BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Pross

Rolf F wrote:

What sort of clap trap did inspire you to vote Brexit if not the emotional variety?

You may as well give up, I've lost count of how many times those who have voted leave have been asked why without answering.

rick_chasey

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/ ... ue-anymore

Why we can't agree on what's true anymore.

rolf_f

Pross wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

What sort of clap trap did inspire you to vote Brexit if not the emotional variety?

You may as well give up, I've lost count of how many times those who have voted leave have been asked why without answering.

It's first thing Monday morning and I am full of optimism. Don't worry, it won't last long. I give it til 10:30.

rolf_f

This is interesting - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-research

Particularly the implication that it isn't the fault of the North.

bompington

PBlakeney wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

It's worth pointing out that no deal really doesn't give you an over and done with solution here.

No, but it eliminates a few other alternatives.
Not what I want under any circumstance but we are in purgatory just now.

Well I'm not that sure of my Catholic theology, but I think the idea is that you stay in Purgatory until you're pure enough to get to Heaven.
I don't think that's a very good analogy for the direction of travel of a no-deal Brexit...

tailwindhome

It occurs to me that the UK negotiating position on the backstop is so far away from what could be agreed that they aren't actually trying to replace the backstop.

They are using the 'backstop talks' as a proxy for 'no deal border arrangement talks' which the EU have said they won't get into.

rick_chasey

https://www.ft.com/content/ceeb4f7c-dbd ... 216ebe1f17

UK business groups fear repercussions if they criticise no-deal Brexit
Risk of losing access to government a big concern among companies that speak out

The head of one major business group, who declined to be named, said the “very clear message” had been conveyed by the government that it would not be helpful to criticise Brexit preparations. “I don’t think it was explicit, it was implicit . . . people have been given a warning about how they play things,” he added.

“A number of member companies have gone in . . . and been given a similar message: ‘Don’t expect to be given good access [to the government] and influence if you’re not prepared to play the game in public.’”

Oh dear.

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

It occurs to me that the UK negotiating position on the backstop is so far away from what could be agreed that they aren't actually trying to replace the backstop.

They are using the 'backstop talks' as a proxy for 'no deal border arrangement talks' which the EU have said they won't get into.

Is the backstop close to something that could be agreed?

pblakeney

bompington wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

It's worth pointing out that no deal really doesn't give you an over and done with solution here.

No, but it eliminates a few other alternatives.
Not what I want under any circumstance but we are in purgatory just now.

Well I'm not that sure of my Catholic theology, but I think the idea is that you stay in Purgatory until you're pure enough to get to Heaven.
I don't think that's a very good analogy for the direction of travel of a no-deal Brexit...

Okay, we have moved on to hell. And there is no foreseeable way back.

robert88

Mr Goo wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

antonyfromoz wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just seen pictures of the march/protests on the front at Brighton where all the socialists (Labour) have gathered. Plenty of banners emblazoned with 'Trust the People - Peoples' vote'.
Wasn't that what happened in June 2016?.... And clearly resulted in the wrong outcome for the government and most on here.

I'm not trying to stir up here but merely want to point out that whatever 'the people' vote for it will be ignored. As clearly a few hundred people in Westminster view the wishes of millions as irrelevant.

But what did "the people" vote for? The guarantees given by the pollies and lobbyists pushing for leave are a far cry from the reality we are now facing - and many leading leave promoters were saying before the referendum that they would not support a no deal brexit and several publically supported a second referendum after a deal had been negotiated - including Farage and Rees Moggs. Before the referendum Vote Leave stated that Britain would exit the EU with “a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. If there is a belief that the majority voted to get out of the EU with no deal then what is the problem with a second vote, just to confirm that they still feel this way before it's too late? The expense will be minimal compared to the money already spent on trying to retain a tory majority government and the pre-election cash that the government has been promising to throw around recently.

The 'people' voted with their emotions.

Those seeking the Leave vote campaigned accordingly. Unfortunately they can only retain their leadership by continuing along that path because they had no idea how to actually fix things. They can only look for scapegoats to blame for the ongoing failure. Remain supporters included.

Logic and reason go by the board once emotions are stirred up sufficiently.

I didn't vote Brexit based on some whipped up emotional clap trap. Nor did any of the many people I have met. Not gonna keep taking over this.
What I trying to point out is that MPs genuinely believe they know better than the rest of the population, whatever the subject.

So the suggestion it was an emotional decision makes you angry. OK.

bompington

PBlakeney wrote:

bompington wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

It's worth pointing out that no deal really doesn't give you an over and done with solution here.

No, but it eliminates a few other alternatives.
Not what I want under any circumstance but we are in purgatory just now.

Well I'm not that sure of my Catholic theology, but I think the idea is that you stay in Purgatory until you're pure enough to get to Heaven.
I don't think that's a very good analogy for the direction of travel of a no-deal Brexit...

Okay, we have moved on to hell. And there is no foreseeable way back.

I don't think we have yet. What on earth makes you think that things can't get worse?

tailwindhome

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

It occurs to me that the UK negotiating position on the backstop is so far away from what could be agreed that they aren't actually trying to replace the backstop.

They are using the 'backstop talks' as a proxy for 'no deal border arrangement talks' which the EU have said they won't get into.

Is the backstop close to something that could be agreed?

Well it's already been agreed by 27 EUs countries and voted for by 28 out of the 30 members of the current cabinet including the PM, the Brexit Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor, the Leader of the Commons and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

It has majority support in NI, has majority support among MLAs, has the support of the NI business community representing farming, retail, manufacturing, hospitality and had enough support during the EU elections to deliver an historic MEP seat for the Alliance Party

It also seems that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition now agrees with it.

rolf_f

bompington wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

bompington wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

It's worth pointing out that no deal really doesn't give you an over and done with solution here.

No, but it eliminates a few other alternatives.
Not what I want under any circumstance but we are in purgatory just now.

Well I'm not that sure of my Catholic theology, but I think the idea is that you stay in Purgatory until you're pure enough to get to Heaven.
I don't think that's a very good analogy for the direction of travel of a no-deal Brexit...

Okay, we have moved on to hell. And there is no foreseeable way back.

I don't think we have yet. What on earth makes you think that things can't get worse?

No, we've just decided to move to hell. We haven't actually got there yet. In fact, we haven't even rung up a removals company yet.

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

It occurs to me that the UK negotiating position on the backstop is so far away from what could be agreed that they aren't actually trying to replace the backstop.

They are using the 'backstop talks' as a proxy for 'no deal border arrangement talks' which the EU have said they won't get into.

Is the backstop close to something that could be agreed?

Well it's already been agreed by 27 EUs countries and voted for by 28 out of the 30 members of the current cabinet including the PM, the Brexit Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor, the Leader of the Commons and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

It has majority support in NI, has majority support among MLAs, has the support of the NI business community representing farming, retail, manufacturing, hospitality and had enough support during the EU elections to deliver an historic MEP seat for the Alliance Party

It also seems that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition now agrees with it.

That is the key point. To legitimise it, it needs this confirming by referendum in NI, but that is something that you have consistently opposed (I now recall having this discussion before). It is not enough to say that polling supports.

robert88

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

It occurs to me that the UK negotiating position on the backstop is so far away from what could be agreed that they aren't actually trying to replace the backstop.

They are using the 'backstop talks' as a proxy for 'no deal border arrangement talks' which the EU have said they won't get into.

Is the backstop close to something that could be agreed?

Well it's already been agreed by 27 EUs countries and voted for by 28 out of the 30 members of the current cabinet including the PM, the Brexit Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor, the Leader of the Commons and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

It has majority support in NI, has majority support among MLAs, has the support of the NI business community representing farming, retail, manufacturing, hospitality and had enough support during the EU elections to deliver an historic MEP seat for the Alliance Party

It also seems that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition now agrees with it.

