the EU is on a path to certain glory, the Eurcrats and their cronies have told us so... :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

It isn't really a think-tank as such and it's a international organisation whose members include Europe, North America, Australia and parts of Asia. It's closer to something like NATO in structure, if not remit, rather than a think-tank.

And yes their HQ is in Paris. Hardly a cutting point. There are plenty of better arguments against their report than where their HQ is.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The obvious deduction from the two news items is that the closer the deal with the EU, the more prosperous the country will be.

---------- Post added at 18:09 ---------- Previous post was at 18:07 ----------

Countries in the EU do get the right of veto and we've had plenty of opt-outs. Outside the EU and selling into the EU, countries have to abide by the EU's rules but can't influence them.

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

Economic reality I'm afraid.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Look Andrew Brexit is happening whether one likes it or not although suffice to say thus so far the governments approach to it has been nothing short of shambolic in the extreme and sadly l am not filled with confidence of it improving any time soon.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Who'd have thought...

https://order-order.com/2017/10/17/o...#disqus_thread

Nice 'work' if you can get it eh? I'm sure that's irrelevant though... :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

He who pays the piper...

Re: Brexit discussion
 

No, I'm certain we're just being bitter. If you have a look at some of their previous forecasts it's evident just how reliable they were...

https://order-order.com/2017/10/17/a...ous-forecasts/

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I've not said it's not happening.

The Government's main negotiations are internal, negotiating with the EU is the easy part, at least it has published its demands.

OK, well Boris published his four red lines in The Sun but then a couple of days later he caved in.

Maybe a good job he's not at the negotiating table or we would probably have joined the Euro and European Army by now! ;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Could you tell me how much the EU is demanding as the divorce bill please?

I've seen several amounts bandied about from £25B-£75B but no set amount.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The EU's negotiating documents are all in the public domain, I don't have any insights that you don't have in this respect.
How much will a hard Brexit cost this country? I've heard anything from 10% to 30% of GDP mentioned whilst EU membership costs us 0.3% of GDP.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Ah, so it hasn't published it's demands just it's negotiating documents. They are two entirely different things.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Evidence of what there is 41 publications I'm not about to read through all of them and I already knew about them.

So we stay in the EU and go down the Federal state path followed by the EU making it law that our currency change to Euros because to be in the club we have to be part of the club in the end.

Germany and France are at the top of the table when it comes to how things are run despite all the other countries. Take Greece as an example.

Proof as well when it comes to leaving you are bullied by those very same people that want world peace. They are trying hard to make it difficult as a warning to any others that step out of place.

If you are happy to be part of that so be it. I don't and no amount of white washing will change my mind.

I'm still waiting for WW3 btw :dozey:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Like hell it is. It’s fear mongering BS of pure fantasy proportions.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Why are these reports 'BS'. Are there flaws in the methodology or are the treasury, companies like PWC, organisations like OECD and IMF and academic institutions like London School of Economics lying? This is a huge conspiracy either way and I am surprised the press isn't all over it to be honest.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Project fear # 2 has begun. This time to make us overturn the referendum result. These people will never stop, we've seen it all before. Ask the question, get the wrong result and keep asking it until you get the result you want.

The pro-EU brigade keep pitching up quoting one load of BS or another to support their case in arguing it's better for the UK to be within the EU when they have nothing to say about the future within that EU on its march towards homogenisation at the hands of the Brussels Eurocrats. They have nothing to say about any of the fundamental problems the EU is facing because to admit them would be to destroy their own argument. To remain in the EU will mean adopting the Euro and accepting life within a single European state made of dominoes. What bit of that don't these people get and why would they want to accept it? :spin:

---------- Post added at 09:32 ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 ----------

Correct. :tu:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Then fight 'fear' with facts. If most predictions suggest that Brexit is destructive to the UK economy but these predictions are 'BS' as you and another forummer say, then show why they are wrong. As I said earlier, if there is evidence of flawed methodology or the studies are lies, then surely it would be good for everyone to expose this to the world. It would help stabilise our economy and persuade companies to stay in the UK.

I would like to see these secret treasury reports of sector by sector analysis. Hopefully these will be published soon.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Understood.

I presume you'll be able to demonstrate why it's fear mongering BS?

---------- Post added at 11:20 ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 ----------

You'd need to ask Boris Johnson about that. He's the one who mentioned it.

---------- Post added at 11:22 ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 ----------

I suspect if they say what people don't want to hear they'll find some way to dismiss them, that's of course if they are released. It's obvious why they haven't been thusfar.

Some people appear incapable of even entertaining the possibility that they may have this wrong. It's tough to claim to be able to seriously debate anything or to be able to assess things with any kind of impartiality when you've already used absolutes.

---------- Post added at 11:27 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------

You already knew about them, haven't read them, don't know what they actually say but they are wrong because they don't say what you want them to it seems.

The second paragraph is impossible, as you'd know if you had any idea what you were talking about. It would require treaty change, which means a unanimous vote among EU members, and such a treaty change would trigger a referendum in the UK.

Again - facts. Pfft.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

This is true, just look at all these other countries that are outside the EU they seem to be doing ok?

We have allowed the likes of Germany and France to totally take over, there is talk about how the UK has it's own laws and only a small percentage is EU related "pro-remainer" point of view.

In reality we have screwed up we have allowed other nations "mainly two" to get a grip around the throat of the UK we can't even take a crap without permission these days. If the laws relating to the EU and trade were so small then why is it taking so long?

I saw an article a while ago that stated "David Cameron" EU laws are only 14% over the UK while "Nigel Farage" said actually it's about 75%

So there you have it the EU has got that much of a grip over the UK they don't even know what is UK law and what is EU law.

Any law changes in the UK have to be approved with the EU that make sure it doesn't affect them. This is also proven with trade you trade with the EU or you trade with the world it's one or the other.

This is just trade, we haven't even scratched the surface on anything else EU related. They want to go down the Federal state route but why is this never mentioned by remainers?

Just look at the October EU summit of the 27 nations they were told not to talk about Brexit or meet about it till December now. By who Germany and France?.

I'm not falling for all The bullying coming from Europe because all this scare mongering crap is back handers to those behind closed doors to instill fear to the UK public and businesses.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Oh look, who'd have thought, Guido Fawkes trying to discredit something because he doesn't like what it says.

Perhaps rather than trying to discredit the messenger because you don't like the message it'd be wiser to actually consider the message on its own merits.

I'm sure there are flaws with the OECD's report and look forward to forum members showing them to the rest of us.

Regarding OECD funding the EU paid the OECD for bodies of work, it's not brown envelopes in some alleyway it's on public record, and the bulk of the OECD's funding is actually from the United States.

http://www.oecd.org/about/budget/mem...tributions.htm

http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If you have a pathological hatred of something then facts are the last thing you would offer.

There does seem to be a pattern here: when evidence is put forward on why this whole project is flawed and that the Turkey's have indeed voted for Christmas, the response is one of the following:

- Faith and Hope, my friend, Faith and Hope
- Stop telling me what I do not want to hear
- a cartoon-like, one dimensional portrayal of something that is complex and nuanced

If leaving the EU with no plan and no preparation led by a team of infighting incompetents is not going to make us poorer, please give us the evidence?

Oh, did I add that voting Leave will now, due to the Tory incompetence, directly lead to a Corbyn Government? Enjoy :)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

You live in a dream world if you think the EU isn't lurking in the shadows behind closed doors, doing back hand deals with companies to distupt the UK-EU partnership.

If anything that has come out of this and something I agree with a remainer is that we can't go back into the EU with the same privileges we had before. It's almost like this is what they wanted us to do. be a 3rd rate country as part of the 28 member nation if we go back.

We need to press on and move on from them it's only going to get worse and if anything Brexit has shown how bad the EU actually is.

You tell me when all we see in the papers is Germany and France at the top of the table when it comes how how laws and decisions are made? I've no doubt the other nations get a vote it's pretty hard to say Yes/No to the 2 Mafia bosses sat at the end of the table.

The 2 that decide how trade and a matter of all other things work within the EU they can make it easy or hard for those said countries if things don't go the way they want.

We have shown by pulling out how bad it can actually be to the others.

Call me what you want a person with no knowledge of the EU but I've seen enough to say bye and I don't give a stuff what a pro-remainer thinks.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Its what you call unintended consequences told to me by a man far wiser then l.;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Ugh. Okay it is breaktime.

Indeed. Many of them in their own trade areas and a number having other agreements with the European Union.

Perhaps most pertinently none apart from Greenland have ever been members of the EU. Given that, apples and oranges.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-w...influenced-eu/

20 seconds on Google.

Incidentally every law in the UK is a UK law. We transpose EU law into UK law as and when, referencing the directives in question, but Parliament are sovereign and can, at their discretion, refuse to do so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-35630757

For the difference between directives and regulations as I imagine Nigel Farage wouldn't have mentioned that.

The first paragraph above: it's baseless nonsense peddled by people trying to cause grief that Germany and France have taken over. While the UK has never engaged in the EU as fully as Germany and France our influence has been deep, as would be expected from what was the second largest economy, and we were appreciated as both a counter-weight to Germano-Franco influence and a force for free trade within the EU.

The internal market was driven by the UK. The expansion to the east was driven by the UK.

It makes little sense that you think the UK would do superbly outside of the EU, having to deal with the likes of China and the United States but can be so cucked by Germany and France.

Germany obviously didn't get that memo. Neither evidently did the EU given the various bilateral agreements in addition to free trade agreements they have. The first sentence is nonsense. The EU does not 'approve' every law. If that were the case there would be no disputes that needed to be resolved. Parliament is sovereign.

We're in a trade bloc with a deep integration of economies. We have a common customs area and an internal market that we have agreed to comply with. What do you think that means? You make trade deals you don't get to unilaterally change the terms of them.

Because firstly that's not true, some seem to want to, others don't, and regardless it's irrelevant to the UK as you'd know if you went beyond tabloid reports. The UK cannot be compelled to join a federal state, we would both have a veto over the creation of it in the first place and to join it would trigger a referendum here.

Most of those who wish to remain that I know reference it with disdain.

They're talking about Brexit on Friday.

And yet you are happy to drink in the scaremongering from media, some politicians, and those who have personal gain to be made from the whole process when it's what you want to hear or confirms your own prejudices. Go figure.

---------- Post added at 12:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 ----------

Indeed. You have no interest in hearing anything you don't agree with.

Let's hope in the longer term you're proven right.

---------- Post added at 12:11 ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 ----------

If the Conservatives do carry on making a complete mess up of our exit from the EU and Corbyn and company get a majority and start working their 'magic' it should be interesting to see how strong the bubbles some people seem to live in are. What would it take before they start, even to themselves, thinking that there may be a little regret creeping in?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Facts eh? Well what facts are there? Plenty of opinions and some economic facts the cause of many of which are also a matter of opinion. How about you remainers admitting the facts about where the EU is heading and the massive risks and dangers that poses for the UK? They're perfectly open about it over there you know, Juncker's state of the union address summed it all up and where we'll be heading if we don't leave. I'm sorry but for a lot of already discussed reasons there is only one way forward in the EU and that's far more of a risk than anything else we'll face outside.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The UK retains a veto over much of what could be done. We wouldn't be 'forced' to join the Euro as someone above. The UK is, was, a powerful member too and Junker is not god of the EU, plenty of member states are hostile to the ideas he advocates, so he can mouth off as much as he likes.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If we remain now it'll be with our tail firmly between our legs and our government in cahoots with those who run the EU will ensure the rules are changed and that we can never leave. Juncker has spelt it out quite clearly and after decades of experience at the hands of these people and certain of our own leaders, it's clearly not just one man's hot air. The UK powerful within the EU? Really? We're so powerful that they wouldn't budge an inch prior to the Brexit vote or since. Please tell me what concessions all the power we have has yielded since Thatcher stood up to them? That's how much power we have in the EU. What we've seen over the decades is more and more powers ceded to and grabbed by the EU over that time and they won't rest until they get their way. I really don't understand how anyone can a) fail to see that, b) not be scared witless by the prospect and c) fear life outside of the club to such an extent that they'd accept anything to stay within it.

Anyway in other EU news:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...it-paper-shows

Of course if we get Corbyn's cronies elected into power any time soon they won't need to go through with any of this because Labour have effectively confirmed they'll accept any deal from the EU:

https://order-order.com/2017/10/18/t...ccept-eu-deal/

Terrific!

Re: Brexit discussion
 

You don't need the EU in order for our government to screw us over. They can do that anyway. Case in point: their approach to Brexit.

France and Germany have power too. We have the power to block a lot of things but not impose them. The Veto applies to certain areas, big questions like foreign policy and budgets, so any EU army would never get anywhere as long as we were there as we would block it. So the major chances people cite on here were not going to come to a vote as what's the point. Veto would be issued.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If the UK were to try to stop the EU's progression towards its end goal they would find a way to change the rules and yes that could very well be with the assistance of certain our own politicians just like Blair did. Tell me Damien what would you suggest the UK did if that were to happen? No future change of government could undo it.