Brexit (Old)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

If the EU were that scared would they not have offered us a good deal?

That’s not their way. In any case a good deal for us would disadvantage them so double not going to happen.

Professor David Andress has a new book out (Cultural Dementia), and I thought one of his lines summed up the ERG (Jacob Rees-Mogg, aka "Lord Snooty" et al), even though he wasn’t specifically talking about them.

Gunboat diplomacy, without any gunboats. Colonial attitudes, without any colonies. Imperial pretensions, without any empire.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Professor David Andress has a new book out (Cultural Dementia), and I thought one of his lines summed up the ERG (Jacob Rees-Mogg, aka "Lord Snooty" et al), even though he wasn’t specifically talking about them.

The xmas Beano is also on the shelves

Originally Posted by papa smurf

The xmas Beano is also on the shelves

You read what you want, I’ll read what I want...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

In this real scenario we have no deal, a bad deal or remain.

Sorry, we have a deal, which at first doesn’t fulfill all expectations but is at least a platform from which to negotiate a decent future trade agreement and relationship over the next two years. Or no deal.

There is no 3rd option.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:13 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

If the EU were that scared would they not have offered us a good deal?

What bits about the Withdrawl agreement make it a “bad deal”

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The GFA has been ascribed varying attributes in this thread. The closest to reflecting reality is yours, I would say.

But then there is Brexit. The EU pretends to want to protect the GFA because, ultimately, of the risk of terrorism. It seems to me that the UK guvmin has bought that; either they know something about terrorism that the EU doesn’t, or it’s just gullible. Ireland is only interested in the economical aspect. NThe EU is interested in carving Ulster away from the UK.

In such circumstances, we should not fall for the trick that keeps us uncompetitive, shackled to the EU and with the Irish smugly waving to fingers and a shelali at us.

I am happy for an open border with Ireland as you describe because, agai, it would scare the shits out of the legalistic EU about good going into Ireland. A useful starting point that could change later.

Do you feel that there's much of an appetite for reunification in Ireland? Sure, Sinn Fein wants it but noone else does. Fine Gael is probably the most UK friendly party in Ireland and they are currently the ruling party in the Oireachtas. Ireland revised their claim to the North in Nineteenth Amendment referendum with a 94% 'yes' vote.

Northern Ireland is to be honest a political and economic basket case. 25% is Northern Irelands income is subsidies from Westminster to the tune of €11bn a year. Ireland doesn't want it on its' books, they are doing well but not that well. To be honest, reunification from an economic point of view would be better for the UK!

Here are nice articles found while reading up for my reply;

Study on the costs of reunification - https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...y-15-1.3629748
How reunification could happen - https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...-reunification
Leo Varadkar opposed to reunification referendum - https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-35932315.html
Opinion piece on why reunification will not happen - https://reaction.life/brexit-no-silv...reunification/

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Do you feel that there's much of an appetite for reunification in Ireland? Sure, Sinn Fein wants it but noone else does. Fine Gael is probably the most UK friendly party in Ireland and they are currently the ruling party in the Oireachtas. Ireland revised their claim to the North in Nineteenth Amendment referendum with a 94% 'yes' vote.

Northern Ireland is to be honest a political and economic basket case. 25% is Northern Irelands income is subsidies from Westminster to the tune of €11bn a year. Ireland doesn't want it on its' books, they are doing well but not that well. To be honest, reunification from an economic point of view would be better for the UK!

Here are nice articles found while reading up for my reply;

Study on the costs of reunification - https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...y-15-1.3629748
How reunification could happen - https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...-reunification
Leo Varadkar opposed to reunification referendum - https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-35932315.html
Opinion piece on why reunification will not happen - https://reaction.life/brexit-no-silv...reunification/

I visit Ulster at least twice a year. As you say, the majority don't want to unify with the Republic. A religious divide as we all know.

Your analysis of the Fine Gael position may well be correct. But a pressure to unify isn't an allegation that I'm making. By me saying that the 'EU wants to carve Ulster away from the UK', I mean that they want to force the UK into unpalatable constitutional arrangements; just because they are nasty. TM seems not to have fully averted that because the Backstop includes a deeper arrangement for Ulster alone, which is the carve up to which I am referring.

