Brexit discussion thread III

ambro25

I guess that £20bn boost for the NHS has to come from somewhere, 'cos it ain't coming from any savings of Brexit:-

Taxes will rise to pay for NHS boost

Now I know it’s not nice to mock the afflicted, nor to laugh at the misfortune of others, but...HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

Leroy42

Extra spending on the NHS is a good thing (I say that without wanting to get into a debate about efficiencies etc).

The problem TM had was they had stated in their manifesto not to raise taxes and so thought that using the Brexit Dividend could be used to soften the blow.

But, one of the reasons that Brexit continues to be supported is that many realise the, at least short-term, there is no economic benefit to Brexit and its about taking back control etc. So was never going to work, and was a poor attempt at a ruse.

But to me it just shows have totally unprepared about Brexit the government are and how much they are fighting to stay in power. This was clearly an attempt to distract from the Brexit process, so why the need to bring Brexit front and centre is strange.

The final issue is that surely the likes of JRM etc will be totally against this. How can the government raise taxes when their manifesto, on which they were elected, said they wouldn't. Surely the will of the people must be respect. I am expecting the Express and Daily Mail to lead with traitor headlines on any MP who votes for this!

EdgeCase

The Guardian is reporting that the Irish Customs and Revenue are planning for border controls and checks on all sorts of traffic.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/21/brexit-ireland-could-bring-in-ryanair-type-passport-controls

Really doesn't look very promising for cross border trade.

Worryingly and rather indicative of the dysfunctional state of the UK:

“We are considering solutions and it’s possible to say there are technical solutions, but once again we haven’t been able to discuss them with the UK,” he told the Freight Trade Association conference in London."

J Mysterio

Its looking very bleak for NI.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

Its looking very bleak for NI.

It always was. There's no good Brexit for NI.

Infini

Laois_Man wrote: »

So disingenuous, it's nauseating!
Surely everyone knows we're just a stick for them to beat the EU dissident Brits with!!

Hardly. It's not Ireland or the EU who really want this, it's all on the UK side that this is happening and noone else. The UK created this mess, Everyone in this side is doing what they can but even the EU side and ourselves have to be ready for the worst because it's looking more and more likely that the Brit's are going to crash out in a humiliating fiasco of idiocy and ignorant stupidity no matter what is offered.

NI will probably suffer in the short to medium term but unlike the rest of the UK they DO have an out from all of this via Reunification with the rest of the island. It wont be lost on many up there that when the border went up NI was the more prosperous part of Ireland then but now is the less properous part. If the Scot's go nuclear and get Independence (and promptly rejoin the EU shortly after) from all of this then reunification will become very likely in that event because I would expect the EU to be willing to put significant Political and Financial capital to make this happen.

Ultimately economic's have far more effect than anything else and while the die hard's might whinge they realistically will have to move on in the event the vast majority of people decide to move on.

Igotadose

An interview with Farage in politico.eu: https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-last-laugh-youtube-star-brexit-anniversary/

The guy's just Trump, UK version - all smoke & mirrors, lies and headline grabbing.

flutered

ambro25 wrote: »

I guess that £20bn boost for the NHS has to come from somewhere, 'cos it ain't coming from any savings of Brexit:-

Taxes will rise to pay for NHS boost

Now I know it’s not nice to mock the afflicted, nor to laugh at the misfortune of others, but...HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

readin online that a 3% raise in income tax is required to fund this, also it is in the offing

flutered

J Mysterio wrote: »

Its looking very bleak for NI.

with luke ming flannigan a border mep supporting brexit, what kinda gange have they in brussells

Bit cynical

Infini wrote: »

Hardly. It's not Ireland or the EU who really want this, it's all on the UK side that this is happening and noone else. The UK created this mess, Everyone in this side is doing what they can but even the EU side and ourselves have to be ready for the worst because it's looking more and more likely that the Brit's are going to crash out in a humiliating fiasco of idiocy and ignorant stupidity no matter what is offered.

It does mean however that negotiations seeking no hard border in the north are futile after this point. The EU can't insist on no hard border while at the same time ordering Ireland to institute border controls.

trellheim

The text of Juncker's speech is HERE https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-06-21/2/


At least he understands what I am worried about

There are those who think the other 26 countries will abandon Ireland at the last minute for a separate deal that suits them. Those people have not understood what being part of our Union means. Ireland's border is Europe's border and our Union's priority.

Leroy42

If the UK continue to abide by the rules of the EU then there is no need for a hard border. Why would the negotiations need to stop.

The EU, of course, are planning for the possibility that the UK may not agree to any deal. The UK are also working on the basis that they should be able to play at pulling out so it is only logical that the EU take that threat seriously

Professor Moriarty

flutered wrote: »

with luke ming flannigan a border mep supporting brexit, what kinda gange have they in brussells

Ah Ming the MEP. He has some clever and insightful anti-EU arguments. Consider this:

"One thing I do not support is a union that tells me what time I have to go to the toilet at, how long I can work - that should be the decision of the people of Ireland, no more than it should be the people of Great Britain who make them decisions for themselves. So I would be pleased to see a Brexit happen."

Take that Juncker! In your face, Barnier!

flutered

Blowfish wrote: »

I was actually watching that. JRM was trying to make the point that both the EU and UK could just not bother putting up a border if there was no deal. Verhofstadt said there had to be a border because of the EU rules, at which point JRM was saying they could just bend them as they've done it before.

Of course, the reality is that JRM is utterly wrong as not putting up a border would violate the WTO Most Favoured Nation rule. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt in that he's just completely unaware of this rather than trying to mislead, but someone should really sit him down and explain why this isn't an option as it's doing him no favours that his argument for hard brexit relies on it.

going by his actions and that of ids, {similar to alan kelly reaction when he scraped home last year}, when the result of the vote was announced yesterday, they must have some very personal fingers in very lucerative pies

Panrich

trellheim wrote: »

The text of Juncker's speech is HERE https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-06-21/2/


At least he understands what I am worried about

That seems to put your fears to bed. I don't think the message can be any clearer on this. The EU will not be abandoning a member country to grease the wheels of Brexit.

In any case, I think that the UK is on an inexorable path towards a hard Brexit at this point. The like of Rees Mogg and Davis are seeing to that. The way that they have scuppered the meaningful vote means that they are now on course to deliver no deal. Today JRM was upping the ante regarding rejecting any EU deal that did not meet his criteria

"Say, for example, the government comes back with a deal in October saying it will give £39bn to the European Union in return for the good faith of the European Union to discuss a trade deal, that is something that would be very hard to get through parliament. So to some extent it means that any deal will be a tougher deal because there are more people who want to leave the European Union effectively on the Tory backbenches than there are who don’t want to leave."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jun/21/brexit-government-concession-to-tory-pro-europeans-doesnt-change-anything-says-rees-mogg-politics-live?page=with:block-5b2b58f6e4b02fa070a16d5f#block-5b2b58f6e4b02fa070a16d5f

LeinsterDub

Unveiling details of the “settlement scheme” for EU citizens, the Home Office promised that the application process would be “short, simple and user friendly” with a default position of accepting rather than rejecting applications.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/21/uk-unveils-post-brexit-eu-citizen-settlement-scheme

It's grand you can trust us they said to the Windrush generation.
It's grand you can trust us they said to 1,000 highly skilled migrants.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/06/at-least-1000-highly-skilled-migrants-wrongly-face-deportation-experts-reveal

But seriously guys this time it's grand . Trust us.

Enzokk

ambro25 wrote: »

I guess that £20bn boost for the NHS has to come from somewhere, 'cos it ain't coming from any savings of Brexit:-

Taxes will rise to pay for NHS boost

Now I know it’s not nice to mock the afflicted, nor to laugh at the misfortune of others, but...HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

They are giving NHS staff more resources and you would assume a pay rise eventually, but they are taking it from their other pocket. That would be sad if all NHS staff didn't vote for Brexit, seeing that this isn't possible I have very little sympathy right now for UK people that complain about financial hardship due to Brexit. I would have a little sympathy if there was a change in opinion on Brexit, but seeing that we have indications that people just want to get on with it even when they voted Remain, reap all that you sow.

blanch152

flutered wrote: »

with luke ming flannigan a border mep supporting brexit, what kinda gange have they in brussells

Is Luke actually in Brussels these days?

trellheim

If the UK continue to abide by the rules of the EU then there is no need for a hard border. Why would the negotiations need to stop.