That is the key point. To legitimise it, it needs this confirming by referendum in NI, but that is something that you have consistently opposed (I now recall having this discussion before). It is not enough to say that polling supports.

It is remarkable how quickly decisions can be made simply by holding a referendum.

bonzo_banana

Pross wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

What sort of clap trap did inspire you to vote Brexit if not the emotional variety?

You may as well give up, I've lost count of how many times those who have voted leave have been asked why without answering.

I must admit I voted remain because I looked at the political parties we have and had such a low opinion of their skill level that I didn't think they could manage leaving well but I was a borderline leave voter. For me the huge issue of why I would have voted leave was of course the huge debts, destruction of industry and large trading deficit since joining the EU.

I think people are naive if they think Brexit could end by simply remaining in the EU. The level of debt is still increasing and austerity will get much worse over time. None of our politicians have come up with a strategy for existing in the EU in a financially stable way. Even if Brexit collapses and we remain in the EU the rising debt and huge trade deficit means we will be back here again in the future. Last time I saw the figure it was 1.8 trillion of debt but at lets say 2.5 trillion austerity will be far more extreme.

The issue with the UK is we are not competing well in the EU free market and we haven't budgeted for the money we pay the EU as a membership fee. Ultimately wages need to drop, the pound needs to devalue and public services need to reduce in order to pay membership costs and start paying back our national debt. This reality keeps getting pushed further in the future where it will become more extreme.

You cannot hide under the carpet our extreme debt and trading deficit with the EU if you don't deal with it today it will be back again. That's what I don't get people talk about remaining in the EU as a good option it's a horrifically bad option. I personally think the government should never have borrowed to prop up the UK economy, it should be illegal to create debts for future generations. All we do by borrowing is suck in more imports and that exported sterling comes back as investment in the UK because they aren't buying our goods and such investment basically means the majority of our large companies now are foreign owned sending their profits abroad. This isn't sustainable at all in the long term.

I would ask the question for those who wish to remain in the EU how will we reverse the trading deficit and move to a surplus and how are we going to pay back the huge debts and pay for EU membership. At 9 billion net contribution that is something like £300 a year from every tax payer (30 million people) which is a lot of money to extract every year especially with a trading deficit too and the legacy of all the past larger EU payments that we never actually had to spend but borrowed instead and all the compound interest on top. There is £60,000 of national debt for every tax payer currently and that doesn't include the public sector pension shortfall debt and some other debts.

Which ever way we go the UK is going to get a lot poorer and public services will be massively reduced in the future. Can anyone actually see the utterly moronic politicians we have now managing the UK economy outside the EU any better than they did inside it? Has anyone seen a proper industry policy by any party?

pblakeney

bompington wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

bompington wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

It's worth pointing out that no deal really doesn't give you an over and done with solution here.

No, but it eliminates a few other alternatives.
Not what I want under any circumstance but we are in purgatory just now.

Well I'm not that sure of my Catholic theology, but I think the idea is that you stay in Purgatory until you're pure enough to get to Heaven.
I don't think that's a very good analogy for the direction of travel of a no-deal Brexit...

Okay, we have moved on to hell. And there is no foreseeable way back.

I don't think we have yet. What on earth makes you think that things can't get worse?

It will take a remarkable turn around to get us out of this sh!tstorm, and I fully expect it to get worse. A deeper level of hell to continue.

john80

Pross wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

What sort of clap trap did inspire you to vote Brexit if not the emotional variety?

You may as well give up, I've lost count of how many times those who have voted leave have been asked why without answering.

I have lost count of the times someone has given you a reason and then you claimed your counter reason was more valid. You are not alone in this behaviour pattern on this topic.

robert88

Taking a good look at the years following WW2 and leading up to our accession to the EU is quite frankly horrifying considering our present position.

Of course our exit from the world's greatest trading block won't take us back to where we left of then; we have had North Sea Oil and a booming financial services sector in between. Not to mention a largely foreign run car industry doing rather well.

