Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[dandarez]

///ajd said:

Jockman said:

///ajd said:

I see Hollande has also put May back in her box.

Terrific.

If you need to use Hollande to justify a point then the point was probably not worth making in the first place.

Its worse than that - when Hollande can make you PM look dafter than he is, you know we're in trouble.

Hollande is just following the other EU gits and Merkel and they are trying to look tough and take on a de Gaulle approach.
He's left it a tad too late!
Mr 4% is going soon.
He's irrelevant.
Totally.

Even the French people think and say so!

[FN2TypeR]

///ajd said:

Jockman said:

///ajd said:

I see Hollande has also put May back in her box.

Terrific.

If you need to use Hollande to justify a point then the point was probably not worth making in the first place.

Its worse than that - when Hollande can make you PM look dafter than he is, you know we're in trouble.

I've seen crack heads that are less desperate than you seem to be

[///ajd]

FN2TypeR said:

///ajd said:

Jockman said:

///ajd said:

I see Hollande has also put May back in her box.

Terrific.

If you need to use Hollande to justify a point then the point was probably not worth making in the first place.

Its worse than that - when Hollande can make you PM look dafter than he is, you know we're in trouble.

I've seen crack heads that are less desperate than you seem to be

I'm sure you have.

[barryrs]

///ajd said:

Not sure where your numbers are from 2015:

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-new...

All big germans in UK well under 200k, Porsche only 12k.

VW make 6-10million cars/year depending what you count, BMW Merc >2m.

I'm not seeing 27% share or anywhere near?

I think you might be missing the point thats already been highlighted.

Number of cars sold is irrelevant its the profits made on the sales.

In your link BMW sold 167K cars in 2015 out of 2.25 million cars manufactured globally, so 7.4% but the UK equates to 10.7% of its profits.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

many here are very respectful towards Junker.

Junker deserves no respect whatsoever.

Any institution of worth would have removed him from office the moment he turned up to work, pissed out of his head and started to bh Slap and insult world leaders he is supposed to be dealing responsibly with.

In most businesses, an employee turning up for work pissed would get the sack, assaulting people whilst in the role at work would also be instant dismissal.

The fact that he is still there, despite his alcoholic behaviour is one of the better indicators of just how unprofessional and out of step with the real world the EU institutions have become.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

So when we are threatening to stop co-op with EU on defence, do we want

a) the french to carry on protecting our subs or
b) stop protecting our subs

I can't work out if there is a flaw in this threat?

What do you think? Is it all a great plan, or is it monumental muppetry?

You don't understand the difference between NATO and the EU do you, or the difference between defence/military and intelligence services.

The EU has been receiving for free (in fact we pay them to give it to them), for 44 years, the benefits of our intelligence expense and expertise. If they wish to continue to receive that service, they will have to pay for it.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

Its worse than that - when Hollande can make you PM look dafter than he is, you know we're in trouble.

Has Mr's May had a recent sex change? You cant even get the gender of the PM right.

[Digga]

Jockman said:

Digga said:

Sure about that? See my post above and go compare prices for top-end 911s here and on the continent.

Any businessman knows:

1. Profit trumps turnover.
2. Car makers need volume to survive.

Turnover isn't even second on the list.

Cashflow first, then profit.

Thank you; by which the car makers use their in-house finance to keep extracting the rent from the consumer. 60% of all UK cars now being on PCP and probably even more on manufacturer-owned finance of some sort.

[Murph7355]

jsf said:

Has Mr's May had a recent sex change? You cant even get the gender of the PM right.

"he" referred to Hollande (and I think "you" was meant to be "your").

[///ajd]

barryrs said:

///ajd said:

Not sure where your numbers are from 2015:

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-new...

All big germans in UK well under 200k, Porsche only 12k.

VW make 6-10million cars/year depending what you count, BMW Merc >2m.

I'm not seeing 27% share or anywhere near?

I think you might be missing the point thats already been highlighted.

Number of cars sold is irrelevant its the profits made on the sales.

In your link BMW sold 167K cars in 2015 out of 2.25 million cars manufactured globally, so 7.4% but the UK equates to 10.7% of its profits.

OK 7-10% I can see

27%?

[Balmoral]

barryrs said:

///ajd said:

Not sure where your numbers are from 2015

I think you might be missing the point that's already been highlighted.

It was on another thread yonks ago, someone said it was 20%, that was challenged, links were provided and it turned out it was 27% (with a separate and connected figure of 1 in 3 new cars sold in the UK being German).

However, whatever the detail, I don't see why the remainers would seek to diminutise the potential damage to the German car industry, as it's just the sort of post brexit clusterfk of pain and hurt that supports the remain argument. But no, because the acknowledgement that they have more to lose than us (in just one sector, let alone across the board) would be supporting the point about there being strong bargaining chips on the part of the UK. Win/win doesn't fit with the desired lose/lose scenario that is necessary for Brussels for political reasons, and for the remainers who want to be proved right, not wrong. The strong desire for failure/punishment is tangible.

[FN2TypeR]

///ajd said:

FN2TypeR said:

///ajd said:

Jockman said:

///ajd said:

I see Hollande has also put May back in her box.

Terrific.

If you need to use Hollande to justify a point then the point was probably not worth making in the first place.

