Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Danzy

IAmTheReign wrote: »

No one is claiming that the UK won't be able to negotiate FTAs after they leave. People are questioning the logic of leaving the largest and most lucrative FTA in the world in pursuit of merely 'good' FTAs.




The UKs value as a trading partner is less than the value of the EU as a trading partner. Why would any major economy give the UK the same terms that they agreed with the EU?



The EU will probably negotiate a FTA agreement with the UK but that will take years. And when it does happen the terms of the FTA will be based on what the UK can offer the EU. Trading goods into the EU will also mean the UK will have to e EU regulations. Regulations that will be agreed in Brussels without any input from the UK and compliance with these regulations will be enforced be the EUCJ. That's what 'taking back control' will look like

Till a deal is concluded, there will be no change and the new deal will near keep the status quo.

The UK depends on s

Danzy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Will never happen as long as Swinson and Corbyn are in charge.

Swinson has repeatedly refused to have anything to do with Corbyn.

If it is the price of coalition then she'll have no choice.

Johnson will say there is a deal ready the EU,London and Dublin want it pass and the Muppets in the lib dems and Labour can't agree to coalition.

Letwin_Larry

Danzy wrote: »

If it is the price of coalition then she'll have no choice.

Johnson will say there is a deal ready the EU,London and Dublin want it pass and the Muppets in the lib dems and Labour can't agree to coalition.

and of course let's not forget the lure of getting your hands on the levers of Govt/power and implement your other beliefs and policies which to 99.999% of politicians is irresistible.

john9876

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Best to put as much weight to that opinion as politicians apparently place in sky news.

Why did he turn up to the studio so?

What is cringe worthy about Burley?

Isn't it Burley who suggested to the wife of a serial rapist that he wouldn't have done it if their sex life had been better at home?

Danzy

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

and of course let's not forget the lure of getting your hands on the levers of Govt/power and implement your other beliefs and policies which to 99.999% of politicians is irresistible.

If you never get hands on the levers of power then you are only trying to influence others.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Will never happen as long as Swinson and Corbyn are in charge.

Swinson has repeatedly refused to have anything to do with Corbyn.

Swinson has to say that to get anti-Corbyn voters on her side.

When it comes down to it, she'll agree to a coalition "in the country's interests to stop Brexit" by compromising on their hard-line revocation position, to simply having a second referendum.

That's the clever aspect of Lib Dem policy; win over fundamentalist Remainers, whilst also appearing to compromise on that position in order to secure a second referendum.

Rjd2

prawnsambo wrote: »

The mad thing is that he was actually in the Sky studios and elected to do a radio interview with Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkRadio instead.

The interview with Julia would have been booked and he just finished one with BBC. Kay would have known this, this is virtue signalling for hits from Kay and I say that as someone who thinks Clev is a banter wanker supreme.

quokula

Rjd2 wrote: »

The interview with Julia would have been booked and he just finished one with BBC. Kay would have known this, this is virtue signalling for hits from Kay and I say that as someone who thinks Clev is a banter wanker supreme.

That story might hold water if not for the fact that the interview on TalkRadio actually happened half an hour after the incident with Sky.

black forest

Despite all tries of the Tories to hurt themselves they still have a chance to survive the elections and even might get a majority. Should Johnson sign the WAB and try to negotiate any kind of treaty with the EU even a No Deal Brexit at the end of the transition phase end of 2020 can’t damage the open border between RoI and NI.

This shows the difference between the Backstop as an not signed insurance policy compared to a final agreement in form of a signed treaty. So this might change the view a few doubters still have.

To put the changes of the RoI-NI protocol into context professor David Phinnemore from the University of Belfast created one of his Brexit slides. Have a look at the coding in the lower right corner first. Full size picture for further use and non twitter users added below.


https://twitter.com/vgravey/status/1191702666134638593?s=21

GM228

Latest Brexit diagram (series 4, v1) released today by John Worth, first since the announcement of a GE:-

hotmail.com

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Best to put as much weight to that opinion as politicians apparently place in sky news.

Why did he turn up to the studio so?

What is cringe worthy about Burley?

Sky News doesn't get the viewers the BBC or ITV get.

And Murdoch is no longer involved with Sky. So not much point going on to it.

I found her comments cringey and click bait stuff. That's my observation.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

I found her comments cringey and click bait stuff. That's my observation.

This, almost came across as a juvenile rant.

BonnieSituation

hotmail.com wrote: »

Sky News doesn't get the viewers the BBC or ITV get.

And Murdoch is no longer involved with Sky. So not much point going on to it.

I found her comments cringey and click bait stuff. That's my observation.

Right so. I mean, "IMO" wouldn't go amiss appended to any of your posts tbf.

Letwin_Larry

GM228 wrote: »

Latest Brexit diagram (series 4, v1) released today by John Worth, first since the announcement of a GE:-

interesting stuff, but imo option/outcome 3 looks to have been underestimated.

if the tories continue their campaign the way they've started, then i cannot see them getting enough seats to form anykind of Govt.

i tuned into Corbyn's press conference/launch earlier, and i have to admit i found some of it quite credible and compelling. and i am NOT a Corbyn fan by a long stretch. that's just my experience and i don't even have a vote in the UK, but my guess is there are many others like me who do.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

interesting stuff, but imo option/outcome 3 looks to have been underestimated.

if the tories continue their campaign the way they've started, then i cannot see them getting enough seats to form anykind of Govt.

i tuned into Corbyn's press conference/launch earlier, and i have to admit i found some of it quite credible and compelling. and i am NOT a Corbyn fan by a long stretch. that's just my experience and i don't even have a vote in the UK, but my guess is there are many others like me who do.

I liked Corbyns Boris impression of meeting him in the voting lobby during one of the MV's and asking him what on earth are you doing here, it was very simple but funny and i agree with the poster who commented on this lighter side of the labour leader yesterday. He also suggested that the abolishing private school policy discussed at conference will be softened down to just taking their charitable status off them which is very sensible. Got a massive cheer today when he mentioned it.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I liked Corbyns Boris impression of meeting him in the voting lobby during one of the MV's and asking him what on earth are you doing here, it was very simple but funny and i agree with the poster who commented on this lighter side of the labour leader yesterday. He also suggested that the abolishing private school policy discussed at conference will be softened down to just taking their charitable status off them which is very sensible. Got a massive cheer today when he mentioned it.

Right, and their unrealistic nationalisation plan starts at 196 billion.

Saddling the youth with yet more debt.

Spending-on-steroids. Totally nuts.

The CBI's report estimated there could be a 10.7% increase in debt from bringing industries back into public ownership.

This would raise debt levels to 94% of GDP, the highest point since the 1960s, and would cost about £2bn a year, according to the study.

It also said that under Labour's plans, savers and pensioners could suffer an estimated £9bn loss to their holdings, which translates into £327 for every household in the country.

But that's always the essence of socialist policies; based on emotion and myth, rather than fact and pragmatism.

Letwin_Larry

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I liked Corbyns Boris impression of meeting him in the voting lobby during one of the MV's and asking him what on earth are you doing here, it was very simple but funny and i agree with the poster who commented on this lighter side of the labour leader yesterday. He also suggested that the abolishing private school policy discussed at conference will be softened down to just taking their charitable status off them which is very sensible. Got a massive cheer today when he mentioned it.

he said about the tories "when they go low, we go high" or words to that effect, which struck a cord.
the tories have really exposed themselves in the past few days (well many decades one might argue). JRMs' attitude to the Grenfell disaster was quite shocking, apart from being totally inept. really shows their utter contempt of the less-well off in society.

quokula

Deleted User wrote: »

Right, and their unrealistic nationalisation plan starts at 196 billion.

Saddling the youth with yet more debt.

Spending-on-steroids. Totally nuts.



But that's always the essence of socialist policies; based on emotion and myth, rather than fact and pragmatism.

You realise that report your quoting later needed to be retracted because it was incorrect right?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/16/cbi-admits-error-in-196bn-price-tag-for-labour-plans

quokula

quokula wrote: »

You realise that report your quoting later needed to be retracted because it was incorrect right?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/16/cbi-admits-error-in-196bn-price-tag-for-labour-plans

I was unaware of that report.

So, I withdraw my earlier remarks. We don't know what the figure would be, but it would still be a high figure.

However, my point regarding spending-on-steroids stands; it's a typical socialist stance - spend your way out of existing problems, often at the expense of future generations.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

he said about the tories "when they go low, we go high" or words to that effect, which struck a cord.
the tories have really exposed themselves in the past few days (well many decades one might argue). JRMs' attitude to the Grenfell disaster was quite shocking, apart from being totally inept. really shows their utter contempt of the less-well off in society.

Yes, thats exactly what he said in response to not one but TWO questions from the assembled hacks about his own popularity as leader and the repeated opposition attacks on him. I think he's a good performer and a sincere, competent leader, but it's a long hard struggle to get that across to sufficient voters without being derailed by the brexit fog. I wouldnt write him off personally anyway.

kowloon

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

JRMs' attitude to the Grenfell disaster was quite shocking, apart from being totally inept. really shows their utter contempt of the less-well off in society.

He goes to great effort to fit into the 'upper-class toff who looks down on the peasants' stereotype, so it's pretty in character imo.
If the average politician was like him they'd be getting dragged onto the street and beaten to death on front of their families by the crowd.

Joe_ Public

Deleted User wrote: »

I was unaware of that report.

So, I withdraw my earlier remarks. We don't know what the figure would be, but it would still be a high figure.

However, my point regarding spending-on-steroids stands; it's a typical socialist stance - spend your way out of existing problems, often at the expense of future generations.

Are you giving the same attention to the conservative pledges btw? Can you explain to me how they propose to pay for 40 new hospitals among a blizzard of other promises while also promising tax breaks for the well off?

quokula

Deleted User wrote: »

I was unaware of that report.

So, I withdraw my earlier remarks. We don't know what the figure would be, but it would still be a high figure.

However, my point regarding spending-on-steroids stands; it's a typical socialist stance - spend your way out of existing problems, often at the expense of future generations.

This is also untrue.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/27/the-tories-created-two-thirds-of-the-uks-national-debt/

But then that's typical right wingers isn't it, basing everything on emotion and myth, rather than fact and pragmatism.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Are you giving the same attention to the conservative pledges btw? Can you explain to me how they propose to pay for 40 new hospitals among a blizzard of other promises while also promising tax breaks for the well off?

For this election, I believe the problem is far greater than economics.

As a believer in free market capitalism, the very idea of Jeremy Corbyn taking to 10 Downing Street is horrifying.

Second, his history with the IRA and general sympathies with those terrorist organizations that oppose the UK, is an even greater reason to oppose Corbynism.

Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence, coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office.

Fourth, deliberately misleading the country at the previous General Election saying that the Labour Party would "respect the referendum result", yet the party went on to do precisely the opposite, and now wishes to renegotiate a deal that approximates toward Remain, then offer that versus Remain in another referendum.

They are my four key reasons for opposing Corbynism.

The spending pledges that the Conservative Party are offering are almost irrelevant compared to the significance of avoiding the above 4 risks.

Letwin_Larry

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, thats exactly what he said in response to not one but TWO questions from the assembled hacks about his own popularity as leader and the repeated opposition attacks on him. I think he's a good performer and a sincere, competent leader, but it's a long hard struggle to get that across to sufficient voters without being derailed by the brexit fog. I wouldnt write him off personally anyway.

bojo was prattling on about the Russians again today. it was Stalin yesterday. he'll probably refer to Rasputin or Trotsky tomorrow.
i really think he's been spoon fed things to say by (GEUSS WHO?) an advisor, and it's becoming very obvious.
the question remains, is the UK electorate too blinded by Brexit to see it?

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Are you giving the same attention to the conservative pledges btw? Can you explain to me how they propose to pay for 40 new hospitals among a blizzard of other promises while also promising tax breaks for the well off?

Interestingly I saw Boris questioned on that a couple of days ago by Sophie Ridge. He claimed £100 million would be enough to pay for 40 hospitals and she pointed out how economically illiterate that was. Of course it never got picked up by the wider media.

At the last election Diane Abbot was out by a similar order of magnitude in an interview with Nick Ferrari on the cost of hiring new police officers. It was on the front page of every newspaper and two years later it is still regularly brought up. This is typical of the double standards amongst conservatives.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

based on emotion and myth, rather than fact and pragmatism.

A perfect description of Brexit. Which is mostly being peddled by the Right and Far Right, isn't it?

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

For this election, I believe the problem is far greater than economics.

As a believer in free market capitalism, the very idea of Jeremy Corbyn taking to 10 Downing Street is horrifying.

Second, his history with the IRA and general sympathies with those terrorist organizations that oppose the UK, is an even greater reason to oppose Corbynism.

Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence, coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office.

Fourth, deliberately misleading the country at the previous General Election saying that the Labour Party would "respect the referendum result", yet the party went on to do precisely the opposite, and now wishes to renegotiate a deal that approximates toward Remain, then offer that versus Remain in another referendum.

They are my four key reasons for opposing Corbynism.

The spending pledges that the Conservative Party are offering are almost irrelevant compared to the significance of avoiding the above 4 risks.

Then you must be really pissed off with the Tories and their 'f business' mantra and messing with the market access that they have been doing for two years.


I mean as you say your big into the freemarket.


Until your not...

Letwin_Larry

Deleted User wrote: »

For this election, I believe the problem is far greater than economics.

As a believer in free market capitalism, the very idea of Jeremy Corbyn taking to 10 Downing Street is horrifying.

Second, his history with the IRA and general sympathies with those terrorist organizations that oppose the UK, is an even greater reason to oppose Corbynism.

Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence, coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office.

Fourth, deliberately misleading the country at the previous General Election saying that the Labour Party would "respect the referendum result", yet the party went on to do precisely the opposite, and now wishes to renegotiate a deal that approximates toward Remain, then offer that versus Remain in another referendum.

They are my four key reasons for opposing Corbynism.

The spending pledges that the Conservative Party are offering are almost irrelevant compared to the significance of avoiding the above 4 risks.

i watched the Joe Duffy doc on the Children killled in The Troubles and it really brought it home to me just how evil the IRA was. sickening atrocities.
that and the young girl (now a mature lady) blinded in the Omagh bomb who was on the Gaybo tribute last evening. truly evil baastaards they were in case we ever forget.

Tacitus Kilgore

CelticRambler wrote: »

A perfect description of Brexit. Which is mostly being peddled by the Right and Far Right, isn't it?

Even if Brexit never happens (I don't think it can happen tbh) the headbangers have succeeded, the country is now split down the middle on a subject that cannot even be defined, this will go on at least for a generation. - now they can work away with *dismantling the place* while the people focus on fighting with each other.




*whatever it is that they actually want from this folly*