BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…3031333536…2114

Comments

  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,335
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    I see your issue here. You measure it in egos. I view it in pounds and euros. Pounds and euros will trump egos very quickly. When a bad deal is negative to the EU powerhouse countries (Germany, France, Spain) the views of say Slovakia will be influenced to what is best for the EU powerhouses.

    You bet on that and vote out, I am confident the EU will never sign a preferencial agreement with the UK... they would offer the same conditions Norway has, which are fair conditions, but worse than the current... take or leave and seek trade elsewhere. The EU have been inflexible on the pillars of the Union: freedom of movement and free trade come as a package, that's not negotiable... you can't buy everything with your (devalued) pounds... you can't even buy the Euro 2016 trophy, let alone free trading with no input.
    left the forum March 2023
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,445
    People are saying the rest of the EU would negotiate with us based on pounds and dollars - but as we can see in the Brexit argument logical arguments about economics don't seem to be all that popular.

    I think enough other EU countries have the political will to make things hard for us that it won't be the plain sailing Brexiters seem to think it will.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,110
    But I thought one reason for staying in the EU was that they could sign all these trade agreements - yet they aren't going to sign one with the 5th biggest economy that they have an net export surplus to ? I think something mutually beneficial will be worked out.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,894
    ugo.santalucia wrote:

    You bet on that and vote out, I am confident the EU will never sign a preferencial agreement with the UK... they would offer the same conditions Norway has...
    That's assuming they don't make an example of the UK to discourage others from leaving. A similar deal to Norway might look like a good deal. Truth is nobody knows for sure and they are taking a huge gamble. Short term things would certainly get worse because no business will invest in the UK until they have a better idea of what the future holds. Nobody will invest in the UK with so much uncertainty.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Interesting that Norway has to pay the EU fees and agree on all the points, including free movement of people, in order to have access to the common market, but don't get to vote... that is what I call getting a good deal, well done Norway!!

    probably more a reflection of where the power lies when an individual country negotiates with the world's largest trading bloc.

    It must be plainly obvious to those in power (in the UK & the EU) that there is a big issue with the 'free movement of labour'. I cannot work out how you can build such a critical system without an inbuilt control mechanism. That is stupidity!

    I suspect Norway's trading with the EU is far less than the UK's so the influence is not comparable. Again you seem to be talking down the UK's influence. If you are so negative about the UK and its influence, why are you here?

    roughly 50% of our exports go to the EU. Roughly 5% of the EU's exports go to the UK. Where do you think the power lies in those negotiations? Why would they give us all of the benefits of membership with none of the downsides? then throw in the fact that all 27 members would have to agree to the deal. They will have no incentive to reach agreement and we will have a 2 year ticking clock. It will be like playing poker with all of your cards face up.

    We will end up with two options;
    1) pay tariffs to export to the EU whilst meeting all regulations on those goods Assume the average tariff is 10% and proving compliance of teh regulations will be a ball ache.
    2) accept free movement of labour, accept all trade related regualations and pay an annual fee (ie Swiss and Norway)

    So which option would you go for?
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Veronese68 wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:

    You bet on that and vote out, I am confident the EU will never sign a preferencial agreement with the UK... they would offer the same conditions Norway has...
    That's assuming they don't make an example of the UK to discourage others from leaving. A similar deal to Norway might look like a good deal. Truth is nobody knows for sure and they are taking a huge gamble. Short term things would certainly get worse because no business will invest in the UK until they have a better idea of what the future holds. Nobody will invest in the UK with so much uncertainty.

    If it was one of the much smaller EU economies I'm confident they would make an example of them. But with the UK's size it is different. Any form of example making is going to hugely impact their fragile economy and quickly, and in time for Germany and French elections. The threats are certainly there to scare the UK electorate but reality will quickly move them to the negotiating table because it will be beneficial to both parties.

    Additionally, we have no idea what measures the Government and BoE will take to ensure any brexit impact will be minimised. We can be sure they will not implement measures to punish us. That is a fault of this system when one side controls these resources and options of a leave scenario are not allowed to be presented to the electorate.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    roughly 50% of our exports go to the EU. Roughly 5% of the EU's exports go to the UK. Where do you think the power lies in those negotiations? Why would they give us all of the benefits of membership with none of the downsides? then throw in the fact that all 27 members would have to agree to the deal. They will have no incentive to reach agreement and we will have a 2 year ticking clock. It will be like playing poker with all of your cards face up.

