Discussion
walm said:
don4l said:
Your post proves my point very nicely. Thank you.
Are David Owen and Nigel Lawson also grade A morons?
Thanks for the BBC link. However, if you don't mind, I will use my own company's accounts to tell me how much EU regulation is costing me.
disastrous, do you now understand where I am coming from? I'm now an old, white, uneducated racist moron.
Oh - I am sorry - YOUR accounts. Are David Owen and Nigel Lawson also grade A morons?
Thanks for the BBC link. However, if you don't mind, I will use my own company's accounts to tell me how much EU regulation is costing me.
disastrous, do you now understand where I am coming from? I'm now an old, white, uneducated racist moron.
My decision is based of first hand knowledge.
You are basing your opinion on the BBC, who in turn use the Guardian.
walm said:
Obviously when you said, "I believe EU regulations account for 5% of business costs"... what you really meant is "I have no idea about anyone else but for my business it's 5% therefore my comment is relevant to precisely no one other than me."
Invesco sait it was 5.2% nationally.Your argument seems that you haven't a clue what the regulatory burden is, but some stranger on the Internet must be wrong.
walm said:
There I was thinking you had made a statement that might actually be relevant to the debate for THE WHOLE COUNTRY.
Not just one blinkered individual.
Your heroes Owen and Lawson explicitly suggested yesterday that we "carry over all the EU law that currently applies to the UK into domestic law, so that at the outset, nothing changes at all."
What is that going to do to your accounts???
Here is what your heroes have to say on negotiating with the EU...
"we should not attempt to dictate the shape of any trade negotiations except to say WE ARE READY TO NEGOTIATE."
Honestly - can you even read?
As usual, when cornered, you attempt some strawmen, and a bit of goalpost relocation.Not just one blinkered individual.
Your heroes Owen and Lawson explicitly suggested yesterday that we "carry over all the EU law that currently applies to the UK into domestic law, so that at the outset, nothing changes at all."
What is that going to do to your accounts???
Here is what your heroes have to say on negotiating with the EU...
"we should not attempt to dictate the shape of any trade negotiations except to say WE ARE READY TO NEGOTIATE."
Honestly - can you even read?
You said that I was a grade A moron for suggesting that we didn't need to negotiate. I give you a former Chancellor and a former Foreign secretary who agree with me.
It is a negotiating position that recognises that we are in a very strong negotiating position.
We have already seen a couple of movements from the German government.
Wolfgang Schäuble is backtracking on his "out means out" threat. Apparently he only made it because George Osborne asked him to.
Also, today there are rumours that Merkel believes that the UK could be given access without free movement.
This is all proceeding as I predicted.
Anyway, feel free to use your intellectual might to come up with convincing arguments, such as "moron".
andyps said:
WCZ said:
andyps said:
Why would it be any different for a remainer to regret their vote to a leaver? People change their minds, sometimes just because they do, sometimes because they get more information. Both these apply to people who voted for either option.
It makes no sense to regret their vote because the outcome was to leave, if they could go back in time and switch their vote to leave it wouldn't have made any difference.I suspect that this also underlies the reason that calls for a second referendum have stopped and the focus now is on lobbying MPs to overturn the result of the referendum instead.
fluffnik said:
I don't get this.
As many of you will know I'm a Scottish nationalist with no real affection for the UK, so I'm very aware of what powers ore exercised by which "foreign power" and it's very, very rarely the EU.
Despite all the "blame Europe" lies spouted by governments of all colours, the EU can only do what its members have specifically authorised it to do.
There is nothing as anti-democratic and un-sackable as the House of Lords in any of the organs of the EU.
Sitting where I am the EU looks like a members' club with excellent facilities for a very reasonable cost, whereas the UK looks like an exceedingly expensive affront to democracy with an unrepresentative and un-sackable government!
Oh, I'm self employed, I'll likely be fine, especially if I get myself an EU passport.
Scotland does face a slightly different equation on this. Ultimately I don't think a political union is sustainable with the Scotland on such a different trajectory to the rest of the UK. As many of you will know I'm a Scottish nationalist with no real affection for the UK, so I'm very aware of what powers ore exercised by which "foreign power" and it's very, very rarely the EU.
Despite all the "blame Europe" lies spouted by governments of all colours, the EU can only do what its members have specifically authorised it to do.
There is nothing as anti-democratic and un-sackable as the House of Lords in any of the organs of the EU.
Sitting where I am the EU looks like a members' club with excellent facilities for a very reasonable cost, whereas the UK looks like an exceedingly expensive affront to democracy with an unrepresentative and un-sackable government!
Oh, I'm self employed, I'll likely be fine, especially if I get myself an EU passport.
I think the Scots are misguided, but I'm sure they think I am too. If the UK ends up breaking up that would be sad, and I would hope it can be done maturely and sensibly. But that's democracy.
don4l said:
You said that I was a grade A moron for suggesting that we didn't need to negotiate. I give you a former Chancellor and a former Foreign secretary who agree with me.
They don't agree with you. That's the problem.Invesco didn't say 5.2% - that was Invesco quoting Tim Congdon and it was 5.2% of GDP not of "business costs".
Tim Congdon is/was UKIP's economic spokesman.
The same Invesco research quoted Open Europe who put it at £19.3bn or 1.3% of GDP.
Tim Congdon himself admits that estimating the figure is impossible and that he is basically making it up.
"While exact quantification of the cost of the vast body of EU interferences is impossible, both the broad-brush approaches and the more nitty-gritty specific analyses suggest that each year the UK is losing between 2% and 5½% of GDP a year because of EU regulation. The number has undoubtedly been rising and, on that basis, must now be closer to 5½% of GDP than 2% of GDP."
So yes, in conclusion, random people on the internet are invariably wrong.
Your Taylor Wimpey bet is now down 7% so do please tell us about all your other "correct" predictions.
rscott said:
don4l said:
rscott said:
don4l said:
Disastrous said:
I've just seen and heard so many people who have made their decision on this based on actual lies from the Leave campaign (though let's not get that one going again!), fear of 'foreigners', protest at 'arrogant' Tories etc. that I fear that many have made this decision for the wrong reasons. That scares me a bit. Not to mention halfwits like don4l who seem to base their entire political personae on the notion of 'winding up lefties' which is a terrifyingly childish way to make big decisions and debate issues.
I've explained my reasons for voting Leave many times. They are primarily economic, and based on the fact that I believe that EU Regulations account for 5% of business costs.However, when I have tried to discuss these issues, I get told that I am an old, white, uneducated racist who wants to kick all the foreigners out. You have actually done it again just above.
Earlier today, I mentioned that I do not feel it is necessary to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. My point was dismissed as a "typical Kipper" viewpoint. Not even the faintest effort to consider the benefits or costs of any deal.
The only one you've mentioned was RoHS, variants of which are being implemented in many non-EU countries anyway.
However, one of the clearest examples are thee WEEE regulations. Essentially, I send £1000.00 a year so that I can dispose of equipment when it reaches end of life. To date, I have sent off £14,000, but no customer has ever sent any equipment back to us. I might as well have flushed the money down the toilet.
So you send £1000 off a year and that's the biggest expense you have due to EU regulations?
Doesn't that fund contribute toward recycling costs of all electrical equipment , whether returned to you or elsewhere?
I didn't say it's the biggest expense, did I? I said that it was one of the clearest examples. It's a bit difficult to have a rational conversation if you are pretending that I am saying things that I am not saying.
Other regulations have arguable benefits. I do not believe that the RoHS rules are worth it, however it isn't as black and white. A lot of the H&S stuff is also debatable.
don4l said:
rscott said:
don4l said:
rscott said:
don4l said:
Disastrous said:
I've just seen and heard so many people who have made their decision on this based on actual lies from the Leave campaign (though let's not get that one going again!), fear of 'foreigners', protest at 'arrogant' Tories etc. that I fear that many have made this decision for the wrong reasons. That scares me a bit. Not to mention halfwits like don4l who seem to base their entire political personae on the notion of 'winding up lefties' which is a terrifyingly childish way to make big decisions and debate issues.
I've explained my reasons for voting Leave many times. They are primarily economic, and based on the fact that I believe that EU Regulations account for 5% of business costs.However, when I have tried to discuss these issues, I get told that I am an old, white, uneducated racist who wants to kick all the foreigners out. You have actually done it again just above.
Earlier today, I mentioned that I do not feel it is necessary to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. My point was dismissed as a "typical Kipper" viewpoint. Not even the faintest effort to consider the benefits or costs of any deal.
The only one you've mentioned was RoHS, variants of which are being implemented in many non-EU countries anyway.
However, one of the clearest examples are thee WEEE regulations. Essentially, I send £1000.00 a year so that I can dispose of equipment when it reaches end of life. To date, I have sent off £14,000, but no customer has ever sent any equipment back to us. I might as well have flushed the money down the toilet.
So you send £1000 off a year and that's the biggest expense you have due to EU regulations?
Doesn't that fund contribute toward recycling costs of all electrical equipment , whether returned to you or elsewhere?
I didn't say it's the biggest expense, did I? I said that it was one of the clearest examples. It's a bit difficult to have a rational conversation if you are pretending that I am saying things that I am not saying.
Other regulations have arguable benefits. I do not believe that the RoHS rules are worth it, however it isn't as black and white. A lot of the H&S stuff is also debatable.
I'll clarify the question to you. You've said 5% of your business costs are down to EU regulations. Please post the ones which make up the majority of these costs and whether you think they'd exist anyway if we weren't in the EU.
walm said:
They don't agree with you. That's the problem.
Invesco didn't say 5.2% - that was Invesco quoting Tim Congdon and it was 5.2% of GDP not of "business costs".
Tim Congdon is/was UKIP's economic spokesman.
The same Invesco research quoted Open Europe who put it at £19.3bn or 1.3% of GDP.
Tim Congdon himself admits that estimating the figure is impossible and that he is basically making it up.
"While exact quantification of the cost of the vast body of EU interferences is impossible, both the broad-brush approaches and the more nitty-gritty specific analyses suggest that each year the UK is losing between 2% and 5½% of GDP a year because of EU regulation. The number has undoubtedly been rising and, on that basis, must now be closer to 5½% of GDP than 2% of GDP."
So yes, in conclusion, random people on the internet are invariably wrong.
Your Taylor Wimpey bet is now down 7% so do please tell us about all your other "correct" predictions.
I had a broker on the phone telling me that tulips are going up. Think I'm gonna go all in on that one. Sounds like a solid tip. Ja?Invesco didn't say 5.2% - that was Invesco quoting Tim Congdon and it was 5.2% of GDP not of "business costs".
Tim Congdon is/was UKIP's economic spokesman.
The same Invesco research quoted Open Europe who put it at £19.3bn or 1.3% of GDP.
Tim Congdon himself admits that estimating the figure is impossible and that he is basically making it up.
"While exact quantification of the cost of the vast body of EU interferences is impossible, both the broad-brush approaches and the more nitty-gritty specific analyses suggest that each year the UK is losing between 2% and 5½% of GDP a year because of EU regulation. The number has undoubtedly been rising and, on that basis, must now be closer to 5½% of GDP than 2% of GDP."
So yes, in conclusion, random people on the internet are invariably wrong.
Your Taylor Wimpey bet is now down 7% so do please tell us about all your other "correct" predictions.
jjlynn27 said:
Wow that's scarily accurate 
given that nobody can predetermine the negotiations following A50.AJS- said:
fluffnik said:
Sitting where I am the EU looks like a members' club with excellent facilities for a very reasonable cost, whereas the UK looks like an exceedingly expensive affront to democracy with an unrepresentative and un-sackable government!
Scotland does face a slightly different equation on this. Ultimately I don't think a political union is sustainable with the Scotland on such a different trajectory to the rest of the UK. Indeed, we're a different country.
Not better, not worse, but very different.
AJS- said:
I think the Scots are misguided, but I'm sure they think I am too. If the UK ends up breaking up that would be sad, and I would hope it can be done maturely and sensibly. But that's democracy.
fluffnik said:
AJS- said:
fluffnik said:
Sitting where I am the EU looks like a members' club with excellent facilities for a very reasonable cost, whereas the UK looks like an exceedingly expensive affront to democracy with an unrepresentative and un-sackable government!
Scotland does face a slightly different equation on this. Ultimately I don't think a political union is sustainable with the Scotland on such a different trajectory to the rest of the UK. Indeed, we're a different country.
Not better, not worse, but very different.
AJS- said:
I think the Scots are misguided, but I'm sure they think I am too. If the UK ends up breaking up that would be sad, and I would hope it can be done maturely and sensibly. But that's democracy.
kS to that.You Sir are talking SNP nationalistic crap which I find both unacceptable and objectionable
"Not better, not worse, but very different. ".....more total s
teEdited by Stickyfinger on Wednesday 6th July 00:09
For what it's worth (the square root of fk all. ) I was a YES in 2014 and a LEAVE on the 23rd. Re new Indy ref - it should now be canned. How bloody independent do we need to be FFS. Regional autonomy within the UK out with the EU is the way forward IMHO - and was even prior to 2014 but that option was ".... categorically not on the table."
Also - and this is purely anecdotal - conversation with friends and family here in Italy are deeply envious of the UK for having made the decision and would love the opportunity themselves.
k all. ) I was a YES in 2014 and a LEAVE on the 23rd. Re new Indy ref - it should now be canned. How bloody independent do we need to be FFS. Regional autonomy within the UK out with the EU is the way forward IMHO - and was even prior to 2014 but that option was ".... categorically not on the table."Also - and this is purely anecdotal - conversation with friends and family here in Italy are deeply envious of the UK for having made the decision and would love the opportunity themselves.
Analysis of why the polls got it wrong, again, starting to come out. One thing that's emerged is that nearly all of them buggered around with methodology. Even with the final polls they were changing things, the effects of those changes seem to have depressed the Leave % forecast and increased the Remain %.
Cynical? Moi?
Cynical? Moi?
whoami said:
vonuber said:
Why?It has a silly use of the word 'betrayal' for starters.
Not one of the Grauniad's finest pieces.
turbobloke said:
whoami said:
vonuber said:
Why?It has a silly use of the word 'betrayal' for starters.
Not one of the Grauniad's finest pieces.
Simon Heffer, like him or not, sums it up in the DT, Remainders are brassed off that even though they lied quite brazenly they still lost.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/weve-ma...
FiF said:
turbobloke said:
whoami said:
vonuber said:
Why?It has a silly use of the word 'betrayal' for starters.
Not one of the Grauniad's finest pieces.
Simon Heffer, like him or not, sums it up in the DT, Remainders are brassed off that even though they lied quite brazenly they still lost.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/weve-ma...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff