BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Protectionism is always a theme.pblakeney said:Protectionism is going to be a theme for the foreseeable.
Anyway, wasn’t that the whole point of Brexit?
Even ‘free markets’ use it massively to protect their internal markets.
That is common to EU, US and China. There is no panacea of totally free trade. It is all about where you apply the protections and what you trade for them.
0 -
NZ is usually the eg that everybody uses for liberalising agric. I believe they got hammered initially but adapted and are now world class in terms of efficiency.Jeremy.89 said:
Sure personal experiences are always of limited use, but I did find the cost of fresh food slightly surprising.surrey_commuter said:
offset against your personal experiences is the fact that we have tarifs and gteed prices (do they still exist) that could be cut and quotas that could be abolished. Coupled with teh removal of non-trade barriers and you must see a widening of choice and lowering of prices.Jeremy.89 said:
At the end of last year, I lived in California for a few months. Despite apparent agricultural deregulation, I estimate I spent the same amount of money at the supermarket each week (also take into account I was eating out at resturants much more than back home). Fresh fruit and veg was consistently more expensive.surrey_commuter said:
that is exactly the sort of thing that I am looking forTheBigBean said:
An example that is often talked about is deregulation to allow autonomous vehicles. This could lead to the UK becoming a world leader in these and boost the economy. Of course, you will say it doesn't outweigh the economic downsides, but you asked for an upside.surrey_commuter said:
None of them are an economic upside for the UK.spatt77 said:
Can you show me where i agreed with you? just because i didn't comment on the other 5 doesn't mean i agreed with you! How can you extrapolate that from my answer?surrey_commuter said:
So you gave me six reasons why leaving could be good for the UK economy, I pointed out they were nonsense and you agreed with me.spatt77 said:
#6 "use our veto" Ill think you`ll find the EU has gone over to qualified majority voting due to the troublesome, UK,Hungary and Poland!surrey_commuter said:
so you gave me 6 reasons why leaving will be an economic successspatt77 said:
1. We are not going to stop trading with the EU , it might just be more difficult.surrey_commuter said:
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?
2. The growth in the EU is slowing compared with the rest of the world.
3. The EU is a protectionist bloc, trading with 2nd/3rd world countries might help lift them out of poverty.
4. The ease of trade doesn't outweigh the rest of the FOM,ECJ and ever closer union in my book.
5. Just because you do not place any value on sovereignty does not mean it doesn't have any value.
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.
1. is actually a reason why there is an economic downside to leaving
2. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
3. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
4. that is sovereignty not economics
5. you are agreeing with me
6. nothing to do with economics but i would use our veto
so you can not give a single reason to back up your belief that there will be an economic upside to leaving the EU. in fairness you are not alone as you will not be able to find anything from senior leavers saying there will be.
but as always SC you're only interested in money!
So you can not think of a single reason to back up your assumption that Brexit will be good for the UK economy.
Can you post a link to when the veto was scrapped in favour of QMV for all decisions, ideally one that would state we could not veto the change.
I will rephrase the question. What will Brexit change that could result in an economic upside for the UK.
Surely you can find something that Farage, Gove, Boris or JRM has said?
It will also be easier to achieve net zero although that is a green upside which is actually an economic downside.
I will chuck in the potential for agric deregulation and removal of tariffs which will benefit the poorest members of society
Other states may vary and of course this is all complicated by exchange rates.
Are there any countries that have successfully gone through the removal of tarrifs and barriers when it comes to food?
I'm broadly concerned that "barriers" is just a euphemism for standards that exist for good reason. Otoh should PETA be able to stop my enjoyment of fois gras?
One man's standards are another man's barriers and are what most trade disputes revolve around. The Yanks argue EU standards are deliberately designed to shut out their products and have nothing to do with food safety an in fairness you do not see Yanks (or tourists) dropping dead from food poisoning.
The problem is that the higher you erect barriers to trade the more you have to trade in an FTA0 -
I flip flop on anti-dumping but I imagine we will do whatever China/USA/EU tells us. Then try and do the splits when China and USA disagree on what we should be doing.TheBigBean said:
I imagine there are plenty of others. Another is that the UK wouldn't be subject to the EU's antidumping (aka protectionism) on irrelevant imports e.g. solar panels would have cost less, but instead the UK companies had to pay Chinese companies more just in case some German companies could survive making solar panels (they couldn't).surrey_commuter said:
that is exactly the sort of thing that I am looking forTheBigBean said:
An example that is often talked about is deregulation to allow autonomous vehicles. This could lead to the UK becoming a world leader in these and boost the economy. Of course, you will say it doesn't outweigh the economic downsides, but you asked for an upside.surrey_commuter said:
None of them are an economic upside for the UK.spatt77 said:
Can you show me where i agreed with you? just because i didn't comment on the other 5 doesn't mean i agreed with you! How can you extrapolate that from my answer?surrey_commuter said:
So you gave me six reasons why leaving could be good for the UK economy, I pointed out they were nonsense and you agreed with me.spatt77 said:
#6 "use our veto" Ill think you`ll find the EU has gone over to qualified majority voting due to the troublesome, UK,Hungary and Poland!surrey_commuter said:
so you gave me 6 reasons why leaving will be an economic successspatt77 said:
1. We are not going to stop trading with the EU , it might just be more difficult.surrey_commuter said:
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?
2. The growth in the EU is slowing compared with the rest of the world.
3. The EU is a protectionist bloc, trading with 2nd/3rd world countries might help lift them out of poverty.
4. The ease of trade doesn't outweigh the rest of the FOM,ECJ and ever closer union in my book.
5. Just because you do not place any value on sovereignty does not mean it doesn't have any value.
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.
1. is actually a reason why there is an economic downside to leaving
2. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
3. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
4. that is sovereignty not economics
5. you are agreeing with me
6. nothing to do with economics but i would use our veto
so you can not give a single reason to back up your belief that there will be an economic upside to leaving the EU. in fairness you are not alone as you will not be able to find anything from senior leavers saying there will be.
but as always SC you're only interested in money!
So you can not think of a single reason to back up your assumption that Brexit will be good for the UK economy.
Can you post a link to when the veto was scrapped in favour of QMV for all decisions, ideally one that would state we could not veto the change.
I will rephrase the question. What will Brexit change that could result in an economic upside for the UK.
Surely you can find something that Farage, Gove, Boris or JRM has said?
It will also be easier to achieve net zero although that is a green upside which is actually an economic downside.
I will chuck in the potential for agric deregulation and removal of tariffs which will benefit the poorest members of society0 -
https://www.livescience.com/47032-time-for-us-to-ban-ractopamine.htmlsurrey_commuter said:
NZ is usually the eg that everybody uses for liberalising agric. I believe they got hammered initially but adapted and are now world class in terms of efficiency.
One man's standards are another man's barriers and are what most trade disputes revolve around. The Yanks argue EU standards are deliberately designed to shut out their products and have nothing to do with food safety an in fairness you do not see Yanks (or tourists) dropping dead from food poisoning.
The problem is that the higher you erect barriers to trade the more you have to trade in an FTA
Genuinely, do you want UK pork to use ractopamine?
They do regularly die of morbid obesity and associated illnesses.0 -
Just saying there is another side to the argument.rick_chasey said:
https://www.livescience.com/47032-time-for-us-to-ban-ractopamine.htmlsurrey_commuter said:
NZ is usually the eg that everybody uses for liberalising agric. I believe they got hammered initially but adapted and are now world class in terms of efficiency.
One man's standards are another man's barriers and are what most trade disputes revolve around. The Yanks argue EU standards are deliberately designed to shut out their products and have nothing to do with food safety an in fairness you do not see Yanks (or tourists) dropping dead from food poisoning.
The problem is that the higher you erect barriers to trade the more you have to trade in an FTA
Genuinely, do you want UK pork to use ractopamine?
They do regularly die of morbid obesity and associated illnesses.0 -
A good example being that the EU is more pro diesel.surrey_commuter said:
NZ is usually the eg that everybody uses for liberalising agric. I believe they got hammered initially but adapted and are now world class in terms of efficiency.Jeremy.89 said:
Sure personal experiences are always of limited use, but I did find the cost of fresh food slightly surprising.surrey_commuter said:
offset against your personal experiences is the fact that we have tarifs and gteed prices (do they still exist) that could be cut and quotas that could be abolished. Coupled with teh removal of non-trade barriers and you must see a widening of choice and lowering of prices.Jeremy.89 said:
At the end of last year, I lived in California for a few months. Despite apparent agricultural deregulation, I estimate I spent the same amount of money at the supermarket each week (also take into account I was eating out at resturants much more than back home). Fresh fruit and veg was consistently more expensive.surrey_commuter said:
that is exactly the sort of thing that I am looking forTheBigBean said:
An example that is often talked about is deregulation to allow autonomous vehicles. This could lead to the UK becoming a world leader in these and boost the economy. Of course, you will say it doesn't outweigh the economic downsides, but you asked for an upside.surrey_commuter said:
None of them are an economic upside for the UK.spatt77 said:
Can you show me where i agreed with you? just because i didn't comment on the other 5 doesn't mean i agreed with you! How can you extrapolate that from my answer?surrey_commuter said:
So you gave me six reasons why leaving could be good for the UK economy, I pointed out they were nonsense and you agreed with me.spatt77 said:
#6 "use our veto" Ill think you`ll find the EU has gone over to qualified majority voting due to the troublesome, UK,Hungary and Poland!surrey_commuter said:
so you gave me 6 reasons why leaving will be an economic successspatt77 said:
1. We are not going to stop trading with the EU , it might just be more difficult.surrey_commuter said:
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?
2. The growth in the EU is slowing compared with the rest of the world.
3. The EU is a protectionist bloc, trading with 2nd/3rd world countries might help lift them out of poverty.
4. The ease of trade doesn't outweigh the rest of the FOM,ECJ and ever closer union in my book.
5. Just because you do not place any value on sovereignty does not mean it doesn't have any value.
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.
1. is actually a reason why there is an economic downside to leaving
2. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
3. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
4. that is sovereignty not economics
5. you are agreeing with me
6. nothing to do with economics but i would use our veto
so you can not give a single reason to back up your belief that there will be an economic upside to leaving the EU. in fairness you are not alone as you will not be able to find anything from senior leavers saying there will be.
but as always SC you're only interested in money!
So you can not think of a single reason to back up your assumption that Brexit will be good for the UK economy.
Can you post a link to when the veto was scrapped in favour of QMV for all decisions, ideally one that would state we could not veto the change.
I will rephrase the question. What will Brexit change that could result in an economic upside for the UK.
Surely you can find something that Farage, Gove, Boris or JRM has said?
It will also be easier to achieve net zero although that is a green upside which is actually an economic downside.
I will chuck in the potential for agric deregulation and removal of tariffs which will benefit the poorest members of society
Other states may vary and of course this is all complicated by exchange rates.
Are there any countries that have successfully gone through the removal of tarrifs and barriers when it comes to food?
I'm broadly concerned that "barriers" is just a euphemism for standards that exist for good reason. Otoh should PETA be able to stop my enjoyment of fois gras?
One man's standards are another man's barriers and are what most trade disputes revolve around. The Yanks argue EU standards are deliberately designed to shut out their products and have nothing to do with food safety an in fairness you do not see Yanks (or tourists) dropping dead from food poisoning.
The problem is that the higher you erect barriers to trade the more you have to trade in an FTA0 -
Look, you know I believe in the wonderful value of free trade as much as anyone.surrey_commuter said:
Just saying there is another side to the argument.rick_chasey said:
https://www.livescience.com/47032-time-for-us-to-ban-ractopamine.htmlsurrey_commuter said:
NZ is usually the eg that everybody uses for liberalising agric. I believe they got hammered initially but adapted and are now world class in terms of efficiency.
One man's standards are another man's barriers and are what most trade disputes revolve around. The Yanks argue EU standards are deliberately designed to shut out their products and have nothing to do with food safety an in fairness you do not see Yanks (or tourists) dropping dead from food poisoning.
The problem is that the higher you erect barriers to trade the more you have to trade in an FTA
Genuinely, do you want UK pork to use ractopamine?
They do regularly die of morbid obesity and associated illnesses.
At the same time, there are plenty of things that you would want to regulate out.
I'm quite comfortable, to be protectionist against firms and nations that use/allow for child labour, for example.
The EU in many ways is *less protectionist* than both the US and China, particularly when it comes to state aid for nations (excluding agriculture), and the thinking on this is changing and there are murmurs from inside the EU that they actually got this wrong, which is why they can't really point to any world beating tech companies (at least, companies that don't fraudulently inflate their revenue figures and have the German regulator sue the paper who found this out rather than the fraudulent firm in question).
So the whole "EU is protectionist but RoW isn't" is not really right.
0 -
NZ livestock farming is pretty intensive as that is the only way it is viable. Biodiverse it is not: massive fields; massive herds; no trees. Sure, they've adapted but at a cost to the environment.surrey_commuter said:
NZ is usually the eg that everybody uses for liberalising agric. I believe they got hammered initially but adapted and are now world class in terms of efficiency.Jeremy.89 said:
Sure personal experiences are always of limited use, but I did find the cost of fresh food slightly surprising.surrey_commuter said:
offset against your personal experiences is the fact that we have tarifs and gteed prices (do they still exist) that could be cut and quotas that could be abolished. Coupled with teh removal of non-trade barriers and you must see a widening of choice and lowering of prices.Jeremy.89 said:
At the end of last year, I lived in California for a few months. Despite apparent agricultural deregulation, I estimate I spent the same amount of money at the supermarket each week (also take into account I was eating out at resturants much more than back home). Fresh fruit and veg was consistently more expensive.surrey_commuter said:
that is exactly the sort of thing that I am looking forTheBigBean said:
An example that is often talked about is deregulation to allow autonomous vehicles. This could lead to the UK becoming a world leader in these and boost the economy. Of course, you will say it doesn't outweigh the economic downsides, but you asked for an upside.surrey_commuter said:
None of them are an economic upside for the UK.spatt77 said:
Can you show me where i agreed with you? just because i didn't comment on the other 5 doesn't mean i agreed with you! How can you extrapolate that from my answer?surrey_commuter said:
So you gave me six reasons why leaving could be good for the UK economy, I pointed out they were nonsense and you agreed with me.spatt77 said:
#6 "use our veto" Ill think you`ll find the EU has gone over to qualified majority voting due to the troublesome, UK,Hungary and Poland!surrey_commuter said:
so you gave me 6 reasons why leaving will be an economic successspatt77 said:
1. We are not going to stop trading with the EU , it might just be more difficult.surrey_commuter said:
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?
2. The growth in the EU is slowing compared with the rest of the world.
3. The EU is a protectionist bloc, trading with 2nd/3rd world countries might help lift them out of poverty.
4. The ease of trade doesn't outweigh the rest of the FOM,ECJ and ever closer union in my book.
5. Just because you do not place any value on sovereignty does not mean it doesn't have any value.
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.
1. is actually a reason why there is an economic downside to leaving
2. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
3. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
4. that is sovereignty not economics
5. you are agreeing with me
6. nothing to do with economics but i would use our veto
so you can not give a single reason to back up your belief that there will be an economic upside to leaving the EU. in fairness you are not alone as you will not be able to find anything from senior leavers saying there will be.
but as always SC you're only interested in money!
So you can not think of a single reason to back up your assumption that Brexit will be good for the UK economy.
Can you post a link to when the veto was scrapped in favour of QMV for all decisions, ideally one that would state we could not veto the change.
I will rephrase the question. What will Brexit change that could result in an economic upside for the UK.
Surely you can find something that Farage, Gove, Boris or JRM has said?
It will also be easier to achieve net zero although that is a green upside which is actually an economic downside.
I will chuck in the potential for agric deregulation and removal of tariffs which will benefit the poorest members of society
Other states may vary and of course this is all complicated by exchange rates.
Are there any countries that have successfully gone through the removal of tarrifs and barriers when it comes to food?
I'm broadly concerned that "barriers" is just a euphemism for standards that exist for good reason. Otoh should PETA be able to stop my enjoyment of fois gras?
One man's standards are another man's barriers and are what most trade disputes revolve around. The Yanks argue EU standards are deliberately designed to shut out their products and have nothing to do with food safety an in fairness you do not see Yanks (or tourists) dropping dead from food poisoning.