I am sure that the inhabitants of the 3 counties of Ulster that are in the Republic may disagree with you.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Professor David Andress has a new book out (Cultural Dementia), and I thought one of his lines summed up the ERG (Jacob Rees-Mogg, aka "Lord Snooty" et al), even though he wasn’t specifically talking about them.

I think Jacob Rees-Mogg is more influenced by his father's writings including the Sovereign Individual. And to his credit, his father predicted Bitcoin 10 years before it happened.

The book also foresaw a backlash against the footloose, cosmopolitan elites that digital technology would help create. The economy’s “losers”, as Rees-Mogg and Davidson called them, who “do not excel in problem-solving or possess globally marketable skills”, would turn to nationalism and bitter nostalgia. They would “seek to thwart the movement of capital and people across borders”.

In August, Alastair Campbell, Blair’s former right-hand man and a prominent remainer, wrote about The Sovereign Individual at length on his blog. He called it “the most important book you have never heard of”. “After reading it,” he intriguingly claimed, “it is easy to see” why Jacob “so loves Brexit, and the chaos and disorder, and opportunities for disaster capitalism and super-elitism, that it may provide.”

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...s-brexit-plans

In Brexit news, Barnier is suggesting that the EU allows the UK an extension to the transition period to allow time for the trade deal to be negotiated.

Meanwhile, amid reports of an extended transition period, Sky News understands that when Michel Barnier met ambassadors from the remaining 27 this weekend, he proposed an extension to the two-year transition to 2022.
Sky's Europe correspondent says: "None of the 27 objected. The 2022 date will now be put to the UK to see how they react."

https://news.sky.com/story/embattled...tback-11557629

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think Jacob Rees-Mogg is more influenced by his father's writings including the Sovereign Individual. And to his credit, his father predicted Bitcoin 10 years before it happened.





https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...s-brexit-plans

In Brexit news, Barnier is suggesting that the EU allows the UK an extension to the transition period to allow time for the trade deal to be negotiated.

https://news.sky.com/story/embattled...tback-11557629

but they are bullying us and don't want a deal

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think Jacob Rees-Mogg is more influenced by his father's writings including the Sovereign Individual. And to his credit, his father predicted Bitcoin 10 years before it happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...s-brexit-plans

In Brexit news, Barnier is suggesting that the EU allows the UK an extension to the transition period to allow time for the trade deal to be negotiated.

https://news.sky.com/story/embattled...tback-11557629

Really interesting post, Andrew.

The most depressing part of all of this is that so many are convinced that the principal actors in Leave are doing all of this on behalf of those that have been most affected by the globalism and free market changes since Thatcher & Reagan. The nom-dom Media barons pumping out decades of lies about the EU and immigration, the list goes on.

When the truth is that these people, the elite who will not be impacted by Brexit no matter which way it goes and the political chancers driven by ego and ambition will be content to see significant damage to this country if it helps to achieve their aims.

Here is one such odious individual:

Crispin Odey

It’s been a good day for me, claims hedge fund tycoon Crispin Odey

A Brexiteer hedge fund manager proclaimed a good day at the office last night as market fears that Britain could crash out of the EU without an agreement sent the pound tumbling.

Crispin Odey, the investment tycoon, said that mounting concern over the future of Theresa May’s fragile premiership had boosted his funds as shares in British banks, retailers and housebuilders fell sharply.

“I have had a good day,” he told The Times. “Bad days tend to be good days for us.” Mr Odey has been betting against the pound and stocks exposed to the British economy. Criticising Mrs May’s Brexit deal, he said that the prime minister “has given an O-level answer to an A-level question”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...exit-bloomberg

Farage told Bloomberg his concessions were not aimed at moving the markets for anyone, and told MailOnline that he did not try to mislead people by conceding defeat. But speculating on Brexit has made at least one very rich Brexiteer that bit richer. Crispin Odey was one of the largest donors to leave, handing over just shy of £900,000 to the campaign.

On hearing the referendum result, Odey said: “I feel fantastic. It’s a fantastic decision by the electorate.” Odey had a special reason to feel “fantastic”. He’d bet on Brexit hitting the pound by “shorting” sterling and moving 65% of his fund into gold in anticipation. Odey’s fund made £220m in the space of just a few hours. As he said at the time: “I think I may be the winner.”

There are many like this obnoxious individual.

Meanwhile.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8639216.html

Theresa May’s Brexit deal has been slammed by arch-leave MP Nadine Dorries – because it means the UK will be left without any Members of the European Parliament.

The Tory backbencher, who campaigned tirelessly to get the country out of Europe, said Ms May's deal would leave the UK without any influence in Europe.

“This is a very sad place to be,” she told Sky News. “But unfortunately, the future of the country and of our relationship with Europe is at stake. This deal gives us no voice, no votes, no MEPs, no commissioner.”

[OLD BOY]

The case for leave is that we will once again be able to take key decisions that are for Britain's benefit. ianch's reference to Crispin Odey is completely irrelevant and just shows the contempt with which those on the far left have for anyone who makes money. The reduction in the value of the pound was not caused by this man, he simply predicted that this would happen in the short term. I could have done that. Even the remainers said that would happen. No doubt he will be anticipating a rise in the value of the pound when we have clarity on the future direction of the UK with the free trade deal no doubt that we will get from the EU.

Leaving the EU presents incredible opportunities for this country provided that we are not tied down by continuing EU obligations which, for example, hamper our ability to get new trade deals on terms that benefit us. This will encourage new wealth to this country, made possible by those same wealth creators and risk takers that ianch and his supporters detest so much.

Having considered TM's proposed deal with the EU very carefully, I have concluded that the backstop arrangements and the proposed common rulebook should be rejected. The backstop has the potential for locking us into an arrangement we will never get out of and over which the DUP will crash out of the current agreement with the Conservatives, and the common rulebook it seems will hamper our ability to secure new trade deals on the terms we believe will be best for Britain.

So unless those two issues can be satisfactorily resolved, I think the deal should be scrapped and we leave without a deal. The proposal to join temporarily into the EEA arrangements signed up to by Norway is a better way forward to give us that transitional breathing space.

---------- Post added at 09:06 ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Meanwhile.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8639216.html

Has she only just realised this, one wonders?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The case for leave is that we will once again be able to take key decisions that are for Britain's benefit. ianch's reference to Crispin Odey is completely irrelevant and just shows the contempt with which those on the far left have for anyone who makes money. The reduction in the value of the pound was not caused by this man, he simply predicted that this would happen in the short term. I could have done that. Even the remainers said that would happen. No doubt he will be anticipating a rise in the value of the pound when we have clarity on the future direction of the UK with the free trade deal no doubt that we will get from the EU.

Leaving the EU presents incredible opportunities for this country provided that we are not tied down by continuing EU obligations which, for example, hamper our ability to get new trade deals on terms that benefit us. This will encourage new wealth to this country, made possible by those same wealth creators and risk takers that ianch and his supporters detest so much.

Having considered TM's proposed deal with the EU very carefully, I have concluded that the backstop arrangements and the proposed common rulebook should be rejected. The backstop has the potential for locking us into an arrangement we will never get out of and over which the DUP will crash out of the current agreement with the Conservatives, and the common rulebook it seems will hamper our ability to secure new trade deals on the terms we believe will be best for Britain.

So unless those two issues can be satisfactorily resolved, I think the deal should be scrapped and we leave without a deal. The proposal to join temporarily into the EEA arrangements signed up to by Norway is a better way forward to give us that transitional breathing space.

---------- Post added at 09:06 ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 ----------



Has she only just realised this, one wonders?

Yet again you ignore the reality all around you. Your desperation in resorting to name calling as a response is just pathetic. If you think people who manipulate the country's finances for personal gain ar irrelevant then you are more divorced from reality than I imagined.

Just to be clear, I do not "detest" wealth creators and risk takers per se. The ones I detest are those who seek to gain personal wealth at the expense of the population they claim to help or represent.

The most disturbing aspect of your reply is your casual disregard and contempt for the other citizens of this country. Your willingness to plunge into the abyss of a no-deal Brexit betrays a naivety at best and a frightening level of denial at worse.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

In Brexit news, Barnier is suggesting that the EU allows the UK an extension to the transition period to allow time for the trade deal to be negotiated.

Does this mean a further 2 years of huffing & puffing over the N. Ireland issue, while we continue to pump money into the EU?

I don't fancy another 2 years of this, we should just smile as we walk away