How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
Tuna said:
mike9009 said:
Why can Britain not start manufacturing more cars in volume just like BMW, Audi, VW when we were in the EU?
Mixed tenses in your question so I''m not sure quite what you're asking?We seem to be much better at engineering than marketing - so whilst we can design and manufacture cars, we suck at selling them. Even in our own country BMW, Audi etc outsell our own cars.
Earthdweller said:
braddo said:
Oh really? UKIP had 3 million voters and 1 MP.
The SNP have 56 MP’s with 977k votes Your point is what ?
What's your point?
braddo said:
Tuna said:
Oh dear. Yes, it benefits from EU integration - for selling into EU markets.
Now ask yourself which markets are growing? Second question, just for lolz... do you think being held to EU market controls makes it easier or harder to develop and manufacture drugs for markets outside the EU?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10272...
Though I know you''ll ignore that because you don't like having your views challenged.
Care to provide a link with any credibility whatsoever? What is that link - some tinpot blog?Now ask yourself which markets are growing? Second question, just for lolz... do you think being held to EU market controls makes it easier or harder to develop and manufacture drugs for markets outside the EU?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10272...
Though I know you''ll ignore that because you don't like having your views challenged.
I provide a link to the UK industry body and you provide, well, something at the opposite end of the credibility spectrum.
Where did you get that link????????
braddo said:
Earthdweller said:
braddo said:
Oh really? UKIP had 3 million voters and 1 MP.
The SNP have 56 MP’s with 977k votes Your point is what ?
What's your point?
Elysium said:
We all had our own reasons for voting as we did in 2016.
However, I think it is reasonable to conclude that most voters would have expected a degree of common sense and pragmatism from politicians when implementing the result.
Yes. You've nailed it there......instead of common sense and pragmatism, remainer May, her remainer SPADS and the pro remain CS foisted Chequers onto an unsuspecting cabinet.However, I think it is reasonable to conclude that most voters would have expected a degree of common sense and pragmatism from politicians when implementing the result.
Elysium said:
I think it’s also reasonable to expect campaigners to keep basic promises. The leave campaign specifically said, in writing, that they would agree terms before we left and Brexiteers spoke with confidence about our ability to agree a deal with the EU.
Which 'promises'? Which leave campaign document are you referring to? Elysium said:
The idea that we would mess around for three years, make zero progress and then decide to just jack it in and leave with no withdrawal terms is completely opposed to the Brexit we were promised.
Again, which promises?
Elysium said:
There is an argument that by voting to leave people accepted this would include ‘any means necessary’. However, I don’t think that is a rational argument and I think it’s inexcusable that the same people who promised to take us out in an orderly way now want to do the opposite.
I don't know any Leaver who didn't expect that leaving would be a tooth and nail fight. A Belgian friend said immediately after the vote "They'll never let you leave". He's still sure that is the case.
braddo said:
Tuna said:
Oh dear. Yes, it benefits from EU integration - for selling into EU markets.
Now ask yourself which markets are growing? Second question, just for lolz... do you think being held to EU market controls makes it easier or harder to develop and manufacture drugs for markets outside the EU?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10272...
Though I know you''ll ignore that because you don't like having your views challenged.
Care to provide a link with any credibility whatsoever? What is that link - some tinpot blog?Now ask yourself which markets are growing? Second question, just for lolz... do you think being held to EU market controls makes it easier or harder to develop and manufacture drugs for markets outside the EU?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10272...
Though I know you''ll ignore that because you don't like having your views challenged.
I provide a link to the UK industry body and you provide, well, something at the opposite end of the credibility spectrum.
you might want to google IFW-Kiel before you embarrass yourself further…. Oh too late....edit... and your back up...
Edited by Vanden Saab on Wednesday 17th July 22:20
NoNeed said:
17.4 Million and 52% are the numbers that matter
I'll paste a reply I made above as you seem to want to ignore:Referendum was subject to voter manipulation by Cambridge Analytica et al.
Cambridge Analytica "helped" with an election in Kenya and it was voided due to manipulation.
Sensible to rerun the whole thing without voter manipulation,illegal spending & dirty Russian Money.
Weird to see that Kenyan authorities are more interest in actual democracy than some UK citizens.
braddo said:
Tuna said:
braddo said:
The services industry.
It has a £100bn+ surplus with the EU. Can you enunciate how Brexit will protect that trade surplus?
It won't. HTH.It has a £100bn+ surplus with the EU. Can you enunciate how Brexit will protect that trade surplus?
In return can you enunciate how Remaining would have protected that trade surplus? Specifically in a bloc that specialises in making mobility across national boundaries frictionless, and that has stated that centres like Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris must be allowed to have a larger share of the services industry?
So, rather than preserve the status quo and have a say inside the EU about regulations and encouraging where business is best done (e.g. financial services in London, pharma drug approval in UK - EMA), you think that it is somehow better to leave the EU and then figure a plan out?London has been the financial capital of the world in recent years and a fundamental part of that has been that it's the main gateway into and out of Europe for financial services. It's pretty f
king obvious that protecting the UK's trade surplus in financial services means we have to stay in the EU single market... Pharma - here is a wiki link which in the first section gives a very easy summary of the benefit of the EMA compared to 28 national agencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Medicines_A...
But the EU doesn't do anything useful...
Robertj21a said:
As has been mentioned on various Brexit threads for months/years, it appears that Remainers tended to vote on issues affecting the economy, trade etc whereas Brexiteers voted more on the basis of sovereignty, immigration etc. You'll never get people to switch allegiances because their aims are totally different.
This thread gets bogged down with trade issues, that's not the same as why people voted to get out of the EU.
I agree with what you say about different peoples' motivation, but at the end of the day it's trade and economics which puts food on the table and pays mortgages. This is why I have asked Brexiteers several times (and a couple have been kind enough to respond) - sovereignty at what price?This thread gets bogged down with trade issues, that's not the same as why people voted to get out of the EU.
I see the German car industry has had another mention. I find it interesting that when some sections of the UK industry issue press statements that a no-deal Brexit will be very harmful, it is portrayed by Brexit supporters as "Project Fear". They then expect European industry to exert pressure on their politicians to minimise the effects of no-deal?
sunbeam alpine said:
Robertj21a said:
As has been mentioned on various Brexit threads for months/years, it appears that Remainers tended to vote on issues affecting the economy, trade etc whereas Brexiteers voted more on the basis of sovereignty, immigration etc. You'll never get people to switch allegiances because their aims are totally different.
This thread gets bogged down with trade issues, that's not the same as why people voted to get out of the EU.
I agree with what you say about different peoples' motivation, but at the end of the day it's trade and economics which puts food on the table and pays mortgages. This is why I have asked Brexiteers several times (and a couple have been kind enough to respond) - sovereignty at what price?This thread gets bogged down with trade issues, that's not the same as why people voted to get out of the EU.
I see the German car industry has had another mention. I find it interesting that when some sections of the UK industry issue press statements that a no-deal Brexit will be very harmful, it is portrayed by Brexit supporters as "Project Fear". They then expect European industry to exert pressure on their politicians to minimise the effects of no-deal?
Remain isn't just about economics. It is that more 'control and 'sovereignty' are yet more Brexit lies. A very simple scanning of news across the spectrum makes this very easy to understand. But if one's only sources of information are Pistonheads, Telegraph, Daily Express, etc...
Elysium said:
Robertj21a said:
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, absolutely brilliant, So says the person who, for at least the 806th time, wants a second referendum before we've even implemented the first. Thanks for the laugh.
Yes - because I care about fairness. Whereas you are prepared to do something against the will of the majority in order to get something you want. Reading some of the posts from some remainers in here makes me wonder how these people are going to continue to live.The doom and gloom, depressing rhetoric which comes straight out of the 2016 post bag is desperate stuff to no purpose or result. For the U.K. the E.U. is over, we are almost out just a matter of weeks and our new PM will have fulfilled his promises.
Is this why remainers are in mourning and expressing their heartfelt sorrow?
Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 17th July 22:41
braddo said:
Cameron only called it because he thought he was guaranteed to win;
Yes, and stem UKIP's growth.braddo said:
the UK public wouldn't have had the chance to be lied to and duped into voting leave.
That's the only way you can reconcile things?? To believe Leavers were duped? braddo said:
Honestly, it seems like none of the pro-brexit people on this thread ever look at the real reasons why people say brexit is a bad idea.
Are they profound and immediate recession type reasons?, or emergency budget reasons?, or house price crash reasons?, hundreds of thousands of job loss reasons? or some other Carney, Lagarde, EU Commission scare mongering bull5hit reasons.?braddo said:
Look past your noses and your prejudice and you won't find a single industry or demographic (other than the Rees-Mogg clique) that will actually benefit from Brexit.
Posted for posterity.Jazzer77 said:
Referendum was subject to voter manipulation by Cambridge Analytica et al.
Cambridge Analytica "helped" with an election in Kenya and it was voided due to manipulation.
Sensible to rerun the whole thing without voter manipulation,illegal spending & dirty Russian Money.
Weird to see that Kenyan authorities are more interest in actual democracy than some UK citizens.
Whilst I am sure you probably believe much of this nonsense, the truth is that despite all the allegations and theories and hyperbole there has been precious little by way of solid evidence that the Russians or CA or anyone else actually tipped the balance. Cambridge Analytica "helped" with an election in Kenya and it was voided due to manipulation.
Sensible to rerun the whole thing without voter manipulation,illegal spending & dirty Russian Money.
Weird to see that Kenyan authorities are more interest in actual democracy than some UK citizens.
I'm always deeply sceptical about claims that the man in the street is influenced by these things. Most folk live in the moment and if the manipulators and projectionists were so clever then we'd have accurate opinion polls for a start!
Certainly with regards to the EU most people I speak to had made up their minds even before the campaign started. If anything, the murder of Jo Cox (and the shameful exploitation of that tragic incident by certain parts of the Remain campaign), probably did more to damage the Brexit campaign than anything else - although even here there is some evidence that the disgusting stuff by Toynbee et al that conflated voting for Brexit with being complicit in the murder actually got some people off the fence and on to voting Brexit (Myself being just such an example)
Still, if it makes you happy to believe its the Russians wot dun it then knock yourself out.
