The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[B'stard Child]

alfie2244 said:

Not forgetting our own jawknee we have a Dutchman, a Fin and a Faux Frenchy as the forum's eminent moaners...must be a joke in there somewhere?

several surely?

[Burwood]

Did you notice they are large size? I wonder what size they would be using the standard numerical system. My son has a 5, he's 2 though. You?

[Burwood]

B'stard Child said:

alfie2244 said:

Not forgetting our own jawknee we have a Dutchman, a Fin and a Faux Frenchy as the forum's eminent moaners...must be a joke in there somewhere?

several surely?

I don't think he is Dutch. He's a Pomme living at their good grace and soiling himself that he may not for much longer. If he is Dutch by some small chance(see pants) then he should be kept out. Toad of toad hall

[WinstonWolf]

DeltonaS said:

Burwood said:

Hey DeltonS- you need to read a book or maybe pull your head out of your ass, such that you can see London has been the head of Europes finances for, ooh about 600 years. Do you think the little EU will change that

You seem very bitter about something

Just as bitter as the slight minority but at the same time better informed people who voted remain.

We've got ourselves another remoaner...

[B'stard Child]

Burwood said:

B'stard Child said:

alfie2244 said:

Not forgetting our own jawknee we have a Dutchman, a Fin and a Faux Frenchy as the forum's eminent moaners...must be a joke in there somewhere?

several surely?

I don't think he is Dutch. He's a Pomme living at their good grace and soiling himself that he may not for much longer. If he is Dutch by some small chance(see pants) then he should be kept out. Toad of toad hall

Ahhh sorry you meant a joke with a combination of all of them..........

I was thinking individually and agreeing

[Burwood]

What do you do dude (see pot ref) Back office Ops risk. Settlements? ABN right? I worked for ABN for a while. They couldn't handle the fact that London office told head office what to do. That's a fact. And a classic example of the relative power of London vs any other European city, let alone Amsterdam.

[alfie2244]

B'stard Child said:

Burwood said:

B'stard Child said:

alfie2244 said:

Not forgetting our own jawknee we have a Dutchman, a Fin and a Faux Frenchy as the forum's eminent moaners...must be a joke in there somewhere?

several surely?

I don't think he is Dutch. He's a Pomme living at their good grace and soiling himself that he may not for much longer. If he is Dutch by some small chance(see pants) then he should be kept out. Toad of toad hall

Ahhh sorry you meant a joke with a combination of all of them..........

I was thinking individually and agreeing

Either way I would think?

i.e. There was a Dodgy Dutchman, a faux Frenchman and a Finnish sailor sitting in a whine bar whingeing about Brexit which one da de da de da?

[Burwood]

alfie2244 said:

B'stard Child said:

Burwood said:

B'stard Child said:

alfie2244 said:

Not forgetting our own jawknee we have a Dutchman, a Fin and a Faux Frenchy as the forum's eminent moaners...must be a joke in there somewhere?

several surely?

I don't think he is Dutch. He's a Pomme living at their good grace and soiling himself that he may not for much longer. If he is Dutch by some small chance(see pants) then he should be kept out. Toad of toad hall

Ahhh sorry you meant a joke with a combination of all of them..........

I was thinking individually and agreeing

Either way I would think?

i.e. There was a Dodgy Dutchman, a faux Frenchman and a Finnish sailor sitting in a whine bar whingeing about Brexit which one da de da de da?

faux dutchman-he is englishman, seconded to Amsterdam, most likely by ABN, failed RBS Could be ING or Rabo. All of which have bigger London operations(revenues) than their parents and all of which are pissant on the banking front cf competitors

[jdw100]

Burwood said:

didn't even notice but there is a little mangina there as well

Didn't 50overthetopMustang post a photo of these in the 'bulletproof briefcase' thread in the Lounge?

[///ajd]

KrissKross said:

Trabi601 said:

Ahhh, you're one of those, aren't you.

One of millions.

No denial then. Perhaps I have a valid point after all.

[Pan Pan Pan]

SKP555 said:

It would have been at least inconsistent to have required a supermajority to leave when we joined without a referendum at all and stayed in with a simple majority in 1975.

Without mentioning the fact that at no point since the Maastricht Treaty would there have been any possibility of the dramatic constitutional changes entailed in the development of the EU project having that level of support.

It also should apply only to a very clear status quo such as changing a written constitution, not giving a green light to a grand scale political project simply because we've got a trade agreement with it.

Such a principle needs to be consistent not just arbitrarily imposed if the government fears it might not get its way.

If the UK government had tried to take the UK out of the EU in 2016 in the same way it took the UK into it there would have been outrage and uproar across the UK. The 1973 UK government took the UK into the EEC without giving the people of the UK a vote on whether they wanted to be in or out of it. ,
In 1975 the people of the UK were given a vote on whether or not they wanted to remain in the EEC on a tiny fraction of the information that was available for the 2016 voter, (who by 2016 also had knowledge of what being in the EU actually meant), something that was almost completely unavailable in 1975.
In 1993 the EEC decided to turn itself into the EU, a completely different set up to the EEC with no vote on the matter being given to any person in Europe. Given the un democratic way UK governments both Conservative and labour

[b2hbm]

Trabi601 said:

It's exactly this kind of backward looking nonsense that has brought us to where we are now.

The EU will lose our net contribution - but it's a drop in the ocean, equating to around £320m per member country per year. In EU budget terms this is the small change down the back of the sofa.

That's reassuring, maybe we won't have to pay £50b or whatever it is to leave because clearly the EU don't need our tiny contribution ? When I realise how little the UK contributes I'm surprised they let us in at all. Mind you, that £320m is probably larger than some of the EU countries are paying in, so perhaps a 100% jump in their contributions for 2020 might make them think we were worth having around.

Trabi601 said:

Same with the trade deficits, split everything between member countries, and you'll find we're not quite as significant as some think we are.

Ah, there we go again, splitting the 45% of UK trade with the other 27 EU countries and saying they'll never even know we've gone. The snag is that we only have meaningful trade with a handful of those 27. It's still only single % numbers but big enough that they will know if it stops.

Trabi601 said:

It's not 1950 anymore - and it's time that many of those 52% remembered this.

And I'm glad it's not still 1950. That wasn't the golden age you seem to presume, we still had food rationing in this country for starters. Even more significantly, I hadn't been born yet.....

[Pan Pan Pan]

Pan Pan Pan said:

SKP555 said:

It would have been at least inconsistent to have required a supermajority to leave when we joined without a referendum at all and stayed in with a simple majority in 1975.

Without mentioning the fact that at no point since the Maastricht Treaty would there have been any possibility of the dramatic constitutional changes entailed in the development of the EU project having that level of support.

It also should apply only to a very clear status quo such as changing a written constitution, not giving a green light to a grand scale political project simply because we've got a trade agreement with it.

Such a principle needs to be consistent not just arbitrarily imposed if the government fears it might not get its way.

If the UK government had tried to take the UK out of the EU in 2016 in the same way it took the UK into it there would have been outrage and uproar across the UK. The 1973 UK government took the UK into the EEC without giving the people of the UK a vote on whether they wanted to be in or out of it. ,
In 1975 the people of the UK were given a vote on whether or not they wanted to remain in the EEC on a tiny fraction of the information that was available for the 2016 voter, (who by 2016 also had knowledge of what being in the EU actually meant), something that was almost completely unavailable in 1975.
In 1993 the EEC decided to turn itself into the EU, a completely different set up to the EEC with no vote on the matter being given to any person in Europe. Given the un democratic way UK governments both Conservative and Labour took the UK into the whole sorry mess, it is quite possible that the UK`s membership of what is now the EU is illegal.
Imagine the squealing and gnashing of teeth from the remoaners, if in 2016, the government had simply taken the UK out of the EU, without giving the people a vote on the matter, and had realizing that doing that was a mistake, had only given the people a vote on whether they wanted to stay out of it, three years later in 2019, (whilst providing no information by comparison to 2016 on what staying out of it would actually mean). Yet that is the disgustingly dishonest way in which UK government took the UK into the EEC/EU in the first place.
Once the EU`s second largest net contributor of funds, and biggest single market for its goods and services walks out of the door, taking its 80% of fish stocks in UK territorial waters, Germany will have to stump up the cash to keep the failed Ponzi scheme alive, Countries that are currently net recipients of EU hand outs will not only have their cash cut off, but will have to start paying money into EU coffers, instead of taking it out every year. Once that happens quite a few, who are struggling now, will find themselves forced to leave the EU on the basis, that they simply don't have the wherewithal to pay for membership of the `club' They are onside now because a dog does not bite the hand that (currently) feeds it, but once they are no longer being fed bribes by the EU, they may just decide to take that being in the EU is no longer any real and tangible good to them. A situation which the UK seems to have realized is case already.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 6th April 07:23

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 6th April 07:25

[Burwood]

Trai601, providing a laugh a minute. The uks net contribution is ' a drop in the bucket''

You aren't a student if finance of any kind are you. It sounds to me that we'll get a sweat deal based on the size of the cheque we cut them. Careful you don't end up looking stupid

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

KrissKross said:

Trabi601 said:

Ahhh, you're one of those, aren't you.

One of millions.

No denial then. Perhaps I have a valid point after all.

The valid point being?

[don'tbesilly]

I wonder how many more 'u' turns or 3 point turns are due:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...

[Burwood]

///ajd said:

KrissKross said:

Trabi601 said:

Ahhh, you're one of those, aren't you.

One of millions.

No denial then. Perhaps I have a valid point after all.

grow up man. Your level of retort is feeble and infantile
What next? My Dad's bigger than your Dad

[Mrr T]

don'tbesilly said:

I wonder how many more 'u' turns or 3 point turns are due:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...

I am always fascinated whether people read more than the headline before posting.

The first paragraph then says:

“in the next two years as a result of Brexit”

Now the UK government appears to have signed up to the EU exit time table which means all EU rules, including passporting, will apply for the next five years. I would suggest his remarks are entirely logical.

[anonymous-user]

Burwood said:

alfie2244 said:

B'stard Child said:

Burwood said:

B'stard Child said:

alfie2244 said:

Not forgetting our own jawknee we have a Dutchman, a Fin and a Faux Frenchy as the forum's eminent moaners...must be a joke in there somewhere?

several surely?

I don't think he is Dutch. He's a Pomme living at their good grace and soiling himself that he may not for much longer. If he is Dutch by some small chance(see pants) then he should be kept out. Toad of toad hall

Ahhh sorry you meant a joke with a combination of all of them..........

I was thinking individually and agreeing

Either way I would think?

i.e. There was a Dodgy Dutchman, a faux Frenchman and a Finnish sailor sitting in a whine bar whingeing about Brexit which one da de da de da?

faux dutchman-he is englishman, seconded to Amsterdam, most likely by ABN, failed RBS Could be ING or Rabo. All of which have bigger London operations(revenues) than their parents and all of which are pissant on the banking front cf competitors

Wow pitchforks at the ready.

[Burwood]

Mrr T said:

don'tbesilly said:

I wonder how many more 'u' turns or 3 point turns are due:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...

I am always fascinated whether people read more than the headline before posting.

The first paragraph then says:

“in the next two years as a result of Brexit”

Now the UK government appears to have signed up to the EU exit time table which means all EU rules, including passporting, will apply for the next five years. I would suggest his remarks are entirely logical.

The back peddling starts. Mr T concedes he got it wrong. Trying to save face by making up nonsense again about the UK government signing up for things.