    We will end up with two options;
    1) pay tariffs to export to the EU whilst meeting all regulations on those goods Assume the average tariff is 10% and proving compliance of teh regulations will be a ball ache.
    2) accept free movement of labour, accept all trade related regualations and pay an annual fee (ie Swiss and Norway)

    So which option would you go for?

    Percentages are useless in this example. What are the actual numbers? The EU gain over £80bn more from trading with us than we do them and due to economies involved this is concentrated in larger and more influential nations. While there are 27 nations that need to agree, the agreement is going to be influenced by the strongest few.

    The 2 year 'ticking clock' is negotiable to both sides. It is not set in stone.

    As much as you want to believe I don't see it being as black and white as your two options. I see a phased approach occurring to reach a goal of a third option. The 'uncontrolled' part of the free movement of labour will have to change and I'm sure this will be balanced by conceding something else e.g. keeping the fishing rights as is.

    I'm just glad those on this board with their defeatist and negative approach will not be part of these negotiations
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    roughly 50% of our exports go to the EU. Roughly 5% of the EU's exports go to the UK. Where do you think the power lies in those negotiations? Why would they give us all of the benefits of membership with none of the downsides? then throw in the fact that all 27 members would have to agree to the deal. They will have no incentive to reach agreement and we will have a 2 year ticking clock. It will be like playing poker with all of your cards face up.

    We will end up with two options;
    1) pay tariffs to export to the EU whilst meeting all regulations on those goods Assume the average tariff is 10% and proving compliance of teh regulations will be a ball ache.
    2) accept free movement of labour, accept all trade related regualations and pay an annual fee (ie Swiss and Norway)

    So which option would you go for?

    Percentages are useless in this example. What are the actual numbers? The EU gain over £80bn more from trading with us than we do them and due to economies involved this is concentrated in larger and more influential nations. While there are 27 nations that need to agree, the agreement is going to be influenced by the strongest few.

    That is a surprisingly hard number to verify - can you source it

    The 2 year 'ticking clock' is negotiable to both sides. It is not set in stone.
    Extension has to be agreed by both sides

    As much as you want to believe I don't see it being as black and white as your two options. I see a phased approach occurring to reach a goal of a third option. The 'uncontrolled' part of the free movement of labour will have to change and I'm sure this will be balanced by conceding something else e.g. keeping the fishing rights as is.

    They will never negotiate on freedom of movement of labour it is a core principle of the EU.

    I'm just glad those on this board with their defeatist and negative approach will not be part of these negotiations

    not half as glad that you will not be leading them
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:

    You bet on that and vote out, I am confident the EU will never sign a preferencial agreement with the UK... they would offer the same conditions Norway has...
    That's assuming they don't make an example of the UK to discourage others from leaving. A similar deal to Norway might look like a good deal. Truth is nobody knows for sure and they are taking a huge gamble. Short term things would certainly get worse because no business will invest in the UK until they have a better idea of what the future holds. Nobody will invest in the UK with so much uncertainty.

    If it was one of the much smaller EU economies I'm confident they would make an example of them. But with the UK's size it is different. Any form of example making is going to hugely impact their fragile economy and quickly, and in time for Germany and French elections. The threats are certainly there to scare the UK electorate but reality will quickly move them to the negotiating table because it will be beneficial to both parties.

    Additionally, we have no idea what measures the Government and BoE will take to ensure any brexit impact will be minimised. We can be sure they will not implement measures to punish us. That is a fault of this system when one side controls these resources and options of a leave scenario are not allowed to be presented to the electorate.

    lol - you can not just blindly hope that the Govt and BofE has some clever expansionary policy up their sleeve that they have not thought to use in the last 8 years.

    Plan B - "be sure they will not....punish us" that will make me sleep easier
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Percentages are useless in this example. What are the actual numbers? The EU gain over £80bn more from trading with us than we do them and due to economies involved this is concentrated in larger and more influential nations. While there are 27 nations that need to agree, the agreement is going to be influenced by the strongest few.

    That is a surprisingly hard number to verify - can you source it

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ts-record/
    Britain's trade deficit in goods with the rest of the EU hit a record high in the three months to January as exports to the bloc fell sharply.

    The deficit, which measures the gap between imports and exports, widened by £1.7bn to £23.6bn over the period, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In January alone, the gap was £8.1bn.


    And this is not a free trade deal with the EU. We pay £8bn net a year to have access as well as being a net importer of labour. What would EU country unemployment rates be if those countries were not exporting their labour to the UK?
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,299
    Net UK contribution to the EU costs equivalent of 1/2 a Mars bar per person per week.

    Know something, I'm happy with that.

    Why the negativity, fear of foreigners, isolationism? Saint Maggie would be turning in her grave, if she hadn't already been confined to the deepest recesses of hell; at least she went in there and negotiated hard to get the best deal for the UK in the best interests of the UK she could. And did.

    These shysters Gove, Johnson and that f-wit IDS would have had their 'deceitful' axses kicked.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Percentages are useless in this example. What are the actual numbers? The EU gain over £80bn more from trading with us than we do them and due to economies involved this is concentrated in larger and more influential nations. While there are 27 nations that need to agree, the agreement is going to be influenced by the strongest few.

    That is a surprisingly hard number to verify - can you source it

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ts-record/
    Britain's trade deficit in goods with the rest of the EU hit a record high in the three months to January as exports to the bloc fell sharply.

    The deficit, which measures the gap between imports and exports, widened by £1.7bn to £23.6bn over the period, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In January alone, the gap was £8.1bn.

    But that does not mention a figure of £80bn. It is also poorly written as it jumps between definitions but lets assume that the opening definition of "trade deficit in goods" is correct. Now take a wild guess at how we perform in services and then wonder why the DT may have omitted that.


    And this is not a free trade deal with the EU. We pay £8bn net a year to have access as well as being a net importer of labour. What would EU country unemployment rates be if those countries were not exporting their labour to the UK?

    You don't understand the term "free trade deal" you are reading it as "free, trade deal"
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,299
    And another thing... Got my rant head on tonight, must have heard too much buffoonery being spouted unchallenged again today.
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    What would EU country unemployment rates be if those countries were not exporting their labour to the UK?

    These E European workers, and I'll hazard that these are the perceived threat, are doing the jobs the native born Brits don't want to do. Can't blame them in a way, witness the 4,000 zero hours contract agency workers toiling in the Sport Direct distribution sheds in a topical reference.

    At other end of spectrum, my excellent (NHS) dentist is Portuguese. I had a double knee arthroscopy recently; the surgeon was French, the anaesthetist was German. Why? Because we don't have enough skilled Brits to do the jobs.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    orraloon wrote:
    Net UK contribution to the EU costs equivalent of 1/2 a Mars bar per person per week.

    Know something, I'm happy with that.

    Why the negativity, fear of foreigners, isolationism?

    The mars bars must be expensive where you live! I make it about £2.35* per UK resident per week so about 8 times the amount you know!

    The one thing the remain camp have won on is the negative approach to this referendum.

    There is no fear of foreigners and wanting to be isolated. The issue with immigration is there is no 'control'. The 'control' should be down to the UK government to decide who is eligible to work in this country. To give you an example, you would not install a bath without a tap on the hot water flow. There are consequences for the baths occupant from not installing that 'control' point!


    *£8bn / 65m people / 52 weeks
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Percentages are useless in this example. What are the actual numbers? The EU gain over £80bn more from trading with us than we do them and due to economies involved this is concentrated in larger and more influential nations. While there are 27 nations that need to agree, the agreement is going to be influenced by the strongest few.

    That is a surprisingly hard number to verify - can you source it

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ts-record/
    Britain's trade deficit in goods with the rest of the EU hit a record high in the three months to January as exports to the bloc fell sharply.

    The deficit, which measures the gap between imports and exports, widened by £1.7bn to £23.6bn over the period, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In January alone, the gap was £8.1bn.

    But that does not mention a figure of £80bn. It is also poorly written as it jumps between definitions but lets assume that the opening definition of "trade deficit in goods" is correct. Now take a wild guess at how we perform in services and then wonder why the DT may have omitted that.


    And this is not a free trade deal with the EU. We pay £8bn net a year to have access as well as being a net importer of labour. What would EU country unemployment rates be if those countries were not exporting their labour to the UK?

    You don't understand the term "free trade deal" you are reading it as "free, trade deal"

    No reply on the trade gap and why I believe the UK can be confident in trade negotiations with the EU?

    The 'free trade deal' comes with conditions. You and every other remain has pointed out we would not get this without paying in and accepting free movement of labour so it is not 'free', it comes with costs.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    orraloon wrote:
    And another thing... Got my rant head on tonight, must have heard too much buffoonery being spouted unchallenged again today.
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    What would EU country unemployment rates be if those countries were not exporting their labour to the UK?

    These E European workers, and I'll hazard that these are the perceived threat, are doing the jobs the native born Brits don't want to do. Can't blame them in a way, witness the 4,000 zero hours contract agency workers toiling in the Sport Direct distribution sheds in a topical reference.
    orraloon wrote:
    At other end of spectrum, my excellent (NHS) dentist is Portuguese. I had a double knee arthroscopy recently; the surgeon was French, the anaesthetist was German. Why? Because we don't have enough skilled Brits to do the jobs.

    The location of the EU the worker comes from makes absolutely no difference. The people you quote that are doing the jobs that the native Brits don't want to do is down to the pay and conditions not being good enough. I trust you've heard some of the allegations against that Sport Direct warehouse e.g. a woman giving birth in the toilets as she feared for her job if she did not go to work. Sports Direct get away with this because of the near unlimited labour that the EU allows into the UK. We are not short of factory workers but immigrants are employed because they are willing to accept less. This is a Leave argument.

    And the above is happening when we have these supposed EU worker rights that we will lose if we leave. Both the UK and EU are failing worker rights in the above case.

    orraloon wrote:
    At other end of spectrum, my excellent (NHS) dentist is Portuguese. I had a double knee arthroscopy recently; the surgeon was French, the anaesthetist was German. Why? Because we don't have enough skilled Brits to do the jobs.

    More remain fear tactics. No one has said we will stop required skills being allowed in the country.

    You rant seems to support all the leave arguments! Are you sure you are not a confused voter?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Percentages are useless in this example. What are the actual numbers? The EU gain over £80bn more from trading with us than we do them and due to economies involved this is concentrated in larger and more influential nations. While there are 27 nations that need to agree, the agreement is going to be influenced by the strongest few.

    That is a surprisingly hard number to verify - can you source it

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ts-record/
    Britain's trade deficit in goods with the rest of the EU hit a record high in the three months to January as exports to the bloc fell sharply.

    The deficit, which measures the gap between imports and exports, widened by £1.7bn to £23.6bn over the period, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In January alone, the gap was £8.1bn.

    But that does not mention a figure of £80bn. It is also poorly written as it jumps between definitions but lets assume that the opening definition of "trade deficit in goods" is correct. Now take a wild guess at how we perform in services and then wonder why the DT may have omitted that.


    And this is not a free trade deal with the EU. We pay £8bn net a year to have access as well as being a net importer of labour. What would EU country unemployment rates be if those countries were not exporting their labour to the UK?

    You don't understand the term "free trade deal" you are reading it as "free, trade deal"

    No reply on the trade gap and why I believe the UK can be confident in trade negotiations with the EU?

    The 'free trade deal' comes with conditions. You and every other remain has pointed out we would not get this without paying in and accepting free movement of labour so it is not 'free', it comes with costs.

    Forgot to highlight it - read up and you will see my reply.

    When you read free trade you should try interpreting it as "trading freely" as that is what it means
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/11/uk-trade-gap-with-eu-hits-record/
    Britain's trade deficit in goods with the rest of the EU hit a record high in the three months to January as exports to the bloc fell sharply.

    The deficit, which measures the gap between imports and exports, widened by £1.7bn to £23.6bn over the period, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In January alone, the gap was £8.1bn.

    But that does not mention a figure of £80bn. It is also poorly written as it jumps between definitions but lets assume that the opening definition of "trade deficit in goods" is correct. Now take a wild guess at how we perform in services and then wonder why the DT may have omitted that.

    It states £23.6bn in the 3 months to January. While there will be some variance over the other three month periods you can see how you get to £80bn!

    I have not seen the figure for financial services but the above link did reference financial services overall. I'm sure you a better link to the EU <> UK Financial service trade.

    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    When you read free trade you should try interpreting it as "trading freely" as that is what it means

    It is 'trading freely' but on on the condition we pay £8bn net and are an net importer of labour. When considering the conditions are attached it is an indirect tariff.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/11/uk-trade-gap-with-eu-hits-record/
    Britain's trade deficit in goods with the rest of the EU hit a record high in the three months to January as exports to the bloc fell sharply.

    The deficit, which measures the gap between imports and exports, widened by £1.7bn to £23.6bn over the period, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In January alone, the gap was £8.1bn.

    But that does not mention a figure of £80bn. It is also poorly written as it jumps between definitions but lets assume that the opening definition of "trade deficit in goods" is correct. Now take a wild guess at how we perform in services and then wonder why the DT may have omitted that.

    It states £23.6bn in the 3 months to January. While there will be some variance over the other three month periods you can see how you get to £80bn!

    I have not seen the figure for financial services but the above link did reference financial services overall. I'm sure you a better link to the EU <> UK Financial service trade.

    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    When you read free trade you should try interpreting it as "trading freely" as that is what it means

    It is 'trading freely' but on on the condition we pay £8bn net and are an net importer of labour. When considering the conditions are attached it is an indirect tariff.

    These figures seem to be hard to come by. Goods without services is a meaningless number. It will be a tiny % of total EU GDP so irrelevant to negotiations.

    Free trade means that a Uk car manufacturer can sell cars in all EU countries without making modifications to meet local safety and emissions regulations and without having an import tariff imposed. The "costs" you mention are part of the cost of EU membership one of the benefits of which is the ability to trade freely with all other members
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,614
    MikeBrew wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    outside the EU you are only Great Britain, a small island with a big ego

    Could it be that, being a small man with a big ego, that commonality is what so attracted you to come to live and work here on our small island ? :wink:

    I'm from Kenya. I don't bother working. Haven't got time to work 'cos I brought my 3 wives and 27 kids with me and I get a skip load of child benefit which I spend on bikes. Just got myself a 9 grand Pinarello Dogma. Council are moving me to a bigger house. The TV is too big for the living room. Benefits attracted me here. Ugo and I travelled in on the same banana boat. We eat lots of bananas.

    E who?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,299
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    orraloon wrote:
    Net UK contribution to the EU costs equivalent of 1/2 a Mars bar per person per week.

    Know something, I'm happy with that.

    Why the negativity, fear of foreigners, isolationism?

    The mars bars must be expensive where you live! I make it about £2.35* per UK resident per week so about 8 times the amount you know!

    The one thing the remain camp have won on is the negative approach to this referendum.

    There is no fear of foreigners and wanting to be isolated. The issue with immigration is there is no 'control'. The 'control' should be down to the UK government to decide who is eligible to work in this country. To give you an example, you would not install a bath without a tap on the hot water flow. There are consequences for the baths occupant from not installing that 'control' point!


    *£8bn / 65m people / 52 weeks

    Ach, my bad, meant per day, typed per week; my mistake, I admit, something which you will never hear either of those f-wits Farage rhymes with garage or Trump-lite Boris say.

    My view still stands. It is well worth 1/2 a Mars bar per day to be part of the world's largest trading bloc, to be able to work freely in Europe as I have, for my daughter and son-in-law to work freely in Europe for European and UK companies as they do, to be able to visit Majestic in Calais and pay less than I would in Uk, to be able to bring back several cases of Belgian Trappist beers couple of times a year without a tax grabbing Customs jobsworth stopping me, to travel across Europe freely and enjoy different cultures.

    If this vote goes wrong, I want a 'not in my name' opt back in. Course that might be because I am myself an economic migrant having left Scotland in the 80s to seek work, fortune and better living conditions for myself and future family in England... 'Kin immigrants eh?
  • chrisaonabike
    chrisaonabike Posts: 1,914
    This thread is a bit TL;DR.

    But if you have a little time on your hands, watch Brexit, the movie, on YouTube. I'm sure it's biased, just as all the rest of the propaganda is throughout the whole campaign.

    But it's food for thought, and I'd put quite a bit of money on them not showing it on the beeb.
    Is the gorilla tired yet?
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,614
    Well put orraloon.

    Funny how the press interview Brexit people in the street with Southern accents and diddley squat between the ears who utter mono syllabic words in simple sentences and throw away lines. Unfortunately, these idiots are going to vote in a critical referendum without having a clue as to the benefits of being in the EU or for that matter, what the potential consequences of being outside of the EU are, good or bad.

    I hope that we don't vote to leave and in the process, it buries the Gove's, that patronising and condescending bar steward Rees-Mogg , UKIP and the Boris brigade.

    Farage said in Kent last week that he would send the immigrants [in boats] back. To where? France? That would be tricky. Syria? Libya? Even trickier. The guy is a f*ckwit and he has a following of f*ckwits.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,299
    That a4re-wipe Rees-Mogg? My daddy used to edit The Times dontcha know, I went to Eton dontcha know. My schtick is to dress and act like some sort of Edwardian throwback, how quaint dontcha know. Pathetic excuse for an adult male. Off to sharpen my sickle.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    orraloon wrote:
    That a4re-wipe Rees-Mogg? My daddy used to edit The Times dontcha know, I went to Eton dontcha know. My schtick is to dress and act like some sort of Edwardian throwback, how quaint dontcha know. Pathetic excuse for an adult male. Off to sharpen my sickle.

    I have the burning torches
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,614
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    orraloon wrote:
    That a4re-wipe Rees-Mogg? My daddy used to edit The Times dontcha know, I went to Eton dontcha know. My schtick is to dress and act like some sort of Edwardian throwback, how quaint dontcha know. Pathetic excuse for an adult male. Off to sharpen my sickle.

    I have the burning torches

    I'll sell tickets.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    orraloon wrote:
    Ach, my bad, meant per day, typed per week; my mistake, I admit, something which you will never hear either of those f-wits Farage rhymes with garage or Trump-lite Boris say.

    You started so well then lowered your response to the gutter by adding the rest. When have you ever heard a politician admit a mistake? (That's a rhetorical question) I don't think either side are giving honesty the electorate deserve

    orraloon wrote:
    My view still stands. It is well worth 1/2 a Mars bar per day to be part of the world's largest trading bloc, to be able to work freely in Europe as I have, for my daughter and son-in-law to work freely in Europe for European and UK companies as they do, to be able to visit Majestic in Calais and pay less than I would in Uk, to be able to bring back several cases of Belgian Trappist beers couple of times a year without a tax grabbing Customs jobsworth stopping me, to travel across Europe freely and enjoy different cultures.

    Reading the above I'm starting to think you take a project fear pill when you wake up ever morning?

    - People still work in many non-EU countries without issues. If you have a skill your target country requires you'll have no problem working there whether that is the EU or countries outside it.
    - You do realise that you are importing the Belgium beers and from Majestic in Calais. Upon leaving the UK does not want to impose tariffs on products but the EU seems committed to punishing the UK which will lead to tariffs being put on from both sides. If this is going to happen this is going to be EU led
    - Your travel to and enjoyment of other European countries will not be made harder if we leave :roll: . You will still have your passport checked as you do now. This view is so far out of touch with what the reality will be. Tourism is a positive to a country. This will not change :roll:

    orraloon wrote:
    If this vote goes wrong, I want a 'not in my name' opt back in. Course that might be because I am myself an economic migrant having left Scotland in the 80s to seek work, fortune and better living conditions for myself and future family in England... 'Kin immigrants eh?

    Funny you should mention Scotland. Upon a UK exit you may easily be able to implement the 'not in your name' option by simply moving there. I wonder if the scenario of the UK out but Scotland IN if we find your words are just hot air?
    Do you really see yourself as an economic migrant? You demean your posts with your last couple of sentences
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,614
    I wonder if there is going to be an exodus of old wrinklies from the green pastures of the Costa Del Whatever when they can no longer draw their pensions and benefits in the EU - because Spain will be classed as 'abroad' surely?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,591
    Pinno wrote:
    I wonder if there is going to be an exodus of old wrinklies from the green pastures of the Costa Del Whatever when they can no longer draw their pensions and benefits in the EU - because Spain will be classed as 'abroad' surely?
    I imagine that it would be not be much/any different to drawing their pensions in New Zealand (as an example).
    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.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,299
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Funny you should mention Scotland. Upon a UK exit you may easily be able to implement the 'not in your name' option by simply moving there. I wonder if the scenario of the UK out but Scotland IN if we find your words are just hot air?
    Do you really see yourself as an economic migrant? You demean your posts with your last couple of sentences

    Ooh, the mask slips a little. Getting rather close to the why don't you xxxx off back where you came from there, me ol' china.

    As for Rees-Smug, no respect whatsoever for that simpering pretentious uber-tw4t. If that's the future standard of our politicians, good luck with negotiating a favourable deal with EU or other country if UK is represented by the likes of him and Boris (give a publicly funded stadium to a Premier League football business at a peppercorn rent and we'll pay for their corner flags) Johnson.

Categories