1. Because in a no deal scenario they become a foreign country March 2019 and we are obliged to put one up.
2. unless they legally commit to abiding by the rules there is nothing that can be done.
3. If they do legally commit - thats very likely to be included in the transition arrangement and the border is invisible
4. HOWEVER
5. You need a transition arrangement for that
6. EU have said - no transition arrangement till its all sorted out (including the border) - nothing's agreed till everything's agreed.
7. You need some shape of a final agreement to negotiate on so you can agree everything
8. UK and EU should have sorted this agreement out a fortnight ago(six months ago /whatever)_ yet - due to the UK politics being akin to two drunks fighting in a phonebox nothing has been done.
9. Therefore the EU council meeting next week have nothing to agree and send to the EU parliaments for ratification

10. SO ... what ? If our side have nothing to agree then the UK have to crash out with no deal at all.

Rhineshark

I hoped for a while that the UK might come to it's senses as things moved on and continued to get more ridiculous and impossible. But the sheer amount of disinformation out there is impossible to bridge with mere facts.

There are almost no good arguments. Retorts to the points Remainers bring up (and I do have empathy for them) are along the lines of
A) project fear
The EU are punishing us
C) Well, individual EU countries are with us/will definitely be leaving at any moment
D) They need us more than we need them
E) Lalala I'm not listening.
F) insert insult of choice.
G) the lyrics to Hotel California (yes, really)

There is a very similar disconnect from reality as with the full-on pro-Trumpers.

I have no doubt that Russia got involved to some extent, if only because we know they were attempting to get involved with every western election/national vote of note in 2016 (also Carole Cadwalldr's work). But I don't really think they needed to. Decades of misinformation and mismanagement of the country have done their damage. And it's sickening that the ones who did most damage (Johnson, Farage, JRM's ilk) will swan off at a profit and leave the country mired in social division, resentment and poverty for far more people.

ambro25

flutered wrote: »

readin online that a 3% raise in income tax is required to fund this, also it is in the offing

You just know that if Hammond leaks the notion of heavier taxes so soon after May "Brexit dividend" guff, the rate hike is not going to be trivial.

Enzokk wrote: »

They are giving NHS staff more resources and you would assume a pay rise eventually, but they are taking it from their other pocket. That would be sad if all NHS staff didn't vote for Brexit, seeing that this isn't possible I have very little sympathy right now for UK people that complain about financial hardship due to Brexit. I would have a little sympathy if there was a change in opinion on Brexit, but seeing that we have indications that people just want to get on with it even when they voted Remain, reap all that you sow.

I stopped having any sympathy when we Brexoded mid-February. Including for the 48%, given how apathetic they'd proven to be, and still are. My only sympathies lie with you guys across the Irish sea, and with the Scots who were diddled in Indyref1.

Strazdas

Rhineshark wrote: »

I hoped for a while that the UK might come to it's senses as things moved on and continued to get more ridiculous and impossible. But the sheer amount of disinformation out there is impossible to bridge with mere facts.

There are almost no good arguments. Retorts to the points Remainers bring up (and I do have empathy for them) are along the lines of
A) project fear
The EU are punishing us
C) Well, individual EU countries are with us/will definitely be leaving at any moment
D) They need us more than we need them
E) Lalala I'm not listening.
F) insert insult of choice.
G) the lyrics to Hotel California (yes, really)

There is a very similar disconnect from reality as with the full-on pro-Trumpers.

I have no doubt that Russia got involved to some extent, if only because we know they were attempting to get involved with every western election/national vote of note in 2016 (also Carole Cadwalldr's work). But I don't really think they needed to. Decades of misinformation and mismanagement of the country have done their damage. And it's sickening that the ones who did most damage (Johnson, Farage, JRM's ilk) will swan off at a profit and leave the country mired in social division, resentment and poverty for far more people.

Yes, Brexit is something of a 'perfect storm'. Many social problems followed by years of austerity - the lying press tells the public that the EU and immigrants are to blame for all their problems, not their own government.

It will end extremely badly of course. The country will be even worse off as a result of Brexit, leaving the 17m voters bemused and bewildered.

Call me Al

Mansion house speech live on BBC. Hammond is delivering it to a very stony-faced and circumspect looking room. And he's confirmed that taxpayers are going to be contributing more to the NHS.

Nody

And we have the latest cake strategy identified by the UK; an associate agreement like Ukraine or Moldova has...

The government is considering a Ukraine-style “association agreement” with the EU to govern future relations with the bloc after Brexit.

The deal, which would include a free trade agreement, regulatory alignment, and cooperation on security and foreign affairs, is being explored in Downing Street, according to a senior cabinet source.

The format, which the EU also has with countries like Georgia and Moldova, would help avoid a complex web of bilateral agreements like the one which governs relations between the EU and Switzerland.

The approach, recommended by the European parliament based on Theresa May’s red lines, would not include single market or customs union membership, but could open the door to more cooperation than a basic free trade agreement, depending on specifics.

But when discussing the association agreement format, the senior cabinet source added: “It’s an empty box, you can put whatever you want in it.”

It was reported on Thursday that the prime minister could try to keep the UK in the single market for goods, which might be a component of such a deal.

You'd think they would learn that cherry picking is simply not going to work but somehow every single solution comes back to the same cherry picking of the 4 freedoms and involving EU changing everything to give UK what it wants.

Sierra Oscar

The comments by Juncker today were encouraging. The EU are standing by Ireland on the border issue and hopefully that continues in the months ahead. I had my doubts about the priorities of the EU negotiation team initially but everything to date has been encouraging.

It's astonishing that the UK Government still haven't provided any clarity whatsoever on the border issues on the eve of the June summit. They want to continue kicking the can down the road. It's becoming pretty clear that they are hoping the EU & Ireland cave in on the border issue at the last minute as the prospect of a disorderly exit looms large.

It does beg the question - should the EU just call a halt to the negotiations at the June summit and refuse to restart them until the UK puts forward a concrete and legally binding solution to the border issue?

Nody

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It does beg the question - should the EU just call a halt to the negotiations at the June summit and refuse to restart them until the UK puts forward a concrete and legally binding solution to the border issue?

For what purpose? Not only are you giving UK more time to stall and remove pressure but you're also extending the uncertainty. All EU should do is simply state as they do now that we're waiting on UK to present an acceptable solution and ensure hard brexit rules are prepared (which is being done; for example certain approvals are authorised to change country which normally is not allowed as EU don't want companies to shop around for easiest approvals etc.). Then when the time comes simply offer up two options; you crash out with nothing or here's the deal to sign knowing that EU is as ready as it will be for the crash out and UK is not. Yes; it will be painful; yes there will be some chaos from companies not prepared etc. but compared to the Armageddon going down on the UK side EU will look good by comparison.

Why? Because even if you give UK a decade to try to figure this one out it will simply not happen after all; Tories (whom ever leads them) nor Labour (as long as the Left wing is in power) will be able to negotiate a deal. You'd need a whole new party to rise up and take the power and dispel the decades of BS for that to happen and quite frankly that's not happening any time soon. Simply accept that it is hard brexit, prepare accordingly and move on with our lives is the best route at this stage because UK's collective insanity has simply hit an untreatable level involving EU (a decade or two outside should help cure it however).

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

And we have the latest cake strategy identified by the UK; an associate agreement like Ukraine or Moldova has...

Maybe they should study the old diagram.

Infini

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It does beg the question - should the EU just call a halt to the negotiations at the June summit and refuse to restart them until the UK puts forward a concrete and legally binding solution to the border issue?

I believe October is the make or break point for all of this. After that point the UK realistically doesn't have anytime left to negotiate ANYTHING. Once this happen's the UK will basically have only path's ahead of them: Abandon Brexit, Accept whatever the EU present's there and then without question or Crash out hard.

I believe the EU will negotiate as long as they can BUT they know that something will have to be done should the threat of a No Deal Brexit become a certainty. Worst case the border will be closed to GOODs traffic, I doubt they'll stop local people at the very least not initially without the threat of a riot breaking out.

I also think that there's not as big a threat of violence breaking out at least not when there's another option available: Reunification. The like's of the no border's movement up there at the moment could easily morph into a Reunification movement as the cost's of the UK's folly become clear. They would be the same group only going from preventing a border to removing it as soon as possible. There's no need for those up there to resort to violence anymore, not when there's powerful economic argument's for reunification as well as political ones (England throwing NI under a bus for it's own interest's, The other side of the border actually IS GREENER etc).

Water John

I'd say that Irish border will be very leaky, if there is no deal. Generations of families made a living, over and back that border.

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

I'd say that Irish border will be very leaky, if there is no deal. Generations of families made a living, over and back that border.

Still do.

Water John

They will obviously up their game, in the national interest, of course.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

Still do.

You don't even need to smuggle or launder

Cross-border fuel trade is worth €230m annually to the Exchequer as thousands of motorists from the North avail of cheaper petrol and diesel in the Republic. That's 2% of our overall carbon emissions. Which we could be fined for under Koyoto.

Coal down here has a €20 a tonne carbon tax while up north it doesn't, and our VAT is 13.5% while up there it's only 5%

FunkyDa2

Behind a paywall...but you should get the "gist" of it from the headline... https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/airbus-prepares-to-move-business-from-britain-over-brexit-fears-f6jnc7x2j

Charles Babbage

Sam Russell wrote: »

The use of religious designations for voters is suspect. Are they self declared, or assumed? The term 'Catholic', 'Nationalist', 'Republican', or for the other side - 'Protestant', 'Unionist', 'Loyalist' are used by different pundits to mean different things - quite often a graded distinction.

It is like the adverts that declare - '85% of cats that showed a preference, chose our Tiddles cat food' without saying how many cats did not show a preference. I wonder how many respondents did not declare their religion or the way they voted? Lies, damn lies, and poll results.

There is no mention of 'Republican' or 'Loyalist' here. There is nothing odd about asking people if they identify as Protestant, Catholic, Other or No Religon. People might lie, but what is the purpose of that?
What exact issue do you have with the methodogy here?

Rain Ascending

FunkyDa2 wrote: »

Behind a paywall...but you should get the "gist" of it from the headline... https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/airbus-prepares-to-move-business-from-britain-over-brexit-fears-f6jnc7x2j

[For the Guardian's write-up, see here.]

This is big and it is only the start...

March 2019 is starting to coming into view of the annual budget planning cycle of big companies. Senior management have 2018 bedded down -- strategic decisions will be made over the next few months to enable the initial draft budgets to be formed around September/October for 2019. Given that it's now probably too late to make major investments to mitigate a "no-deal" situation in March, companies like Airbus would have no option but to take the hit of the costs and losses involved and need to bake that into their financial planning.

Some companies will stay quiet and you only see footnotes in the company accounts. In the longer term, there will be "implications" for investment and employment in the UK subsidiaries, but these will largely fly below the radar.

Others like Airbus will speak out and you can expect more stories like this over the next few months, reaching a crescendo in October. Efforts will be made to spin this as "well, they would say that wouldn't they?", but corporates loath getting dragged into politics and if anything, they'll tend to understate the issue.

Watch out though, for another explosion from Michael O'Leary...

Larbre34

I've been citing Airbus since Day 1, finally theyve shown their hand to max effect.

Every public rep in Wales just had to change their underwear simultaneously.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ah Ming the MEP. He has some clever and insightful anti-EU arguments. Consider this:

"One thing I do not support is a union that tells me what time I have to go to the toilet at, how long I can work - that should be the decision of the people of Ireland . . . "

Ooh! Can we all agree to tell him to go to the toilet now? And to stay there, indefinitely?

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

It does mean however that negotiations seeking no hard border in the north are futile after this point. The EU can't insist on no hard border while at the same time ordering Ireland to institute border controls.

Well, by definition, after the point where the only possibility is that the UK will crash out, negotiations about no hard border are futile. Negotiations about anything are futile; that's what "crash out" means.

But, until crash-out is the only possibility, it's not the only possibility. So it makes sense to negotiate to avoid a crash-out, while at the same time still planning and preparing for a crash-out, should it come to that.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

And we have the latest cake strategy identified by the UK; an associate agreement like Ukraine or Moldova has...

You'd think they would learn that cherry picking is simply not going to work but somehow every single solution comes back to the same cherry picking of the 4 freedoms and involving EU changing everything to give UK what it wants.

It doesn't matter the future UK/EU relationship is packaged; the UK is still going to have to decide which of its red lines it will compromise on in order to secure some of its objectives, and which of its objectives it will abandon in order to stick to some of its red lines.

The talk of an association agreement is in fact a cover for a move by the UK to give up quite a bit of cakery. As has been noted, the UK is seen to want to move away from membership, but with lots of opt-outs, and towards non-membership, but with lots of opt-ins - to the free market in goods, to Erasmus, to Galileo, to the European Arrest Warrant, etc, etc. There are a number of problems with this, but let me mention just two:

- First, it seems to imply a complex mess of treaties, agreements, etc covering specific sectors and situations. The EU already has this with Switzerland, doesn't like it, doesn't think it's a good model, doesn't want to replicate it.

- Secondly, most of the programmes, schemes, etc that it wants to opt into aren't just policies or practices; they are legal constructs, established by EU law and interpreted and applied, ultimately, by the European Court of Justice. The no-ECJ-jursdiction red line is a serious barrier to participation. The no-free-movement red line is a problem for some as well.

So the suggested solution - and note this suggestion is coming mainly from voices on the UK side - is to have an Association Agreement, the usual vehicle for "deep and special" relationships between the EU and third countries. This would provide an overarching framework for the UK to participate in various aspects of the EU. The framework would include submission to EU law and ECJ jurisdiction (or, conceivably, the jurisdiction of a joint EU/UK court). This would be a huge climbdown on the UK side, but it would be dressed up as "we are not subject to ECJ jurisdiction - except where we, in the free exercise of our sovereign independence, agree to accept it in relation to particular transnational programmes, arrangements, policies, etc that we freely and in a fully sovereign way agree to participate in". And a similar fig-leaf argument for the acceptance of free movement in order to secure free trade.

On the EU side, they're a bit wary. They've no object to the UK covering the nakedness of its climbdown with some kind of figleaf, but the Association Agreement is used as a vehicle for third countries which are looking to get closer to the EU, with a view to eventual membership, not members that are looking to draw away. Still, it might offer a way out of the current impasse.

Nody

Larbre34 wrote: »

I've been citing Airbus since Day 1, finally theyve shown their hand to max effect.

Every public rep in Wales just had to change their underwear simultaneously.

For those not aware:

Brexit: Airbus warns it could quit UK in event of 'no deal'

The company, which employs 14,000 people at 25 sites across the country, said it would “reconsider its investments in the UK, and its long-term footprint in the country” if Britain crashed out of the single market and customs union without a transition agreement.

“Far from Project Fear, this is a dawning reality for Airbus. Put simply, a no-deal scenario directly threatens Airbus’ future in the UK."

Full article is here but it was not important enough to make the Independent's front page .

And Wales voted to leave.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

And Wales voted to leave.

And Flintshire and Newport, the two Welsh voting areas which actually have Airbus plants located in them, voted to leave by a significantly larger margin than the rest of Wales did.

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

And Flintshire and Newport, the two Welsh voting areas which actually have Airbus plants located in them, voted to leave by a significantly larger margin than the rest of Wales did.

Well if you enjoy a headache read the posts on the Telegraph article on the same subject. You see; we've misunderstood it all because:

1) China is not in the EU so why can't UK sell stuff to Airbus just as well
2) China has in no way the skilled people to build the wings anyway (not like they are building military and civilian air planes already or anything, right?)
3) EU needs UK to use their excess electricity (yes, seriously that was one argument put forth)
4) This is all project fear; UK will not be a competitor to EU anyway it's old ways of thinking
5) They are only looking for a tax break anyway

I could go on but honestly I despair to do so.

First Up

Nody wrote: »

Well if you enjoy a headache read the posts on the Telegraph article on the same subject. You see; we've misunderstood it all because:

1) China is not in the EU so why can't UK sell stuff to Airbus just as well
2) China has in no way the skilled people to build the wings anyway (not like they are building military and civilian air planes already or anything, right?)
3) EU needs UK to use their excess electricity (yes, seriously that was one argument put forth)
4) This is all project fear; UK will not be a competitor to EU anyway it's old ways of thinking
5) They are only looking for a tax break anyway

I could go on but honestly I despair to do so.

Reminds me of the classic from Yes Minister, where Bernard describes the profile of the readers of the various British newspapers:

- The Express is read by people who think the country should be run the way it used to be;

- The Telegraph is read by people who think it still is.

Enzokk

Larbre34 wrote: »

I've been citing Airbus since Day 1, finally theyve shown their hand to max effect.

Every public rep in Wales just had to change their underwear simultaneously.

Deleted User wrote: »

And Wales voted to leave.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And Flintshire and Newport, the two Welsh voting areas which actually have Airbus plants located in them, voted to leave by a significantly larger margin than the rest of Wales did.

This is why my sympathy is low at the moment. Those jobs will be hard to replace and it will leave families in trouble, but seeing as more than 100 000 people indirectly benefit from Airbus in the UK and most of those would be around the areas where their plants are located it would stand to reason that most people will feel a positive effect from Airbus. Even if the chipper doesn't have any direct involvement with Airbus in the area, if one Airbus employee buys his food from there he benefits. Still people thought and still think they should just get on with it.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

the Association Agreement is used as a vehicle for third countries which are looking to get closer to the EU, with a view to eventual membership, not members that are looking to draw away.

That's how it has been used up to now, but we are in new territory anyway. I don't think the EU would object if the UK can finally agree on a pathway and it involves an Association Agreement.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

This is why my sympathy is low at the moment. Those jobs will be hard to replace and it will leave families in trouble, but seeing as more than 100 000 people indirectly benefit from Airbus in the UK and most of those would be around the areas where their plants are located it would stand to reason that most people will feel a positive effect from Airbus. Even if the chipper doesn't have any direct involvement with Airbus in the area, if one Airbus employee buys his food from there he benefits. Still people thought and still think they should just get on with it.

Well, in defence of the poor deluded Leave voters, Airbus are contemplating withdrawing from the UK if there is a crash-out Brexit, but none of the Leave campaigns advocating a crash-out Brexit, and nobody who voted Leave can be taken to have expected or approved a crash-out Brexit (and psychotics who now contemplate a crash-out Brexit and say there is a democratic mandate for it are lying).

So in fact they didn't vote for the destruction of their own jobs; they just voted in a way which opened up an opportunity for those willing to destroy their jobs in pursuit of a fantasy. That may be cold comfort to them, but they must take what comfort they can get.

Sam Russell

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

The use of religious designations for voters is suspect. Are they self declared, or assumed? The term 'Catholic', 'Nationalist', 'Republican', or for the other side - 'Protestant', 'Unionist', 'Loyalist' are used by different pundits to mean different things - quite often a graded distinction.

It is like the adverts that declare - '85% of cats that showed a preference, chose our Tiddles cat food' without saying how many cats did not show a preference. I wonder how many respondents did not declare their religion or the way they voted? Lies, damn lies, and poll results.

There is no mention of 'Republican' or 'Loyalist' here. There is nothing odd about asking people if they identify as Protestant, Catholic, Other or No Religon. People might lie, but what is the purpose of that?
What exact issue do you have with the methodogy here?

As I say, there are 'Lies, damn lies, and poll results'.

With no information on the methodology of this survey, it is meaningless. No mention on how respondents were selected, how many were in the sample, or how their preferences were determined.

How many 'Protestant Nationalists' were there? or 'Catholic Unionists'?

Meaningless nonsense.

Leonard Hofstadter

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's how it has been used up to now, but we are in new territory anyway. I don't think the EU would object if the UK can finally agree on a pathway and it involves an Association Agreement.

Well as long as it doesn't involve them having their cake and eating it then yes (and it might help solve some of the border issues for us), but remember that countries like the Ukraine submit to ECJ rulings.

So if Britain wants an association agreement with the EU, they'd want to ditch their red lines, otherwise it's still cakeism by the UK.

Also, given the arrogance of the UK and their willingness to abandon things their Prime Minster signed, how can they be trusted? And would the other EU countries still want to keep their ties with Britain given the actions of the British Government? I bet most EU countries just want them gone now, the Tories have burned an awful lot of bridges with European countries (including ours).

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I say, there are 'Lies, damn lies, and poll results'.

With no information on the methodology of this survey, it is meaningless. No mention on how respondents were selected, how many were in the sample, or how their preferences were determined.

How many 'Protestant Nationalists' were there? or 'Catholic Unionists'?

Meaningless nonsense.

Honestly, Sam. I have already posted the number in the sample - 1,666 adults in NI. In addition there were 1,500 adults in the Republic, and 3,294 adults in Great Britain. Interviewees were selected at random from the YouGov base panel of 185,000 persons. The data obtained from interviewees was then weighted to be representative of the overall population of the territories concerned, based on census data. The interviewees' political, religious and party identifications were as stated by themselves. Qualitative data was obtained from 14 focus groups conducted in Ballymena, Belfast, Dublin, Sligo, Liverpool, Glasgow and Chichester. All of this information is freely available.

By all means criticise the methodology of the polling when you have taken the trouble to find out what it is. At the moment you come across as dismissing the results as "meaningless nonsense" on the basis of your own ignorance of the pollling methodology.