Brexit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llani Boy

Oh Mossdog, I bet it took you ages to compose that ramble!

Leave voters, people who have been married more than once. Don't hold back, I'm sure there are more sections of the community just waiting for your wrath. Lets have both barrels, we can take it.

---

Ah, I understand promises are cheap to some Leave politicians and integrity is just window dressing. But if someone in the public eye claims to be 'trustworthy' and aspires to be a leader, I think they're fair-game. After all, we get the measure of 'a man' by what he says and what he does. I know, I'm old fashioned like that.

I'm divorced and I voted leave to try get back to living in Great Britain, UK, England and Yorkshire.
We were a self governing island and I would like to return to that and I don't mind the cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

and I don't mind the cost.

---

That's a very good point Stagger. I think a lot of the remain voters thought the people who voted leave didn't understand the economic arguments or were swayed by those who said we'd be better off outside the EU. But as you say, a lot of leave voters did understand that the country would be worse off economically in the short to medium term, but thought this was a price worth paying.

" being worse off? " An assumption repeated so often it has gained the status of fact whilst being total remainers bunk.

I would like to point out that Canada, Australia, USA, New Zealand, china , Japan are not in the EU and doing nicely. All of whom Trade with EU. Neither is Singapore in EU , the prototype for what we could be if we got away.
EU is a deadweight based on restrictive practice and excessive spending that will implode over its own hubris with repeating the abject failure of a currency union.

Quite apart from anything else 27 countries can never make agreements that fit any one of them and they take excessive time to agree anything at all. The only reason for present unanimity is none of them was asked to concede anything but that is why the deal has failed. It failed to balance EU and UK interest.

Any entrepreneur will tell you that to build the business first you kick in the certain day job, and there is short term pain. But the future is bright. Our MPs are too social security minded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

That's a very good point Stagger. I think a lot of the remain voters thought the people who voted leave didn't understand the economic arguments or were swayed by those who said we'd be better off outside the EU. But as you say, a lot of leave voters did understand that the country would be worse off economically in the short to medium term, but thought this was a price worth paying.

---

Quote:

---

27 countries can never make agreements that fit any one of them and they take excessive time to agree anything at all

---

so the prospect of negotiating some sort of trade deal with them sounds good. Especially given the excellent negotiating capacity of the current government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

I would like to point out that Canada, Australia, USA, New Zealand, china , Japan are not in the EU and doing nicely.

---

That is a point Oracle. The difference is that none of those countries had complicated trading and regulatory agreements with the EU that were agreed without a thought to how to get out of them.

Your point about the future being bright might be true; or it might not be - anyone who tries to assure you of one or the other is clearly making it up. However, in the short to medium term, things are very likely to be trickier economically speaking than if we stayed in.

Project fear is highlighted by statement of the EU in the last few days: " in the event of no deal , mobile tariffs in U.K. And to uk will leap".It was Immediately countered by the industry statement " nothing will change".
One more empty threat. One thing EU fears is no deal. Their threats will be seen as vaccuous and their leverage will then disappear. They are gambling our chicken liver MPs will never do it.

On the latter point I don't agree. I agree extrication is awkward, it is more a case of whether EU are prepared to cut off their noses to spite their faces. I expect serious trouble after the euro elections. Italys position is irrecoverable. There will be turmoil anyway. We need to be less dependent. They all said it would be armageddon if we did not join the euro, and those who predicted that Armageddon are those who completely missed predicting 2007, and it is those who are predicting Armageddon now.

Chinese companies selling to EU also need to meet CE regulations and in some cases they need to be GMP compliant. But only for EU sales. So alignment is normal for business on export on a case by case basis. We lose the need to comply locally, which is the deterrent to other trade deals.

Corbyn will do far more damage to Britain than Brexit can. I know of many landlords already dumping accommodation and companies moving because of the threat. They would never dare say so publicly because of momentum and damage to sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

That is a point Oracle. The difference is that none of those countries had complicated trading and regulatory agreements with the EU that were agreed without a thought to how to get out of them.

Your point about the future being bright might be true; or it might not be - anyone who tries to assure you of one or the other is clearly making it up. However, in the short to medium term, things are very likely to be trickier economically speaking than if we stayed in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

a lot of leave voters did understand that the country would be worse off economically in the short to medium term, but thought this was a price worth paying.

---

Replace "would" with "might" and you are correct.

Leave voters couldn't help but listen to the Project Fear issues put out there by Osborne and the Treasury in particular,

If you are being told that your house price is going to drop 20%, your pension value will plummet, your savings will be devalued, there will have to be an emergency budget....

I know people who caved in, close to retirement, their house being a big chink of their nest egg.... it really did work and perhaps helps the Remain vote by a few hundred thousand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mossdog

You're peddling the typical ERG and hard brexshit fib by conflating that which the manifesto (I assume you meant the Conservative manifesto) set out in 2017 with Vote Leave's claims during the referendum - in 2016, THE YEAR BEFORE. During the referendum it was all about leaving, with no clear vision of how that would actually happen, except that the EU needed us (apparently) more than we needed them and so a DEAL - would be simples. But, remember the hapless faces of Boris and Gove, when the were interviewed together on TV the day after the result. Clueless. Gove subsequently supported May's deal; which was designed to avoid a no-deal catastrophe. Boris slithered off to focus on his next bout of adultery having again broken another marriage solemn promise to his second wife having already broken his marriage promise to his first - serial lies come so naturally to this bloke and how much easier when its to the wider British public - whatever fits his bloated selfish sense of entitlement.

So, no-deal doesn't have a mandate unless your claiming that every person who voted Tory in 2017, must have agreed with no-deal, which is ludicrously simple-minded.

Even during the referendum, Vote Leave said precious little that was intelligible except resorting to blaming others (foreigners in the uk, the EU politicians, etc.)for all of their woes and making false promises to the ever-gullible and pertetually disgruntled, sector of the electorate, whose motivation for voting Leave were various and complex. The only touted positive made by Leave were false claims that leaving would be straightforward and we'd all be winners soaking up the largesse. Indeed, Vote Leave then subsequently and sneakily retracted much of what they promised just after he results came out!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7105546.html

What amuses me is how many Leavers, after disparaging experts prior to the referendum vote, suddenly become their own purveyors of expertise on what everyone else who voted Leave clearly understood and wanted. Strangely, the opinion seems to be that what they - the Leaver voters - wanted, always seems to accord exactly with whatever the particular Leave 'expert' believes him or herself :) You couldn't make it up - oh hang on, they did!

---

Let's just pick on a few snippets here to try and help you.

Liam Fox is the one most oft quoted as saying "it would be the easiest free trade deal in history" on the basis that everything was already at 0%, we were already in regulatory alignment, and so much of the work done in setting up deals with Canada etc would not be needed.


Fox actually said "should" and he was correct at the time. But he didn't know that Cameron would step down and duck the responsibility. Cameron promised he would stay on whatever the result. Fox didn't know that an out-of-depth Theresa May, who has a tendency to trust advisors more than colleagues in cabinet, would undermine the UK negotiating position.

So it should have been the easiest FTA in the history of FTAs and was on the table a year ago, until May undermined Davis for (at least) the 3rd time at Chequers.

Now to the mandate for No Deal, or lack of one as you say.

The only "deal" on the table is the Withdrawal Agreement. It is an International Treaty which sets out lots of responsibilities for the UK (including a large chunk of money likely to far exceed the £39 Billion) but not for the EU.

It is one side of the Article 50 process.

The side that the UK is interested in is "the deal". The EU, due to May's poor handling of the process, has wriggled out of any commitments and got away with a few warm words.

Not accepting the Withdrawal Agreement does not mean "No Deal". It means no deal yet.

And just bear in mind the indicative votes last Thursday. What seems to have escaped many people's attention is that they actually gave the Government a mandate to leave on April 12th without a deal.

The SNP amendment put forward by Joanna Cherry actually asked the Commons to Revoke Article 50 if we go to within 48 hours of leaving without agreeing a deal.
It was heavily defeated.

The final mandate to leave with No Deal flows from the General Election.

We went in to it with Article 50 triggered. We left in 2 years deal or no deal, enshrined in a Act of Parliament and passed with a huge majority.


Then at the General Election 85% + voted for parties that were standing on Brexit policy aligned with the Lancaster House speech.

Tory, Labour, UKIP, DUP, UUP all for what we might call a Clean Brexit.

Everyone had a chance to vote for LibDem, Green, SNP, PC, SF, SDLP etc but their vote share declined.

Just a final point on the rather out of context mentions of personal misdemeanours, is that some of the leading lights of Remain are hardly paragons of virtue.
We have the late Paddy Pantsdown, Sir John Major who had it away with Edwina, Mandelson who had to resign twice for a fraudulent mortgage application and having a quiet word with the home office to get passports for the Hinduja brothers.
The fact is that life is littered with people who make errors of judgement in their private life.
Criminal behaviour is a different matter. Unethical behaviour also in certain cases, but I think we have to be careful not to start throwing mud at people in this way.
We know about these instances, but how many are there we don't know about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

I know of many landlords already dumping accommodation...

---

Excellent. Does that mean young people might be able to afford to buy a house, rather than being forced into rental accommodation? We need wealthy people to be putting money into making the UK competitive, not ruining things for the working young.