The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[sidicks]

Eddie Strohacker said:

John145 said:

2 fools peddling the same dirty insinuation.

Who's the more racist? The one who prefers a political system that puts Western Europeans on a pedestal or the one who would put everyone on the same?

Regardless, the term race is moronic, there are no races of human. Just ignorance about biology. There are different cultures however and preference to certain cultures is entirely logical and the only way to have a progressive whole.

Read this four times now & it still makes no sense, other than the grammatically deficient fools opener.

You really don't understand how our current arrangements favour EU migrants over non-EU migrants? Really?

[Eddie Strohacker]

sidicks said:

You really don't understand how our current arrangements favour EU migrants over non-EU migrants? Really?

Tell you what I really don't understand: Why are you?

[turbobloke]

jjlynn27 said:

Posts like this one are the reason that I just love PH. Absolutely priceless. Steve Bannon, champion of the good old, god fearing folk.

Bannon's gone - still, we can rely on Hillary to take an interest in the good old god fearing folk (on Wall Street).

Which political wilderness is she in? Not that it matters.

[///ajd]

andymadmak said:

///ajd said:

Others such as Santa Barbs chipped in with "who is Dan Hannan?"

The implication of your post was clear - "he's a nobody, who cares, lets move on".

Fine. Its funny, but fine.

The "never heard of the bus" line is much clearer however, and altogether much funnier.

We've gone from some never believing the bus to (for some) the bus not really being noticeable. Before too long there will be actual "bus deniers", who claim it was painted by Remain or even just photoshopped.

Thank you for proving me correct. I never said what Eddie claimed I said - ie, that I had never heard of Daniel Hannan

You two can keep reaching and wriggling as much as you like. It doesn't reflect well on you though.

I think the main thing to take away from this is that you do know who Dan Hannan is but never noticed the red bus.

[SantaBarbara]

///ajd said:

Yep, hope fell off a cliff on 24 June

There appears to be an admission above from sidicks that our future fortunes and our access to the Single Market are linked.

I also read that whilst some on the remain side said we'd "leave the SM", they also said we would end up paying for SM access - which are the noises that May, Davis and others are now making.

It seems they recognise the huge value of SM access if they are going to still pump billions of UK taxpayers money into the EU to retain access for various sectors - whilst giving up any say over the regulations themselves. Hmmm.

Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 22 December 15:15

Ajd,
Why do you delete your silly comments?

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

andymadmak said:

///ajd said:

Others such as Santa Barbs chipped in with "who is Dan Hannan?"

The implication of your post was clear - "he's a nobody, who cares, lets move on".

Fine. Its funny, but fine.

The "never heard of the bus" line is much clearer however, and altogether much funnier.

We've gone from some never believing the bus to (for some) the bus not really being noticeable. Before too long there will be actual "bus deniers", who claim it was painted by Remain or even just photoshopped.

Thank you for proving me correct. I never said what Eddie claimed I said - ie, that I had never heard of Daniel Hannan

You two can keep reaching and wriggling as much as you like. It doesn't reflect well on you though.

I think the main thing to take away from this is that you do know who Dan Hannan is but never noticed the red bus.

[Garvin]

Breadvan72 said:

Garvin said:

Nice try and there you see the remainer problem writ large. You seem to infer that all is rosey with the EU accounts - this is clearly not the case as you well know. Publishing inaccurate and/or misleading information does not count as publishing the proper accounts. Since 2007 it appears that the accounts have been given a 'fair and accurate' rating by the auditors . . . . . but, what's this, they all appear to have 'material error' in the payments. Let's go back pre 2007 where the auditors did not consider them 'fair and accurate' and 'material errors' consistently appear in the payments, errors that cause the auditors to have raised an 'adverse opinion' as their 'qualifications'!

One can publish any old tosh, that doesn't make it acceptable.

So many remainers blindly accept that the EU can do no wrong and are willing to overlook the significant failings of the regime as if they are just trivial matters. Debate is impossible wih people of such blind faith.

So "doesn't dare to publish its accounts" really means "does indeed publish its accounts but I think they may be dodgy". Thanks for clearing that one up! Call a Brexiteer out on a lie and he/she will immediately carry the goalposts to the next available continent.

I know of no one who thinks the EU to be perfect, and most who support staying in it also support reform, and criticise its many flaws. This is called realism. What remain supporters tend not to do is believe in the magical land of Brit-Narnia where all will be wonderful once the evil yoke of the EU is removed, and where all the benefits of EU membership can be enjoyed with none of the burdens. It's laughable, loony stuff, but it was enough to convince 37% of the electorate, and, as we now know, 37 % is an unquestionable democratic mandate.

It is the auditors who think the accounts 'dodgy'. Not just 'dodgy' for a year or two either, dodgy for every year since, I believe, 1994.

I also note that you cherry picked just one of the criticisms I levelled at the EU, I assume then, and from the tone of your post above, that you acknowledge the EU performance has been particularly bad in relation to the rest of them.

You speak of realism but also a reference to reform. Do tell, of what evidence is there of reform? Realism to expect significant reform, really? I think your description of laughable is quite appropriate when referring to reform.

I do not expect any such regime to be perfect. If the flaws of the EU were the subject of some serious reform I would be of a mind to support it but it's flaws are many and significant affecting the prosperity of whole countries and consigning whole generations to unemployment. The FMOL may look good in theory but how does the loss of working population from poorer to richer countries actually help the poorer countries improve. Indeed, if things carry on as they are Bulgaria might soon be beyond all hope!

You may be comfortable supporting such a regime, I am not.

I also do not believe in Brit-Narnia as you put it and fully expect the UK to give up some of the benefits. On the other hand I am not a doom merchant and from my assessment of the pros and cons think UK can make a reasonable fist of things outside the EU. That may be made more difficult if the EU persists in some sort of 'punishment' but such behaviour just reinforces my view that the EU is not a perticularly splendid club. In fact it's shaping up to be quite a nasty regime.

[Funkycoldribena]

SantaBarbara said:

Ajd,
Why do you delete your silly comments?

He won't answer any awkward questions.

[Gandahar]

Rather amusing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41374020

"But now, with some of the uncertainty around"

so he gets Italian. That bedrock of politics with no un-certainty in the last 10, sorry, 20, sorry 50 years.

He should have married someone from Switzerland !

[powerstroke]

ClaphamGT3 said:

powerstroke said:

jjlynn27 said:

B'stard Child said:

I don't know anyone who took the bus seriously.... seriously.....

But then I am just a thick racist xenophobe who hates brown people - apparently

Did anyone actually called you racist or is that in your head?

Oh please , calling racist has been one if not the main line of attack
from the smug , selfish , I'm alright jack metropllitan elite types to belittle
and dismiss people who voted leave , ..... Next ,,,,

I rather tire of the sneering reference to 'metropolitan elite' from certain commentators - you seem to overlook that, for at least 25 years it is that 'Metropolitan elite' that has put food on everyone's table and that, without us, all the bigoted, turnip-munching hut dwellers are going to be biblically screwed...

In a nutshell what's wrong with our country !!! so spivs and chancers with their casino banking , PPI ,equity release ,dubious
investments, dodgy loans etc...
So the clipboard wielding jobsworths ,consultants and advisors put food on our table !!! oh so not the farmers and businesses who make things !! , for 25 plus years the unproductive service sector side of business has been sucking the life out of our industry's, along with accountants who asset strip and 3rd rate management finish the job selling for short term gain ....

[jjlynn27]

powerstroke said:

In a nutshell what's wrong with our country !!! so spivs and chancers with their casino banking , PPI ,equity release ,dubious
investments, dodgy loans etc...
So the clipboard wielding jobsworths ,consultants and advisors put food on our table !!! oh so not the farmers and businesses who make things !! , for 25 plus years the unproductive service sector side of business has been sucking the life out of our industry's, along with accountants who asset strip and 3rd rate management finish the job selling for short term gain ....

Absolute gold.

[Disastrous]

powerstroke said:

In a nutshell what's wrong with our country !!! so spivs and chancers with their casino banking , PPI ,equity release ,dubious
investments, dodgy loans etc...
So the clipboard wielding jobsworths ,consultants and advisors put food on our table !!! oh so not the farmers and businesses who make things !! , for 25 plus years the unproductive service sector side of business has been sucking the life out of our industry's, along with accountants who asset strip and 3rd rate management finish the job selling for short term gain ....

Salt n vinegar??

[powerstroke]

jjlynn27 said:

powerstroke said:

In a nutshell what's wrong with our country !!! so spivs and chancers with their casino banking , PPI ,equity release ,dubious
investments, dodgy loans etc...
So the clipboard wielding jobsworths ,consultants and advisors put food on our table !!! oh so not the farmers and businesses who make things !! , for 25 plus years the unproductive service sector side of business has been sucking the life out of our industry's, along with accountants who asset strip and 3rd rate management finish the job selling for short term gain ....

Absolute gold.

Promoter of green energy ???? so sorry poppet I've missed you off the list , sorry if there are others left out ...

[Murph7355]

Breadvan72 said:

... and, as we now know, 37 % is an unquestionable democratic mandate.