Interestingly I was holding a series meetings in France this week and Brexit did come up. My French colleagues said that they were sad to see the UK leaving - primarily because they hoped we would stay and reform the EU from within. They don't think France can stand up to Germany by herself, and there is a growing feeling in some quarters that the EU is really only working for Germany.
What was made absolutely clear is that they did not expect to see any significant disruption to business in the future. They also thought that the UK would do well outside the EU.
Elysium said:
FiF said:
It was my point that you missed. Or probably just ignored. How you can think that you were accused of missing your own point is frankly ludicrous.
If you care about fairness then why ignore the clear statement that the referendum result would be implemented, there's a clear mandate for that, but not for ignore it. I've said previously that I accept your word that you don't want to engineer a Remain result but can understand why so many have doubts about base motives, especially considering the same or very similar arguments have been forwarded by those who clearly do want to Remain. Sorry, no offence intended, but there it is.
Anyway not going to agree on this.
I don't think we can pick and choose when it comes to campaign promises. I think we need to respect them all to some degree. If you care about fairness then why ignore the clear statement that the referendum result would be implemented, there's a clear mandate for that, but not for ignore it. I've said previously that I accept your word that you don't want to engineer a Remain result but can understand why so many have doubts about base motives, especially considering the same or very similar arguments have been forwarded by those who clearly do want to Remain. Sorry, no offence intended, but there it is.
Anyway not going to agree on this.
The referendum created a clear mandate for us to negotiate withdrawal arrangements with the EU and leave. I think most people, leave or remain are frustrated and annoyed that our Govt has totally failed to do that.
May's deal does not fit the mandate because it erodes our sovereignty, leaving without withdrawal terms doesn't fit the mandate because voters rightly expected an orderly transition and remain is not mandated because it lost.
You are clearly happy that no-deal is the 'next best' option. That's fine. I think it is a terrible idea. But it's not up to us to decide. Neither of us knows what was in the mind of the tens of millions of others who took the time to vote.
My argument, very simply, is that we should ask the electorate what they want. That way, we have certainty that whatever we decide has a robust mandate.
Jazzer77 said:
Braddo makes a very valid point.
Where did you get that link????????
Springer are a journal publishing organisation. They conveniently published a translation of the original report by Gabriel Felbermayr of Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) in Germany. Where did you get that link????????
The German Economics Institute report is interesting because it doesn't have the pro-Brexit bias of the UK political groups, and is a reasonably well researched and referenced technical paper on the economic consequences of trade policies after Brexit. In other words, it's not (in braddo's words) a 'tinpot blog'.
Obviously, the original report is in German, so a link to the translation seems more appropriate than linking either to the original report, or the news articles that covered it.
Vanden Saab said:
you might want to google IFW-Kiel before you embarrass yourself further…. Oh too late....https://archive.intereconomics.eu/year/2019/3/brex...
One of his key premises is relying on Patrick Minford.
(in the "hard-but-smart: not realistic" section)And quotes from that section:
"Even the hard-but-smart approach cannot convert economic costs into profit."
That is, Brexit in any form is more damaging than no Brexit.
"The automobile industry, with its high exports to the EU, would have to accept significant losses."
"The service sector, on the other hand, would tend to lose out compared to other scenarios"
THE SERVICE SECTOR GIVES THE UK A £100BN+ SURPLUS
braddo said:
So, rather than preserve the status quo and have a say inside the EU about regulations and encouraging where business is best done (e.g. financial services in London, pharma drug approval in UK - EMA), you think that it is somehow better to leave the EU and then figure a plan out?You're really struggling with this one, aren't you?
Tuna said:
Jazzer77 said:
Braddo makes a very valid point.
Where did you get that link????????
Springer are a journal publishing organisation. They conveniently published a translation of the original report by Gabriel Felbermayr of Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) in Germany. Where did you get that link????????
The German Economics Institute report is interesting because it doesn't have the pro-Brexit bias of the UK political groups, and is a reasonably well researched and referenced technical paper on the economic consequences of trade policies after Brexit. In other words, it's not (in braddo's words) a 'tinpot blog'.
Obviously, the original report is in German, so a link to the translation seems more appropriate than linking either to the original report, or the news articles that covered it.
braddo said:
Tuna said:
Jazzer77 said:
Braddo makes a very valid point.
Where did you get that link????????
Springer are a journal publishing organisation. They conveniently published a translation of the original report by Gabriel Felbermayr of Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) in Germany. Where did you get that link????????
The German Economics Institute report is interesting because it doesn't have the pro-Brexit bias of the UK political groups, and is a reasonably well researched and referenced technical paper on the economic consequences of trade policies after Brexit. In other words, it's not (in braddo's words) a 'tinpot blog'.
Obviously, the original report is in German, so a link to the translation seems more appropriate than linking either to the original report, or the news articles that covered it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff