Printable View
I was under the impression that there was a 500 page document detailing the process of leaving, which included the backstop that would be the minimum relationship following the negotiation of a long term trade agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
You remainers are so condescending.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Isn't it strange that those who voted remain knew what they voted for but those of us who voted leave didn't have a clue.
Utter bollocks
I knew exactly what I was voting for the first time. LEAVE.
The problem is that those charged with implementing the wish of the "people" are remainers like you and will stop at nothing to avoid leaving the EU.
Voting for a "wish" does not make it a reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy
Yee harr
Llani for PM, WP deputy.
Only ones talking sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy
On the contrary we show great understanding. Understanding that people dislike realising they were gullible in believing in Santa Claus, resentment when this is pointed out to them and entrenchment in maintaining that they were right all along and everyone with a different opinion is utterly wrong.
Remainers knew what they were voting for and, based on history, also knew that the EU would adapt because of internal pressure from its members eg Italy. GB could have influenced that change from within.
Leavers could not know what they were voting for - other than a slogan - because even their flag bearers,Gove,Johnson,Davis,...had no idea themselves but were driven by political ambition.
As is now abundantly clear.
But we are where we are and "could have,should have,might have,if only,..." is as futile as arguing about whether or not Britain should have engaged in the Great War - a not irrelevant reference point- so perhaps we should look at it all again in a hundred years when things will be clearer?
When I cast my mind back to pre referendum and think what do I know now that I didn't know then, there isn't really anything of substance.
That a 80% approx Remain House of Commons and a 90% approx House of Lords, backed up by a Remain civil service, a host of Remain big interests such as CBI, NHS, Universities..... can create a "you never voted for that" scenario is perhaps the highest on the list.
So let's say we have a 2nd referendum.
One previous posts suggest a referendum to see if we want a referendum. That's how ludicrous it is.
Then we have "what question?"
Should remain be on there, after all we have already decided to leave, so surely it should be deal or no deal?
Then let's say we have one with remain an option, and we still vote leave? Can we really trust these idiots to manage that? What would change?
But if we vote Remain by 52%-48%, will we then have a version of Remain that takes in to account the views of the 48%? A sort of partial Remain, where we withdraw from some of the closer ties, loosen our relationship a little?
That was Cameron's pitch and he came back with nothing.
What if remaining means we lose our rebate and the payments go up, or a new treaty ends up on the table? Do we get a "we didn't know we were voting for that!"
It is absolutely barking mad.
I'm not one for discussing politics on a 'friendly' forum, it really doesn't interest me too much.
But it is quite clear that the EU despise us, are visibly crapping it that we are leaving, and effectively trying to punish us for the decision to do so (if indeed it goes ahead). They don't actually care about the future for the UK, and for that reason i believe we will in the long-term be better off out of it (if not better off in the short-term, which i should point out won't actually be proven either way until it happens).
(Sorry for the over-simplified summary)
Oh that's easy, they'll stitch us up on that as well. It will be Theresa May's Brexit in Name Only Deal or Remain. I've heard a number of Remain politicians say that. If it is I won't be voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Perhaps the Remainers on this forum can tell us whether we will keep the rebate or not since we now know everything.Quote:
What if remaining means we lose our rebate and the payments go up, or a new treaty ends up on the table? Do we get a "we didn't know we were voting for that!"
I just don't understand where Llani Boy got this idea from that Remainers are condescending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Was not me that brought up that word, but how was highlighting that now we have the withdrawal agreement that gives a clear indication to the reality of what Brexit will look like as opposed to the 2016 slogans be condescending?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Mmmh. Perhaps he meant "compassionate"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
The point of many Leavers is that other alternatives were never tried. Canada, Norway and Switzerland are all better than the one on offer. If other countries have these deals, why can't the UK? Even at this stage, a WTO exit is better. There will be short term disruption particularly as the Government hasn't planned for it. But at least there won't be any of the messy compromises that some options entail. We will keep the £39 billion divorce bill and be free to sign any trade deals we want, including probably with the EU at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Norway and Switzerland - Free movement, which violates one of the (most important) red lines so it is out.
Canada - No financial services, which is critical to the UK, plus it does not solve the Northern Ireland issue, and Mrs May guaranteed there would be no hard border so that is out.
Norway and Switzerland don't end free movement but there are more limitations than being in the EU. Plus when we actually get to the next phase of the trade deal with the EU under Theresa May's plan I expect that will be watered down too.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
As for financial services, in the May deal they won't be covered either. Ultimately though the Eurozone will need access to the City of London for funding as nowhere else in the EU has remotely the capacity. The Eurozone is already tottering not least due to the problems in Italy so any restriction could be terminal.
Northern Ireland backstop - you already know that I think this is a non-issue that was devised by the EU to create leverage. Emanuel Macron's use of it to secure access for EU fisherman to UK waters aptly demonstrates this. It was a terrible decision by May to sign up to this idea last December, one of many by the Government in this process.
I was prepared for the fact that we wouldn't get everything we wanted and given the closeness of the vote desirable that we kept close relations with the EU and compromised in some areas. The problem with May's deal is it doesn't seem to deliver any of the advantages of leaving. Worst of all is that we cannot come out of the Customs Union without the EU's permission. That is an intolerable situation and does mean we would become a Vassal state.
May's deal is worse than Remaining, perhaps that was the idea of our Remain dominated Government and civil service all along. To make us decide to stay after all. Game, set and match to the Establishment.
Naturally, given a previous existence, my interest has always been the negotiation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
I think there was a general wish by May et al to technically comply with Brexit to satisfy the 52% but only just, to satisfy the 48%, compounded by a naivety that our previous "friends" in Europe would continue to treat us as friends in reaching a deal. So the mindset was not to walk away and pursue another model.
It then didn't help that eg Davis and Johnson are vacuous sound bites and bone idle.
If you want a good deal negotiation should never be done if you have a deadline. You need to believe that the other side will do you down if they can - they are not your friends. Etc etc.
When it became apparent that the French and Germans were determined to punish GB the clock had been ticking for a long time and it was then too difficult for the Govt. to admit they were on the wrong track, stop and rethink. A bit like fellrunners, "we are going in the wrong direction so let's run more quickly".
Way back on here I mused how Trump would have dealt with all this. Whatever you think of him as a human being (!) we certainly would not have ended up where we are now - but then not many people think Trump is a nice man to do business with.
A lot to agree with there Graham.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I've never heard Trump described as a "human being" before. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
More seriously, while the Leavers talk about us being free to do trade deals with anyone we like, that is actually the aspect of Brexit that worries me the most. Remember that the EU was negotiating TTIP with the USA for longer than the Canada deal, and it all collapsed in the end; and that was when they were negotiating with the Obama administration. We now have the most protectionist, aggressive administration in the USA for many decades, and my worry is that we will jump into trade deals with USA, and maybe China, etc, that make concessions far worse than anything in May's current deal with the EU, just because Liam Fox is keen to demonstrate how free we now are.
Immigration, trade deals, cost savings, fishing rights etc etc . These are just side issues to the core of this problem. Do the British people want to be part of a club that gradually subsumes their government, their laws, their sovereignty. And for that club to be ruled by a non elected upper chamber? Most of the people with a voice answered the question and a tiny excess of people said no way, let's leave the club. All of the noise around the other issues is just that....noise, not the reason why the vote went the way it did.
Spot On Simon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
It's a bit like should the FRA be affiliated to UKA/EA ;)
Ha! At least that referendum had a resounding majority!! No one ever moaned about the result and asked for a re-run!
give it time, there are moves afoot. Not sure if you watch the mainstream scene, but the Areas are rebelling :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Welcome to the serious side of the forum Travs. This is where the spirit is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
What I was wondering: with the majority of the country voting to leave the EU should it not have been the goal of the UK through its negotiations to destroy them? That is to bring the rotten structure to an end? And as a so called 'no deal' is now the only way to fulfil the referendum result shouldn't we use this to bring their demise with aggressive deregulation? After all they are stuck with their regulations (they're not easy to change) whilst we would be free to do as we please to make our country function effectively.
I guess aggressive deregulation means making the UK more competitive by cutting costs (both private and public sector). Does the UK population want that? i.e workers rights, environmental regulations, health and social care.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
I would consider myself to be left of centre and have no problem with paying more tax as long as it is well spent.
Many people voted for Brexit becasue they are pissed off with the status quo (and not without good reason), I would not think they voted to make their situation even worse.
It's got to be worth it, just to wipe the smug expression off Macron's face!Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
Pat, I suspect most people with a realistic grasp of the situation knew that it would be bumpy ride. You don,t get out of anything like this without some sacrifices along the way.
How do you feel about post Brexit Britain being led by Corbyn?Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
Narr. His days are numbered.
The last person I would want to lead Britain is Mr Corbyn.
However,having said that,if we were to leave the EU with no deal and the outcome was a general election and the Labour party, led by Mr Corbyn, won then that would be what the British voted for and I could accept that.
When he makes a bollocks of it, which wouldn't take long, we can vote him out.
What I cannot accept is the fact that the British people voted to leave the EU and our so called leaders are not making it happen which means that we will continue to be run by unelected EU bureaucrats.
By the way, Come on you Bluebirds!
To get this thread onto a real topic..... after a couple of life-threatening trips to the old Ninian Park, I am by no means a fan of Cardiff City.... but anyone who turns Wolves over gets my vote!Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy
I don't see "aggressive deregulation" as the way forward, but the point to make, is that there will be a choice at General Elections on such matters that we have not been able to make before.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Do we need VAT? I know it raises a shed load of tax, but it is so bureaucratically heavy. A policy of removal of VAT would go some way to ameliorating the border issues, especially at the Northern Irish border.
I would describe that as radical deregulation. A series of other taxes could be tweaked up to recover the lost revenue elsewhere although the boost to growth would raise other tax revenues anyway.
VAT is a regressive tax as it works mostly as a retail tax, proportionately hitting those on lower incomes.
For businesses it is just a burden.
For large businesses they need teams and procedures to collect and pay or reclaim. It is revenue neutral but can affect cashflow. It can cause penalties when errors are made.
For small business it can put a lid on growth, as they strive to keep below the VAT threshold, fearing the bureaucracy and HMRC crawling all over them.
It's an awful tax and if I was Chancellor, I would look optimistically at a WTO Brexit and have a plan in place to phase out VAT.
It’d amuse me no end to see the flailing from the extreme end of the deregulation mobs faces as their dream of removing obstacles to workforce exploitation disappear another decade down the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
I don't know where you get this workforce exploitation from.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
I don't think the Tories have done much to help, other than some minor issues around zero hours contracts, but I don't see there's any sign of it being mooted.
The problem with workforce issues is the drive to use blunt instruments such as minimum wage.
The Govt can increase it 50p an hour annually. It costs them nothing. It saves them in-work benefits and increases the Income Tax and National Insurance.
It puts the cost on to employers, and is not different as far as an employer is concerned to increasing employers NI by 10%.
It is a hidden tax.
The more MW is increased, the more the low-skilled worker is unaffordable, or the more the employer looks to mitigate.
For example, if you can keep your employees wage under £163 per week, you don't pay any Employers NI. So increasing the MW means employers use more part time contracts - we currently have around 10 million part time workers.
If you are a part-time worker on 25 hours and £8 and hour, you get 50p an hour, whoopee do - an increase of max £12.
But if you get 10 extra hours.....
So if a Government want to help the low paid, they should merge employees NI with income tax, and they should make employers NI flat rate (say 8%) on all income.
Employers are driving down weekly working hours of the lower paid to keep a lid on the NI cost.
Take an Aldi store worker.
"Work-Life Balance
Your usual contracted hours will be 25 hours a week, but can vary from 15-30"
That's typical for retail, care sector, hospitality. What I find ironic is they talk of work-life balance, but you have no clue what your shift pattern is from one week to the next, so taking a 2nd job is not feasible.
They also have you working 3 weekends out of every 4. So hardly work-life balance when you tend to work at times when your family would otherwise have some activity, like a fell race :/
I suspect we'll abolish VAT day 1 post-brexit.
PS. That was sarcasm, WP :)
Perhaps we could sort this EU business out with a Brexit Fell Race.
Three teams, Remainers, Leavers and Couldn't give a Tossers.
First ten runners from each team to count.
If the Remainers lost they would not be able to request a rerun on the grounds that they did not know that GPS was banned.
If the Couldn't give a Tossers won then the word Brexit is barred from this Forum.
If the Leavers won we would leave the EU.
Simples!
Just as well you explained it Noel as I thought for a minute you were a convert.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
And whilst I appreciate your sarcasm, as I agree it will not happen, but the point I am making is that this is the type of policy we should be considering.
The problem is, the Couldn't Give a Tossers couldn't give a toss about a Brexit Fell Race. But there's still scope for a good battle in the M60 class between me and Llani Boy, and I'm sure the Leavers could put up a good challenger to Graham Breeze in the M70's, given the big majority for Leave among the older part of the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy
I would feel bad really bad. But I'd also have to ask to myself what difference does it make when you have a corrupt leader like Teresa May in charge. Before the last general election she sounded like Corbyn's right hand Man. With her in power Labour wouldn't need to get in as she'll do the job for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
But that's the thing Pat. People don't think they're voting to make their situation worse, but as history shows people continually support policies and governments that do make their situation worse. And you're/we're not an exemption to this. And I'm not talking about Brexit because the positive vs negative outcome is unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry