FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > No deal Brexit Nothing to fear .
No deal Brexit Nothing to fear .
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority." Except there are only between 80 and 130 hardline brexiteers in Parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best bargaining chip is actually Revoking Article 50 - that way we put the timetable back under our control. Invoking Article 50 was the single most stupid thing done after the Referendum. " Revoking A50 would be like waving a white flag and saying, (sorry we surrender, do what you like to us). We are British, not French. There can be no surrender ever on this or any other issue. To make our own decisions and then act upon them, that is democracy. We voted leave, we triggered A50, but have done duck all since, except take no deal off the table. That decision has to be reversed, not just because a complete break would benefit us the big too distant short term and definitely in the long term, but also if we need a deal, then we must be able to say, “that is unacceptable, we will walk if that is all you are offering.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority." Link to this poll please Pat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them." Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Link to this poll please Pat? " Twas delta poll for DM. Can't see delta have published. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them." However only some of the earnings originate from abroad so it is only one factor that would need to be taken into account . There are many others and if you were to drill down further you will find that for lot of companies in the FTSE have earnings originating in the UK. Not many investors are rushing to sell shares as a result of lack of confidence in the UK economy . The reverse is actually the case , foreign companies are keen to buy those based in the UK and dividend income is at at an all time high. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt" Maybe because I still down in a little more detail , I do not have to accept that your argument stacks up. Foreign current movements are a two way pull. Movements can may that liabilities actually increase as opposed to decreasing . Everyone is entitled to express opinions on these forums. For accurate information I prefer to use other source . We have already seen how many posters made inaccurate assumptions about tax paid by DGMT. The stock exchange is a live real time analysis of financial performance. You can hardly argue with the indices. Drillbsown and you can analyse performance by sector and size. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Maybe because I still down in a little more detail , I do not have to accept that your argument stacks up. Foreign current movements are a two way pull. Movements can may that liabilities actually increase as opposed to decreasing . Everyone is entitled to express opinions on these forums. For accurate information I prefer to use other source . We have already seen how many posters made inaccurate assumptions about tax paid by DGMT. The stock exchange is a live real time analysis of financial performance. You can hardly argue with the indices. Drillbsown and you can analyse performance by sector and size." Amazing! Was it published in the DM by any chance?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Link to this poll please Pat? Twas delta poll for DM. Can't see delta have published. " No, indeed... the latest Deltapoll have in their library is the 30th March. I guess they may delay publication of the actual results. The fact that the options Pat (and the Daily Mail article he read) put forth are: - nothing to fear (15%) - short term problems with few consequences (30%) - severe consequences (30%) ...only add up to 75% leads me to believe that the DM has 'helpfully' forgotten to include another option... probably along the lines of 'moderate consequences'. Usually in these kind of polls there is 2 options in one direction and two in the other. Which adds another 25%... and would then mean 'brexit OK' would score 45% and 'brexit bad' would score 55%. But that would go against the narrative the Daily Mail and their 'useful idiots' spreading their misinformation would like. Only a hunch of course, because the raw poll data is not published. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Maybe because I still down in a little more detail , I do not have to accept that your argument stacks up. Foreign current movements are a two way pull. Movements can may that liabilities actually increase as opposed to decreasing . Everyone is entitled to express opinions on these forums. For accurate information I prefer to use other source . We have already seen how many posters made inaccurate assumptions about tax paid by DGMT. The stock exchange is a live real time analysis of financial performance. You can hardly argue with the indices. Drillbsown and you can analyse performance by sector and size." Pat, please don't insult us by trying to talk about 'accurate information' and 'drilling down' in response to your own thread about a poll published in the Daily Mail. Which you don't even link to or even acknowledge the source. Especially when you present 3 different poll answers, whose votes don't add up to 100% indicating that one or more poll options has been deliberately omitted. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt" Hi. Maybe check out Wetherspoons . Share Price 2016. £ 9. Current price £13.32 . As far as I am aware all of Wetherspoons profits arise in the UK. I even have an analysis via a 3 page summary of all their revenue and cost stream . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Maybe because I still down in a little more detail , I do not have to accept that your argument stacks up. Foreign current movements are a two way pull. Movements can may that liabilities actually increase as opposed to decreasing . Everyone is entitled to express opinions on these forums. For accurate information I prefer to use other source . We have already seen how many posters made inaccurate assumptions about tax paid by DGMT. The stock exchange is a live real time analysis of financial performance. You can hardly argue with the indices. Drillbsown and you can analyse performance by sector and size. Pat, please don't insult us by trying to talk about 'accurate information' and 'drilling down' in response to your own thread about a poll published in the Daily Mail. Which you don't even link to or even acknowledge the source. Especially when you present 3 different poll answers, whose votes don't add up to 100% indicating that one or more poll options has been deliberately omitted. -Matt" It is hardly an insult to publish a summary of the results of their poll. The results are there in black and white. As far as I am aware people are entitled to drill down into information , analyse it in futher detail and come to their own conclusions. It would be really dangerous to accept some of the information published on these forums . A number of posters claimed or accepted that DGMT paid no corporation tax , yet the taxation charge is clearly displayed in the published accounts . Ironically these were the very same posters who were quite happy to see action being taken against Boris Johnson | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. However only some of the earnings originate from abroad so it is only one factor that would need to be taken into account . There are many others and if you were to drill down further you will find that for lot of companies in the FTSE have earnings originating in the UK. Not many investors are rushing to sell shares as a result of lack of confidence in the UK economy . The reverse is actually the case , foreign companies are keen to buy those based in the UK and dividend income is at at an all time high. " again pat... you are not listening.... that is because they report their figures in US DOLLARS!!!!!!!......... hence with the weakness in sterling (and if you don't think that will get even weaker in a no deal brexit you would be mad!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. However only some of the earnings originate from abroad so it is only one factor that would need to be taken into account . There are many others and if you were to drill down further you will find that for lot of companies in the FTSE have earnings originating in the UK. Not many investors are rushing to sell shares as a result of lack of confidence in the UK economy . The reverse is actually the case , foreign companies are keen to buy those based in the UK and dividend income is at at an all time high. again pat... you are not listening.... that is because they report their figures in US DOLLARS!!!!!!!......... hence with the weakness in sterling (and if you don't think that will get even weaker in a no deal brexit you would be mad!) " Hello. I have listened carefully to all the arguments . I do not have any issue with yours and in addition you are always polite and respectful to all posters on these forums . However I do not have to accept your conclusions and likewise you do not have to accept mine. I have based mine on a drill down on the various constituents of the FTSE 350 and many of these generate profits in the UK. Foreign currency movements are a two way pull. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Pat, no detail about the poll for your ideological bible.. No numbers on how many asked, demographic etc.. And yet not surprisingly you cherry pick what you want and say a majority are ok with no deal.. Is this similar to your claim which you have yet to back up despite being asked several times that a 'majority now want us to leave on WTO terms'.. Your becoming a parody of Centy Pat, but at least he occasionally gave some substance to his false claims.. " Hi. Someone has already provided the source of the information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Pat, no detail about the poll for your ideological bible.. No numbers on how many asked, demographic etc.. And yet not surprisingly you cherry pick what you want and say a majority are ok with no deal.. Is this similar to your claim which you have yet to back up despite being asked several times that a 'majority now want us to leave on WTO terms'.. Your becoming a parody of Centy Pat, but at least he occasionally gave some substance to his false claims.. Hi. Someone has already provided the source of the information. " Your post, your claim.. Back it up.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. However only some of the earnings originate from abroad so it is only one factor that would need to be taken into account . There are many others and if you were to drill down further you will find that for lot of companies in the FTSE have earnings originating in the UK. Not many investors are rushing to sell shares as a result of lack of confidence in the UK economy . The reverse is actually the case , foreign companies are keen to buy those based in the UK and dividend income is at at an all time high. again pat... you are not listening.... that is because they report their figures in US DOLLARS!!!!!!!......... hence with the weakness in sterling (and if you don't think that will get even weaker in a no deal brexit you would be mad!) Hello. I have listened carefully to all the arguments . I do not have any issue with yours and in addition you are always polite and respectful to all posters on these forums . However I do not have to accept your conclusions and likewise you do not have to accept mine. I have based mine on a drill down on the various constituents of the FTSE 350 and many of these generate profits in the UK. Foreign currency movements are a two way pull. " But capital flight is a one way road: (Scottish Financial Review reporting on EY analysis, publish March 2019) “£1 Trillion Of Assets Leave London Ahead Of Brexit” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Hi. Maybe check out Wetherspoons . Share Price 2016. £ 9. Current price £13.32 . As far as I am aware all of Wetherspoons profits arise in the UK. I even have an analysis via a 3 page summary of all their revenue and cost stream . " Clever accountants will make any company look good and don’t forget that showing a higher share price means that directors ect will get bigger bonuses. How many companies have shown good figures right up until that have gone pop! Leaving all of the minor shareholders whistling for their money ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Maybe because I still down in a little more detail , I do not have to accept that your argument stacks up. Foreign current movements are a two way pull. Movements can may that liabilities actually increase as opposed to decreasing . Everyone is entitled to express opinions on these forums. For accurate information I prefer to use other source . We have already seen how many posters made inaccurate assumptions about tax paid by DGMT. The stock exchange is a live real time analysis of financial performance. You can hardly argue with the indices. Drillbsown and you can analyse performance by sector and size. Pat, please don't insult us by trying to talk about 'accurate information' and 'drilling down' in response to your own thread about a poll published in the Daily Mail. Which you don't even link to or even acknowledge the source. Especially when you present 3 different poll answers, whose votes don't add up to 100% indicating that one or more poll options has been deliberately omitted. -Matt It is hardly an insult to publish a summary of the results of their poll. The results are there in black and white. As far as I am aware people are entitled to drill down into information , analyse it in futher detail and come to their own conclusions. It would be really dangerous to accept some of the information published on these forums . A number of posters claimed or accepted that DGMT paid no corporation tax , yet the taxation charge is clearly displayed in the published accounts . Ironically these were the very same posters who were quite happy to see action being taken against Boris Johnson " Yes. Their summary is in black and white and as you can clearly see is missing one or more answers. So why are you trying to draw conclusions from obviously incomplete data? -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Hi. Maybe check out Wetherspoons . Share Price 2016. £ 9. Current price £13.32 . As far as I am aware all of Wetherspoons profits arise in the UK. I even have an analysis via a 3 page summary of all their revenue and cost stream . " Didn’t Wetherspoons just post something like a 17% downturn that their attributed directly to Brexit? -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority." You've been shown / explained to time and time again how this post you keep trotting out is fundamentaly wrong and contradicting at best. You're just a forum troller but I guess you get your kicks out of it somehow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best bargaining chip is actually Revoking Article 50 - that way we put the timetable back under our control. Invoking Article 50 was the single most stupid thing done after the Referendum. Revoking A50 would be like waving a white flag and saying, (sorry we surrender, do what you like to us). We are British, not French. There can be no surrender ever on this or any other issue. To make our own decisions and then act upon them, that is democracy. We voted leave, we triggered A50, but have done duck all since, except take no deal off the table. That decision has to be reversed, not just because a complete break would benefit us the big too distant short term and definitely in the long term, but also if we need a deal, then we must be able to say, “that is unacceptable, we will walk if that is all you are offering.” " I agree that no deal should never ever have been taken off the table but also the economics of a no deal should be fully appreciated and not glossed over like a certain forum loon constantly does. It's fucking time politicians and the general public got their act together and realise and understand what the consequences are for all outcomes. The word Brexit just goes hand in hand with bullshit and lies and you lost we won childish shite, it's time that stops. If the realistic possibilities are accepted about Brexit then far more people would likely get behind it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Maybe because I still down in a little more detail , I do not have to accept that your argument stacks up. Foreign current movements are a two way pull. Movements can may that liabilities actually increase as opposed to decreasing . Everyone is entitled to express opinions on these forums. For accurate information I prefer to use other source . We have already seen how many posters made inaccurate assumptions about tax paid by DGMT. The stock exchange is a live real time analysis of financial performance. You can hardly argue with the indices. Drillbsown and you can analyse performance by sector and size. Amazing! Was it published in the DM by any chance? "One poll that was published in the Guardian today, the Opinium poll on Westminster Voting intentions, puts the Brexit party in the lead on 26%. Labour in 2nd place on 22%, Tories in 3rd on 17% and the Lib dems 4th on 16%. Electoral Calculus website translated the data into seats in the House of Commons and put the Brexit party on 306 seats, just 20 short of a majority. Conservatives would get 26 seats so would most likely form a Brexit party/Tory coalition to keep Corbyn out of Downing street. Backed up by a real election day poll that was the European elections last week, which saw the Brexit party win with 32% of the vote, certainly seems to back up what the OP says, as the Brexit party policy is to Leave the EU with a WTO clean break Brexit is becoming more popular with the public. www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/brexit-party-nigel-farage-lead-opinion-poll-conservatives-opinium I did post about this last night on the "Labour" thread in the forum but no remainer has commented on it? 
Are you going to suggest the Guardian are also biased now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority." Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation 
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Maybe because I still down in a little more detail , I do not have to accept that your argument stacks up. Foreign current movements are a two way pull. Movements can may that liabilities actually increase as opposed to decreasing . Everyone is entitled to express opinions on these forums. For accurate information I prefer to use other source . We have already seen how many posters made inaccurate assumptions about tax paid by DGMT. The stock exchange is a live real time analysis of financial performance. You can hardly argue with the indices. Drillbsown and you can analyse performance by sector and size. Amazing! Was it published in the DM by any chance?
One poll that was published in the Guardian today, the Opinium poll on Westminster Voting intentions, puts the Brexit party in the lead on 26%.
Labour in 2nd place on 22%, Tories in 3rd on 17% and the Lib dems 4th on 16%.
Electoral Calculus website translated the data into seats in the House of Commons and put the Brexit party on 306 seats, just 20 short of a majority. Conservatives would get 26 seats so would most likely form a Brexit party/Tory coalition to keep Corbyn out of Downing street.
Backed up by a real election day poll that was the European elections last week, which saw the Brexit party win with 32% of the vote, certainly seems to back up what the OP says, as the Brexit party policy is to Leave the EU with a WTO clean break Brexit is becoming more popular with the public.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/brexit-party-nigel-farage-lead-opinion-poll-conservatives-opinium
I did post about this last night on the "Labour" thread in the forum but no remainer has commented on it?
Are you going to suggest the Guardian are also biased now? "...and two days ago the polling indicated a LibDem win 24% to 22% Brexit and Con/ Lab 19% each. https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/31/lib-dems-win-next-general-election-labour-tories-joint-third-9759776/ This certainly seems to back-up the European election result where: "The combined percentage of vote share of the Liberal Democrats (20.3), Green Party (12.1), SNP (3.6), Change UK (3.4) and Plaid Cymru (1) – who all campaigned on a pro-Remain message – equates to 40.4 per cent. The parties in favour of a hard Brexit – the Brexit Party (31.6) and Ukip (3.3) – won a combined share of 34.9 per cent of the votes." https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/eu-elections-uk-results-leave-remain-brexit-what-tells-us/ However as only 36% of the population cared enough to vote that means both something and nothing. Essentially the country is evenly split. It has been evenly split since the Referendum when an "overwhelming" 4% margin for Brexit was recorded  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about."Hi . I guess by your comments you are not participating in the stock markets success . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. You've been shown / explained to time and time again how this post you keep trotting out is fundamentaly wrong and contradicting at best. You're just a forum troller but I guess you get your kicks out of it somehow. " Hi . I think I would prefer to accept the policies on the various Tory Party election candidates who are prepared to back a no deal Brexit , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Maybe because I still down in a little more detail , I do not have to accept that your argument stacks up. Foreign current movements are a two way pull. Movements can may that liabilities actually increase as opposed to decreasing . Everyone is entitled to express opinions on these forums. For accurate information I prefer to use other source . We have already seen how many posters made inaccurate assumptions about tax paid by DGMT. The stock exchange is a live real time analysis of financial performance. You can hardly argue with the indices. Drillbsown and you can analyse performance by sector and size. Amazing! Was it published in the DM by any chance?
One poll that was published in the Guardian today, the Opinium poll on Westminster Voting intentions, puts the Brexit party in the lead on 26%.
Labour in 2nd place on 22%, Tories in 3rd on 17% and the Lib dems 4th on 16%.
Electoral Calculus website translated the data into seats in the House of Commons and put the Brexit party on 306 seats, just 20 short of a majority. Conservatives would get 26 seats so would most likely form a Brexit party/Tory coalition to keep Corbyn out of Downing street.
Backed up by a real election day poll that was the European elections last week, which saw the Brexit party win with 32% of the vote, certainly seems to back up what the OP says, as the Brexit party policy is to Leave the EU with a WTO clean break Brexit is becoming more popular with the public.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/brexit-party-nigel-farage-lead-opinion-poll-conservatives-opinium
I did post about this last night on the "Labour" thread in the forum but no remainer has commented on it?
Are you going to suggest the Guardian are also biased now?
...and two days ago the polling indicated a LibDem win 24% to 22% Brexit and Con/ Lab 19% each.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/31/lib-dems-win-next-general-election-labour-tories-joint-third-9759776/
This certainly seems to back-up the European election result where:
"The combined percentage of vote share of the Liberal Democrats (20.3), Green Party (12.1), SNP (3.6), Change UK (3.4) and Plaid Cymru (1) – who all campaigned on a pro-Remain message – equates to 40.4 per cent.
The parties in favour of a hard Brexit – the Brexit Party (31.6) and Ukip (3.3) – won a combined share of 34.9 per cent of the votes."
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/eu-elections-uk-results-leave-remain-brexit-what-tells-us/
However as only 36% of the population cared enough to vote that means both something and nothing.