I'm just not convinced those developments are enough and can't see any turning up, other than Trump's Instant Trade Solution (TITS) and US trade wars with India and China.

rolf_f

john80 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

What sort of clap trap did inspire you to vote Brexit if not the emotional variety?

You may as well give up, I've lost count of how many times those who have voted leave have been asked why without answering.

I have lost count of the times someone has given you a reason and then you claimed your counter reason was more valid. You are not alone in this behaviour pattern on this topic.

Please summarise them then. It's not about the validity of counter reasons - more the existence of the reasons in the first place. Positive things of course - why you want brexit, not why you don't want remain; that doesn't serve any useful purpose at all.

TheBigBean

Rolf F wrote:

why you want brexit, not why you don't want remain; that doesn't serve any useful purpose at all.

Isn't one of the reasons the remain campaign lost that it failed to put forward any reasons for remaining other than not liking Brexit?

bobmcstuff

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

My solution is to revoke A30. It was an advisory vote and right now is looking like a bloody stupid idea. Yes there will be fallout but there will be fallout with every outcome.

An admirable strategy. Realistically, this will only happen if the Lib Dems gain a working majority in parliament and unfortunately nobody has a spare squadron of pigs on standby.

Which takes us back to hard brexit/no deal. Which is what I predicted over 3 years ago due to my lack of confidence in Westminster.

Not necessarily. There are other possible outcomes, although no deal does have a fairly high probability IMO.

Please do list the alternative realistic possible outcomes at your leisure.
I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

I'm reminded of this:

Pross

TheBigBean wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

why you want brexit, not why you don't want remain; that doesn't serve any useful purpose at all.

Isn't one of the reasons the remain campaign lost that it failed to put forward any reasons for remaining other than not liking Brexit?

I think it was subtly different to that and maybe more an assumption that people knew what they would get remaining / hoped the fear of the unknown would be enough.

cougie

Bonzo Banana wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

What sort of clap trap did inspire you to vote Brexit if not the emotional variety?

You may as well give up, I've lost count of how many times those who have voted leave have been asked why without answering.

I must admit I voted remain because I looked at the political parties we have and had such a low opinion of their skill level that I didn't think they could manage leaving well but I was a borderline leave voter. For me the huge issue of why I would have voted leave was of course the huge debts, destruction of industry and large trading deficit since joining the EU.

I think people are naive if they think Brexit could end by simply remaining in the EU. The level of debt is still increasing and austerity will get much worse over time. None of our politicians have come up with a strategy for existing in the EU in a financially stable way. Even if Brexit collapses and we remain in the EU the rising debt and huge trade deficit means we will be back here again in the future. Last time I saw the figure it was 1.8 trillion of debt but at lets say 2.5 trillion austerity will be far more extreme.

The issue with the UK is we are not competing well in the EU free market and we haven't budgeted for the money we pay the EU as a membership fee. Ultimately wages need to drop, the pound needs to devalue and public services need to reduce in order to pay membership costs and start paying back our national debt. This reality keeps getting pushed further in the future where it will become more extreme.

You cannot hide under the carpet our extreme debt and trading deficit with the EU if you don't deal with it today it will be back again. That's what I don't get people talk about remaining in the EU as a good option it's a horrifically bad option. I personally think the government should never have borrowed to prop up the UK economy, it should be illegal to create debts for future generations. All we do by borrowing is suck in more imports and that exported sterling comes back as investment in the UK because they aren't buying our goods and such investment basically means the majority of our large companies now are foreign owned sending their profits abroad. This isn't sustainable at all in the long term.

I would ask the question for those who wish to remain in the EU how will we reverse the trading deficit and move to a surplus and how are we going to pay back the huge debts and pay for EU membership. At 9 billion net contribution that is something like £300 a year from every tax payer (30 million people) which is a lot of money to extract every year especially with a trading deficit too and the legacy of all the past larger EU payments that we never actually had to spend but borrowed instead and all the compound interest on top. There is £60,000 of national debt for every tax payer currently and that doesn't include the public sector pension shortfall debt and some other debts.

Which ever way we go the UK is going to get a lot poorer and public services will be massively reduced in the future. Can anyone actually see the utterly moronic politicians we have now managing the UK economy outside the EU any better than they did inside it? Has anyone seen a proper industry policy by any party?

Try this to see how much the EU costs you.


https://euworthit.uk/


For me it's well worth paying. I dare say that the food price rises alone make it worthwhile me paying for the EU.

And that's on top of all the other benefits.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

It seems all deal options are off the table because of the Irish border issue but no deal will lead to an automatic hard border in Ireland anyway so if that's the main sticking point it makes no sense not accepting a deal that is better for us in other ways.

Norway model solves the problem

Thought it was said above it didn't (still needs a hard border on goods)?

Thats right, Norway is outside the customs union and there are checks for goods at the border with Sweden. Not sure how this solves the Irish issue.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44054594

Add in the customs union and you’re golden.

It's BRINO. Which is so close to staying in that A50 revocation is the closest option still on the table.

rolf_f

TheBigBean wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

why you want brexit, not why you don't want remain; that doesn't serve any useful purpose at all.

Isn't one of the reasons the remain campaign lost that it failed to put forward any reasons for remaining other than not liking Brexit?

The reasons for remaining were that it things were pretty good as they were; it worked, it wasn't perfect but we were working to make it work. Leave was all "leave and there'll be loads of money for everything and making Britain great again and blue passports etc". Grass greener on the other side arguments. It mostly isn't in reality but they sound much more exciting than "lets keep things as they are".

There were and are large numbers of reasons why we should remain and I think they still apply.

rolf_f

cougie wrote:

Try this to see how much the EU costs you.


https://euworthit.uk/


For me it's well worth paying. I dare say that the food price rises alone make it worthwhile me paying for the EU.

And that's on top of all the other benefits.

Not a million miles off the cost of petrol for one weeks commute that I don't use thanks to cycling to work. Makes you weep really........

Nobodies lives would have been ruined by remain. How many thousands have already had their existence wrecked by this all? How many more when brexit actually happens?

Lucky immorality is not an offence or there'd be a lot of well known names on long stretches and rightly so.

Worth playing the guessing game. I was £15 over.

TheBigBean

Rolf F wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

why you want brexit, not why you don't want remain; that doesn't serve any useful purpose at all.

Isn't one of the reasons the remain campaign lost that it failed to put forward any reasons for remaining other than not liking Brexit?

The reasons for remaining were that it things were pretty good as they were; it worked, it wasn't perfect but we were working to make it work. Leave was all "leave and there'll be loads of money for everything and making Britain great again and blue passports etc". Grass greener on the other side arguments. It mostly isn't in reality but they sound much more exciting than "lets keep things as they are".

There were and are large numbers of reasons why we should remain and I think they still apply.

I think the debate has been done over the last three years, but I don't think your response is much different to the poster you were challenging. You could name lots of positives of remaining, but you haven't. You probably haven't done so because you are bored of the discussion which is fair enough, but I don't think you can expect others on the other side of the debate to have endless enthusiasm to list their reasons either.

bonzo_banana

cougie wrote:

Bonzo Banana wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

What sort of clap trap did inspire you to vote Brexit if not the emotional variety?

You may as well give up, I've lost count of how many times those who have voted leave have been asked why without answering.

I must admit I voted remain because I looked at the political parties we have and had such a low opinion of their skill level that I didn't think they could manage leaving well but I was a borderline leave voter. For me the huge issue of why I would have voted leave was of course the huge debts, destruction of industry and large trading deficit since joining the EU.

I think people are naive if they think Brexit could end by simply remaining in the EU. The level of debt is still increasing and austerity will get much worse over time. None of our politicians have come up with a strategy for existing in the EU in a financially stable way. Even if Brexit collapses and we remain in the EU the rising debt and huge trade deficit means we will be back here again in the future. Last time I saw the figure it was 1.8 trillion of debt but at lets say 2.5 trillion austerity will be far more extreme.

The issue with the UK is we are not competing well in the EU free market and we haven't budgeted for the money we pay the EU as a membership fee. Ultimately wages need to drop, the pound needs to devalue and public services need to reduce in order to pay membership costs and start paying back our national debt. This reality keeps getting pushed further in the future where it will become more extreme.

You cannot hide under the carpet our extreme debt and trading deficit with the EU if you don't deal with it today it will be back again. That's what I don't get people talk about remaining in the EU as a good option it's a horrifically bad option. I personally think the government should never have borrowed to prop up the UK economy, it should be illegal to create debts for future generations. All we do by borrowing is suck in more imports and that exported sterling comes back as investment in the UK because they aren't buying our goods and such investment basically means the majority of our large companies now are foreign owned sending their profits abroad. This isn't sustainable at all in the long term.

I would ask the question for those who wish to remain in the EU how will we reverse the trading deficit and move to a surplus and how are we going to pay back the huge debts and pay for EU membership. At 9 billion net contribution that is something like £300 a year from every tax payer (30 million people) which is a lot of money to extract every year especially with a trading deficit too and the legacy of all the past larger EU payments that we never actually had to spend but borrowed instead and all the compound interest on top. There is £60,000 of national debt for every tax payer currently and that doesn't include the public sector pension shortfall debt and some other debts.

Which ever way we go the UK is going to get a lot poorer and public services will be massively reduced in the future. Can anyone actually see the utterly moronic politicians we have now managing the UK economy outside the EU any better than they did inside it? Has anyone seen a proper industry policy by any party?

Try this to see how much the EU costs you.


https://euworthit.uk/


For me it's well worth paying. I dare say that the food price rises alone make it worthwhile me paying for the EU.

And that's on top of all the other benefits.

Surely a simple figure of net 9 billion shared by 30 million tax payers is much more accurate than that. That site seems to be a politically motivated site and that is the huge issue with this debate so much false information is spread about. I really don't care if effectively a low earner pays £10 towards the EU per year and a high earner £15,000 and you also share it via VAT I take the average of £300 per tax payer as significant. I think if we continue to make false claims and try to manipulate each other with figures that serves no useful purpose. It is an average of £300 per tax payer if you consider the UK to have 30 million tax payers which I believe is fairly accurate. The office of national statistics is a great source of information regarding our debt, eu contributions and reduced level of assets.

I don't understand why you mention food prices, many food prices would fall outside the EU and some from the EU would increase. The EU maintains tariffs on food imports from many countries outside the EU in order to maintain high prices by EU suppliers. A huge number of food products would fall in price especially if you are vegetarian or vegan buying unprocessed food. A huge number of other products would fall in price too. Considering we have so little manufacturing anyway and the EU maintains tariffs to protect mainland EU industries surely we would get many products much cheaper.

For example the EU adds tariffs up to 80% on e-bikes from China in order to protect assembly plants in the EU, without those tariffs prices would fall. Such tariffs are applied to a huge range of products often so EU factories are protected but with no benefit to the UK itself who just have to pay more for such goods because of the EU.

I don't get this idealogical viewpoint regarding the EU we need to focus on the UK's huge debts, trade deficit and small manufacturing sector start having a realistic economic outlook on our current position. Politics really should be about running a economy well but so much of the debate is idealistic in nature. It's like people are economically naive so politicians can be too. People should be demanding action on debt, the trade deficit and the wholesale selling of assets, I really don't understand why that isn't the no.1 priority, you shouldn't spend money until you have earnt it.

imposter2.0

Bonzo Banana wrote:

I don't get this idealogical viewpoint regarding the EU we need to focus on the UK's huge debts, trade deficit and small manufacturing sector start having a realistic economic outlook on our current position.

The trade deficit thing is highly debatable - but even then I can't really see how post-brexit trading with a smaller number of nations on a less favourable basis is going to help address that.