Its worse than that - when Hollande can make you PM look dafter than he is, you know we're in trouble.

I've seen crack heads that are less desperate than you seem to be

I'm sure you have.

Several, having worked with a charity that dealt with drug cases during my formative years. They weren't as desperate to paint everything black like you are though, in fairness to them. Hilarious - a comment made by the President of France and you're on it like it's some crushing indictment and the end of days.

As the mighty Trumpy would say, VERY SAD.

[Burwood]

Murph7355 said:

///ajd said:

Its worse than that - when Hollande can make you PM look dafter than he is, you know we're in trouble.

When that happens we'll let you know.

I'm surprised you still live here/identify as British...

He really is hating on his own country.

[///ajd]

Balmoral said:

barryrs said:

///ajd said:

Not sure where your numbers are from 2015

I think you might be missing the point that's already been highlighted.

It was on another thread yonks ago, someone said it was 20%, that was challenged, links were provided and it turned out it was 27% (with a separate and connected figure of 1 in 3 new cars sold in the UK being German).

However, whatever the detail, I don't see why the remainers would seek to diminutise the potential damage to the German car industry, as it's just the sort of post brexit clusterfk of pain and hurt that supports the remain argument. But no, because the acknowledgement that they have more to lose than us (in just one sector, let alone across the board) would be supporting the point about there being strong bargaining chips on the part of the UK. Win/win doesn't fit with the desired lose/lose scenario that is necessary for Brussels for political reasons, and for the remainers who want to be proved right, not wrong. The strong desire for failure/punishment is tangible.

I have an open mind as to whether its a strong bargaining chip.

I don't think it is very strong at all at 7-10%. Remember the tariff is only 10% and on premium brands would be absorbed - using the exact same argument as those dismissing the 15% currency drop. Combining the two might be more of an issue and 27% would be a different matter again but I can't see that being near reality from the numbers I've seen.

27% sounds a huge exaggeration, but open to see the working.

[///ajd]

FN2TypeR said:

///ajd said:

FN2TypeR said:

///ajd said:

Jockman said:

///ajd said:

I see Hollande has also put May back in her box.

Terrific.

If you need to use Hollande to justify a point then the point was probably not worth making in the first place.

Its worse than that - when Hollande can make you PM look dafter than he is, you know we're in trouble.

I've seen crack heads that are less desperate than you seem to be

I'm sure you have.

Several, having worked with a charity that dealt with drug cases during my formative years. They weren't as desperate to paint everything black like you are though, in fairness to them. Hilarious - a comment made by the President of France and you're on it like it's some crushing indictment and the end of days.

As the mighty Trumpy would say, VERY SAD.

The issue is more that May outlines her negotiation proposal to the EU on the world stage.

Immediately the heads of the two major EU states say "nah bks, you'll do it how we say"

It looks amateurish and misguided at best - on all sides. May should have judged the letter better if she knew the reaction, and it all looks disjointed.

If you've worked with kids on drugs I would have not expected you to treat the topic so flippantly.

[confused_buyer]

There are pre-negotiation posturings going on by all sides.

Merkel's statement was actually quite positive as it is the first time she has explicitly talked about trade deal negotiations during the 2 year peroid.

The EU have always said their first subject will be terms & conditions and money in particular but they seem to be subtly relaxing with the idea that once that conversation has been had they can move onto trade as part of the overall package. They will want an admission from the UK that the UK will honour its obligations as part of that deal though which I think is fair enough.

If there is a justified bill to be paid we will have to pay it. We might not like it but we are not international outlaws and as long as the EU works to real obligations rather than punitive ones I suspect a deal will be cut eventually.

[turbobloke]

confused_buyer said:

If there is a justified bill to be paid we will have to pay it.

Do we then get our share of any future returns on use of that money, where a return may arise?

[confused_buyer]

///ajd said:

I have an open mind as to whether its a strong bargaining chip.

I don't think it is very strong at all at 7-10%. Remember the tariff is only 10% and on premium brands would be absorbed - using the exact same argument as those dismissing the 15% currency drop. Combining the two might be more of an issue and 27% would be a different matter again but I can't see that being near reality from the numbers I've seen.

27% sounds a huge exaggeration, but open to see the working.

The simple fact is neither side wants any actual tariffs. There may well be some very long arguments about non-tariff barriers but there is barely a single person in the UK, the EU, any EU governments and certainly any industry who, no matter what they may say in public, would actually want to see this happen.

The EU (and the UK as part of it) have tariff free trade with a long list of countries with absolutely no other commitments whatsoever (e.g. South Korea) so it really isn't very hard. The non-tariff aspects are far more difficult to negotiate.

There would be no winnners in such a situation so all being well it will not happen. About the only real benefit to a total breakdown I can think of is not having to give any money to the Netherlands Government every time I have to suffer their god awful effort of a train service in East Anglia anymore.

[confused_buyer]

turbobloke said:

Do we then get our share of any future returns on use of that money, where a return may arise?

Short answer: Yes. Where we can prove returns we should get them and where the EU can prove liabilities we'll have to pay them.

[Jockman]

turbobloke said:

confused_buyer said:

If there is a justified bill to be paid we will have to pay it.

Do we then get our share of any future returns on use of that money, where a return may arise?

Not sure of the breakdown but its looking circa 30bn Euros. Would need to see some detailed figures.