BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
-
From the same paper and the same story is in the Mail
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... el-figures
The stories of foreboding are coming thick and fast. I'm still undecided which way to vote, but the more of this shite I see, the more I'm inclined to vote out.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:From the same paper and the same story is in the Mail
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... el-figures
The stories of foreboding are coming thick and fast. I'm still undecided which way to vote, but the more of this shite I see, the more I'm inclined to vote out.
Why's that?0 -
I don't mind and in fact would welcome informed debate on the issue, both for IN and OUT. Instead we get an increasing drip of stories telling us of dire consequences should we dare leave, like the one I have linked. Do these people think that we should believe that the Spanish Costas were out of reach to us poor prior to 1993. I must have dreamed my way abroad in the 80s.
There is another article in I think, today's Mail, where a German politician, whose name escapes me, warned of crippling trade tariffs if we left. As far as I am aware, complete nonsense.
Edit. If these are to be the most compelling arguments to stay in, the game is up.0 -
Project Fear, part 2.Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:From the same paper and the same story is in the Mail
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... el-figures
The stories of foreboding are coming thick and fast. I'm still undecided which way to vote, but the more of this shite I see, the more I'm inclined to vote out.
Why's that?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:I don't mind and in fact would welcome informed debate on the issue, both for IN and OUT. Instead we get an increasing drip of stories telling us of dire consequences should we dare leave, like the one I have linked. Do these people think that we should believe that the Spanish Costas were out of reach to us poor prior to 1993. I must have dreamed my way abroad in the 80s.
There is another article in I think, today's Mail, where a German politician, whose name escapes me, warned of crippling trade tariffs if we left. As far as I am aware, complete nonsense.
Edit. If these are to be the most compelling arguments to stay in, the game is up.
They get to the crux of the issue.
Britain outside of the EU has fewer friends and it loses a lot of things it takes for granted.0 -
Two different takes on the same story.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... hsbc-chair
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 75036.html0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Two different takes on the same story.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... hsbc-chair
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 75036.html
They're not mutually exclusive.
What that new economic forum guy says in the independent I think is a long way from the truth, I suspect. Appreciate it's fashionable since 2008 to say banks are the the devil waiting to unleash on an economy but banks are fundamentally a lot less leveraged and hold a lot more tier one equity - they're not gonna go wrong like they did in 2008. And anyway, he probably forgets HSBC didn't need bailing out (and never has - it's made a profit every single year since it was founded in the 19th Century).
The issue is more around HK and costs of change.
And yes, HSBC would have to move a bunch of staff into the EU in case of Brexit - since there's lots of stuff they like to do that they can only do in the EU. Same reason why London has a fairly decent advantage over Switzerland, which has always been more friendly to banks than London....0 -
I wasn't particularly impressed with the Indie article. Just posted both links to show how two different stories can be spun from one event, depending on the agenda.0
-
Ballysmate wrote:I wasn't particularly impressed with the Indie article. Just posted both links to show how two different stories can be spun from one event, depending on the agenda.
There was me thinking it was all about where their wives shop and the kids private schooling???
I want uk to stay in but I think the vote will be out and the eu will punish us for it, they have too, other wise more may hold referendums.0 -
mamba80 wrote:the EU is finished, their complete inability to address millions of the worlds poor coming into europe will ensure we leave, their only response is to try and enforce refugee quotas across the EU....... fantastic!
the UK will vote OUT regardless of anything big business says.
Why do you want to stay in if you think the EU is finished? What has changed your mind?0 -
They r slowly addressing migrant issues, and the realisation the uk will not have control of its own borders once we leave.
So though I still believe the eu to be head toward disintegration I think we should stay and stop that from happening.0 -
Seems that Russia could be deliberately exacerbating the migrant situation (e.g., by targeting civilians, MSF hospitals etc. as it seems fairly apparent that they are doing) in order to destabilise Europe. Very depressing if that is why Russia's doing it but you wouldn't put it past them really
0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Seems that Russia could be deliberately exacerbating the migrant situation (e.g., by targeting civilians, MSF hospitals etc. as it seems fairly apparent that they are doing) in order to destabilise Europe. Very depressing if that is why Russia's doing it but you wouldn't put it past them really
That's a very big "if". More likely they'll do anything at all to protect Assad.0 -
I think Britain does need somebody at the controls, I vote out.0
-
On the contrary, I don't think they give a stuff about Assad. They're only interested in him to give them regional standing (and a base), and of course, as above, for the sh!t he can stir up through it all.finchy wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Seems that Russia could be deliberately exacerbating the migrant situation (e.g., by targeting civilians, MSF hospitals etc. as it seems fairly apparent that they are doing) in order to destabilise Europe. Very depressing if that is why Russia's doing it but you wouldn't put it past them really
That's a very big "if". More likely they'll do anything at all to protect Assad.
(just noted my Freudian slip from "they" to "he" there...)0 -
bompington wrote:
On the contrary, I don't think they give a stuff about Assad. They're only interested in him to give them regional standing (and a base), and of course, as above, for the sh!t he can stir up through it all.finchy wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Seems that Russia could be deliberately exacerbating the migrant situation (e.g., by targeting civilians, MSF hospitals etc. as it seems fairly apparent that they are doing) in order to destabilise Europe. Very depressing if that is why Russia's doing it but you wouldn't put it past them really
That's a very big "if". More likely they'll do anything at all to protect Assad.
(just noted my Freudian slip from "they" to "he" there...)
Yes, well of course they are protecting Assad for their own interests. They're obviously not doing it 'cos he's their best buddy and they love him so very, very dearly. They're not doing it to destabilise Europe though. Why would they want to do that? Europe is their main trading partner.0 -
Given all that Putin has done in the last few years, do you really think that trade is his number one priority?0
-
It's a fairly big priority. The other one is to protect Russia's sphere of influence. NATO has Russia encircled. I know that it's a typical Western assumption that we're the good guys, but can we really expect the Russians to just sit idly by and watch as NATO increases its military presence along Russian borders?0
-
peterbob wrote:mamba80 wrote:the realisation the uk will not have control of its own borders once we leave.
why is this?
It appears that Norway and Switzerland both have to allow the free movement of people, if they want free trade with EU via EEA, also, we ve zero guarantee the UK border at calais and all other french ports, would stay there and not move back to Dover? just the out's saying it wouldn't, how do they know this?????
We are not Norway with huge reserves of timber fish and oil and the sense to save alot of it, nor switzerland with its financial services setup.
biggest reason to stay is that it would be DC and the tories doing the exit negotiations in the following 2 years and they ve proved to be totally useless in getting any meaningful reforms of EU.0 -
Indeed, they haven't - it must be reassuring for Russians to have had their massive military presence along their western borders (or, in the case of Ukraine, Georgia etc, on the other side of their western borders) for years, waiting for the day that NATO gets aggressive.finchy wrote:It's a fairly big priority. The other one is to protect Russia's sphere of influence. NATO has Russia encircled. I know that it's a typical Western assumption that we're the good guys, but can we really expect the Russians to just sit idly by and watch as NATO increases its military presence along Russian borders?
And I suppose it is completely alien to the Kremlin mindset to think that NATO troops might be stationed in Poland (for example) because the Polish people want them there.
Not sure exactly which bits of north, east or south Russia have been encircled by NATO though.0 -
bompington wrote:
Indeed, they haven't - it must be reassuring for Russians to have had their massive military presence along their western borders (or, in the case of Ukraine, Georgia etc, on the other side of their western borders) for years, waiting for the day that NATO gets aggressive.finchy wrote:It's a fairly big priority. The other one is to protect Russia's sphere of influence. NATO has Russia encircled. I know that it's a typical Western assumption that we're the good guys, but can we really expect the Russians to just sit idly by and watch as NATO increases its military presence along Russian borders?
And I suppose it is completely alien to the Kremlin mindset to think that NATO troops might be stationed in Poland (for example) because the Polish people want them there.
Not sure exactly which bits of north, east or south Russia have been encircled by NATO though.
You're looking at everything exclusively from the Western viewpoint. Western militaries are massively superior to the Russian armed forces, in terms of numbers and technology. Whether the people of Poland want NATO there isn't going to change the fact that Moscow will react to NATO expansion. If you were in charge of Russia, what would you do? Watch passively or start acting assertively?
NATO members (i.e. the USA) have bases pretty much all around Russia. For some reason I can't post images or links at the moment, but just do a google image search for "NATO bases around Russia".0 -
Recent Russian history would say they should be very wary of armies on their borders or entering into agreements with so called friendly allies!
NATO should also tread carefully too.
whats its got to do with UK voting in/out though is another matter lol!0 -
Only 5% of trade is done directly with EU isn't it?. If so the impact would be limited in magnitude. Being such massive buyers compared to selling should give us decent negotiating power. Others would stand to loose more, the customers always right and all that rubbish.mamba80 wrote:peterbob wrote:mamba80 wrote:the realisation the uk will not have control of its own borders once we leave.
why is this?
It appears that Norway and Switzerland both have to allow the free movement of people, if they want free trade with EU via EEA, also, we ve zero guarantee the UK border at calais and all other french ports, would stay there and not move back to Dover? just the out's saying it wouldn't, how do they know this?????
We are not Norway with huge reserves of timber fish and oil and the sense to save alot of it, nor switzerland with its financial services setup.
biggest reason to stay is that it would be DC and the tories doing the exit negotiations in the following 2 years and they ve proved to be totally useless in getting any meaningful reforms of EU.
What effects would the border moving back have, I didn't know our border was the other side of the channel.0 -
It may not just about our direct trade with the EU. As it is one market, we don't necessarily trade UK to EU, do we? One thing we shouldn't dismiss is the EU being a trading bloc in itself. So trade negotiations can be EU to an African country, for example. Since we have been in the EU, and before that the EEC, how much direct negotiation have we done with other countries? I don't mean a business trading abroad, I mean the govt. being involved.
Somehow I can only think of tawdry arms deals to unpleasant regimes.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
Errrr... think you may have lost a factor of ten somewhere in therepeterbob wrote:Only 5% of trade is done directly with EU isn't it?
0 -
peterbob wrote:
Only 5% of trade is done directly with EU isn't it?. If so the impact would be limited in magnitude. Being such massive buyers compared to selling should give us decent negotiating power. Others would stand to loose more, the customers always right and all that rubbish.mamba80 wrote:peterbob wrote:mamba80 wrote:the realisation the uk will not have control of its own borders once we leave.
why is this?
It appears that Norway and Switzerland both have to allow the free movement of people, if they want free trade with EU via EEA, also, we ve zero guarantee the UK border at calais and all other french ports, would stay there and not move back to Dover? just the out's saying it wouldn't, how do they know this?????
We are not Norway with huge reserves of timber fish and oil and the sense to save alot of it, nor switzerland with its financial services setup.
biggest reason to stay is that it would be DC and the tories doing the exit negotiations in the following 2 years and they ve proved to be totally useless in getting any meaningful reforms of EU.
What effects would the border moving back have, I didn't know our border was the other side of the channel.
5%?? Where on earth did you get that stat from?
From the ONS:The UK has traditionally had strong trade links with the EU. Despite changes in the composition of the global economy, the EU in 2014 accounted for 44.6% of UK exports of goods and services, and 53.2% of UK imports of goods and services.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/internati ... ty-eu.html0 -
finchy wrote:bompington wrote:
Indeed, they haven't - it must be reassuring for Russians to have had their massive military presence along their western borders (or, in the case of Ukraine, Georgia etc, on the other side of their western borders) for years, waiting for the day that NATO gets aggressive.finchy wrote:It's a fairly big priority. The other one is to protect Russia's sphere of influence. NATO has Russia encircled. I know that it's a typical Western assumption that we're the good guys, but can we really expect the Russians to just sit idly by and watch as NATO increases its military presence along Russian borders?
And I suppose it is completely alien to the Kremlin mindset to think that NATO troops might be stationed in Poland (for example) because the Polish people want them there.
Not sure exactly which bits of north, east or south Russia have been encircled by NATO though.
You're looking at everything exclusively from the Western viewpoint. Western militaries are massively superior to the Russian armed forces, in terms of numbers and technology. Whether the people of Poland want NATO there isn't going to change the fact that Moscow will react to NATO expansion. If you were in charge of Russia, what would you do? Watch passively or start acting assertively?
NATO members (i.e. the USA) have bases pretty much all around Russia. For some reason I can't post images or links at the moment, but just do a google image search for "NATO bases around Russia".
Finchy. Russia has annexed land in Europe. first time any nation has done that since the end of the Second World War. They're belligerent and have shown a willingness to exploit the West's unwillingness to wage war against them.
Russia is run by gangsterism dictatorship.
This isn't about NATO.0 -
What that 50% trade with Europe means in instance of Brexit 50% of UK exports will continue to have to adhere to EU regulation.
Only, of course, UK will not even be present at the table when those regulations are debated, voted on, and passed.0