The problem is that the higher you erect barriers to trade the more you have to trade in an FTA
Food poisoning incidence is much higher in the US than the UK.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Although some produce is not of the same standard as ours the Obesity and its health consequences are also down due portion size as well! On the food poisoning thing, in some areas the US has more cases than us and in some less, its strain dependent i think. Someone said about the food costs being higher in the US, well he was probably right in California, but that is a very expensive state and outside of that state its probably much cheaper.rick_chasey said:
https://www.livescience.com/47032-time-for-us-to-ban-ractopamine.htmlsurrey_commuter said:
NZ is usually the eg that everybody uses for liberalising agric. I believe they got hammered initially but adapted and are now world class in terms of efficiency.
One man's standards are another man's barriers and are what most trade disputes revolve around. The Yanks argue EU standards are deliberately designed to shut out their products and have nothing to do with food safety an in fairness you do not see Yanks (or tourists) dropping dead from food poisoning.
The problem is that the higher you erect barriers to trade the more you have to trade in an FTA
Genuinely, do you want UK pork to use ractopamine?
They do regularly die of morbid obesity and associated illnesses.0 -
-
A simple solution that honours previous promises would be for GB to leave on the same termsrick_chasey said:0 -
tailwindhome said:tailwindhome said:
In a development sure to please Brexiteers, Leo Varadkar's Fine Gael party are in serious trouble in the early pollingtailwindhome said:The ripple effect of 'Getting Brexit Done' continues
Ireland will have a general election on 8th Feb
Chances are Varadkar will be out of a job by Sunday.
It could take a while to form a govt.
The agreement between Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and the Greens to form a coalition government should be agreed by the voting membership today
Varadkar will step down as Taoiseach in favour of Micheal Martin of Fianna Fail.
Varadkar will join the cabinet and resume the role of Taoiseach in December 2022
Varadkar leaves office with an approval rating of 74% ... it's a funny old game politics
This agreement probably means the Irish Civil War is now over.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
All change for UK Brexiteers as they deal with the new Tánaiste Leo Varadkar and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Simon Coveney“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Once again the buffoon has been talking about leaving on “Australia terms” which begs the question of why nobody asks him if he is aware they do not have an FTA?
Anyway found this very good EU website which explains it all. Seems they have a political agreement to work together in international bodies and some level of mutual recognition of standards whilst they work towards an FTA.
https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/australia/index_en.htm0 -
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-most-british-people-want-to-rejoin-eu-2020-6?amp
The Will of the People indeed.0 -
So we’re getting to the point where U.K. firms will be putting orders in for goods and services that will arrive/commence in 2021 from the EU and visa versa.
How are businesses supposed to plan for Brexit in this instance? They won’t know what will and won’t be subject to all sorts of different regulations and or tariffs.0 -
Well, it depends where this poll was taken, if it was taken in Bristol and London you get this kinda result!bompington said:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-most-british-people-want-to-rejoin-eu-2020-6?amp
The Will of the People indeed.0 -
Ignore the losers, in the same way as they ignore the 2019 GE, the 2019 Euro Elections and the 2016 Referendum results.spatt77 said:
Well, it depends where this poll was taken, if it was taken in Bristol and London you get this kinda result!bompington said:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-most-british-people-want-to-rejoin-eu-2020-6?amp
The Will of the People indeed.
Let's take the 2019 GE. The way the Lib Dumbs had a fantastic election by losing seats shows where the public really are, rather than some biased, clickbait poll.0 -
The whole Parler/Twitter flounce off thing is inherently funny, but this Brexit related titbit made me chuckle. Just who is the real Mark Francois?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
We're doing it now. It's not as difficult as you are making out if our experience is anything to go by. Lots of other variables are subject to change that are difficult to forecast over these sorts of timescales and which are part of business as usual.rick_chasey said:So we’re getting to the point where U.K. firms will be putting orders in for goods and services that will arrive/commence in 2021 from the EU and visa versa.
How are businesses supposed to plan for Brexit in this instance? They won’t know what will and won’t be subject to all sorts of different regulations and or tariffs.
Also many businesses already have no deal contingency plans which they are now 'dusting off' as we are doing."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Had rather than have. From what I have seen, some businesses have used up any contingency they had put aside in dealing with the pandemic.Stevo_666 said:
We're doing it now. It's not as difficult as you are making out if our experience is anything to go by. Lots of other variables are subject to change that are difficult to forecast over these sorts of timescales and which are part of business as usual.rick_chasey said:So we’re getting to the point where U.K. firms will be putting orders in for goods and services that will arrive/commence in 2021 from the EU and visa versa.
How are businesses supposed to plan for Brexit in this instance? They won’t know what will and won’t be subject to all sorts of different regulations and or tariffs.
Also many businesses already have no deal contingency plans which they are now 'dusting off' as we are doing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
that'll be the 2019 general election where the majority voted for parties committed to peoples' vote and/or remaincoopster_the_1st said:
Ignore the losers, in the same way as they ignore the 2019 GE, the 2019 Euro Elections and the 2016 Referendum results.spatt77 said:
Well, it depends where this poll was taken, if it was taken in Bristol and London you get this kinda result!bompington said:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-most-british-people-want-to-rejoin-eu-2020-6?amp
The Will of the People indeed.
Let's take the 2019 GE. The way the Lib Dumbs had a fantastic election by losing seats shows where the public really are, rather than some biased, clickbait poll.
instead of which the losers are in government and busy levelling down the country whilst pandering to the donors who bought them, and the whining brexiters are still whining
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
I was talking about planning for Brexit, not financial reserves.rjsterry said:
Had rather than have. From what I have seen, some businesses have used up any contingency they had put aside in dealing with the pandemic.Stevo_666 said:
We're doing it now. It's not as difficult as you are making out if our experience is anything to go by. Lots of other variables are subject to change that are difficult to forecast over these sorts of timescales and which are part of business as usual.rick_chasey said:So we’re getting to the point where U.K. firms will be putting orders in for goods and services that will arrive/commence in 2021 from the EU and visa versa.
How are businesses supposed to plan for Brexit in this instance? They won’t know what will and won’t be subject to all sorts of different regulations and or tariffs.
Also many businesses already have no deal contingency plans which they are now 'dusting off' as we are doing."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That ship sailed for you in June 2016. I'll give you a hint, you lost that one as well!sungod said:
that'll be the 2019 general election where the majority voted for parties committed to peoples' vote and/or remaincoopster_the_1st said:
Ignore the losers, in the same way as they ignore the 2019 GE, the 2019 Euro Elections and the 2016 Referendum results.spatt77 said:
Well, it depends where this poll was taken, if it was taken in Bristol and London you get this kinda result!bompington said:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-most-british-people-want-to-rejoin-eu-2020-6?amp
The Will of the People indeed.
Let's take the 2019 GE. The way the Lib Dumbs had a fantastic election by losing seats shows where the public really are, rather than some biased, clickbait poll.
Remoaners do like to selectively pick the stats to try to say they won despite being the losers. The 2019 GE was won by the leavers under the rules of that election process.
It is now up to remoaners to accept they lost democractically otherwise they will continue to fuel the widening divisions in the UK
Applying your losers logic to Scotland means it should already be independent of the UK, yet in 2014 when asked directly the Scottish gave their view for the next generation.0 -
Sure, but planning costs.Stevo_666 said:
I was talking about planning for Brexit, not financial reserves.rjsterry said:
Had rather than have. From what I have seen, some businesses have used up any contingency they had put aside in dealing with the pandemic.Stevo_666 said:
We're doing it now. It's not as difficult as you are making out if our experience is anything to go by. Lots of other variables are subject to change that are difficult to forecast over these sorts of timescales and which are part of business as usual.rick_chasey said:So we’re getting to the point where U.K. firms will be putting orders in for goods and services that will arrive/commence in 2021 from the EU and visa versa.
How are businesses supposed to plan for Brexit in this instance? They won’t know what will and won’t be subject to all sorts of different regulations and or tariffs.
Also many businesses already have no deal contingency plans which they are now 'dusting off' as we are doing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It can be a financial and a time cost. Nearly all businesses plan for the future and this is part of it - for many it can be a near on continuous process. This is a short term increase in the number of variables for those with cross border transactions.rjsterry said:
Sure, but planning costs.Stevo_666 said:
I was talking about planning for Brexit, not financial reserves.rjsterry said:
Had rather than have. From what I have seen, some businesses have used up any contingency they had put aside in dealing with the pandemic.Stevo_666 said:
We're doing it now. It's not as difficult as you are making out if our experience is anything to go by. Lots of other variables are subject to change that are difficult to forecast over these sorts of timescales and which are part of business as usual.rick_chasey said:So we’re getting to the point where U.K. firms will be putting orders in for goods and services that will arrive/commence in 2021 from the EU and visa versa.
How are businesses supposed to plan for Brexit in this instance? They won’t know what will and won’t be subject to all sorts of different regulations and or tariffs.
Also many businesses already have no deal contingency plans which they are now 'dusting off' as we are doing.
As mentioned, for many this will be a dusting off of existing plans."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This is unbelievable tosh even by your standards.coopster_the_1st said:
It is now up to remoaners to accept they lost democractically otherwise they will continue to fuel the widening divisions in the UK
Applying your losers logic to Scotland means it should already be independent of the UK, yet in 2014 when asked directly the Scottish gave their view for the next generation.
Leave won the referendum, yes. It was one of the very, very few times when more people were in favour of leaving than not, of course - we all know why leavers were so viciously opposed to a second referendum, don't we?
But even if it wasn't obviously a dodgy result it still wouldn't mean that people who disagree with it couldn't campaign against it.
As for the Scottish indy ref - the referendum result was in line with practically every opinion poll in the run up: it illustrates the exact opposite to what you are trying to say.
But hey, say black's white loud and often enough and people system to believe you: belongs right up there in the totalitarian handbook along with ideas like shouting that anyone who disagrees with you should shut up so they don't "fuel the worsening divisions"
0 -
Bit of a theoretical argument given we have already left and are in a time limited transition period.bompington said:
This is unbelievable tosh even by your standards.coopster_the_1st said:
It is now up to remoaners to accept they lost democractically otherwise they will continue to fuel the widening divisions in the UK
Applying your losers logic to Scotland means it should already be independent of the UK, yet in 2014 when asked directly the Scottish gave their view for the next generation.
Leave won the referendum, yes. It was one of the very, very few times when more people were in favour of leaving than not, of course - we all know why leavers were so viciously opposed to a second referendum, don't we?
But even if it wasn't obviously a dodgy result it still wouldn't mean that people who disagree with it couldn't campaign against it.
As for the Scottish indy ref - the referendum result was in line with practically every opinion poll in the run up: it illustrates the exact opposite to what you are trying to say.
But hey, say black's white loud and often enough and people system to believe you: belongs right up there in the totalitarian handbook along with ideas like shouting that anyone who disagrees with you should shut up so they don't "fuel the worsening divisions"
I think some on here have take the more pragmatic view that rather than continuing to claim the result should not have happened/should be null and void, instead campaign to rejoin at the appropriate time. If in a few years time things really do turn out as bad as some are saying due to Brexit, then you'd expect a fair bit of support for that."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think more capital should have been spent on trying to stay in the single market, as after all, lots of leavers claimed they didn't want to leave the SM.
Otoh I thought brexit was a silly idea on the day of the vote and the only thing that has changed since the vote is that the silly in that sentence has become stupid!
The architects of Brexit seem to have very few coherent ideas for how it's meant to work, aside from pushing for harder and harder exits, not because of any clear over arching plan, but for their own political capital.
Anyone on the remain side is simply lost at sea.
0 -
So how do you propose to stay in the SM but not except the Four Freedoms then?Jeremy.89 said:I think more capital should have been spent on trying to stay in the single market, as after all, lots of leavers claimed they didn't want to leave the SM.
Otoh I thought brexit was a silly idea on the day of the vote and the only thing that has changed since the vote is that the silly in that sentence has become stupid!
The architects of Brexit seem to have very few coherent ideas for how it's meant to work, aside from pushing for harder and harder exits, not because of any clear over arching plan, but for their own political capital.
Anyone on the remain side is simply lost at sea.0