I'm sure, you being an erudite type, you've merely overlooked that it is far more of a mandate than just ~34% of that same electorate voting to Remain.

Despite Remain having the full weight of government behind it, the great and the good backing it and 44yrs of highly positive membership under our belts.

And, of course, that the %age of the electorate means nothing unless you move to compulsory voting. The non-voters are bound by the result as if they'd voted the way of the victors.

As a Leave voter I'm not in the slightest cross at May's speech (yet, at least). I actually don't think it said anything new other than potentially offering the EU a bit more cash (I doubt it would be that much more as March '19 only left around 12-18mths of the budget cycle left anyway).

What I do hope is that we don't fold entirely. The registration process referred to needs to be more than cursory so that extended rights to remain are conveyed automatically only to those here pre-March '19. We have to have control over the right type (skills not race should anyone feel the need) of migrant long term and keeping the books open any longer should not be necessary.

I also hope that we insist that we are able to "commence" trade negotiations officially with other parties during that period. This is actually higher in priority than the migration T checks to me.

And finally that 2yrs is the extent of it. No more extensions. May and the Tories will be decimated in the 2022 GE if they let it drift so I just don't see that happening.

What I don't understand is why the EU team will take anything major from it. Unless the heads of state start to get more involved as a result.

She still noted we are prepared to walk. She still noted we're leaving. She has not accepted ECJ rule over EU citizens here. There was nothing definitive on amounts to be paid (which fluctuate during the course of a budget cycle anyway and our growth edging below other member states should benefit us in that respect). The position hasn't really moved one bit as I see it.

Next week will be interesting. If Juncker and his imbecile sidekick Verhofstadt have their way, I can see the speech being a "thanks but no different. Still not enough". If the HoS start to make noises, the outcome may well be more positive.

If the former, I'm increasingly of the impression that we are wasting our time "negotiating" as negotiations can only happen meaningfully if all parties are committed to a positive outcome.

[Dr Jekyll]

Murph7355 said:

If the former, I'm increasingly of the impression that we are wasting our time "negotiating" as negotiations can only happen meaningfully if all parties are committed to a positive outcome.

This, it's starting to look like pigeon chess.

The odd thing is that the EU must think they can get something out of the process or they wouldn't even pretend to negotiate, it would be 'so long and thanks for all the North sea fish'.

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

Greg66 said:

jsf said:

It's the EU that has been pushing for a transition period to get them through the current budget to conclusion.

Really? I don't recall seeing any reports that the EU wants a transition period. Their negotiating position is better if they stick to the two year deadline.

The EU certainly wants money from us, but I'm not at all convinced that that has anything to do with wanting a transition period after the A50 two years is up. The EU's position is that we owe money for X years' worth of pre-Brexit commitments. A transition period is irrelevant to that position.

Clearly you haven't been well informed for the last 6 months Gregg. Clearly you haven't read my posts when I informed people about what was being discussed in the EU parliament working group meetings.

This is what Verhofstadt said yesterday evening.

"Six months after the triggering of article 50, it appears that the position of the UK is becoming more realistic. Finally, the UK Government concedes a transition period will be necessary, as the European Parliament already indicated in its resolution of the 5th of April"

Read his full comment on May's speech at https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=101561...

If you read the European Parliament’s resolution of 5 April you’ll see that it contains absolutely nothing about transitional arrangements being necessary from the EU’s pov. It says they are possible and stipulates that if they are introduced they must included certain specific obligations on the UK’s part.

What Verhifstadt is now saying about the resolution is a nice but blatantly false piece of posturing.

jsf said:

There is still very much a possibility that we leave with no deal, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so if the EU want to play silly buggers they will have the problems of their budget shortfall, they will have their problems of dealing with a clean break WTO and the UK will also have its problems with a clean break WTO.

Are they really going to do that to themselves with a much better opportunity where they can have their cake and eat it?

Quite possibly. I think it is a mistake to think that the EU is driven in this by pragmatic commercial considerations. It is driven by ideology: the four freedoms and the supremacy of the CJEU. That comes first, second and third, and I suspect it is prepared to take an economic hit to protect those principles. And, of course, it wants to hurt us pour encourager les autres, and will be again prepared to take some pain if need be to make that happen.

So unless the transitional arrangements effectively postpone the A50 deadline I can we’ll see the EU saying “non”. And as I understand the Little May has said about the TPs (eg about the role of the CJEU, the EU will indeed be saying “non”.

But we shall see.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 23 September 20:31

[Murph7355]

Dr Jekyll said:

This, it's starting to look like pigeon chess.

The odd thing is that the EU must think they can get something out of the process or they wouldn't even pretend to negotiate, it would be 'so long and thanks for all the North sea fish'.

I'm beginning to wonder if they ever even pretended.

All the "you're not prepared", "not enough detail", "you don't know what you want" "tell us what you think we owe" is starting to look like time wasting.

I suspect to run the clock down in the hope that enough time can be bought to reverse the decision (a couple of member states may not have us high on their Christmas lists but they are addicted to the money).

I don't think this will work for them this time. And it will cause any serious party in this country major problems to follow that line of thought IMO.

Of course it could just be the usual bullst from the EU, leave it all to the 11th hour etc.

[John145]

Eddie Strohacker said:

John145 said:

2 fools peddling the same dirty insinuation.

Who's the more racist? The one who prefers a political system that puts Western Europeans on a pedestal or the one who would put everyone on the same?

Regardless, the term race is moronic, there are no races of human. Just ignorance about biology. There are different cultures however and preference to certain cultures is entirely logical and the only way to have a progressive whole.

Read this four times now & it still makes no sense, other than the grammatically deficient fools opener.

Thanks for proving more point so eloquently.

[anonymous-user]

Greg66 said:

jsf said:

Greg66 said:

jsf said:

It's the EU that has been pushing for a transition period to get them through the current budget to conclusion.

Really? I don't recall seeing any reports that the EU wants a transition period. Their negotiating position is better if they stick to the two year deadline.

The EU certainly wants money from us, but I'm not at all convinced that that has anything to do with wanting a transition period after the A50 two years is up. The EU's position is that we owe money for X years' worth of pre-Brexit commitments. A transition period is irrelevant to that position.

Clearly you haven't been well informed for the last 6 months Gregg. Clearly you haven't read my posts when I informed people about what was being discussed in the EU parliament working group meetings.

This is what Verhofstadt said yesterday evening.

"Six months after the triggering of article 50, it appears that the position of the UK is becoming more realistic. Finally, the UK Government concedes a transition period will be necessary, as the European Parliament already indicated in its resolution of the 5th of April"

Read his full comment on May's speech at https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=101561...

If you read the European Parliament’s resolution of 5 April you’ll see that it contains absolutely nothing about transitional arrangements being necessary from the EU’s pov. It says they are possible and stipulates that if they are introduced they must included certain specific obligations on the UK’s part.

What Verhifstadt is now saying about the resolution is a nice but blatantly false piece of posturing.

Verhofstadt isn't posturing, he is saying what he has said for a long time.

In the discussions that have been aired on TV live from the EU Brexit working group updates to the EU, Verhofstadt has been talking about wanting a transitional agreement. I told people about that on this very thread early in the process. I also stated the outcome will be a transitional agreement of 2-3 years precisely because this was the EU target and I could see this being a sensible way forward for the UK also.

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

Greg66 said:

jsf said:

Greg66 said:

jsf said:

It's the EU that has been pushing for a transition period to get them through the current budget to conclusion.

Really? I don't recall seeing any reports that the EU wants a transition period. Their negotiating position is better if they stick to the two year deadline.

The EU certainly wants money from us, but I'm not at all convinced that that has anything to do with wanting a transition period after the A50 two years is up. The EU's position is that we owe money for X years' worth of pre-Brexit commitments. A transition period is irrelevant to that position.

Clearly you haven't been well informed for the last 6 months Gregg. Clearly you haven't read my posts when I informed people about what was being discussed in the EU parliament working group meetings.

This is what Verhofstadt said yesterday evening.

"Six months after the triggering of article 50, it appears that the position of the UK is becoming more realistic. Finally, the UK Government concedes a transition period will be necessary, as the European Parliament already indicated in its resolution of the 5th of April"

Read his full comment on May's speech at https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=101561...

If you read the European Parliament’s resolution of 5 April you’ll see that it contains absolutely nothing about transitional arrangements being necessary from the EU’s pov. It says they are possible and stipulates that if they are introduced they must included certain specific obligations on the UK’s part.

What Verhifstadt is now saying about the resolution is a nice but blatantly false piece of posturing.

Verhofstadt isn't posturing, he is saying what he has said for a long time.

In the discussions that have been aired on TV live from the EU Brexit working group updates to the EU, Verhofstadt has been talking about wanting a transitional agreement. I told people about that on this very thread early in the process. I also stated the outcome will be a transitional agreement of 2-3 years precisely because this was the EU target and I could see this being a sensible way forward for the UK also.

Perhaps you ought to read the European Parliament’s resolution then, and not listen to what Verhofstadt says he wants. Because he isn’t the European Parliament.

And FYI, if someone is posturing, it doesn’t cease to be posturing if they keep it up “for a long time”.