Essentially the country is evenly split. It has been evenly split since the Referendum when an "overwhelming" 4% margin for Brexit was recorded "....and if you add up the points tally of Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham in the League, then London won the Premier League. Funny that the Premier League trophy is sitting pretty in Manchester City's display cabinet though (also funny that Manchester City's colours are the same as the Brexit party). The way you leave out the Tory and Labour vote share (who both have manifesto promises to honour the referendum result and Leave the EU) also highlights your desperation. The country is not evenly split, if it was evenly split the result of the referendum in 2016 would have been 50/50. The country voted 52/48 percent in favour of leaving so Leave has a 4% majority, which translated to over 1 million votes which cannot be called a small number. There are winners and losers in life, and remain LOST the referendum. As for the Yougov poll that you cited in the Metro, they tried to hide the Brexit party under "other" in the poll. So you wouldn't have even seen the Brexit party as an option unless you clicked on "other" first. Shoddy and deceptive stuff from Yougov after the Brexit party just won the European elections with a clear majority returning 29 MEP's. Also Opinium were much more accurate in their polling with regard to the EU referendum result in 2016, coming closer to the final figure on the day than Yougov did, so on previous track records Opinium seem to be the more reliable pollsters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Hi . I guess by your comments you are not participating in the stock markets success . " they reckon only about 10% of people in the uk own "stocks and shares".... i think its interesting that people have stopped so much saying no deal and instead say WTO terms because it sounds less scary its not the countries and the business's that end up paying the tarriffs.... its individuals.... why people are so quick to want to basically kill what uk manufacturing and agrifood sectors we have left is beyond me. oh... and did you hear the US ambassador on marr today..... nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about.
Hi . I guess by your comments you are not participating in the stock markets success . "Well done not responding to the points that I actually made
I am doing just fine with my investments as well as the hedges that I have in place for when the bear market arrives, as it inevitably will. My portfolio is diversified and certainly not UK-centric.
Of course, I don't have the benefit of the "specialist publications" which you have never, ever felt able to name | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about."You look like the one who needs to get a grip. The way you constantly leave out the Tory and Labour vote (who are both committed to delivering Brexit through manifesto promises) just looks increasingly more desperate on your part. Boris is a democratically elected MP, Farage is a democratically elected MEP, and Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. NONE of them have been imposed on anyone. They have gained office through peaceful democratic process in fair democratic elections. If you think they have been 'imposed' on people then your view of democracy is incredibly warped to say the least. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. You've been shown / explained to time and time again how this post you keep trotting out is fundamentaly wrong and contradicting at best. You're just a forum troller but I guess you get your kicks out of it somehow. Hi . I think I would prefer to accept the policies on the various Tory Party election candidates who are prepared to back a no deal Brexit , " ..but the Conservative party now only represents something between 9% and 20% of voters now and only a tiny proportion and demographic will select the next Prime Minister | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about.
Hi . I guess by your comments you are not participating in the stock markets success . "Pat, we are fortunate enough to have a small portfolio and yes it's done fine ty.. That doesn't alter the fact that no matter how many times you are pulled up with facts from others that your only response is as banal as this one is does it.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS" Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i think its interesting that people have stopped so much saying no deal and instead say WTO terms because it sounds less scary " Is this the same as remainers who stopped saying lets have a 2nd referendum, and instead now call it a "confirmatory vote", so they sound less undemocratic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy. "is that why they never answer the food safety and welfare question either.... or is that truth "uncomfortable" for them as well.....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy.
is that why they never answer the food safety and welfare question either.... or is that truth "uncomfortable" for them as well..... "As you were quick to point out The Andrew Marr show earlier, i'm guessing you saw the bit where the American representative said the British people have a choice. He said "if they don't like it then they don't have to buy it, but if they like it they can buy it". He also said the EU's own regulatory body on food standards had said in reports that American food was "perfectly safe" to eat, and that millions of Brits travel to the USA each year, eat American produce, and he'd never heard a single complaint. Its about consumer choice isn't it, if you don't want to buy it then fine, that's your choice, but other people who want to buy American produce should be free to do so if they wish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i think its interesting that people have stopped so much saying no deal and instead say WTO terms because it sounds less scary Is this the same as remainers who stopped saying lets have a 2nd referendum, and instead now call it a "confirmatory vote", so they sound less undemocratic" Centy it could but the difference between the two is that one will fuck the electorate and the other will enable that sovereign thing you were screaming for pre the referendum eg democracy which Brexiteers now seem scared of.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i think its interesting that people have stopped so much saying no deal and instead say WTO terms because it sounds less scary Is this the same as remainers who stopped saying lets have a 2nd referendum, and instead now call it a "confirmatory vote", so they sound less undemocratic Centy it could but the difference between the two is that one will fuck the electorate and the other will enable that sovereign thing you were screaming for pre the referendum eg democracy which Brexiteers now seem scared of.. " I'm not scared of democracy, i'm all for it, but for democracy to work you have to implement a democratic verdict before you have another vote on the same subject. That is how the democratic process works, and how it has always worked. To have another referendum now, before the result of the one in 2016 has been enacted and implemented is fundamentally undemocratic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy.
is that why they never answer the food safety and welfare question either.... or is that truth "uncomfortable" for them as well.....
As you were quick to point out The Andrew Marr show earlier, i'm guessing you saw the bit where the American representative said the British people have a choice. He said "if they don't like it then they don't have to buy it, but if they like it they can buy it". He also said the EU's own regulatory body on food standards had said in reports that American food was "perfectly safe" to eat, and that millions of Brits travel to the USA each year, eat American produce, and he'd never heard a single complaint.
Its about consumer choice isn't it, if you don't want to buy it then fine, that's your choice, but other people who want to buy American produce should be free to do so if they wish. "if it was perfectly safe to eat centy that it would already conform to EU food and safety standards.... it doesn't!!!!!! the reason why it doesn't is that "chlorine" is used to cover up the fact they allow antibiotics to be given to chicken allowed in the human food chain..... where as the EU does not! so again...... food safety and animal welfare standards centy!!!! (why you hiding under another name anyway, we all know its you and you have been outed!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Maybe because I still down in a little more detail , I do not have to accept that your argument stacks up. Foreign current movements are a two way pull. Movements can may that liabilities actually increase as opposed to decreasing . Everyone is entitled to express opinions on these forums. For accurate information I prefer to use other source . We have already seen how many posters made inaccurate assumptions about tax paid by DGMT. The stock exchange is a live real time analysis of financial performance. You can hardly argue with the indices. Drillbsown and you can analyse performance by sector and size. Amazing! Was it published in the DM by any chance?
One poll that was published in the Guardian today, the Opinium poll on Westminster Voting intentions, puts the Brexit party in the lead on 26%.
Labour in 2nd place on 22%, Tories in 3rd on 17% and the Lib dems 4th on 16%.
Electoral Calculus website translated the data into seats in the House of Commons and put the Brexit party on 306 seats, just 20 short of a majority. Conservatives would get 26 seats so would most likely form a Brexit party/Tory coalition to keep Corbyn out of Downing street.
Backed up by a real election day poll that was the European elections last week, which saw the Brexit party win with 32% of the vote, certainly seems to back up what the OP says, as the Brexit party policy is to Leave the EU with a WTO clean break Brexit is becoming more popular with the public.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/brexit-party-nigel-farage-lead-opinion-poll-conservatives-opinium
I did post about this last night on the "Labour" thread in the forum but no remainer has commented on it?
Are you going to suggest the Guardian are also biased now?
...and two days ago the polling indicated a LibDem win 24% to 22% Brexit and Con/ Lab 19% each.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/31/lib-dems-win-next-general-election-labour-tories-joint-third-9759776/
This certainly seems to back-up the European election result where:
"The combined percentage of vote share of the Liberal Democrats (20.3), Green Party (12.1), SNP (3.6), Change UK (3.4) and Plaid Cymru (1) – who all campaigned on a pro-Remain message – equates to 40.4 per cent.
The parties in favour of a hard Brexit – the Brexit Party (31.6) and Ukip (3.3) – won a combined share of 34.9 per cent of the votes."
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/eu-elections-uk-results-leave-remain-brexit-what-tells-us/
However as only 36% of the population cared enough to vote that means both something and nothing.
Essentially the country is evenly split. It has been evenly split since the Referendum when an "overwhelming" 4% margin for Brexit was recorded
....and if you add up the points tally of Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham in the League, then London won the Premier League. Funny that the Premier League trophy is sitting pretty in Manchester City's display cabinet though (also funny that Manchester City's colours are the same as the Brexit party).
The way you leave out the Tory and Labour vote share (who both have manifesto promises to honour the referendum result and Leave the EU) also highlights your desperation.
The country is not evenly split, if it was evenly split the result of the referendum in 2016 would have been 50/50. The country voted 52/48 percent in favour of leaving so Leave has a 4% majority, which translated to over 1 million votes which cannot be called a small number. There are winners and losers in life, and remain LOST the referendum.
As for the Yougov poll that you cited in the Metro, they tried to hide the Brexit party under "other" in the poll. So you wouldn't have even seen the Brexit party as an option unless you clicked on "other" first. Shoddy and deceptive stuff from Yougov after the Brexit party just won the European elections with a clear majority returning 29 MEP's.
Also Opinium were much more accurate in their polling with regard to the EU referendum result in 2016, coming closer to the final figure on the day than Yougov did, so on previous track records Opinium seem to be the more reliable pollsters. "Seasonal migrant workers also recently helped transform Liverpool into European superpower
Now that we have dealt with that amusing diversion I will reiterate the actual topic under discussion:
"No deal Brexit Nothing to fear"
Neither The Tory or Labour parties indicated any support for a no deal Brexit in their manifestos. Neither did the entire Leave campaign. Quite the opposite actually
You are also perfectly aware that the last general election removed the Conservative party's "Brexit means Brexit" mandate.
You are also perfectly aware that 2/3 of Labour voters voted Remain.
You are also perfectly aware that the Labour has a deliberately ambiguous Brexit policy.
Regardless of all that, the implication is that there is, in fact, an even bigger margin against hard Brexit as Labour and Conservative voters in the European election explicitly voted against that option.
No one should lose in a representative democracy. That is the entire point. It is not a court case. It is not a zero-sum game.
4% or 1 million votes is not an overwhelming majority. It is not a mandate to permanently tear down something so significant. That is what proportions are about. 4 is small number. If there is a vote of 100 people, 4 people would make the difference. That's hardly any compared to 100.
Opinium got the European election vote significantly underestimated the LibDem and Green votes and overestimated the Brexit vote by even more than everyone else.
Know a lot about polling and statistical bias then or just using "common sense"? Experts unnecessary.
This is from the YouGov site:
"How pollsters ask questions is an eternally controversial issue. For voting intention, that often focuses upon how the answer options are presented. The approach that YouGov has always taken is to prompt for the traditional main parties, but only prompt for other parties if people select "other". A similar approach is taken by most other polling companies.
This may seem unfair to some people (and has often been a source of complaint from supporters of smaller parties), but is based on what actually gets elections right. In the past, prompting for smaller parties has tended to overstate their support when compared to actual elections, and the two-stage approach to prompting has produced more accurate results.
However, there comes a point when a small party becomes a big party, when they should be included in the main prompt. This can be a difficult decision, and one that YouGov takes time and care to call correctly, thoroughly testing any changes before they go ahead. This was the approach we took before the 2015 election when UKIP were breaking through. We regularly tested the effect of prompting on UKIP support, and, once it seemed it was no longer giving them an artifical boost, we started including UKIP in the main prompt alongside Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
We are at that same point with the Brexit Party now - testing the impact prompting has and what their support would be in a write-in question without any prompting for any of the parties. If we are confident that including them in the main prompt will produce more accurate results than grouping them with "others", we will update our question prompting.
However, at the same time we also need to make sure we do not overstate support for the Brexit Party. YouGov correctly predicted the outcome of last week's EU Parliament elections, including the level of support for the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens - but like many pollsters we overstated support for the Brexit Party, putting them at 37% compared to the 31.6% they actually achieved in Great Britain. Over the next few weeks, we will also be looking at the possible causes of that overstatement, and whether there was something to do with turnout, undecided voters or our weighting or sampling scheme that led to us having too many Brexit voters in our final poll." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy.
is that why they never answer the food safety and welfare question either.... or is that truth "uncomfortable" for them as well.....
As you were quick to point out The Andrew Marr show earlier, i'm guessing you saw the bit where the American representative said the British people have a choice. He said "if they don't like it then they don't have to buy it, but if they like it they can buy it". He also said the EU's own regulatory body on food standards had said in reports that American food was "perfectly safe" to eat, and that millions of Brits travel to the USA each year, eat American produce, and he'd never heard a single complaint.
Its about consumer choice isn't it, if you don't want to buy it then fine, that's your choice, but other people who want to buy American produce should be free to do so if they wish.
if it was perfectly safe to eat centy that it would already conform to EU food and safety standards.... it doesn't!!!!!!
the reason why it doesn't is that "chlorine" is used to cover up the fact they allow antibiotics to be given to chicken allowed in the human food chain..... where as the EU does not!
so again...... food safety and animal welfare standards centy!!!! (why you hiding under another name anyway, we all know its you and you have been outed!)"Nothing to do with covering up allowed antibiotics _abio its to reduce the chance of salmonella to about 2% where the eu samples typically have 15-20%.The European food safety regulator EFSA looked at the issue of chlorine treatment and found “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.”One of the EU’s key concerns is that the use of antimicrobial treatments like chlorine washes compensates for poor hygiene behaviour elsewhere in the supply chain (for example on farms), and that consumers are better protected by a system that doesn’t allow processors the simple ‘get-out’ of treating their chicken with chemicals. As a result, EU processors are only allowed to use cold air and water to decontaminate poultry carcases. The US disputes this, says the ban is not based on scientific evidence and little more than wilful protectionism designed to protect EU poultry producers from more competitive imports. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about.
You look like the one who needs to get a grip.
The way you constantly leave out the Tory and Labour vote (who are both committed to delivering Brexit through manifesto promises) just looks increasingly more desperate on your part.
Boris is a democratically elected MP, Farage is a democratically elected MEP, and Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. NONE of them have been imposed on anyone. They have gained office through peaceful democratic process in fair democratic elections.
If you think they have been 'imposed' on people then your view of democracy is incredibly warped to say the least. "See above for comments on the Conservative and Labour parties and I, once again, refer you to the title of the thread: "No deal Brexit Nothing to fear" I never said that any of them were imposed. You can't use quotation marks to quote something not said or written. Cults are not always imposed. They are often entered into freely. People choose to follow "the leader" regardless of any information indicating that they are charlatans. Corbyn also has a cult. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy.
is that why they never answer the food safety and welfare question either.... or is that truth "uncomfortable" for them as well.....
As you were quick to point out The Andrew Marr show earlier, i'm guessing you saw the bit where the American representative said the British people have a choice. He said "if they don't like it then they don't have to buy it, but if they like it they can buy it". He also said the EU's own regulatory body on food standards had said in reports that American food was "perfectly safe" to eat, and that millions of Brits travel to the USA each year, eat American produce, and he'd never heard a single complaint.
Its about consumer choice isn't it, if you don't want to buy it then fine, that's your choice, but other people who want to buy American produce should be free to do so if they wish.
if it was perfectly safe to eat centy that it would already conform to EU food and safety standards.... it doesn't!!!!!!
the reason why it doesn't is that "chlorine" is used to cover up the fact they allow antibiotics to be given to chicken allowed in the human food chain..... where as the EU does not!
so again...... food safety and animal welfare standards centy!!!! (why you hiding under another name anyway, we all know its you and you have been outed!)Nothing to do with covering up allowed antibiotics _abio its to reduce the chance of salmonella to about 2% where the eu samples typically have 15-20%.The European food safety regulator EFSA looked at the issue of chlorine treatment and found “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.”One of the EU’s key concerns is that the use of antimicrobial treatments like chlorine washes compensates for poor hygiene behaviour elsewhere in the supply chain (for example on farms), and that consumers are better protected by a system that doesn’t allow processors the simple ‘get-out’ of treating their chicken with chemicals. As a result, EU processors are only allowed to use cold air and water to decontaminate poultry carcases.
The US disputes this, says the ban is not based on scientific evidence and little more than wilful protectionism designed to protect EU poultry producers from more competitive imports."This is from a House of Lords committee report on food standards and leaving the EU: "In evidence given to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Sue Davies of Which? said that accepting US food standards could have a negative impact on consumer safety in the UK: If you look at the difference in food positions rates based on the estimates in the US versus here, one in six Americans get food poisoning. Based on the FSA estimates, it is about one in 66 here. They have real problems with food safety." Also I've added the emphasis below to make it clear: "Mr Gove stated that in the US chicken is washed in chlorine or other acid washes in order to deal with pathogens which might be present as a result of the way in which the chickens are reared.28 The EU has different standards for rearing chickens, therefore acid washing IS NOT NECESSARY, or permitted. Mr Gove highlighted that chicken prepared in the US is safe to eat, and therefore OBJECTIONS to chlorine-washed chicken are BASED ON ANIMAL WELFARE rather than food safety. However, Mr Gove stressed that “unless there is a change on the American side, we would say that those animal welfare rules are things on which we will not compromise” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Seasonal migrant workers also recently helped transform Liverpool into European superpower
"Mo Salah comes from outside of the EU though (Egypt in fact), Sadio Mane from Senegal, thanks for making the case for a global Britain outside of the EU after Brexit is delivered! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy.
is that why they never answer the food safety and welfare question either.... or is that truth "uncomfortable" for them as well.....
As you were quick to point out The Andrew Marr show earlier, i'm guessing you saw the bit where the American representative said the British people have a choice. He said "if they don't like it then they don't have to buy it, but if they like it they can buy it". He also said the EU's own regulatory body on food standards had said in reports that American food was "perfectly safe" to eat, and that millions of Brits travel to the USA each year, eat American produce, and he'd never heard a single complaint.
Its about consumer choice isn't it, if you don't want to buy it then fine, that's your choice, but other people who want to buy American produce should be free to do so if they wish.
if it was perfectly safe to eat centy that it would already conform to EU food and safety standards.... it doesn't!!!!!!
the reason why it doesn't is that "chlorine" is used to cover up the fact they allow antibiotics to be given to chicken allowed in the human food chain..... where as the EU does not!
so again...... food safety and animal welfare standards centy!!!! (why you hiding under another name anyway, we all know its you and you have been outed!)Nothing to do with covering up allowed antibiotics _abio its to reduce the chance of salmonella to about 2% where the eu samples typically have 15-20%.The European food safety regulator EFSA looked at the issue of chlorine treatment and found “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.”One of the EU’s key concerns is that the use of antimicrobial treatments like chlorine washes compensates for poor hygiene behaviour elsewhere in the supply chain (for example on farms), and that consumers are better protected by a system that doesn’t allow processors the simple ‘get-out’ of treating their chicken with chemicals. As a result, EU processors are only allowed to use cold air and water to decontaminate poultry carcases.
The US disputes this, says the ban is not based on scientific evidence and little more than wilful protectionism designed to protect EU poultry producers from more competitive imports.
This is from a House of Lords committee report on food standards and leaving the EU:
"In evidence given to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, Sue Davies of Which? said that accepting US food standards could have
a negative impact on consumer safety in the UK:
If you look at the difference in food positions rates based on the
estimates in the US versus here, one in six Americans get food poisoning.
Based on the FSA estimates, it is about one in 66 here. They have real
problems with food safety."
Also I've added the emphasis below to make it clear:
"Mr Gove stated that in the US chicken is washed in chlorine or other acid washes in order to deal with pathogens which might be present as a result of
the way in which the chickens are reared.28 The EU has different standards for rearing chickens, therefore acid washing IS NOT NECESSARY, or permitted.
Mr Gove highlighted that chicken prepared in the US is safe to eat, and therefore OBJECTIONS to chlorine-washed chicken are BASED ON ANIMAL WELFARE rather than food safety. However, Mr Gove stressed that “unless there is a
change on the American side, we would say that those animal welfare rules are things on which we will not compromise”"Are you saying one in six americans get food poisoning from chicken opposed to 1 in 66 in the uk where did you find these figures i am willing to be educated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So how is your take on the animal welfare issue? Do you think its a good thing to follow the possibly dangerously intensive high production methods used in the USA, or do you think that maybe a well organised and carefully managed system as preferred by the EU with the emphasis on personal competence and animal welfare rather than covering any problems up by washing it all away with chlorine bleaching agents is a better solution? Simple question!" My take on it has nothing to do with it i am looking for facts about the health issues people keep using as an excuse.Animal wefare is a legitimate argument not to entertain usa chicken which i can respect but that is not what i am commenting on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Seasonal migrant workers also recently helped transform Liverpool into European superpower
Mo Salah comes from outside of the EU though (Egypt in fact), Sadio Mane from Senegal, thanks for making the case for a global Britain outside of the EU after Brexit is delivered! "Muslim and interracial integration too then? Not all terrorists and paedophiles. Good to know
The UK has always had far higher immigration from outside the EU.
How many of the Liverpool squad are EU and international players and how many British?
You are Centaur though. You gave yourself away by going for the micro-victory and ignoring the substantive points | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy.
is that why they never answer the food safety and welfare question either.... or is that truth "uncomfortable" for them as well.....
As you were quick to point out The Andrew Marr show earlier, i'm guessing you saw the bit where the American representative said the British people have a choice. He said "if they don't like it then they don't have to buy it, but if they like it they can buy it". He also said the EU's own regulatory body on food standards had said in reports that American food was "perfectly safe" to eat, and that millions of Brits travel to the USA each year, eat American produce, and he'd never heard a single complaint.
Its about consumer choice isn't it, if you don't want to buy it then fine, that's your choice, but other people who want to buy American produce should be free to do so if they wish.
if it was perfectly safe to eat centy that it would already conform to EU food and safety standards.... it doesn't!!!!!!
the reason why it doesn't is that "chlorine" is used to cover up the fact they allow antibiotics to be given to chicken allowed in the human food chain..... where as the EU does not!
so again...... food safety and animal welfare standards centy!!!! (why you hiding under another name anyway, we all know its you and you have been outed!)Nothing to do with covering up allowed antibiotics _abio its to reduce the chance of salmonella to about 2% where the eu samples typically have 15-20%.The European food safety regulator EFSA looked at the issue of chlorine treatment and found “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.”One of the EU’s key concerns is that the use of antimicrobial treatments like chlorine washes compensates for poor hygiene behaviour elsewhere in the supply chain (for example on farms), and that consumers are better protected by a system that doesn’t allow processors the simple ‘get-out’ of treating their chicken with chemicals. As a result, EU processors are only allowed to use cold air and water to decontaminate poultry carcases.
The US disputes this, says the ban is not based on scientific evidence and little more than wilful protectionism designed to protect EU poultry producers from more competitive imports.
This is from a House of Lords committee report on food standards and leaving the EU:
"In evidence given to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, Sue Davies of Which? said that accepting US food standards could have
a negative impact on consumer safety in the UK:
If you look at the difference in food positions rates based on the
estimates in the US versus here, one in six Americans get food poisoning.
Based on the FSA estimates, it is about one in 66 here. They have real
problems with food safety."
Also I've added the emphasis below to make it clear:
"Mr Gove stated that in the US chicken is washed in chlorine or other acid washes in order to deal with pathogens which might be present as a result of
the way in which the chickens are reared.28 The EU has different standards for rearing chickens, therefore acid washing IS NOT NECESSARY, or permitted.
Mr Gove highlighted that chicken prepared in the US is safe to eat, and therefore OBJECTIONS to chlorine-washed chicken are BASED ON ANIMAL WELFARE rather than food safety. However, Mr Gove stressed that “unless there is a
change on the American side, we would say that those animal welfare rules are things on which we will not compromise”Are you saying one in six americans get food poisoning from chicken opposed to 1 in 66 in the uk where did you find these figures i am willing to be educated?"When I see some information that I find surprising or counter-intuitive I go and check it out myself. I extend the same opportunity to you. I've provided you with some information and a source. I cannot post the link as it is apparently less reliable than the Daily Mail or the Sun
I guess you could have a look at Which? magazine and the Food Standards Agency data and the US equivalent (Centre for Disease Control?) to find out.
Nothing indicated that the statistics were specifically about chicken. Did you see something that I didn't? Will we only be interested in chicken hygiene? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy.
is that why they never answer the food safety and welfare question either.... or is that truth "uncomfortable" for them as well.....
As you were quick to point out The Andrew Marr show earlier, i'm guessing you saw the bit where the American representative said the British people have a choice. He said "if they don't like it then they don't have to buy it, but if they like it they can buy it". He also said the EU's own regulatory body on food standards had said in reports that American food was "perfectly safe" to eat, and that millions of Brits travel to the USA each year, eat American produce, and he'd never heard a single complaint.
Its about consumer choice isn't it, if you don't want to buy it then fine, that's your choice, but other people who want to buy American produce should be free to do so if they wish.
if it was perfectly safe to eat centy that it would already conform to EU food and safety standards.... it doesn't!!!!!!
the reason why it doesn't is that "chlorine" is used to cover up the fact they allow antibiotics to be given to chicken allowed in the human food chain..... where as the EU does not!
so again...... food safety and animal welfare standards centy!!!! (why you hiding under another name anyway, we all know its you and you have been outed!)Nothing to do with covering up allowed antibiotics _abio its to reduce the chance of salmonella to about 2% where the eu samples typically have 15-20%.The European food safety regulator EFSA looked at the issue of chlorine treatment and found “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.”One of the EU’s key concerns is that the use of antimicrobial treatments like chlorine washes compensates for poor hygiene behaviour elsewhere in the supply chain (for example on farms), and that consumers are better protected by a system that doesn’t allow processors the simple ‘get-out’ of treating their chicken with chemicals. As a result, EU processors are only allowed to use cold air and water to decontaminate poultry carcases.
The US disputes this, says the ban is not based on scientific evidence and little more than wilful protectionism designed to protect EU poultry producers from more competitive imports.
This is from a House of Lords committee report on food standards and leaving the EU:
"In evidence given to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, Sue Davies of Which? said that accepting US food standards could have
a negative impact on consumer safety in the UK:
If you look at the difference in food positions rates based on the
estimates in the US versus here, one in six Americans get food poisoning.
Based on the FSA estimates, it is about one in 66 here. They have real
problems with food safety."
Also I've added the emphasis below to make it clear:
"Mr Gove stated that in the US chicken is washed in chlorine or other acid washes in order to deal with pathogens which might be present as a result of
the way in which the chickens are reared.28 The EU has different standards for rearing chickens, therefore acid washing IS NOT NECESSARY, or permitted.
Mr Gove highlighted that chicken prepared in the US is safe to eat, and therefore OBJECTIONS to chlorine-washed chicken are BASED ON ANIMAL WELFARE rather than food safety. However, Mr Gove stressed that “unless there is a
change on the American side, we would say that those animal welfare rules are things on which we will not compromise”Are you saying one in six americans get food poisoning from chicken opposed to 1 in 66 in the uk where did you find these figures i am willing to be educated?"You know what, I'm feeling generous  This is from the World Health Organisation paper. There is not adequate evidence to suggest that there are no side-effects to chlorine bleaching or that it actually kills microbes to an adequate level.
"A number of chlorine-containing disinfectants and their disinfection by-products as
well as disinfectant alternatives can lead to residues in foods and hence to possible health
risk. The toxicology of these substances was reviewed and compared with estimated dietary
intakes. The identified residues of chlorine-containing disinfectants and disinfection by-
products did not raise health concerns based on estimated dietary exposures. However, the
evidence for health concerns associated with hypochlorite use in poultry, fish and shellfish
was weak, owing to a lack of qualitative and quantitative information on the formation and
presence of trihalomethanes (which are disinfection by-products) on the food. It was noted
that although generally conservative estimates were used, there was a high degree of
uncertainty in the dietary exposure assessments, as data on by-products were available
primarily for drinking-water, and these data would have limited applicability to food.
However, chlorine-containing chemicals are unstable, and it was concluded that there is a low
potential for the presence of by-products in foods as consumed.
Microbiological risk assessments were performed for the key use scenarios, based on
available studies and available risk assessments. It was concluded that the antimicrobial
effects of disinfectants in food production may be overestimated by a lack of industrial-scale
studies and a lack of inclusion of controls for the physical effects of water alone. In contrast,
the effects may be underestimated by studying processes in isolation in industries where
disinfectants have already been applied in previous steps. There was evidence for a reduction
of pathogens on poultry carcasses and red meats by application of acidified sodium chlorite
and chlorine dioxide and in smoked fish by application of sodium hypochlorite. There was
also evidence that no pathogen reduction is achieved by application of sodium hypochlorite
on poultry carcasses and red meats. Limited data provided evidence for reduction of cross-
contamination by the application of disinfectants (in particular, sodium hypochlorite) in wash" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. You've been shown / explained to time and time again how this post you keep trotting out is fundamentaly wrong and contradicting at best. You're just a forum troller but I guess you get your kicks out of it somehow. Hi . I think I would prefer to accept the policies on the various Tory Party election candidates who are prepared to back a no deal Brexit , " Even when the tripe you've posted if you actually read it properly contradicts it's self and the misuse of % figures are that blatantly wrong a school kid could probably pick up on it
Yet you still believe every word of it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about.
You look like the one who needs to get a grip.
The way you constantly leave out the Tory and Labour vote (who are both committed to delivering Brexit through manifesto promises) just looks increasingly more desperate on your part.
Boris is a democratically elected MP, Farage is a democratically elected MEP, and Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. NONE of them have been imposed on anyone. They have gained office through peaceful democratic process in fair democratic elections.
If you think they have been 'imposed' on people then your view of democracy is incredibly warped to say the least. "At long last centy admits the eu Is democratic “ Farage is a democratically elected MEP” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about.
You look like the one who needs to get a grip.
The way you constantly leave out the Tory and Labour vote (who are both committed to delivering Brexit through manifesto promises) just looks increasingly more desperate on your part.
Boris is a democratically elected MP, Farage is a democratically elected MEP, and Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. NONE of them have been imposed on anyone. They have gained office through peaceful democratic process in fair democratic elections.
If you think they have been 'imposed' on people then your view of democracy is incredibly warped to say the least.
At long last centy admits the eu Is democratic
“ Farage is a democratically elected MEP”"Centy - logical? - astonishing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about.
You look like the one who needs to get a grip.
The way you constantly leave out the Tory and Labour vote (who are both committed to delivering Brexit through manifesto promises) just looks increasingly more desperate on your part.
Boris is a democratically elected MP, Farage is a democratically elected MEP, and Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. NONE of them have been imposed on anyone. They have gained office through peaceful democratic process in fair democratic elections.
If you think they have been 'imposed' on people then your view of democracy is incredibly warped to say the least.
At long last centy admits the eu Is democratic
“ Farage is a democratically elected MEP”"Just because MEP's are elected it doesn't make the EU democratic. MEP's have very little power in the European union, all they do is effectively rubber stamp legislation and EU law which is made by the unelected Commission. Its the unelected Commission which holds all the power in the EU, and the European Parliament where MEP's sit is little more than a talking shop to give a thinly disguised veneer of democratic accountability. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Boris is a democratically elected MP, Farage is a democratically elected MEP, and Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. NONE of them have been imposed on anyone. They have gained office through peaceful democratic process in fair democratic elections. If you think they have been 'imposed' on people then your view of democracy is incredibly warped to say the least. At long last centy admits the eu Is democratic “ Farage is a democratically elected MEP”" Centys a lot like Pat, spouts rubbish over and over just the same but even Pat doesn't contradict himself to the level Centy always does | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about.
You look like the one who needs to get a grip.
The way you constantly leave out the Tory and Labour vote (who are both committed to delivering Brexit through manifesto promises) just looks increasingly more desperate on your part.
Boris is a democratically elected MP, Farage is a democratically elected MEP, and Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. NONE of them have been imposed on anyone. They have gained office through peaceful democratic process in fair democratic elections.
If you think they have been 'imposed' on people then your view of democracy is incredibly warped to say the least.
At long last centy admits the eu Is democratic
“ Farage is a democratically elected MEP”
Just because MEP's are elected it doesn't make the EU democratic.
MEP's have very little power in the European union, all they do is effectively rubber stamp legislation and EU law which is made by the unelected Commission.
Its the unelected Commission which holds all the power in the EU, and the European Parliament where MEP's sit is little more than a talking shop to give a thinly disguised veneer of democratic accountability. "That’s borderline comedy sketch. So you admit the democratically elected MEPs are the ones who either pass or reject proposals from the commission, but apparently that’s not democratic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best bargaining chip is actually Revoking Article 50 - that way we put the timetable back under our control. Invoking Article 50 was the single most stupid thing done after the Referendum. Revoking A50 would be like waving a white flag and saying, (sorry we surrender, do what you like to us). We are British, not French. There can be no surrender ever on this or any other issue. To make our own decisions and then act upon them, that is democracy. We voted leave, we triggered A50, but have done duck all since, except take no deal off the table. That decision has to be reversed, not just because a complete break would benefit us the big too distant short term and definitely in the long term, but also if we need a deal, then we must be able to say, “that is unacceptable, we will walk if that is all you are offering.” " My thoughts are, we voted to leave, we should leave. No deals were mentioned, no R in the equation, just leave yes or no. So for me, democratic vote won, we leave...now, if after we have left, those who wish to rejoin the e.u. they should request a referendum on it to parliament. That's democracy... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about.
You look like the one who needs to get a grip.
The way you constantly leave out the Tory and Labour vote (who are both committed to delivering Brexit through manifesto promises) just looks increasingly more desperate on your part.
Boris is a democratically elected MP, Farage is a democratically elected MEP, and Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. NONE of them have been imposed on anyone. They have gained office through peaceful democratic process in fair democratic elections.
If you think they have been 'imposed' on people then your view of democracy is incredibly warped to say the least.
At long last centy admits the eu Is democratic
“ Farage is a democratically elected MEP”
Just because MEP's are elected it doesn't make the EU democratic.
MEP's have very little power in the European union, all they do is effectively rubber stamp legislation and EU law which is made by the unelected Commission.
Its the unelected Commission which holds all the power in the EU, and the European Parliament where MEP's sit is little more than a talking shop to give a thinly disguised veneer of democratic accountability. "Who nominates and votes for the unelected Comission? Who votes to accept or reject all legislation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best bargaining chip is actually Revoking Article 50 - that way we put the timetable back under our control. Invoking Article 50 was the single most stupid thing done after the Referendum. Revoking A50 would be like waving a white flag and saying, (sorry we surrender, do what you like to us). We are British, not French. There can be no surrender ever on this or any other issue. To make our own decisions and then act upon them, that is democracy. We voted leave, we triggered A50, but have done duck all since, except take no deal off the table. That decision has to be reversed, not just because a complete break would benefit us the big too distant short term and definitely in the long term, but also if we need a deal, then we must be able to say, “that is unacceptable, we will walk if that is all you are offering.” My thoughts are, we voted to leave, we should leave. No deals were mentioned, no R in the equation, just leave yes or no. So for me, democratic vote won, we leave...now, if after we have left, those who wish to rejoin the e.u. they should request a referendum on it to parliament. That's democracy..." I think our politicians will be to busy for a decade or so trying to get amazing trade deals to find time to organise another referendum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. Ah yes. The famously unbiased Sun. I'll wait for the actual data to be published on the Deltapoll website. The Sun published one of these that purported to suggest that people hadn't changed their minds about the vote. However, they omitted the question which indicated that a majority of both leave and remain voters thought that Brexit was a national mistake that would have negative consequences for a generation
Those who want no deal are not in the majority. 34.9% voted for hard Brexit supporting parties on the European elections. As only 36% of the population voted that stands at 12.6%.
Get a grip.
You have been schooled about the stock market so many times I will not add anything although it is important to continue refuting your nonsense despite the fatigue
The same with understanding the difference between absolute values, percentages and how they effect individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.
Boris is for Boris, just a Farage is for Farage and Trump is for Trump.
I must admit to being morbidly fascinated by those involved in cults. I only wish that they had the courtesy to keep these as private religious matters and not impose then on places and people that I care about.
You look like the one who needs to get a grip.
The way you constantly leave out the Tory and Labour vote (who are both committed to delivering Brexit through manifesto promises) just looks increasingly more desperate on your part.
Boris is a democratically elected MP, Farage is a democratically elected MEP, and Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. NONE of them have been imposed on anyone. They have gained office through peaceful democratic process in fair democratic elections.
If you think they have been 'imposed' on people then your view of democracy is incredibly warped to say the least.
At long last centy admits the eu Is democratic
“ Farage is a democratically elected MEP”
Just because MEP's are elected it doesn't make the EU democratic.
MEP's have very little power in the European union, all they do is effectively rubber stamp legislation and EU law which is made by the unelected Commission.
Its the unelected Commission which holds all the power in the EU, and the European Parliament where MEP's sit is little more than a talking shop to give a thinly disguised veneer of democratic accountability. "Farage is not a democratically elected MEP? He is is choosing to take a place in an undemocratic institution? It's all got terribly confusing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best bargaining chip is actually Revoking Article 50 - that way we put the timetable back under our control. Invoking Article 50 was the single most stupid thing done after the Referendum. Revoking A50 would be like waving a white flag and saying, (sorry we surrender, do what you like to us). We are British, not French. There can be no surrender ever on this or any other issue. To make our own decisions and then act upon them, that is democracy. We voted leave, we triggered A50, but have done duck all since, except take no deal off the table. That decision has to be reversed, not just because a complete break would benefit us the big too distant short term and definitely in the long term, but also if we need a deal, then we must be able to say, “that is unacceptable, we will walk if that is all you are offering.” My thoughts are, we voted to leave, we should leave. No deals were mentioned, no R in the equation, just leave yes or no. So for me, democratic vote won, we leave...now, if after we have left, those who wish to rejoin the e.u. they should request a referendum on it to parliament. That's democracy..." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy.
is that why they never answer the food safety and welfare question either.... or is that truth "uncomfortable" for them as well.....
As you were quick to point out The Andrew Marr show earlier, i'm guessing you saw the bit where the American representative said the British people have a choice. He said "if they don't like it then they don't have to buy it, but if they like it they can buy it". He also said the EU's own regulatory body on food standards had said in reports that American food was "perfectly safe" to eat, and that millions of Brits travel to the USA each year, eat American produce, and he'd never heard a single complaint.
Its about consumer choice isn't it, if you don't want to buy it then fine, that's your choice, but other people who want to buy American produce should be free to do so if they wish.
if it was perfectly safe to eat centy that it would already conform to EU food and safety standards.... it doesn't!!!!!!
the reason why it doesn't is that "chlorine" is used to cover up the fact they allow antibiotics to be given to chicken allowed in the human food chain..... where as the EU does not!
so again...... food safety and animal welfare standards centy!!!! (why you hiding under another name anyway, we all know its you and you have been outed!)Nothing to do with covering up allowed antibiotics _abio its to reduce the chance of salmonella to about 2% where the eu samples typically have 15-20%.The European food safety regulator EFSA looked at the issue of chlorine treatment and found “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.”One of the EU’s key concerns is that the use of antimicrobial treatments like chlorine washes compensates for poor hygiene behaviour elsewhere in the supply chain (for example on farms), and that consumers are better protected by a system that doesn’t allow processors the simple ‘get-out’ of treating their chicken with chemicals. As a result, EU processors are only allowed to use cold air and water to decontaminate poultry carcases.
The US disputes this, says the ban is not based on scientific evidence and little more than wilful protectionism designed to protect EU poultry producers from more competitive imports.
This is from a House of Lords committee report on food standards and leaving the EU:
"In evidence given to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, Sue Davies of Which? said that accepting US food standards could have
a negative impact on consumer safety in the UK:
If you look at the difference in food positions rates based on the
estimates in the US versus here, one in six Americans get food poisoning.
Based on the FSA estimates, it is about one in 66 here. They have real
problems with food safety."
Also I've added the emphasis below to make it clear:
"Mr Gove stated that in the US chicken is washed in chlorine or other acid washes in order to deal with pathogens which might be present as a result of
the way in which the chickens are reared.28 The EU has different standards for rearing chickens, therefore acid washing IS NOT NECESSARY, or permitted.
Mr Gove highlighted that chicken prepared in the US is safe to eat, and therefore OBJECTIONS to chlorine-washed chicken are BASED ON ANIMAL WELFARE rather than food safety. However, Mr Gove stressed that “unless there is a
change on the American side, we would say that those animal welfare rules are things on which we will not compromise”Are you saying one in six americans get food poisoning from chicken opposed to 1 in 66 in the uk where did you find these figures i am willing to be educated?
When I see some information that I find surprising or counter-intuitive I go and check it out myself. I extend the same opportunity to you.
I've provided you with some information and a source. I cannot post the link as it is apparently less reliable than the Daily Mail or the Sun
I guess you could have a look at Which? magazine and the Food Standards Agency data and the US equivalent (Centre for Disease Control?) to find out.
Nothing indicated that the statistics were specifically about chicken. Did you see something that I didn't? Will we only be interested in chicken hygiene?"I thought we were talking about chlorinated chicken so when you post statistics i assumed we still were.Ive been looking to see what causes these high cases of food poisoning in the usa but not having a lot of luck.Is it the quality of food, cross contamination or bad cooking practices? i cant find any data.By the way i read neither the daily mail or sun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nothing is off the table in the US-UK trade talks and that includes the NHS Please, we know this audience by this point, they'll happily let England becomes America and China's bitch as long as we're not the EU's bitch, it's all about Brexit and Democracy.
is that why they never answer the food safety and welfare question either.... or is that truth "uncomfortable" for them as well.....
As you were quick to point out The Andrew Marr show earlier, i'm guessing you saw the bit where the American representative said the British people have a choice. He said "if they don't like it then they don't have to buy it, but if they like it they can buy it". He also said the EU's own regulatory body on food standards had said in reports that American food was "perfectly safe" to eat, and that millions of Brits travel to the USA each year, eat American produce, and he'd never heard a single complaint.
Its about consumer choice isn't it, if you don't want to buy it then fine, that's your choice, but other people who want to buy American produce should be free to do so if they wish.
if it was perfectly safe to eat centy that it would already conform to EU food and safety standards.... it doesn't!!!!!!
the reason why it doesn't is that "chlorine" is used to cover up the fact they allow antibiotics to be given to chicken allowed in the human food chain..... where as the EU does not!
so again...... food safety and animal welfare standards centy!!!! (why you hiding under another name anyway, we all know its you and you have been outed!)Nothing to do with covering up allowed antibiotics _abio its to reduce the chance of salmonella to about 2% where the eu samples typically have 15-20%.The European food safety regulator EFSA looked at the issue of chlorine treatment and found “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.”One of the EU’s key concerns is that the use of antimicrobial treatments like chlorine washes compensates for poor hygiene behaviour elsewhere in the supply chain (for example on farms), and that consumers are better protected by a system that doesn’t allow processors the simple ‘get-out’ of treating their chicken with chemicals. As a result, EU processors are only allowed to use cold air and water to decontaminate poultry carcases.
The US disputes this, says the ban is not based on scientific evidence and little more than wilful protectionism designed to protect EU poultry producers from more competitive imports.
This is from a House of Lords committee report on food standards and leaving the EU:
"In evidence given to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, Sue Davies of Which? said that accepting US food standards could have
a negative impact on consumer safety in the UK:
If you look at the difference in food positions rates based on the
estimates in the US versus here, one in six Americans get food poisoning.
Based on the FSA estimates, it is about one in 66 here. They have real
problems with food safety."
Also I've added the emphasis below to make it clear:
"Mr Gove stated that in the US chicken is washed in chlorine or other acid washes in order to deal with pathogens which might be present as a result of
the way in which the chickens are reared.28 The EU has different standards for rearing chickens, therefore acid washing IS NOT NECESSARY, or permitted.
Mr Gove highlighted that chicken prepared in the US is safe to eat, and therefore OBJECTIONS to chlorine-washed chicken are BASED ON ANIMAL WELFARE rather than food safety. However, Mr Gove stressed that “unless there is a
change on the American side, we would say that those animal welfare rules are things on which we will not compromise”Are you saying one in six americans get food poisoning from chicken opposed to 1 in 66 in the uk where did you find these figures i am willing to be educated?
When I see some information that I find surprising or counter-intuitive I go and check it out myself. I extend the same opportunity to you.
I've provided you with some information and a source. I cannot post the link as it is apparently less reliable than the Daily Mail or the Sun
I guess you could have a look at Which? magazine and the Food Standards Agency data and the US equivalent (Centre for Disease Control?) to find out.
Nothing indicated that the statistics were specifically about chicken. Did you see something that I didn't? Will we only be interested in chicken hygiene?I thought we were talking about chlorinated chicken so when you post statistics i assumed we still were.Ive been looking to see what causes these high cases of food poisoning in the usa but not having a lot of luck.Is it the quality of food, cross contamination or bad cooking practices? i cant find any data.By the way i read neither the daily mail or sun. "Scroll back up to the post after the one I replied to. I didn't suggest that you read either paper. I just found it amusing that Fab rules find them more trustworthy than the House of Lords Library, Fullfact or any scientific publication | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best bargaining chip is actually Revoking Article 50 - that way we put the timetable back under our control. Invoking Article 50 was the single most stupid thing done after the Referendum. Revoking A50 would be like waving a white flag and saying, (sorry we surrender, do what you like to us). We are British, not French. There can be no surrender ever on this or any other issue. To make our own decisions and then act upon them, that is democracy. We voted leave, we triggered A50, but have done duck all since, except take no deal off the table. That decision has to be reversed, not just because a complete break would benefit us the big too distant short term and definitely in the long term, but also if we need a deal, then we must be able to say, “that is unacceptable, we will walk if that is all you are offering.” My thoughts are, we voted to leave, we should leave. No deals were mentioned, no R in the equation, just leave yes or no. So for me, democratic vote won, we leave...now, if after we have left, those who wish to rejoin the e.u. they should request a referendum on it to parliament. That's democracy... I think our politicians will be to busy for a decade or so trying to get amazing trade deals to find time to organise another referendum." I should hope they will be or I will give them a damm good over the knee thrashing.. Vote Adam, putting discipline back into politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a little side issue. The reason the FTSE 100 has held up is because the majority of those listed companies are foreign owned, so the weakness of sterling has helped them. Pat knows this. He has been told it plenty of times in the past. He just chooses to ignore it. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. -Matt Maybe because I still down in a little more detail , I do not have to accept that your argument stacks up. Foreign current movements are a two way pull. Movements can may that liabilities actually increase as opposed to decreasing . Everyone is entitled to express opinions on these forums. For accurate information I prefer to use other source . We have already seen how many posters made inaccurate assumptions about tax paid by DGMT. The stock exchange is a live real time analysis of financial performance. You can hardly argue with the indices. Drillbsown and you can analyse performance by sector and size. Amazing! Was it published in the DM by any chance?
One poll that was published in the Guardian today, the Opinium poll on Westminster Voting intentions, puts the Brexit party in the lead on 26%.
Labour in 2nd place on 22%, Tories in 3rd on 17% and the Lib dems 4th on 16%.
Electoral Calculus website translated the data into seats in the House of Commons and put the Brexit party on 306 seats, just 20 short of a majority. Conservatives would get 26 seats so would most likely form a Brexit party/Tory coalition to keep Corbyn out of Downing street.
Backed up by a real election day poll that was the European elections last week, which saw the Brexit party win with 32% of the vote, certainly seems to back up what the OP says, as the Brexit party policy is to Leave the EU with a WTO clean break Brexit is becoming more popular with the public.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/brexit-party-nigel-farage-lead-opinion-poll-conservatives-opinium
I did post about this last night on the "Labour" thread in the forum but no remainer has commented on it?
Are you going to suggest the Guardian are also biased now? "So 50%+1 of the population want a No Deal Brexit? Um, nope, can't make those numbers add up at all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best bargaining chip is actually Revoking Article 50 - that way we put the timetable back under our control. Invoking Article 50 was the single most stupid thing done after the Referendum. Revoking A50 would be like waving a white flag and saying, (sorry we surrender, do what you like to us). We are British, not French. There can be no surrender ever on this or any other issue. To make our own decisions and then act upon them, that is democracy. We voted leave, we triggered A50, but have done duck all since, except take no deal off the table. That decision has to be reversed, not just because a complete break would benefit us the big too distant short term and definitely in the long term, but also if we need a deal, then we must be able to say, “that is unacceptable, we will walk if that is all you are offering.” My thoughts are, we voted to leave, we should leave. No deals were mentioned, no R in the equation, just leave yes or no. So for me, democratic vote won, we leave...now, if after we have left, those who wish to rejoin the e.u. they should request a referendum on it to parliament. That's democracy..." There was lots of information about what leaving could practically mean but the key thing missing was the actual deal that the conservatives could reach with the EU for departure. As democracy doesn't stop and stop, 3 years on we now have a different position. It's a different electorate and is now a more fully informed electorate. Thus the continuous process of democracy can reflect the actual position of the electorate that we have today, rather than that which existed many years ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Just because MEP's are elected it doesn't make the EU democratic. MEP's have very little power in the European union, all they do is effectively rubber stamp legislation and EU law which is made by the unelected Commission. Its the unelected Commission which holds all the power in the EU, and the European Parliament where MEP's sit is little more than a talking shop to give a thinly disguised veneer of democratic accountability. " Wrong, wrong and wrong. Instead of taking what the likes of The Daily Mail spout as gospel how about you read up on who is who and how they are elected and by who in the European Union and you'll understand how wrong you are. Just because YOU don't get to vote on every bloody position within the EU does not make it an undemocratic organisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority." Says the man with like five different profiles in Fab? Which one is you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This all stems from the EU insisting on a withdrawal agreement before any trade talks begin to make it as hard as possible for us to leave.If the trade talks and withdrawal had all been part of the same deal things would have been alot different, but they knew that so made it as hard as possible to deter any other country from leaving." I recall that Michael Gove told us that the day after we vote to Leave, we would hold all the cards and from that day on we would be in control of everything. I don’t recall anyone saying that the EU would be in control of the subsequent negotiations - which is clearly what has happened. David Davies did put up the tiniest of fights by suggesting that the sequencing of the talks would be the “row of the summer”, but he caved at the first meeting. It is time that Brexiters face facts and accept that we have never held all the cards, we don’t hold all the cards now and leaving the EU without a deal is tantamount to showing the other players your hand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This all stems from the EU insisting on a withdrawal agreement before any trade talks begin to make it as hard as possible for us to leave.If the trade talks and withdrawal had all been part of the same deal things would have been alot different, but they knew that so made it as hard as possible to deter any other country from leaving. I recall that Michael Gove told us that the day after we vote to Leave, we would hold all the cards and from that day on we would be in control of everything. I don’t recall anyone saying that the EU would be in control of the subsequent negotiations - which is clearly what has happened. David Davies did put up the tiniest of fights by suggesting that the sequencing of the talks would be the “row of the summer”, but he caved at the first meeting. It is time that Brexiters face facts and accept that we have never held all the cards, we don’t hold all the cards now and leaving the EU without a deal is tantamount to showing the other players your hand." if you are liken it to a game of cards would you ever sit down and play without the option to fold? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This all stems from the EU insisting on a withdrawal agreement before any trade talks begin to make it as hard as possible for us to leave.If the trade talks and withdrawal had all been part of the same deal things would have been alot different, but they knew that so made it as hard as possible to deter any other country from leaving. I recall that Michael Gove told us that the day after we vote to Leave, we would hold all the cards and from that day on we would be in control of everything. I don’t recall anyone saying that the EU would be in control of the subsequent negotiations - which is clearly what has happened. David Davies did put up the tiniest of fights by suggesting that the sequencing of the talks would be the “row of the summer”, but he caved at the first meeting. It is time that Brexiters face facts and accept that we have never held all the cards, we don’t hold all the cards now and leaving the EU without a deal is tantamount to showing the other players your hand. if you are liken it to a game of cards would you ever sit down and play without the option to fold? "That assumes folding is the equivalent of no deal. I'd say folding is more like revoking article 50. You end up where you were before the game just a little poorer. No deal is more like taking away the maximum stake. Parliament is trying to cap our losses | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority." So when christmas comes along would you like to be stuffed with chestnuts or sage and onion  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vote Leave described the idea of exiting the EU without an agreement as "silly" and Project Fear. No-one that I can recall during the referendum argued for it. The mandate of the referendum was superseded in 2017 by the mandate of the Conservative Party in the General Election. Again, no talk of a hard exit, only of negotiating something "deep and special" or whatever platitude was in vogue at the time. A no deal exit requires a mandate from somewhere ( and I do not count 75,000 blue rinses as any sort of mandate)." The recent Euro results should be a sufficient mandate. No deal simply means the best possible deal for the UK. As long as the UK makes it abundantly clear that we will follow through with a new deal , the EU will be banging out doors to do deals. Where else would they be able to sell their products ?. It makes sense for them to sell them to their nearest neighbours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No deal simply means the best possible deal for the UK. As long as the UK makes it abundantly clear that we will follow through with a new deal , the EU will be banging out doors to do deals." Citation needed, seriously, what do we have to deal? Trump and the US are already calling the shots on our own potential US/UK trade deal, China are running their hands at the prospects, what benefits us to the point where we're supposed to believe the EU will be desperate to deal with us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vote Leave described the idea of exiting the EU without an agreement as "silly" and Project Fear. No-one that I can recall during the referendum argued for it. The mandate of the referendum was superseded in 2017 by the mandate of the Conservative Party in the General Election. Again, no talk of a hard exit, only of negotiating something "deep and special" or whatever platitude was in vogue at the time. A no deal exit requires a mandate from somewhere ( and I do not count 75,000 blue rinses as any sort of mandate). The recent Euro results should be a sufficient mandate. No deal simply means the best possible deal for the UK. As long as the UK makes it abundantly clear that we will follow through with a new deal , the EU will be banging out doors to do deals. Where else would they be able to sell their products ?. It makes sense for them to sell them to their nearest neighbours. " So based on a 37% turnout of which 40.4% voted for anti Brexit and 34.9% voted for brexit your analysis is that's a mandate? Mathematically wrong and not logical to reach that analysis by any stretch of fantasy but hey crack on if that's how you live in the real world.. Why would anyone ignore the fact that the CBI, the TUC are on message that a no deal will have a further negative affect on our economy? What type of negotiating strategy is it to say yes we will have a deal later but now we'll leave in the most harmful way to both parties thendia deal..? It's stupidly naive and irrational even in your la la land.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vote Leave described the idea of exiting the EU without an agreement as "silly" and Project Fear. No-one that I can recall during the referendum argued for it. The mandate of the referendum was superseded in 2017 by the mandate of the Conservative Party in the General Election. Again, no talk of a hard exit, only of negotiating something "deep and special" or whatever platitude was in vogue at the time. A no deal exit requires a mandate from somewhere ( and I do not count 75,000 blue rinses as any sort of mandate). The recent Euro results should be a sufficient mandate. No deal simply means the best possible deal for the UK. As long as the UK makes it abundantly clear that we will follow through with a new deal , the EU will be banging out doors to do deals. Where else would they be able to sell their products ?. It makes sense for them to sell them to their nearest neighbours. " The EU has no incentive to any sort of trade deal with the UK because the UK has declared a unilateral intention to abolish tariffs on 85 per cents of imports. The Brexit Party in the Euro election has no mandate because it had no manifesto and has no power to implement anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just out of interest, anyone who voted leave (3 years ago!) if you are brave enough to admit so, did you vote for any kind of leave in particular ("ah but we didn't know what kind of leave they were voting for"?) As I understood it, it was made abundantly clear over a long period leave would mean leave, as in out. I assumed all leave voters were voting leave with the so called 'no deal' (coined afterwards) being the default. I was told by someone far more intelligent than me, waving their arms at me, that I need to educate myself and do my research. I think the people on tv who say "ah but we can't know what kind of leave they wanted" may possibly have been lying. Is it possible that everyone who voted for leave voted for what has since been called no deal, since that was what we were told it would be beforehand. I fell into the "no deal is disastrous" campaign but now am starting to feel fuck it, this has gone on long enough, time to get out and show other countries it can be done. I love Europe. That's why I want to leave the EU and then other countries to see us do it and do the same." The only flaw in the analogy is it took the US 200 years to establish itself on a global stage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No deal simply means the best possible deal for the UK. As long as the UK makes it abundantly clear that we will follow through with a new deal , the EU will be banging out doors to do deals. Citation needed, seriously, what do we have to deal? Trump and the US are already calling the shots on our own potential US/UK trade deal, China are running their hands at the prospects, what benefits us to the point where we're supposed to believe the EU will be desperate to deal with us?" we are the 5th largest economy in the world it makes economic sense to want to trade with us that is unless you are a remainer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This all stems from the EU insisting on a withdrawal agreement before any trade talks begin to make it as hard as possible for us to leave.If the trade talks and withdrawal had all been part of the same deal things would have been alot different, but they knew that so made it as hard as possible to deter any other country from leaving." Who'd have thunk it - the EU acting in it's own interests instead of the UK's. Not at all what we were promised, was it? No, no, they needed us more than we needed them, we hold all the cards, this will be the easiest deal in history blah blah. Except it's all turning out to be a fallacy, a wet dream invented by right-wingers masturbating furiously in their union jack underpants. As cheerleaders for Brexit Britain, they've called it horribly wrong so far | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority." I’m not even gonna try with logic because it’s a waste of time, so.... that’s up there with some of the dumbest post I’ve seen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we are the 5th largest economy in the world it makes economic sense to want to trade with us that is unless you are a remainer. "We're projected to fall to 7th in the next few years and that doesn't even take into account the recent choices that companies have made to leave the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we are the 5th largest economy in the world it makes economic sense to want to trade with us that is unless you are a remainer. "What makes you think the EU27 will stop selling goods to us? The UK says there will be no import tariffs on 85 per cent of purchases. It's a question really of whether we can afford to continue buying from them when the £ is devalued and the current account deficit balloons because of WTO tariffs on UK exports. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. I’m not even gonna try with logic because it’s a waste of time, so.... that’s up there with some of the dumbest post I’ve seen. "
Stick around there's more to come from that poster.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No deal simply means the best possible deal for the UK. As long as the UK makes it abundantly clear that we will follow through with a new deal , the EU will be banging out doors to do deals. Citation needed, seriously, what do we have to deal? Trump and the US are already calling the shots on our own potential US/UK trade deal, China are running their hands at the prospects, what benefits us to the point where we're supposed to believe the EU will be desperate to deal with us?we are the 5th largest economy in the world it makes economic sense to want to trade with us that is unless you are a remainer. "Nobody is saying trade will stop in a binary event come Brexit. The point everyone is making is that this trade will cost us more. We do not have the protection of scale in the EU to avoid chlorinated chicken for example (USA several hundred Salmonella deaths, UK none), the US will want to be able to enter the health market, turning the NHS into a ‘teaching organisation’ for the Private sector - like Dentistry. Trade will continue, just the vast majority of the population will be worse off. Why on earth would we act like Lemmings and let it happen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
to the brexmoaners' whinging. Imagine if the UK remains in the EU | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"timeline of events from herein should be as follows: new pm revokes article 50 sets up a parliamentary focus group, containing representatives from all major parties, to find out what we need to get from a deal to get it throug hthe house. go back to the EU to ask, once we invoke article 50, again, we need to discuss a deal on this basis (whatever has been agreed) IF the EU refuse, then we will stay a member statem and veto EVERYTHING that doesnt directly benefit the UK. paralyse the EU from within, until they accept we are leaving and with the deal we want/need to get it past the self absorbed politicians in the house. lets see how that goes" Illegal under the ECJ ruling in December. Revocation of article 50 must be done in good faith, not as a delaying tactic or an attempt to extract better terms. It would be rejected as non-compliant with EU law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was interesting to see the results of a survey in one of the national newspapers today. 45 % of the those surveyed believe that there is either nothing to fear ( 15 %) or only short term problems with few consequences ( 30 % ). Only 30 % believe that there would be severe consequences. Considered how well the stock market has performed since 2016 , I could never understand the logic of those who claim that a few tweaks to duty rates would have any material impact on the UK economy . The Irish border is irrelevant and we can replicate most of the other regulatory organisations. Once we have left, the EU will be banging on our doors desperate to do deals.. No organisation can afford to lose a contribtion the size of the UKs. With Boris Johnson likely to be the new PM it looks like the good times are about to begin. It now looks like those want a no deal Brexit are in the majority. I’m not even gonna try with logic because it’s a waste of time, so.... that’s up there with some of the dumbest post I’ve seen.
Stick around there's more to come from that poster.. "Nope, that’s it...There’s no debating with clowns that’s still coming out with ‘they need us more than we need them’ statements.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we are the 5th largest economy in the world it makes economic sense to want to trade with us that is unless you are a remainer.
What makes you think the EU27 will stop selling goods to us?
The UK says there will be no import tariffs on 85 per cent of purchases.
It's a question really of whether we can afford to continue buying from them when the £ is devalued..."If the £ keeps its downward trend, then a no deal brexit makes for sense those having a flat to rent in capdagde: They will get more £'s per Euro exchanged; one of many illustrative examples on how brexit is not about the romantic idea of UK's independence from Brussels, but more about benefits for the Arrons on a bigger scale (billions in nsurance contracts)... Or the Pats, on a smaller scale. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This all stems from the EU insisting on a withdrawal agreement before any trade talks begin to make it as hard as possible for us to leave.If the trade talks and withdrawal had all been part of the same deal things would have been alot different, but they knew that so made it as hard as possible to deter any other country from leaving. I recall that Michael Gove told us that the day after we vote to Leave, we would hold all the cards and from that day on we would be in control of everything. I don’t recall anyone saying that the EU would be in control of the subsequent negotiations - which is clearly what has happened. David Davies did put up the tiniest of fights by suggesting that the sequencing of the talks would be the “row of the summer”, but he caved at the first meeting. It is time that Brexiters face facts and accept that we have never held all the cards, we don’t hold all the cards now and leaving the EU without a deal is tantamount to showing the other players your hand. if you are liken it to a game of cards would you ever sit down and play without the option to fold? "May folded before she sat at the table | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its not a delaying tactic. it is what should have been done in the first place. not invoke the leave clause UNTIL an agreement had been made within the house. then go to the EU and table that, and invoke the article. we did it all arse about face from the beginning. its about doing things properly this time, rather than just wasting peoples times with constant delays." Theres some truth in this post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No deal simply means the best possible deal for the UK. As long as the UK makes it abundantly clear that we will follow through with a new deal , the EU will be banging out doors to do deals. " So the logic seems to be. Right now, we hold all the cards because we are in the EU and trade is going on that the EU would not want to disrupt. So, what we do is that we disrupt our own trading influence and put ourselves in a very vulnerable economic position by cutting all nontrade and trade associations with our near and more economically powerful neighbour. The hope being that that our neighbour (the EU) will then do a better deal with us whilst we are prostrate and bleeding, than they would have done whilst we were actually in a better economic position. This kind of logic goes along the same lines as the "no deal now" groups who now troll social media. the message goes along the lines of... "You would not allow us to shoot ourselves in the foot in March by leaving with a deal so therefore we now demand to have both legs amputated in October because having no legs is infinitely better than being shot in one foot." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its not a delaying tactic. it is what should have been done in the first place. not invoke the leave clause UNTIL an agreement had been made within the house. then go to the EU and table that, and invoke the article. we did it all arse about face from the beginning. its about doing things properly this time, rather than just wasting peoples times with constant delays." If you recall, the EU declined to open discussion about Brexit until the formal Art 50 process was invoked. That tied the hands of the UK. If you read the ECJ judgement, revocation cannot be for the purpose of renegotiation. I agree the whole thing has been a shambles, from the moment Cameron called a referendum and instructed officials to make no contingency plan for a Leave vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we are the 5th largest economy in the world it makes economic sense to want to trade with us that is unless you are a remainer.
What makes you think the EU27 will stop selling goods to us?
The UK says there will be no import tariffs on 85 per cent of purchases.
It's a question really of whether we can afford to continue buying from them when the £ is devalued and the current account deficit balloons because of WTO tariffs on UK exports."Nothing what makes you think the eu will stop trading with us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
".... what makes you think the eu will stop trading with us." Of course, trade will continue, in the same way that we are already trading with the United States without a trade deal. In fact the USA is running a trade deficit with the UK at the moment (one reason maybe why Trump seems keen to do a trade deal as we likely won't have a deficit thereafter). The issue is what will the UK sell into the EU that the EU can't make themselves? This is where the car manufacturing comes under the spotlight actually. Car manufacturing returned to these shores wholly and only because of our Single Market membership. Awkward processes, delay and inconvenience would likely be worse for car manufacturers than tariffs - though that would be bad enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There may be some short term problems but not the end of the world the cultists are obsessed with. The trouble with cults is you become brainwashed by the fanatics and that goes for both sides. Look for the best deal you can get and if it's no good we have to leave with no deal. Simples." Your last word illustrates the very issue at the heart of all this. Too many people expect simple solutions to hugely complex issues. Any future trade deal with the EU will be dependant on the three underlying issues at the heart of the withdrawal agreement. 1) The Irish Border 2) Citizens rights 3) UK financial obligations to the EU. Walking away with no deal will massively inconvenience the UK much more than it will the EU and ultimately will act only as a delaying tactic because the three issues will still have to be dealt with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our brothers and sisters in Europe. You do not need to live in fear. You can join us in leaving the EU, like a person leaving a narcissistic toxic relationship. Far from crashing out and dying, people who do this are often able to start to live again. Even IF there is an initial cost financially. Lets ALL leave the EU together and leave what's left of the organisation alone and powerless in their Tower of Babel knockoff. This is a Churchill moment. The most important time for this country since WWII, or even ever. We must not let these pricks browbeat us into submission. They made these 3 years as torturous as possible to punish us hoping to 'blame it on brexit' but they underestimate the intelligence of the public. While some drink that cool aid with abandon, others see right through it and are more determined to LEAVE. If they browbeat us into remaining in, it will be like the narcissitic controlling relationship "you see, you're not going anywhere" and will be used as an example to other countries in the EU never to try to leave because we will not let you. This is the one and only chance of a lifetime, and the power is still with us, the public. Despite the media hammering for 3 years they have not managed to subdue us. We only entered the EU in the first place when we were told it was just a trading deal, the EEC. Everything else that came after wasn't voted for or asked for. In fact I think we entered in 1972, then were asked our opinion afterwards in '75? Bearing that in mind, that it started as an Economic Community EEC then became what it is now over time without our permission, you may be interested to know that the Transatlantic Economic Community is already in motion, as reported in mainstream news. Fuck it I'm done, no deal, we've got to get completely out, whatever the cost." The first paragraph of your rant is bizarre to the point of being out of this world. Who do you think the EU is and what do you think would happen if all EU nations "left" the EU? Furthermore, it may have escaped the attention of your echo chamber but Europe is more pro-EU than ever and even the EU skeptics are working to change and reform from within because everyone apart from isolationist Englanders realise that together, everyone achieves more. It may also have escaped your attention, but we could have left the EU on March 29th if it were not because of some fevered Brexiters who thought that the version of Brexit that was being proposed was not their idea of Brexit. No one has stopped the UK leaving the EU other than extreme Brexiters - if it were not for them - we would have been out already. There is no point in blaming anyone for our failure to leave other than in the lap of those who prevented it - The ERG wing of the Conservative Party and the DUP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
".Nothing what makes you think the eu will stop trading with us." The EU does not trade with anyone. Businesses do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our brothers and sisters in Europe. You do not need to live in fear. You can join us in leaving the EU, like a person leaving a narcissistic toxic relationship. Far from crashing out and dying, people who do this are often able to start to live again. Even IF there is an initial cost financially. Lets ALL leave the EU together and leave what's left of the organisation alone and powerless in their Tower of Babel knockoff. This is a Churchill moment. The most important time for this country since WWII, or even ever. We must not let these pricks browbeat us into submission. They made these 3 years as torturous as possible to punish us hoping to 'blame it on brexit' but they underestimate the intelligence of the public. While some drink that cool aid with abandon, others see right through it and are more determined to LEAVE. If they browbeat us into remaining in, it will be like the narcissitic controlling relationship "you see, you're not going anywhere" and will be used as an example to other countries in the EU never to try to leave because we will not let you. This is the one and only chance of a lifetime, and the power is still with us, the public. Despite the media hammering for 3 years they have not managed to subdue us. We only entered the EU in the first place when we were told it was just a trading deal, the EEC. Everything else that came after wasn't voted for or asked for. In fact I think we entered in 1972, then were asked our opinion afterwards in '75? Bearing that in mind, that it started as an Economic Community EEC then became what it is now over time without our permission, you may be interested to know that the Transatlantic Economic Community is already in motion, as reported in mainstream news. Fuck it I'm done, no deal, we've got to get completely out, whatever the cost." Hi. A great post. Luckily your opinion is backed by a significant proportion of the population. The Euro election results speak for themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our brothers and sisters in Europe. You do not need to live in fear. You can join us in leaving the EU, like a person leaving a narcissistic toxic relationship. Far from crashing out and dying, people who do this are often able to start to live again. Even IF there is an initial cost financially. Lets ALL leave the EU together and leave what's left of the organisation alone and powerless in their Tower of Babel knockoff. This is a Churchill moment. The most important time for this country since WWII, or even ever. We must not let these pricks browbeat us into submission. They made these 3 years as torturous as possible to punish us hoping to 'blame it on brexit' but they underestimate the intelligence of the public. While some drink that cool aid with abandon, others see right through it and are more determined to LEAVE. If they browbeat us into remaining in, it will be like the narcissitic controlling relationship "you see, you're not going anywhere" and will be used as an example to other countries in the EU never to try to leave because we will not let you. This is the one and only chance of a lifetime, and the power is still with us, the public. Despite the media hammering for 3 years they have not managed to subdue us. We only entered the EU in the first place when we were told it was just a trading deal, the EEC. Everything else that came after wasn't voted for or asked for. In fact I think we entered in 1972, then were asked our opinion afterwards in '75? Bearing that in mind, that it started as an Economic Community EEC then became what it is now over time without our permission, you may be interested to know that the Transatlantic Economic Community is already in motion, as reported in mainstream news. Fuck it I'm done, no deal, we've got to get completely out, whatever the cost. Hi. A great post. Luckily your opinion is backed by a significant proportion of the population. The Euro election results speak for themselves. " Your maths is shit Pat..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our brothers and sisters in Europe. You do not need to live in fear. You can join us in leaving the EU, like a person leaving a narcissistic toxic relationship. Far from crashing out and dying, people who do this are often able to start to live again. Even IF there is an initial cost financially. Lets ALL leave the EU together and leave what's left of the organisation alone and powerless in their Tower of Babel knockoff. This is a Churchill moment. The most important time for this country since WWII, or even ever. We must not let these pricks browbeat us into submission. They made these 3 years as torturous as possible to punish us hoping to 'blame it on brexit' but they underestimate the intelligence of the public. While some drink that cool aid with abandon, others see right through it and are more determined to LEAVE. If they browbeat us into remaining in, it will be like the narcissitic controlling relationship "you see, you're not going anywhere" and will be used as an example to other countries in the EU never to try to leave because we will not let you. This is the one and only chance of a lifetime, and the power is still with us, the public. Despite the media hammering for 3 years they have not managed to subdue us. We only entered the EU in the first place when we were told it was just a trading deal, the EEC. Everything else that came after wasn't voted for or asked for. In fact I think we entered in 1972, then were asked our opinion afterwards in '75? Bearing that in mind, that it started as an Economic Community EEC then became what it is now over time without our permission, you may be interested to know that the Transatlantic Economic Community is already in motion, as reported in mainstream news. Fuck it I'm done, no deal, we've got to get completely out, whatever the cost. The first paragraph of your rant is bizarre to the point of being out of this world. Who do you think the EU is and what do you think would happen if all EU nations "left" the EU? Furthermore, it may have escaped the attention of your echo chamber but Europe is more pro-EU than ever and even the EU skeptics are working to change and reform from within because everyone apart from isolationist Englanders realise that together, everyone achieves more. It may also have escaped your attention, but we could have left the EU on March 29th if it were not because of some fevered Brexiters who thought that the version of Brexit that was being proposed was not their idea of Brexit. No one has stopped the UK leaving the EU other than extreme Brexiters - if it were not for them - we would have been out already. There is no point in blaming anyone for our failure to leave other than in the lap of those who prevented it - The ERG wing of the Conservative Party and the DUP. " However the terms of the proposed deal were unacceptable . a. The DUP represent more citizens in NI than any other party and it was unacceptable to the citizens of NI to be treated any differently to the rest of the UK. b. We would have to pay a 39 million exit fee. Luckily by refusing to accept the proposed deal we are now in a position to attempt to negotiate a much better one. It may fail but if we have to leave and start trading on WTO terms , the EU will be banging on our doors within days in an attemoy to negotiate a new deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However the terms of the proposed deal were unacceptable . a. The DUP represent more citizens in NI than any other party and it was unacceptable to the citizens of NI to be treated any differently to the rest of the UK. b. We would have to pay a 39 million exit fee. Luckily by refusing to accept the proposed deal we are now in a position to attempt to negotiate a much better one. It may fail but if we have to leave and start trading on WTO terms , the EU will be banging on our doors within days in an attemoy to negotiate a new deal." actually a few things need also taking in consideration... 1) northern ireland actually vote 57-43 to remain.... and then in the last two elections more people have voted for remain parties in NI than Leave.... so it can be argued that the DUP are not acting in the best interest of northern ireland... as with a lot of different subjects in northern ireland the DUP are acting in the best interest of the DUP! which brings us to .... 2) actually business in northern ireland don't mind the backstop arrangement (again an idea conceived by the UK government and not by the EU) they actually liked the EU proposal better (just keeping NI as part of the customs union to conform with the GFA and letting the mainland go) because weirdly enough it actually weirdly puts northern ireland at a competative advantage over the rest of the uk... northern ireland business in effect would get the best of both worlds..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have no need to pay the EU anything as we have always got less out each year than we paid in. Next point is the EU export more into the UK than we export to the EU that in turn means under WTO terms the EU will pay the UK more in revinue. So why pay the EU for less that we would have under WTO terms." You and I pay the import duty on products coming into this country through higher retail prices. What makes you think the EU will subsidise your purchases? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are there still gullible people who believe your guff? I mean, for two years we've heard you and other Brexit cheerleaders make all sorts of fantastic predictions about how the EU would be falling over themselves to give the UK whatever it wanted. "We are not planning for no deal because we're going to get a great deal." - Boris Johnson 2017 And when all your pompous boasts and bombast turned out to be complete bollocks, you just carry on like it never happened. As if ignoring reality somehow will make all these uncomfortable truths vanish and we'll all be delivered to the promised land of milk and honey on a magic carpet. Oh well, if you keep repeating something often enough I guess you will eventually start to believe it must be true. " It's like groundhog day, the mantra being chanted like cultists who have their mind altered to where the complete refusal to look at anything objectively that differs with the party line.. Elements of North Korea.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country’s GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries. Tariffs will likely be imposed on both sides of the Channel, making goods more expensive to consumers at least until a trade deal is worked out. Some international firms may decide to move out of the U.K. to avoid those tariffs, taking jobs with them. Many also fear significant delays to the flow of goods through the Dover-Calais link and shortages of goods that currently benefit from easy passage into the country, including medicines, certain types of food and even materials for industry. ALSO ON POLITICO Brexit endgame won’t be Greek drama JACOPO BARIGAZZI ALSO ON POLITICO UK’s supermarket sweep THIBAULT LARGER But most of these drawbacks would be temporary, and pale in comparison to the potential upsides. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries, which we are legally prevented from pursuing while we are a member of the EU. The Hands Across the Divide peace statue in Londonderry | Charles McQuillan/Getty Images The CANZUK initiative, for example, is a well-advanced proposal for a trade deal with Canada and New Zealand and has the enthusiastic backing of the leaders of those countries. A hat full of deals like this would be of immense benefit to the U.K., allowing us to export much more cheaply to markets around the world. As we are the fifth-largest economy in the world, many more will follow: Tariff-free access to the lucrative British market will be a hot commodity around the world. Every trade deal we do means cheaper exporting for our businesses and cheaper products for our consumers. Our parliament and courts will once again be the final word in domestic matters, meaning we can untie ourselves from burdensome regulations. Compliance is expensive, and deregulation will accelerate innovation as businesses find they can be nimbler and more creative. The country as a whole will become more competitive by freeing business to work in ways that suit the U.K., not the EU27. To attract global businesses to set up new offices and jobs here in Britain, we could create any number of tax incentives, as we would be free to set corporation tax and VAT as we please. One wonders if the exodus from the City will still be a threat if taxes in London were at half the rate of Frankfurt or Paris. All of these benefits are foregone under May’s deal — which the EU itself has described as “the only deal possible.” The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. So, if there are so many obvious advantages to be had, why is there not widespread support for a no-deal scenario? How did it become such an unwelcome specter, even to many Leave voters? The answer lies in the days and weeks after the 2016 EU referendum, when an important change happened in the debate: The referendum result was reframed to define one of its choices — a clean break with the EU — as “extreme” and in need of watering down. The referendum did not ask the electorate whether they prefer a “hard or soft” Brexit, or whether they wanted “Brexit, as long as a decent deal is negotiated.” It simply asked if we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it. But soon after the poll, the only reasonable position a Brexiteer could take, if you were not to upset people at dinner parties, was that the U.K. needs some concession-laden “deal” in order to leave the EU. Anything else was insanity. To recast one choice of a binary question as being inherently “hard-line” in a way that can be “softened,” as opposed to a legitimate option that simply means what it says, is nothing short of casuistry. Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May at 10 Downing Street | Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images It’s not just Brexiteers who stand to gain from rethinking the terms in which we consider a potential no-deal Brexit. Remainers, too, have a stake in this. If some day — the world will continue to go round after Brexit, after all — there is another surge of “populism” in the U.K., voters will be much less trusting of a system and discourse that worded them into a corner the last time around. Just look across the pond, where U.S. President Donald Trump is a living lesson to anyone who thinks attacking legitimate democratic choices as extremist does not create the conditions for truly extreme people to be elected. So forget the £350 million on the side of a bus, and Empire 2.0. Forget blue passports and two fingers to French fishermen. Forget chlorinated chicken and tax-slashing Tory bonanzas. The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. If you change the meaning of voters’ words once they have spoken, if they feel sufficiently cheated of their ballot paper, they may not use such polite ones the next time they’re asked. " Is your surname Minford by any chance? What a pile of old tripe! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country’s GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries. Tariffs will likely be imposed on both sides of the Channel, making goods more expensive to consumers at least until a trade deal is worked out. Some international firms may decide to move out of the U.K. to avoid those tariffs, taking jobs with them. Many also fear significant delays to the flow of goods through the Dover-Calais link and shortages of goods that currently benefit from easy passage into the country, including medicines, certain types of food and even materials for industry. ALSO ON POLITICO Brexit endgame won’t be Greek drama JACOPO BARIGAZZI ALSO ON POLITICO UK’s supermarket sweep THIBAULT LARGER But most of these drawbacks would be temporary, and pale in comparison to the potential upsides. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries, which we are legally prevented from pursuing while we are a member of the EU. The Hands Across the Divide peace statue in Londonderry | Charles McQuillan/Getty Images The CANZUK initiative, for example, is a well-advanced proposal for a trade deal with Canada and New Zealand and has the enthusiastic backing of the leaders of those countries. A hat full of deals like this would be of immense benefit to the U.K., allowing us to export much more cheaply to markets around the world. As we are the fifth-largest economy in the world, many more will follow: Tariff-free access to the lucrative British market will be a hot commodity around the world. Every trade deal we do means cheaper exporting for our businesses and cheaper products for our consumers. Our parliament and courts will once again be the final word in domestic matters, meaning we can untie ourselves from burdensome regulations. Compliance is expensive, and deregulation will accelerate innovation as businesses find they can be nimbler and more creative. The country as a whole will become more competitive by freeing business to work in ways that suit the U.K., not the EU27. To attract global businesses to set up new offices and jobs here in Britain, we could create any number of tax incentives, as we would be free to set corporation tax and VAT as we please. One wonders if the exodus from the City will still be a threat if taxes in London were at half the rate of Frankfurt or Paris. All of these benefits are foregone under May’s deal — which the EU itself has described as “the only deal possible.” The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. So, if there are so many obvious advantages to be had, why is there not widespread support for a no-deal scenario? How did it become such an unwelcome specter, even to many Leave voters? The answer lies in the days and weeks after the 2016 EU referendum, when an important change happened in the debate: The referendum result was reframed to define one of its choices — a clean break with the EU — as “extreme” and in need of watering down. The referendum did not ask the electorate whether they prefer a “hard or soft” Brexit, or whether they wanted “Brexit, as long as a decent deal is negotiated.” It simply asked if we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it. But soon after the poll, the only reasonable position a Brexiteer could take, if you were not to upset people at dinner parties, was that the U.K. needs some concession-laden “deal” in order to leave the EU. Anything else was insanity. To recast one choice of a binary question as being inherently “hard-line” in a way that can be “softened,” as opposed to a legitimate option that simply means what it says, is nothing short of casuistry. Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May at 10 Downing Street | Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images It’s not just Brexiteers who stand to gain from rethinking the terms in which we consider a potential no-deal Brexit. Remainers, too, have a stake in this. If some day — the world will continue to go round after Brexit, after all — there is another surge of “populism” in the U.K., voters will be much less trusting of a system and discourse that worded them into a corner the last time around. Just look across the pond, where U.S. President Donald Trump is a living lesson to anyone who thinks attacking legitimate democratic choices as extremist does not create the conditions for truly extreme people to be elected. So forget the £350 million on the side of a bus, and Empire 2.0. Forget blue passports and two fingers to French fishermen. Forget chlorinated chicken and tax-slashing Tory bonanzas. The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. If you change the meaning of voters’ words once they have spoken, if they feel sufficiently cheated of their ballot at paper, they may not use such polite ones the next time they’re asked. " You didn’t even remove the alt text from the pics that didn’t copy from theft you plagiarised. Is your event as careless as you are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country’s GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries. Tariffs will likely be imposed on both sides of the Channel, making goods more expensive to consumers at least until a trade deal is worked out. Some international firms may decide to move out of the U.K. to avoid those tariffs, taking jobs with them. Many also fear significant delays to the flow of goods through the Dover-Calais link and shortages of goods that currently benefit from easy passage into the country, including medicines, certain types of food and even materials for industry. ALSO ON POLITICO Brexit endgame won’t be Greek drama JACOPO BARIGAZZI ALSO ON POLITICO UK’s supermarket sweep THIBAULT LARGER But most of these drawbacks would be temporary, and pale in comparison to the potential upsides. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries, which we are legally prevented from pursuing while we are a member of the EU. The Hands Across the Divide peace statue in Londonderry | Charles McQuillan/Getty Images The CANZUK initiative, for example, is a well-advanced proposal for a trade deal with Canada and New Zealand and has the enthusiastic backing of the leaders of those countries. A hat full of deals like this would be of immense benefit to the U.K., allowing us to export much more cheaply to markets around the world. As we are the fifth-largest economy in the world, many more will follow: Tariff-free access to the lucrative British market will be a hot commodity around the world. Every trade deal we do means cheaper exporting for our businesses and cheaper products for our consumers. Our parliament and courts will once again be the final word in domestic matters, meaning we can untie ourselves from burdensome regulations. Compliance is expensive, and deregulation will accelerate innovation as businesses find they can be nimbler and more creative. The country as a whole will become more competitive by freeing business to work in ways that suit the U.K., not the EU27. To attract global businesses to set up new offices and jobs here in Britain, we could create any number of tax incentives, as we would be free to set corporation tax and VAT as we please. One wonders if the exodus from the City will still be a threat if taxes in London were at half the rate of Frankfurt or Paris. All of these benefits are foregone under May’s deal — which the EU itself has described as “the only deal possible.” The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. So, if there are so many obvious advantages to be had, why is there not widespread support for a no-deal scenario? How did it become such an unwelcome specter, even to many Leave voters? The answer lies in the days and weeks after the 2016 EU referendum, when an important change happened in the debate: The referendum result was reframed to define one of its choices — a clean break with the EU — as “extreme” and in need of watering down. The referendum did not ask the electorate whether they prefer a “hard or soft” Brexit, or whether they wanted “Brexit, as long as a decent deal is negotiated.” It simply asked if we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it. But soon after the poll, the only reasonable position a Brexiteer could take, if you were not to upset people at dinner parties, was that the U.K. needs some concession-laden “deal” in order to leave the EU. Anything else was insanity. To recast one choice of a binary question as being inherently “hard-line” in a way that can be “softened,” as opposed to a legitimate option that simply means what it says, is nothing short of casuistry. Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May at 10 Downing Street | Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images It’s not just Brexiteers who stand to gain from rethinking the terms in which we consider a potential no-deal Brexit. Remainers, too, have a stake in this. If some day — the world will continue to go round after Brexit, after all — there is another surge of “populism” in the U.K., voters will be much less trusting of a system and discourse that worded them into a corner the last time around. Just look across the pond, where U.S. President Donald Trump is a living lesson to anyone who thinks attacking legitimate democratic choices as extremist does not create the conditions for truly extreme people to be elected. So forget the £350 million on the side of a bus, and Empire 2.0. Forget blue passports and two fingers to French fishermen. Forget chlorinated chicken and tax-slashing Tory bonanzas. The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. If you change the meaning of voters’ words once they have spoken, if they feel sufficiently cheated of their ballot at paper, they may not use such polite ones the next time they’re asked. You didn’t even remove the alt text from the pics that didn’t copy from theft you plagiarised. Is your event as careless as you are? " The poster simply made the effort to inform us of a lot of key information. He should be respected and thanked for doing so especially as he is a new poster. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our brothers and sisters in Europe. You do not need to live in fear. You can join us in leaving the EU, like a person leaving a narcissistic toxic relationship. Far from crashing out and dying, people who do this are often able to start to live again. Even IF there is an initial cost financially. Lets ALL leave the EU together and leave what's left of the organisation alone and powerless in their Tower of Babel knockoff... The first paragraph of your rant is bizarre to the point of being out of this world. Who do you think the EU is and what do you think would happen if all EU nations "left" the EU? Furthermore, it may have escaped the attention of your echo chamber but Europe is more pro-EU than ever and even the EU skeptics are working to change and reform from within because everyone apart from isolationist Englanders realise that together, everyone achieves more. It may also have escaped your attention, but we could have left the EU on March 29th if it were not because of some fevered Brexiters who thought that the version of Brexit that was being proposed was not their idea of Brexit. No one has stopped the UK leaving the EU other than extreme Brexiters - if it were not for them - we would have been out already. There is no point in blaming anyone for our failure to leave other than in the lap of those who prevented it - The ERG wing of the Conservative Party and the DUP. " What I'm saying amounts to is I have a conscience. I believe truth is more important than feelings, including my own. Of course I don't know everything, and I only have an A Level in Economics from 2002 but am flexible to change as I learn. I said since the day of the result they are not going to let us go. They really aren't. The only deal I could see them making is one where we 'leave' officially but they retain control in the small print. And this is what our Prime Minister has been trying to do, a deal that screws us on small print but also loses EU advantages, the worst of both worlds. We lambast our politicians but they had enough heart and sense to tell her to feck off. I believe the EU do not have our best interests at heart, and whether they started out as a benign organisation, but it's beyond corrupt now. If all countries left the EU, one sure result is the EU wouldn't have any power over them anymore, and once more would have leaders who are actually answerable to the people. Greece had referendums to reverse the damage done by their membership only to find each time the EU didn't get the result they wanted, it was ignored or overruled. So no democracy. This constitutes dictatorship by any other name IMO. There have been some great advantages to being in the EU, such as worker's rights, human rights, and easier travel, but I find the more I know about the EU, the more my old pro-union views go out the window. Like moving out of a toxic relationship, yeah it's probably going to cost, but does that cost last forever or destroy you? No. Or like moving out of your parents, we can do that and maintain a good proper relationship with them, as we can with the European nations. I don't think you can move out without some cost but again is it forever? No. Staying in would be like a grown adult still living with an overbearing mother which is never healthy. I generally agree with this guy's views, although he's very anti-religion, a video of who's I posted earlier. Far more concise, articulate and knowledgable than I am. Brexit Morons 10 mins (it's a bit inflammatory but give him leeway, he's had 3 years of abuse and understandably is a bit fed up) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9T4dGAxtO0 As an aside, gotta say the conspiracy theory that the powers want everyone divided and on a treadmill of hating each other might have some legs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country’s GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries. Tariffs will likely be imposed on both sides of the Channel, making goods more expensive to consumers at least until a trade deal is worked out. Some international firms may decide to move out of the U.K. to avoid those tariffs, taking jobs with them. Many also fear significant delays to the flow of goods through the Dover-Calais link and shortages of goods that currently benefit from easy passage into the country, including medicines, certain types of food and even materials for industry. ALSO ON POLITICO Brexit endgame won’t be Greek drama JACOPO BARIGAZZI ALSO ON POLITICO UK’s supermarket sweep THIBAULT LARGER But most of these drawbacks would be temporary, and pale in comparison to the potential upsides. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries, which we are legally prevented from pursuing while we are a member of the EU. The Hands Across the Divide peace statue in Londonderry | Charles McQuillan/Getty Images The CANZUK initiative, for example, is a well-advanced proposal for a trade deal with Canada and New Zealand and has the enthusiastic backing of the leaders of those countries. A hat full of deals like this would be of immense benefit to the U.K., allowing us to export much more cheaply to markets around the world. As we are the fifth-largest economy in the world, many more will follow: Tariff-free access to the lucrative British market will be a hot commodity around the world. Every trade deal we do means cheaper exporting for our businesses and cheaper products for our consumers. Our parliament and courts will once again be the final word in domestic matters, meaning we can untie ourselves from burdensome regulations. Compliance is expensive, and deregulation will accelerate innovation as businesses find they can be nimbler and more creative. The country as a whole will become more competitive by freeing business to work in ways that suit the U.K., not the EU27. To attract global businesses to set up new offices and jobs here in Britain, we could create any number of tax incentives, as we would be free to set corporation tax and VAT as we please. One wonders if the exodus from the City will still be a threat if taxes in London were at half the rate of Frankfurt or Paris. All of these benefits are foregone under May’s deal — which the EU itself has described as “the only deal possible.” The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. So, if there are so many obvious advantages to be had, why is there not widespread support for a no-deal scenario? How did it become such an unwelcome specter, even to many Leave voters? The answer lies in the days and weeks after the 2016 EU referendum, when an important change happened in the debate: The referendum result was reframed to define one of its choices — a clean break with the EU — as “extreme” and in need of watering down. The referendum did not ask the electorate whether they prefer a “hard or soft” Brexit, or whether they wanted “Brexit, as long as a decent deal is negotiated.” It simply asked if we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it. But soon after the poll, the only reasonable position a Brexiteer could take, if you were not to upset people at dinner parties, was that the U.K. needs some concession-laden “deal” in order to leave the EU. Anything else was insanity. To recast one choice of a binary question as being inherently “hard-line” in a way that can be “softened,” as opposed to a legitimate option that simply means what it says, is nothing short of casuistry. Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May at 10 Downing Street | Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images It’s not just Brexiteers who stand to gain from rethinking the terms in which we consider a potential no-deal Brexit. Remainers, too, have a stake in this. If some day — the world will continue to go round after Brexit, after all — there is another surge of “populism” in the U.K., voters will be much less trusting of a system and discourse that worded them into a corner the last time around. Just look across the pond, where U.S. President Donald Trump is a living lesson to anyone who thinks attacking legitimate democratic choices as extremist does not create the conditions for truly extreme people to be elected. So forget the £350 million on the side of a bus, and Empire 2.0. Forget blue passports and two fingers to French fishermen. Forget chlorinated chicken and tax-slashing Tory bonanzas. The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. If you change the meaning of voters’ words once they have spoken, if they feel sufficiently cheated of their ballot paper, they may not use such polite ones the next time they’re asked. " Hi. A great post and thank you for bringing this information to our attention. Hopefully you have now ensured that some posters are better informed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country’s GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries. Tariffs will likely be imposed on both sides of the Channel, making goods more expensive to consumers at least until a trade deal is worked out. Some international firms may decide to move out of the U.K. to avoid those tariffs, taking jobs with them. Many also fear significant delays to the flow of goods through the Dover-Calais link and shortages of goods that currently benefit from easy passage into the country, including medicines, certain types of food and even materials for industry. ALSO ON POLITICO Brexit endgame won’t be Greek drama JACOPO BARIGAZZI ALSO ON POLITICO UK’s supermarket sweep THIBAULT LARGER But most of these drawbacks would be temporary, and pale in comparison to the potential upsides. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries, which we are legally prevented from pursuing while we are a member of the EU. The Hands Across the Divide peace statue in Londonderry | Charles McQuillan/Getty Images The CANZUK initiative, for example, is a well-advanced proposal for a trade deal with Canada and New Zealand and has the enthusiastic backing of the leaders of those countries. A hat full of deals like this would be of immense benefit to the U.K., allowing us to export much more cheaply to markets around the world. As we are the fifth-largest economy in the world, many more will follow: Tariff-free access to the lucrative British market will be a hot commodity around the world. Every trade deal we do means cheaper exporting for our businesses and cheaper products for our consumers. Our parliament and courts will once again be the final word in domestic matters, meaning we can untie ourselves from burdensome regulations. Compliance is expensive, and deregulation will accelerate innovation as businesses find they can be nimbler and more creative. The country as a whole will become more competitive by freeing business to work in ways that suit the U.K., not the EU27. To attract global businesses to set up new offices and jobs here in Britain, we could create any number of tax incentives, as we would be free to set corporation tax and VAT as we please. One wonders if the exodus from the City will still be a threat if taxes in London were at half the rate of Frankfurt or Paris. All of these benefits are foregone under May’s deal — which the EU itself has described as “the only deal possible.” The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. So, if there are so many obvious advantages to be had, why is there not widespread support for a no-deal scenario? How did it become such an unwelcome specter, even to many Leave voters? The answer lies in the days and weeks after the 2016 EU referendum, when an important change happened in the debate: The referendum result was reframed to define one of its choices — a clean break with the EU — as “extreme” and in need of watering down. The referendum did not ask the electorate whether they prefer a “hard or soft” Brexit, or whether they wanted “Brexit, as long as a decent deal is negotiated.” It simply asked if we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it. But soon after the poll, the only reasonable position a Brexiteer could take, if you were not to upset people at dinner parties, was that the U.K. needs some concession-laden “deal” in order to leave the EU. Anything else was insanity. To recast one choice of a binary question as being inherently “hard-line” in a way that can be “softened,” as opposed to a legitimate option that simply means what it says, is nothing short of casuistry. Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May at 10 Downing Street | Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images It’s not just Brexiteers who stand to gain from rethinking the terms in which we consider a potential no-deal Brexit. Remainers, too, have a stake in this. If some day — the world will continue to go round after Brexit, after all — there is another surge of “populism” in the U.K., voters will be much less trusting of a system and discourse that worded them into a corner the last time around. Just look across the pond, where U.S. President Donald Trump is a living lesson to anyone who thinks attacking legitimate democratic choices as extremist does not create the conditions for truly extreme people to be elected. So forget the £350 million on the side of a bus, and Empire 2.0. Forget blue passports and two fingers to French fishermen. Forget chlorinated chicken and tax-slashing Tory bonanzas. The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. If you change the meaning of voters’ words once they have spoken, if they feel sufficiently cheated of their ballot paper, they may not use such polite ones the next time they’re asked. Hi. A great post and thank you for bringing this information to our attention. Hopefully you have now ensured that some posters are better informed. " Awwww you guys. Haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country’s GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries. Tariffs will likely be imposed on both sides of the Channel, making goods more expensive to consumers at least until a trade deal is worked out. Some international firms may decide to move out of the U.K. to avoid those tariffs, taking jobs with them. Many also fear significant delays to the flow of goods through the Dover-Calais link and shortages of goods that currently benefit from easy passage into the country, including medicines, certain types of food and even materials for industry. ALSO ON POLITICO Brexit endgame won’t be Greek drama JACOPO BARIGAZZI ALSO ON POLITICO UK’s supermarket sweep THIBAULT LARGER But most of these drawbacks would be temporary, and pale in comparison to the potential upsides. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries, which we are legally prevented from pursuing while we are a member of the EU. The Hands Across the Divide peace statue in Londonderry | Charles McQuillan/Getty Images The CANZUK initiative, for example, is a well-advanced proposal for a trade deal with Canada and New Zealand and has the enthusiastic backing of the leaders of those countries. A hat full of deals like this would be of immense benefit to the U.K., allowing us to export much more cheaply to markets around the world. As we are the fifth-largest economy in the world, many more will follow: Tariff-free access to the lucrative British market will be a hot commodity around the world. Every trade deal we do means cheaper exporting for our businesses and cheaper products for our consumers. Our parliament and courts will once again be the final word in domestic matters, meaning we can untie ourselves from burdensome regulations. Compliance is expensive, and deregulation will accelerate innovation as businesses find they can be nimbler and more creative. The country as a whole will become more competitive by freeing business to work in ways that suit the U.K., not the EU27. To attract global businesses to set up new offices and jobs here in Britain, we could create any number of tax incentives, as we would be free to set corporation tax and VAT as we please. One wonders if the exodus from the City will still be a threat if taxes in London were at half the rate of Frankfurt or Paris. All of these benefits are foregone under May’s deal — which the EU itself has described as “the only deal possible.” The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. So, if there are so many obvious advantages to be had, why is there not widespread support for a no-deal scenario? How did it become such an unwelcome specter, even to many Leave voters? The answer lies in the days and weeks after the 2016 EU referendum, when an important change happened in the debate: The referendum result was reframed to define one of its choices — a clean break with the EU — as “extreme” and in need of watering down. The referendum did not ask the electorate whether they prefer a “hard or soft” Brexit, or whether they wanted “Brexit, as long as a decent deal is negotiated.” It simply asked if we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it. But soon after the poll, the only reasonable position a Brexiteer could take, if you were not to upset people at dinner parties, was that the U.K. needs some concession-laden “deal” in order to leave the EU. Anything else was insanity. To recast one choice of a binary question as being inherently “hard-line” in a way that can be “softened,” as opposed to a legitimate option that simply means what it says, is nothing short of casuistry. Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May at 10 Downing Street | Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images It’s not just Brexiteers who stand to gain from rethinking the terms in which we consider a potential no-deal Brexit. Remainers, too, have a stake in this. If some day — the world will continue to go round after Brexit, after all — there is another surge of “populism” in the U.K., voters will be much less trusting of a system and discourse that worded them into a corner the last time around. Just look across the pond, where U.S. President Donald Trump is a living lesson to anyone who thinks attacking legitimate democratic choices as extremist does not create the conditions for truly extreme people to be elected. So forget the £350 million on the side of a bus, and Empire 2.0. Forget blue passports and two fingers to French fishermen. Forget chlorinated chicken and tax-slashing Tory bonanzas. The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. If you change the meaning of voters’ words once they have spoken, if they feel sufficiently cheated of their ballot paper, they may not use such polite ones the next time they’re asked. Hi. A great post and thank you for bringing this information to our attention. Hopefully you have now ensured that some posters are better informed. " Yup.. In how not to copy and paste something very one sided.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country’s GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal... Is your surname Minford by any chance? What a pile of old tripe! "What was wrong with it? I think he did well. Good effort. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country’s GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries. Tariffs will likely be imposed on both sides of the Channel, making goods more expensive to consumers at least until a trade deal is worked out. Some international firms may decide to move out of the U.K. to avoid those tariffs, taking jobs with them. Many also fear significant delays to the flow of goods through the Dover-Calais link and shortages of goods that currently benefit from easy passage into the country, including medicines, certain types of food and even materials for industry. ALSO ON POLITICO Brexit endgame won’t be Greek drama JACOPO BARIGAZZI ALSO ON POLITICO UK’s supermarket sweep THIBAULT LARGER But most of these drawbacks would be temporary, and pale in comparison to the potential upsides. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries, which we are legally prevented from pursuing while we are a member of the EU. The Hands Across the Divide peace statue in Londonderry | Charles McQuillan/Getty Images The CANZUK initiative, for example, is a well-advanced proposal for a trade deal with Canada and New Zealand and has the enthusiastic backing of the leaders of those countries. A hat full of deals like this would be of immense benefit to the U.K., allowing us to export much more cheaply to markets around the world. As we are the fifth-largest economy in the world, many more will follow: Tariff-free access to the lucrative British market will be a hot commodity around the world. Every trade deal we do means cheaper exporting for our businesses and cheaper products for our consumers. Our parliament and courts will once again be the final word in domestic matters, meaning we can untie ourselves from burdensome regulations. Compliance is expensive, and deregulation will accelerate innovation as businesses find they can be nimbler and more creative. The country as a whole will become more competitive by freeing business to work in ways that suit the U.K., not the EU27. To attract global businesses to set up new offices and jobs here in Britain, we could create any number of tax incentives, as we would be free to set corporation tax and VAT as we please. One wonders if the exodus from the City will still be a threat if taxes in London were at half the rate of Frankfurt or Paris. All of these benefits are foregone under May’s deal — which the EU itself has described as “the only deal possible.” The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. So, if there are so many obvious advantages to be had, why is there not widespread support for a no-deal scenario? How did it become such an unwelcome specter, even to many Leave voters? The answer lies in the days and weeks after the 2016 EU referendum, when an important change happened in the debate: The referendum result was reframed to define one of its choices — a clean break with the EU — as “extreme” and in need of watering down. The referendum did not ask the electorate whether they prefer a “hard or soft” Brexit, or whether they wanted “Brexit, as long as a decent deal is negotiated.” It simply asked if we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it. But soon after the poll, the only reasonable position a Brexiteer could take, if you were not to upset people at dinner parties, was that the U.K. needs some concession-laden “deal” in order to leave the EU. Anything else was insanity. To recast one choice of a binary question as being inherently “hard-line” in a way that can be “softened,” as opposed to a legitimate option that simply means what it says, is nothing short of casuistry. Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May at 10 Downing Street | Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images It’s not just Brexiteers who stand to gain from rethinking the terms in which we consider a potential no-deal Brexit. Remainers, too, have a stake in this. If some day — the world will continue to go round after Brexit, after all — there is another surge of “populism” in the U.K., voters will be much less trusting of a system and discourse that worded them into a corner the last time around. Just look across the pond, where U.S. President Donald Trump is a living lesson to anyone who thinks attacking legitimate democratic choices as extremist does not create the conditions for truly extreme people to be elected. So forget the £350 million on the side of a bus, and Empire 2.0. Forget blue passports and two fingers to French fishermen. Forget chlorinated chicken and tax-slashing Tory bonanzas. The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. If you change the meaning of voters’ words once they have spoken, if they feel sufficiently cheated of their ballot at paper, they may not use such polite ones the next time they’re asked. You didn’t even remove the alt text from the pics that didn’t copy from theft you plagiarised. Is your event as careless as you are? " ??. It is hardly theft. I am sure that the original author wanted as wide an audience as possible . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country’s GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries. Tariffs will likely be imposed on both sides of the Channel, making goods more expensive to consumers at least until a trade deal is worked out. Some international firms may decide to move out of the U.K. to avoid those tariffs, taking jobs with them. Many also fear significant delays to the flow of goods through the Dover-Calais link and shortages of goods that currently benefit from easy passage into the country, including medicines, certain types of food and even materials for industry. ALSO ON POLITICO Brexit endgame won’t be Greek drama JACOPO BARIGAZZI ALSO ON POLITICO UK’s supermarket sweep THIBAULT LARGER But most of these drawbacks would be temporary, and pale in comparison to the potential upsides. With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries, which we are legally prevented from pursuing while we are a member of the EU. The Hands Across the Divide peace statue in Londonderry | Charles McQuillan/Getty Images The CANZUK initiative, for example, is a well-advanced proposal for a trade deal with Canada and New Zealand and has the enthusiastic backing of the leaders of those countries. A hat full of deals like this would be of immense benefit to the U.K., allowing us to export much more cheaply to markets around the world. As we are the fifth-largest economy in the world, many more will follow: Tariff-free access to the lucrative British market will be a hot commodity around the world. Every trade deal we do means cheaper exporting for our businesses and cheaper products for our consumers. Our parliament and courts will once again be the final word in domestic matters, meaning we can untie ourselves from burdensome regulations. Compliance is expensive, and deregulation will accelerate innovation as businesses find they can be nimbler and more creative. The country as a whole will become more competitive by freeing business to work in ways that suit the U.K., not the EU27. To attract global businesses to set up new offices and jobs here in Britain, we could create any number of tax incentives, as we would be free to set corporation tax and VAT as we please. One wonders if the exodus from the City will still be a threat if taxes in London were at half the rate of Frankfurt or Paris. All of these benefits are foregone under May’s deal — which the EU itself has described as “the only deal possible.” The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. So, if there are so many obvious advantages to be had, why is there not widespread support for a no-deal scenario? How did it become such an unwelcome specter, even to many Leave voters? The answer lies in the days and weeks after the 2016 EU referendum, when an important change happened in the debate: The referendum result was reframed to define one of its choices — a clean break with the EU — as “extreme” and in need of watering down. The referendum did not ask the electorate whether they prefer a “hard or soft” Brexit, or whether they wanted “Brexit, as long as a decent deal is negotiated.” It simply asked if we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it. But soon after the poll, the only reasonable position a Brexiteer could take, if you were not to upset people at dinner parties, was that the U.K. needs some concession-laden “deal” in order to leave the EU. Anything else was insanity. To recast one choice of a binary question as being inherently “hard-line” in a way that can be “softened,” as opposed to a legitimate option that simply means what it says, is nothing short of casuistry. Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May at 10 Downing Street | Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images It’s not just Brexiteers who stand to gain from rethinking the terms in which we consider a potential no-deal Brexit. Remainers, too, have a stake in this. If some day — the world will continue to go round after Brexit, after all — there is another surge of “populism” in the U.K., voters will be much less trusting of a system and discourse that worded them into a corner the last time around. Just look across the pond, where U.S. President Donald Trump is a living lesson to anyone who thinks attacking legitimate democratic choices as extremist does not create the conditions for truly extreme people to be elected. So forget the £350 million on the side of a bus, and Empire 2.0. Forget blue passports and two fingers to French fishermen. Forget chlorinated chicken and tax-slashing Tory bonanzas. The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave. If you change the meaning of voters’ words once they have spoken, if they feel sufficiently cheated of their ballot paper, they may not use such polite ones the next time they’re asked. " Rather than a completely partisan article not acknowledging any downside at all, how about something a bit more neutral? Everything from this article has been refuted many times before. Unless you look at the downside it is impossible to balance risk. This is from Fullfact: What does a “WTO rules” Brexit look like? Published: 29th Mar 2019 In brief Claim A no deal Brexit means we wouldn’t have to pay a £39 billion divorce bill to the EU. Conclusion Under the withdrawal deal we have to pay the EU an estimated bill of £39 billion. With no deal, it’s uncertain how much of that we’d have to pay, if anything. Claim 1 of 9 Amid debate over the post-Brexit direction of the EU-UK relationship, a post making claims about what would happen in the event of a no deal Brexit (calling it a “WTO Rules Brexit”) went viral on Facebook. Despite MPs voting against a no deal in March 2019, it still remains the legal default for Brexit until some kind of withdrawal agreement is passed by Parliament. A no deal Brexit would mean we leave the EU, as well as the single market and customs union, and begin trading with the EU on WTO terms. We take a look at most of the claims about a no deal or “WTO rules” Brexit. A “WTO Rules” Brexit will mean… “…We leave the EU on March 29th 2019” This was correct when the post was published. The UK triggered Article 50 (following parliamentary approval) in March 2017, which set off a two-year countdown before we officially leave, on 29 March 2019. On 22 March the government extended Article 50, meaning the most likely date for a no deal Brexit is now 12 April. “…The UK will once again be an independent, democratic and sovereign nation with a British Constitution & Rule of law” The UK is already a democratic, sovereign nation with its own (unwritten) constitution, and has its own rule of law. So it’s false to say that leaving with no deal would make us these things “once again”. Currently EU laws take supremacy over UK law should they come into conflict, and the Court of Justice of the European Union is the highest court on matters of EU law. EU law doesn’t cover all aspects of UK law. In areas where no EU law is applicable, the UK parliament and courts are the supreme bodies for making and judging law. No deal Brexit would change elements of how sovereignty (the authority of the state to govern itself) and legal process is exercised in the UK. Leaving the EU with no deal would remove the jurisdiction of EU courts and laws in the UK (although we’d copy over existing EU law into UK law). That would arguably make the UK more independent and sovereign, in as much as more law-making comes directly from the UK. However a no deal Brexit wouldn’t mean that every rule the UK follows is made in the UK. For example, we would remain members of international organisations like NATO and the WTO, and membership of these things means following collective rules or decision-making. “…No transition period at all” Correct. The transition period is part of the draft withdrawal agreement, so if we leave the EU with no deal, that means no withdrawal agreement, and therefore no transition period. The transition period lasts from the day we officially leave the EU until December 2020 (although it could be extended). During the transition period, we will trade with the EU as we do currently and try to negotiate the future trade relationship with the EU. “… No Customs Union” Correct, leaving the EU with no deal means leaving the customs union. Under the draft withdrawal deal we’d stay in the customs union until the end of the transition period. It’s the government’s intention to leave the customs union once the transition period ends. But if a future trading relationship isn’t agreed between the UK and EU during that time the Irish backstop arrangements would kick in and the UK would remain in a form of customs union until an agreement could be reached. “… No Single Market” Correct, leaving the EU with no deal means leaving the single market. Under the draft withdrawal deal we’d stay in the single market until the end of the transition period. It’s the government’s intention to leave the single market once the transition period ends. If the Irish backstop arrangements kick in, then Northern Ireland will remain aligned to some of the rules of the single market. “… No £39 billion release payment” As part of the draft withdrawal agreement, the UK has agreed to pay its outstanding financial liabilities to the EU, estimated at £39 billion. If we left with no deal, it’s uncertain how much of that we’d have to pay, if anything. Experts at UK in a Changing Europe told us in February that, under international law, it’s not clearly set out that the UK has to pay anything once it has left the EU. However, the EU would be within its rights to take the case to the International Court of Justice. “… No more annual payments of £26-32bn” This seems to be referring to the UK’s annual payments into the EU budget, though it’s unclear. If that’s the case it’s incorrect In 2017 the UK government paid £13 billion into to the EU budget after the rebate had been applied (which gives the UK a discount on its contributions). The EU was then forecast to spend £4 billion on the UK public sector leaving a “net” contribution of nearly £9 billion. Additionally the EU spent money on the UK’s private sector, reducing the UK’s net contribution further to around £5 billion in 2017. If we leave the EU without a deal, it’s possible that we may not have to pay anything to the EU, whereas under the draft withdrawal agreement we would (as explained above). “… No more uncontrolled immigration” We already have some powers to control EU immigration, and the ability to control non-EU immigration. If we left with no deal, the UK would have more control over immigration from the EU—as we would not have to follow EU rules on freedom of movement. However that could also be the case if the existing draft withdrawal agreement is passed. The government wants to end the free movement of people between the UK and EU after the end of the transition period, and for EU citizens to no longer get preferential access over immigrants from over countries. These are, however, only intentions, and would still have to be negotiated after the passing of the withdrawal agreement. “… No more ECJ & ECHR” It’s correct that leaving with no deal would remove the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Under the withdrawal agreement, the UK would continue to follow EU law (with a few exceptions) and the rulings of the ECJ during transition period. What happens after the transition period would depend on the outcome of UK-EU negotiations. But it’s incorrect to say that a no deal Brexit will end the role of the European Court of Human Rights. This court has nothing to do with the EU and post-Brexit the UK will still remain a member. You can read more about the ECHR here. “… Free trade with the world” Free trade is a somewhat hazy phrase but one definition might be that free trade is when international trade happens without tariffs, quotas or other restrictions. Following a no deal Brexit, the trade agreements we’re already signed up to as a member of the EU will cease to apply and trade will take place under WTO rules. Under WTO rules, countries set their own import rules, so a no deal Brexit means that the government could, in theory, allow goods and services from all countries across the world to be imported into the UK without tariffs or quotas. But it doesn’t mean other countries would have to do the same, meaning that UK exports to those countries would, in many cases, face tariffs and restrictions. In any case, the government have said that under a no deal Brexit scenario, tariffs would still apply to 13% of goods (by value) imported into the UK for up to 12 months. During that time it will undertake a review on a long-term approach to tariffs. Another way of thinking about free trade is that the UK would be able to decide for itself how trade with other countries would operate. In the longer-term a no deal Brexit would give the UK the greatest agency over its future trade deals, although the exact terms would have to be agreed in negotiation with each individual country. These deals would likely take years to negotiate. “… The UK makes its own laws again… [and] the UK has its own Justice System again” See the section above about the UK becoming a sovereign, independent country. “… UK Fishing Waters are back in our control” This is largely correct, though arguably this would also be the case under the draft withdrawal agreement. Currently the UK is part of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), whereby the EU sets quotas on how much fish a country can catch in a single year. If the UK leaves the CFP, it will become an “independent coastal state” and be able to negotiate access to our waters in return for access to other markets and territorial waters. This will form part of the negotiations of the future relationship that will take place during the transition period. But the government has said that there are other international obligations on fisheries the UK will still need to abide by. A no deal Brexit, in which there was no transitional agreement on fisheries until the end of 2020, would mean that the UK would become an independent coastal state from March 2019. “… UK will not be part of the planned “United States of Europe”” While some European politicians have spoken about their desire for a more federal European system, akin to the United States of America, there are currently no developed plans for this to happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There may be some short term problems but not the end of the world the cultists are obsessed with. The trouble with cults is you become brainwashed by the fanatics and that goes for both sides. Look for the best deal you can get and if it's no good we have to leave with no deal. Simples." What are the problems? How significant and how long is "short-term"? How much will it cost you and those you know? Will you or they keep your jobs? Can you say? A cult follows a leader who can do no wrong. Brexit party has Farage Tories have Jonson Labour has Corbyn Have a think about that. If you fall into one of these camps, what do you disagree with your leader about? Anything at all? If not, you are in a cult. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have no need to pay the EU anything as we have always got less out each year than we paid in. Next point is the EU export more into the UK than we export to the EU that in turn means under WTO terms the EU will pay the UK more in revinue. So why pay the EU for less that we would have under WTO terms." If you are only capable of accountants logic then we pay in about £5bn net. We also have a common market which is worth many multiples of that in trade and free movement. The cost of the tariffs are passed on to us the consumers at the checkout. We ultimately pay the tariff to the government. I have no idea what the last point is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our brothers and sisters in Europe. You do not need to live in fear. You can join us in leaving the EU, like a person leaving a narcissistic toxic relationship. Far from crashing out and dying, people who do this are often able to start to live again. Even IF there is an initial cost financially. Lets ALL leave the EU together and leave what's left of the organisation alone and powerless in their Tower of Babel knockoff. This is a Churchill moment. The most important time for this country since WWII, or even ever. We must not let these pricks browbeat us into submission. They made these 3 years as torturous as possible to punish us hoping to 'blame it on brexit' but they underestimate the intelligence of the public. While some drink that cool aid with abandon, others see right through it and are more determined to LEAVE. If they browbeat us into remaining in, it will be like the narcissitic controlling relationship "you see, you're not going anywhere" and will be used as an example to other countries in the EU never to try to leave because we will not let you. This is the one and only chance of a lifetime, and the power is still with us, the public. Despite the media hammering for 3 years they have not managed to subdue us. We only entered the EU in the first place when we were told it was just a trading deal, the EEC. Everything else that came after wasn't voted for or asked for. In fact I think we entered in 1972, then were asked our opinion afterwards in '75? Bearing that in mind, that it started as an Economic Community EEC then became what it is now over time without our permission, you may be interested to know that the Transatlantic Economic Community is already in motion, as reported in mainstream news. Fuck it I'm done, no deal, we've got to get completely out, whatever the cost." That's the big lie. That the EU and "the elite" are conspiring to keep us in. The ERG Brexiteers and DUP have kept us in. We could be long gone by now. If you cannot accept that you cannot accept anything. This is the Treaty of Rome which we signed up to on day 1. Nothing has changed: ARTICLE 3 For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein (a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect; (b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries; (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital; (d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture; (e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport; (f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted; (g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied; (h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market; (i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living; (j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources; (k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and to promote jointly economic and social development. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No deal simply means the best possible deal for the UK. As long as the UK makes it abundantly clear that we will follow through with a new deal , the EU will be banging out doors to do deals. Citation needed, seriously, what do we have to deal? Trump and the US are already calling the shots on our own potential US/UK trade deal, China are running their hands at the prospects, what benefits us to the point where we're supposed to believe the EU will be desperate to deal with us?we are the 5th largest economy in the world it makes economic sense to want to trade with us that is unless you are a remainer. "Everyone will happily trade with is. We will just pay more for everything under WTO terms. We are also further away from everywhere else in the world than Europe. OK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes we need to do that. A large amount of the medical equipment (catheters, dressings, syringes etc ) used in our hospitaks are ce approved and made in Europe. A no deal Brexit could stop the daily imports of vital equipment." I hear the US is looking to supply us with medical equipment, at their prices of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update on the original delta poll. Of those expressing an opinion either way and who would vote, 56% would vote for remain (versus no deal) and 70% remain versus May's deal. 10% of leave voters would choose remain versus no deal (which is more than would choose remain if May's deal was the alternative) Only 10% of people are less worried About a hard Brexit than they were a few months ago. Three times more people are more worried " So as I read it, that looks at odds with what the Op claims? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update on the original delta poll. Of those expressing an opinion either way and who would vote, 56% would vote for remain (versus no deal) and 70% remain versus May's deal. 10% of leave voters would choose remain versus no deal (which is more than would choose remain if May's deal was the alternative) Only 10% of people are less worried About a hard Brexit than they were a few months ago. Three times more people are more worried So as I read it, that looks at odds with what the Op claims? " Their numbers are correct. However they jumped from saying almost a third seeing no deal Brexit as only having short term consequences to meaning they support no deal. As some have already hypothesised not all leavers voted to leave with no deal in mind. And it doesn't take a great number of such voters to change sides to swing the result. The two pollsters ive seen leavers cite have reflected this... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I saw a YouGov poll today that had 62 per cent on Remain when pitted against Mrs May's deal, and 53 per cent Remain when No Deal is added to the mix. The Welsh Government today did a U-turn and announced its support for Remain. " yet again a labour government going against the wishes of their people Wales voted to leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update on the original delta poll. Of those expressing an opinion either way and who would vote, 56% would vote for remain (versus no deal) and 70% remain versus May's deal. 10% of leave voters would choose remain versus no deal (which is more than would choose remain if May's deal was the alternative) Only 10% of people are less worried About a hard Brexit than they were a few months ago. Three times more people are more worried So as I read it, that looks at odds with what the Op claims? Their numbers are correct. However they jumped from saying almost a third seeing no deal Brexit as only having short term consequences to meaning they support no deal. As some have already hypothesised not all leavers voted to leave with no deal in mind. And it doesn't take a great number of such voters to change sides to swing the result. The two pollsters ive seen leavers cite have reflected this..." As I said, always worth waiting for the raw data. The shouty papers that comission them tend to leave out information that doesn't suit them. Whatbritainthinks is a very useful site for looking at the polling data. It tracks over time and information can be filtered too. Also worth searching the Google trends on "Brexit". Spiked after the vote as is well known. Less well known is that immigration was searched much, much more than either the EU or UK economy in the lead up to the vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I saw a YouGov poll today that had 62 per cent on Remain when pitted against Mrs May's deal, and 53 per cent Remain when No Deal is added to the mix. The Welsh Government today did a U-turn and announced its support for Remain. yet again a labour government going against the wishes of their people Wales voted to leave." Nothing more to say about food safety and chlorinated chicken? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I saw a YouGov poll today that had 62 per cent on Remain when pitted against Mrs May's deal, and 53 per cent Remain when No Deal is added to the mix. The Welsh Government today did a U-turn and announced its support for Remain. yet again a labour government going against the wishes of their people Wales voted to leave." Using the same poll Wales is more in favour of remain than the UK as a whole. So they're voting with current wishes if you believe the polls.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I saw a YouGov poll today that had 62 per cent on Remain when pitted against Mrs May's deal, and 53 per cent Remain when No Deal is added to the mix. The Welsh Government today did a U-turn and announced its support for Remain. yet again a labour government going against the wishes of their people Wales voted to leave. Using the same poll Wales is more in favour of remain than the UK as a whole. So they're voting with current wishes if you believe the polls...." So there have been many discussions with people trying to find even the most vague benefit for the UK to come of Brexit. Chlorine washed chicken, and beef pumped full of growth hormones will turn a lot of people vegetarian. Which will reduce their impact on climate change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But free trade ain’t free: if you want a deal, you’re going to have give things up, including possibly some things you hold very dear indeed. Sooner or later, Brexit Britain was always going to collide with that painful reality. " Yep. Perhaps Brexiteers might eventually start to progress from their childish concept of 'sovereignty' and understand that the concept of a 'deal' means you give up some things in exchange for other things. The more power you have, the less you have to give up. And Brexit will of course place us alone and with much less global sway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update on the original delta poll. Of those expressing an opinion either way and who would vote, 56% would vote for remain (versus no deal) and 70% remain versus May's deal. 10% of leave voters would choose remain versus no deal (which is more than would choose remain if May's deal was the alternative) Only 10% of people are less worried About a hard Brexit than they were a few months ago. Three times more people are more worried So as I read it, that looks at odds with what the Op claims? " so that would be another pat lie/distortion of the truth.... so at what point to we get mods to step in and start banning people.... this is just "shit overload" everytime he speaks..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Iv said this before it will only fly of the shelves if ppl buy it if know one buys it then that’s the end of there chicken " How will people know if its chlorinated chicken or hormone filled beef? That's the main issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Iv said this before it will only fly of the shelves if ppl buy it if know one buys it then that’s the end of there chicken " No. The problem is that crappy animal welfare and food hygiene allows you to produce your food much more cheaply. What you get are British farms going under as they have to meet higher standards. Otherwise we lower ours and cannot sell to other markets like the EU. That's one of the main reasons why we have tariff barriers. Not just to make farmers rich and lazy. Think it through. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update on the original delta poll. Of those expressing an opinion either way and who would vote, 56% would vote for remain (versus no deal) and 70% remain versus May's deal. 10% of leave voters would choose remain versus no deal (which is more than would choose remain if May's deal was the alternative) Only 10% of people are less worried About a hard Brexit than they were a few months ago. Three times more people are more worried So as I read it, that looks at odds with what the Op claims? so that would be another pat lie/distortion of the truth.... so at what point to we get mods to step in and start banning people.... this is just "shit overload" everytime he speaks....." Not concerned about the b word myself Fabio, its just further confirmation if its needed that he and others will spin anything in a desparate attempt to distort the reality.. Like his claim that out of a 37% turnout a majority have now mandated no deal even though the votes for ukip/brexit party was less than the parties who are for remain/against a no deal.. Still waiting for his source of the recent claim that a majority want to leave on WTO terms.. Think he's looking back and trying to replicate Centy halcyon days of divert, spin and plain old miss speak.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Iv said this before it will only fly of the shelves if ppl buy it if know one buys it then that’s the end of there chicken " Bob if it flies off the shelves there'll be mayhem and lots of confused shoppers.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That’s the job of trading standards I’d of though they deal with labeling " They do but under austerity they've been cut to the bone.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
