So much cobblers talked about Brexit.
Discussion
Eddie Strohacker said:
A decent measure of the cobblers talked about Brexit would be page after page of whiny winning leavists decrying the deception foisted on them in 1975 (sure it was) and therefore would never have joined if only they'd known what they were getting into and yet ditching the whole thing in 2019 with absolutely no clue whatsoever in a million years what they're dragging themselves & the non reckless half of the population into, but that's all cool & stuff.
The sheer brass neck of that line is breathtaking.
Lost that trough?The sheer brass neck of that line is breathtaking.
There will be another along soon pet
Mrr T said:
You are Boris Johnson and I claim my 5 euro.
It does seem a trait of some leavers to post something which is so obvious to them but shows a complete absence of any understanding of the complexities.
The above figures are correct but ignore many other questions.
1. The UK payment includes about £900M which counts towards the UK commitment to spend 1.4% of GDP on foreign aid. The government is committed to continue with that so it will still be spent just directly by the government.
2. The Government is committed to leaving the SM and CU. This means they need to build and run a customs border with the rEU, how much will that cost?
3. The EU currently has centralised institutions overseeing say the licensing of pharmaceuticals. How much will it cost the UK to set up and run equivalent institutions.
4. One of the greatest benefits to the UK economy is passporting, If that is lost it could cost the UK billions in tax revenue.
So the answer is it’s not clear cut or simple. Brexit might cost money.
MrT[Thatcher Jnr??], I may indeed be Mr Johnson, or even Mr Rees-Mogg, but you will not claim 5Euros and nor will you pass Go collecting £200, instead go straight to jail It does seem a trait of some leavers to post something which is so obvious to them but shows a complete absence of any understanding of the complexities.
The above figures are correct but ignore many other questions.
1. The UK payment includes about £900M which counts towards the UK commitment to spend 1.4% of GDP on foreign aid. The government is committed to continue with that so it will still be spent just directly by the government.
2. The Government is committed to leaving the SM and CU. This means they need to build and run a customs border with the rEU, how much will that cost?
3. The EU currently has centralised institutions overseeing say the licensing of pharmaceuticals. How much will it cost the UK to set up and run equivalent institutions.
4. One of the greatest benefits to the UK economy is passporting, If that is lost it could cost the UK billions in tax revenue.
So the answer is it’s not clear cut or simple. Brexit might cost money.
All, the one point many fail to grasp, often muddied by the press and general excess Brexit noise is that it is generally accepted the cost to UK plc post Brexit will be equal to the existing Nett payment to Brussels. The logic being there should be no need for inflated service operational costs. Logically, there is no economic reason why these UK-EU functions sets will cost more.
Now to show I am neither Boris nor Jacob, I'm a technical consultant in the pharmaceutical sector to UK/US/EU pharmaCo's and I can assure you there will be no increased R&D, production, cost to market of pharma products post Brexit. In this highly competitive market the UK is a co-joint world sector leader and the EU needs UK pharma know-how. As note, I'm currently working with revised EU pharma regulatory for new 2019-2022 policy. The new policy structure includes co-joint UK-EU compliance that recognises full UK provision to both EMA and FDA policy without any increase to cross market pharma supply, IP licencing and direct sales. The primary objective of current/to be revised policy is to ensure EMA and FDA compliance. For those of you familiar within pharma we're talking full life-cycle EU pharmacovigilance.
In other sectors, we should carefully observe the primary factors why EU nations need the UK, rather than why it will cost UK plc to remain an open import/export market. The easiest sector is the German automobile sector. Germany will not allow revenues to fall. Same for all other EU nation states that export to the UK.
My position is simple, don't allow the Brexit noise levels to obscure your natural thinking. And FFS, stop putting down UK plc...we have far, far more going for us than many of the EU member states.
Yours,
Jacob Rees-Mogg for Prime Minister
jjlynn27 said:
gooner1 said:
He was indeed, do you think that was the reason the " emergency budget" wasn't deployed?
Also would you agree that the term "emergency budget" indicates that
it would need to be brought into being asap?
How does that sit with the fact that Osborne was still Chacellor a month after the vote, or that Hammond, a staunch Remainer, didn't see the need to to implement it, after taking Osborne's
place as Chancellor?
Is it important that Hammond was a remainer?Also would you agree that the term "emergency budget" indicates that
it would need to be brought into being asap?
How does that sit with the fact that Osborne was still Chacellor a month after the vote, or that Hammond, a staunch Remainer, didn't see the need to to implement it, after taking Osborne's
place as Chancellor?
That's misrepresenting things somewhat. It's not that Hammond didn't see the need for an emergency budget, but, for obvious political reasons, decided to prioritize spending instead of trying to balance the books.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37536943
In the context that he decided that the outgoing chancellors claim that an "emergency budget" was needed was clearly false. If he, Hammond, had been a Leave voter, different assumptions may have been drawn re his decision.
gooner1 said:
jjlynn27 said:
gooner1 said:
He was indeed, do you think that was the reason the " emergency budget" wasn't deployed?
Also would you agree that the term "emergency budget" indicates that
it would need to be brought into being asap?
How does that sit with the fact that Osborne was still Chacellor a month after the vote, or that Hammond, a staunch Remainer, didn't see the need to to implement it, after taking Osborne's
place as Chancellor?
Is it important that Hammond was a remainer?Also would you agree that the term "emergency budget" indicates that
it would need to be brought into being asap?
How does that sit with the fact that Osborne was still Chacellor a month after the vote, or that Hammond, a staunch Remainer, didn't see the need to to implement it, after taking Osborne's
place as Chancellor?
That's misrepresenting things somewhat. It's not that Hammond didn't see the need for an emergency budget, but, for obvious political reasons, decided to prioritize spending instead of trying to balance the books.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37536943
In the context that he decided that the outgoing chancellors claim that an "emergency budget" was needed was clearly false. If he, Hammond, had been a Leave voter, different assumptions may have been drawn re his decision.
jjlynn27 said:
gooner1 said:
jjlynn27 said:
gooner1 said:
He was indeed, do you think that was the reason the " emergency budget" wasn't deployed?
Also would you agree that the term "emergency budget" indicates that
it would need to be brought into being asap?
How does that sit with the fact that Osborne was still Chacellor a month after the vote, or that Hammond, a staunch Remainer, didn't see the need to to implement it, after taking Osborne's
place as Chancellor?
Is it important that Hammond was a remainer?Also would you agree that the term "emergency budget" indicates that
it would need to be brought into being asap?
How does that sit with the fact that Osborne was still Chacellor a month after the vote, or that Hammond, a staunch Remainer, didn't see the need to to implement it, after taking Osborne's
place as Chancellor?
That's misrepresenting things somewhat. It's not that Hammond didn't see the need for an emergency budget, but, for obvious political reasons, decided to prioritize spending instead of trying to balance the books.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37536943
In the context that he decided that the outgoing chancellors claim that an "emergency budget" was needed was clearly false. If he, Hammond, had been a Leave voter, different assumptions may have been drawn re his decision.
Hammond decided on a different course to follow, hence making Osborne's claim that an "emergency budget" was needed a clearly false claim. You do know what emergency means, do you not?
Edited by gooner1 on Tuesday 23 January 19:43
gooner1 said:
Where did I claim that a Leave supporting chancellor would not have the same choice.
Hammond decided on a different course to follow, hence making Osborne's claim that an "emergency budget" was needed a clearly false claim. You do know what emergency means, do you not?
One last time;Hammond decided on a different course to follow, hence making Osborne's claim that an "emergency budget" was needed a clearly false claim. You do know what emergency means, do you not?
Edited by gooner1 on Tuesday 23 January 19:43
To keep on Osborne's target of reducing the deficit and balancing books, an emergency budget was needed. Yes?
Hammond decided that, because of Brexit impact, the same impact that would require an emergency budget in order to continue on the road of balancing books, he needed to increase spending and ditch the balancing book manifesto pledge.
Still unsure why would it make any difference whatsoever if 'new' chancellor was remainer or leaver. Regardless of their personal belief, they'd inherited exactly the same conditions with exactly the same choices open to them.
jjlynn27 said:
It's not important at all. The leave chancellor would have the same choice. The choice was to continue and try to balance the books or to increase spending, kick the balancing proverbial can down the road, and avoid emergency budget. Different chancellor with a different approach. 'Clearly false' is completely meaningless.
Still not getting it are you.Economics is more akin to oija board studies combined with astrology and a portion of randomness due to hom sap interactions.
jjlynn27 said:
One last time;
To keep on Osborne's target of reducing the deficit and balancing books, an emergency budget was needed. Yes?
Hammond decided that, because of Brexit impact, the same impact that would require an emergency budget in order to continue on the road of balancing books, he needed to increase spending and ditch the balancing book manifesto pledge.
Still unsure why would it make any difference whatsoever if ''s new' chancellor was remainer or leaver. Regardless of their personal belief, they'd inherited exactly the same conditions with exactly the same choices open to them.
Osborne was still chancellor a month after his "emergency budget" claim was made.To keep on Osborne's target of reducing the deficit and balancing books, an emergency budget was needed. Yes?
Hammond decided that, because of Brexit impact, the same impact that would require an emergency budget in order to continue on the road of balancing books, he needed to increase spending and ditch the balancing book manifesto pledge.
Still unsure why would it make any difference whatsoever if ''s new' chancellor was remainer or leaver. Regardless of their personal belief, they'd inherited exactly the same conditions with exactly the same choices open to them.
No budget of his was enacted in that time. An "emergency" requires immediate action, No?
As to whether the new chancellor was a Remainer or a Leaver, would possibly influence any decision they may have taken, the fact that it was a fellow Remainer that ignored Osborne's drama queen claim,is very telling, imo.
Edited to add that the fact that Osborne's wish to keep on target and balance the books, does not constitute an emergency.
Edited by gooner1 on Tuesday 23 January 20:33
mx5nut said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
A decent measure of the cobblers talked about Brexit would be page after page of whiny winning leavists decrying the deception foisted on them in 1975 (sure it was) and therefore would never have joined if only they'd known what they were getting into and yet ditching the whole thing in 2019 with absolutely no clue whatsoever in a million years what they're dragging themselves & the non reckless half of the population into, but that's all cool & stuff.
The sheer brass neck of that line is breathtaking.
They've spent the years since then talking the country down and moaning about the decision instead of accepting the democratic will of the people and getting behind the EU.The sheer brass neck of that line is breathtaking.
Just in case you really aren’t aware, the 1975 vote was to join the Common Market.
The EU and what it has become was not even a vision in Druncker’s fuzzy mind, nor any of his partners in crime, at that time.
It was right to vote to join the CM, just as it is right to vote to leave the corrupt institution the EU is.
chrispmartha said:
Is it their aim, when have they said this?
So in 1975 when the said it would lead to the UK being one nation with the rest of Europe was that that a fact because 43 years later it hasn’t happened
So what does/did "ever closer union" actually mean? And when was "ever closer" noted as coming to its ultimate conclusion (logically being "unified" one assumes...otherwise what is the end point of being "ever closer")?So in 1975 when the said it would lead to the UK being one nation with the rest of Europe was that that a fact because 43 years later it hasn’t happened
Eddie Strohacker said:
A decent measure of the cobblers talked about Brexit would be page after page of whiny winning leavists decrying the deception foisted on them in 1975 (sure it was) and therefore would never have joined if only they'd known what they were getting into and yet ditching the whole thing in 2019 with absolutely no clue whatsoever in a million years what they're dragging themselves & the non reckless half of the population into, but that's all cool & stuff.
The sheer brass neck of that line is breathtaking.
Brexit topics are ace if only because the same argument can be used both ways. Including that one The sheer brass neck of that line is breathtaking.
Murph7355 said:
chrispmartha said:
Is it their aim, when have they said this?
So in 1975 when the said it would lead to the UK being one nation with the rest of Europe was that that a fact because 43 years later it hasn’t happened
So what does/did "ever closer union" actually mean? So in 1975 when the said it would lead to the UK being one nation with the rest of Europe was that that a fact because 43 years later it hasn’t happened
REALIST123 said:
Ahh, Dumb and Dumber!
Just in case you really aren’t aware, the 1975 vote was to join the Common Market.
The EU and what it has become was not even a vision in Druncker’s fuzzy mind, nor any of his partners in crime, at that time.
It was right to vote to join the CM, just as it is right to vote to leave the corrupt institution the EU is.
You'd say, if you could read that is, you missed the point by a country mile. Just in case you really aren’t aware, the 1975 vote was to join the Common Market.
The EU and what it has become was not even a vision in Druncker’s fuzzy mind, nor any of his partners in crime, at that time.
It was right to vote to join the CM, just as it is right to vote to leave the corrupt institution the EU is.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff