Brexit

[Jack Staff]

Speculation is rife both ways but the bottom line is that nobody really knows the final outcome because it's not been done before.

For all the Remainers out there, do you remember Barnier saying clearly that the UK could never have any sort of deal on financial services.
I'm sure that we all do.
That was on the presumption that there would be a mass exodus from the UK to EU countries.
It is now appartent that this isn't going to happen.
Quite the opposite in fact. The City is expanding rapidly.

So, Barnier says there can be no deal on financial services.
OK says our government, that's fine with us.

Ohh ! hang on, what's this
https://www.politico.eu/article/europea ... -billions/

"Maybe we've mucked up" says the EU team.
"Maybe we should boycott any talks until the UK changes it's mind"
Tough negotiators my leg !

"The Commission quoted an internal study, which estimated that if the U.K. is freed from just seven unspecified EU regulations, it would provide savings for British businesses of €6 billion a year, according to EU officials."

They are now seriously trying to back track and save face (and money)
So, for everyone who askd where are there any benefits of leaving the EU, this is just a start.
Of course there is also the small issue of the 40 billion bribe money as well.


Another up to date story for those who seem convinced that poor little UK cannot stand on it's own two feet without the mighty EU


https://www.politico.eu/article/theresa ... ncy-plans/

Given the UK wrote the encryption used in the system, I am guessing we can access it anyway, but that is by the by.

Interesting too that without UK participation the EU will lose access to the essential UK ground stations in the mid-Atlantic (Ascension Island), south Atlantic (Falkland Islands), Gibraltar, the sovereign UK bases on Cyprus, as well as Diego Garcia in the south Indian Ocean.

You did read that article you quoted?
"Unspecified EU regulations" "such as those on industrial emissions. If the U.K. no longer has to follow those regulations, its chemicals industry would have what the Commission regards as an unfair competitive advantage."
Because we could then pollute our country to our hearts content. I am very much with the EU on this one!

[barney]

Speculation is rife both ways but the bottom line is that nobody really knows the final outcome because it's not been done before.

For all the Remainers out there, do you remember Barnier saying clearly that the UK could never have any sort of deal on financial services.
I'm sure that we all do.
That was on the presumption that there would be a mass exodus from the UK to EU countries.
It is now appartent that this isn't going to happen.
Quite the opposite in fact. The City is expanding rapidly.

So, Barnier says there can be no deal on financial services.
OK says our government, that's fine with us.

Ohh ! hang on, what's this
https://www.politico.eu/article/europea ... -billions/

"Maybe we've mucked up" says the EU team.
"Maybe we should boycott any talks until the UK changes it's mind"
Tough negotiators my leg !

"The Commission quoted an internal study, which estimated that if the U.K. is freed from just seven unspecified EU regulations, it would provide savings for British businesses of €6 billion a year, according to EU officials."

They are now seriously trying to back track and save face (and money)
So, for everyone who askd where are there any benefits of leaving the EU, this is just a start.
Of course there is also the small issue of the 40 billion bribe money as well.


Another up to date story for those who seem convinced that poor little UK cannot stand on it's own two feet without the mighty EU


https://www.politico.eu/article/theresa ... ncy-plans/

Given the UK wrote the encryption used in the system, I am guessing we can access it anyway, but that is by the by.

Interesting too that without UK participation the EU will lose access to the essential UK ground stations in the mid-Atlantic (Ascension Island), south Atlantic (Falkland Islands), Gibraltar, the sovereign UK bases on Cyprus, as well as Diego Garcia in the south Indian Ocean.

You did read that article you quoted?
"Unspecified EU regulations" "such as those on industrial emissions. If the U.K. no longer has to follow those regulations, its chemicals industry would have what the Commission regards as an unfair competitive advantage."
Because we could then pollute our country to our hearts content. I am very much with the EU on this one!

Cherry picking Jack.
That was a small part of the report but it's mostly about financial regulations, and as 80% of our economy (alledgedly) is built around services, this is the area that they have cocked up in.

Why on earth would we want to 'pollute our country to our hearts content' ?
Do you really have that low a regard for your own country and the people who live here?
Do you not realise that much of the existing legislation was driven by our great country?
Why would any sane person want to go backwards?
Why are you constantly putting your own country down?
Do you travel much in Europe?
Many of those countries are still catching up with basics like PPE on construction sites.

The UK is a WORLD leader in so much. Surely you can understand this?

[Golden Princess]

I'm sorry, but I dont agree that the UK is a world leader. It may have been once, centuries ago by nefarious means, but no longer. We were up amongst the world leaders up until recently. We seem to have taken a bit of dive over the last couple of years.

[towny44]

I'm sorry, but I dont agree that the UK is a world leader. It may have been once, centuries ago by nefarious means, but no longer. We were up amongst the world leaders up until recently. We seem to have taken a bit of dive over the last couple of years.

Can you please specify in which areas, and with details to support your comments.

[Jack Staff]

Cherry picking Jack.
That was a small part of the report but it's mostly about financial regulations, and as 80% of our economy (alledgedly) is built around services, this is the area that they have cocked up in.

It was you who quoted the article.

Why on earth would we want to 'pollute our country to our hearts content' ?

To make more money by having a unfair competitive advantage. Brexit in a nutshell. That advantage in this case is lack of pollution laws.

Do you really have that low a regard for your own country and the people who live here?

No. Just the ones who are engineering the current disassembly of my beloved country.

Do you not realise that much of the existing legislation was driven by our great country?

Exactly, much of the EU law was driven by our great country.

Why would any sane person want to go backwards?

Beats me. I voted remain remember.

Why are you constantly putting your own country down?

Just the current leadership because it is leading us to a worse crisis than Suez.

Do you travel much in Europe?

Yes.

Many of those countries are still catching up with basics like PPE on construction sites.

The UK is a WORLD leader in so much. Surely you can understand this?

I do understand this and I want it to remain so. We have achieved so much by being part of the EU team.

[Onelife]

I'm sorry, but I dont agree that the UK is a world leader. It may have been once, centuries ago by nefarious means, but no longer. We were up amongst the world leaders up until recently. We seem to have taken a bit of dive over the last couple of years.

Hi Princess,

As of 2018 the UK is reputed to be the 5th most powerful country in the world.....If we find ourselves having to trade under WTO rules we will eventually ( once trade arrangements are in place) be free to trade with 70 countries around the world... and within the EU.

Together we will make our country the envy of the world......thinking otherwise is not an option.

Regards

Keith

[barney]

I'm sorry, but I dont agree that the UK is a world leader. It may have been once, centuries ago by nefarious means, but no longer. We were up amongst the world leaders up until recently. We seem to have taken a bit of dive over the last couple of years.

The UK is a world leader in Finance, Technology, Security, Military, Sport, Innovation, Judiciary and many, many other things.
We are not some supplicant little back water that cannot make our own way in the world.
The reason that 3 million + EU citizens have chosen this country as their home speaks volumes.
Please, have a bit of confidence.

On top of all that, we are also an extremely wealthy country.
So wealthy in fact, that we can afford to give away billions every year to others.
Sure there are poor people in our country, but in comparison to many others, even our poor are well off.
There has been an influx of foodbank use, as you said earlier.
How many of those using foodbanks have hundreds of pounds worth of tattoos on their body, multiple piercings, walk in using their iPhone and with a cigarette hanging out of their mouths.
Money management is very different to genuine poverty.
I'm a very firm believer in helping those who need it and deserve it.
I give a fair bit to local charities on a regular basis, because I want to.
But, I have little sympathy with those who run up thousands of pounds in debt, in search of the good life.

This is a great country, and will continue to be so as a fully independent country.

[Jack Staff]

This is fun...

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018 ... wn-brexit/

[Gill W]

Thank you Ken for answering my questions about the Irish Border question, and all of your other reasoned posts on this thread, much appreciated.

[Gill W]

… And, as I have said before, that is what brexit is totally based on, emotion, faith, hope - reasoned arguments and logic have never been part of the brexit strategy.

And so … let it be known that 17,000,000> simple souls voted with their hearts whereas 16,000,000> logical citizens voted on the basis of understanding the full picture without a hint of deception from the Remain side.

Cobblers -
ALL 33,000,000> voted with their hearts because nobody knew all the fact or implications ( bar Ken and Jack of course ) BUT they knew instinctively what they wanted and hoped that the outcome would mirror their vote.

.

If we accept everybody voted with their hearts in an advisory referendum, the question is, should such a major decision be made about the future of this country, just based on the peoples 'feelings' two years ago

At some point (hopefully) we will know what our exit terms will be. At that time, we will have something tangible on the table. I can't see any reason why there should not be a further referendum, to confirm whether or not these terms are acceptable. Both Leave and Remain would have to put forward their case as to why, based on the exit deal (or no deal) we should leave the EU or stay

I know the Leavers hate the idea of another referendum. I think this is because they fear they would lose this time, and also Leave wouldn't be able to put forward a convincing enough argument to leave the EU based on evidence, rather than slogans on a bus and unicorns roaming the sunlit uplands.

I think it would be reckless of the government to continue to drive us towards the cliff, without at least confirming the will of the British people is still 'Leave'

[Stephen]

That's a bit like someone asking you a question under interrogation until they get the answer they want.

[Jack Staff]

That's a bit like someone asking you a question under interrogation until they get the answer they want.

The idea of interrogation is to get the facts. So you are correct, We need a referendum to expose the fact that the country now wishes to remain.

[Stephen]

Never going to happen Jack.

[towny44]

Gill, cannot you see that your proposal is undemocratic, demanding a new election every time you disagree with the result would just lead to anarchy.

[david63]

I can't see any reason why there should not be a further referendum, to confirm whether or not these terms are acceptable.

The point is that another referendum, people's vote or any other consultations is futile (and a waste of a few million pounds!)

If the result is to leave then we leave - if the result is to not leave then what do we do? We cannot stay in the EU because of Article 50 and we cannot leave because the people do not want it, and there is no "middle ground"

[Gill W]

That's a bit like someone asking you a question under interrogation until they get the answer they want.

I didn't say what result I wanted.

I said shouldn't the 'the people' be asked if their will is still to leave based on a tangible fact - i.e. the deal (or no deal) After all, its only the future of the country at stake.

[Gill W]

Gill, cannot you see that your proposal is undemocratic, demanding a new election every time you disagree with the result would just lead to anarchy.

No, I'm suggesting that, when the electorate have something tangible to consider, shouldn't they be asked if their will is still to leave.

Two years ago, I accepted the result of the referendum. I expected the government to deal with the exit negotiations in an orderly way, and at this point, expected to have some clarity on the future of my country. But that hasn't happened. Instead we are getting technical notices from the government on how to cope with a no deal Brexit, and are stockpiling medicines. In the light of this, it might be reasonable to wonder if the will of the people has changed. Surely, it would be sane to ask them, once we know what the terms of our exit would be?

I think it's undemocratic not to ask.

[Gill W]

I can't see any reason why there should not be a further referendum, to confirm whether or not these terms are acceptable.

The point is that another referendum, people's vote or any other consultations is futile (and a waste of a few million pounds!)

If the result is to leave then we leave - if the result is to not leave then what do we do? We cannot stay in the EU because of Article 50 and we cannot leave because the people do not want it, and there is no "middle ground"

We've wasted billions on this already, what's a a few more million pounds. The EU have indicated the door is open to us - if the 27 EU states agree, maybe Article 50 could be revoked. That would need to be clarified before any further referendum

[Onelife]

I'm sorry, but I dont agree that the UK is a world leader. It may have been once, centuries ago by nefarious means, but no longer. We were up amongst the world leaders up until recently. We seem to have taken a bit of dive over the last couple of years.

The UK is a world leader in Finance, Technology, Security, Military, Sport, Innovation, Judiciary and many, many other things.
We are not some supplicant little back water that cannot make our own way in the world.
The reason that 3 million + EU citizens have chosen this country as their home speaks volumes.
Please, have a bit of confidence.

On top of all that, we are also an extremely wealthy country.
So wealthy in fact, that we can afford to give away billions every year to others.
Sure there are poor people in our country, but in comparison to many others, even our poor are well off.
There has been an influx of foodbank use, as you said earlier.
How many of those using foodbanks have hundreds of pounds worth of tattoos on their body, multiple piercings, walk in using their iPhone and with a cigarette hanging out of their mouths.
Money management is very different to genuine poverty.
I'm a very firm believer in helping those who need it and deserve it.
I give a fair bit to local charities on a regular basis, because I want to.
But, I have little sympathy with those who run up thousands of pounds in debt, in search of the good life.

This is a great country, and will continue to be so as a fully independent country.

Hi Barney,

I am sure you are right in that our poor are well off compared to other countries but our country compared to many other countries is one of the richest in the world so it is an absolute disgrace that we have the amount of poverty, yes poverty that we have in this country. Your assumption that tattoos, piercings, fags and I phones are an indication of bad money management amongst the poor is a sad reflection on how society perceives the poor.

Different bands of society chose to spend what money they have on different things, some chose to cruise because they have reached a position in life where they can afford to do so, some chose to adorn themselves with things that make them feel better knowing that they will never have the opportunities to aspire to the things that many of us take for granted, albeit through hard work.

It isn't a level playing field and only a few will make it through the turnstiles to experience what life is like on the other side no matter how hard they work.

Whichever way Brexit goes we should be very weary of the consequences of not improving the lives of the poorest.... it is they who could bring our country to its knees.

Regards

Keith

[Manoverboard]

Gill mainly …. but not exclusively

Some folk vote in the General plus Local elections and we get a pile of spiel ( which the vast majority do not bother to read ) that is referred to as a Manifesto … we vote … the majority vote carries the day and the Manifesto is then ignored or watered down.

Do we have another vote, no, of course we don't and that is because after the vote we leave the powers that be to carry out our wishes as best they can or wish to do.

How do we vote, how have the majority always voted …. according to their emotions at the time of the vote.

In the event of a rerun how many of the 33,000,000> voters will read the spiel persuading them to vote one way or the other : who could they realistically trust … nobody so let us stick rather than twist.

[barney]

Gill, cannot you see that your proposal is undemocratic, demanding a new election every time you disagree with the result would just lead to anarchy.

No, I'm suggesting that, when the electorate have something tangible to consider, shouldn't they be asked if their will is still to leave.

Two years ago, I accepted the result of the referendum. I expected the government to deal with the exit negotiations in an orderly way, and at this point, expected to have some clarity on the future of my country. But that hasn't happened. Instead we are getting technical notices from the government on how to cope with a no deal Brexit, and are stockpiling medicines. In the light of this, it might be reasonable to wonder if the will of the people has changed. Surely, it would be sane to ask them, once we know what the terms of our exit would be?

I think it's undemocratic not to ask.

In my opinion Gill, it's 80% that the UK leave without a deal. The EU cannot be seen to a compromise on their 'four freedoms' with Ex members.
If they did, the flood gates would open.
After that, both sides can then start serious discussions about a free trade agreement that benefits both sides.
Leaving the EU without a trade agreement will not be the end of the world.
They will agree many 11th hour things like movement of freight and flights etc, but the nuts and bolts of a trade deal will have to wait until we are a third country.

PS most polls indicate that few have changed their minds, either way.
The presumption of a Remain vote on another referendum is exactly that. A presumption. ( as was the first vote)
I think that most just want the whole thing over and done with.

This is just my opinion and is based on no absolute fact. I do not have a crystal ball.

[Gill W]

Gill mainly …. but not exclusively

Some folk vote in the General plus Local elections and we get a pile of spiel ( which the vast majority do not bother to read ) that is referred to as a Manifesto … we vote … the majority vote carries the day and the Manifesto is then ignored or watered down.

Do we have another vote, no, of course we don't and that is because after the vote we leave the powers that be to carry out our wishes as best they can or wish to do.

How do we vote, how have the majority always voted …. according to their emotions at the time of the vote.

In the event of a rerun how many of the 33,000,000> voters will read the spiel persuading them to vote one way or the other : who could they realistically trust … nobody so let us stick rather than twist.

Of course we have another vote, the next time the elections come round or next time an election is called.

I know that some want to keep their Brexit blinkers on, but the mood of the country has changed. People have seen what has happened over the last couple of years, and the appetite for Brexit has evaporated. Yes, the Brexextremists still want to charge over the cliff, but I’ve seen time and time again people saying they regret their leave vote.

If the mood of the country has changed I can’t see what is so wrong in letting people have their regarding leaving, when the deal ( or no deal) is known

[Onelife]

Gill, cannot you see that your proposal is undemocratic, demanding a new election every time you disagree with the result would just lead to anarchy.

No, I'm suggesting that, when the electorate have something tangible to consider, shouldn't they be asked if their will is still to leave.

Two years ago, I accepted the result of the referendum. I expected the government to deal with the exit negotiations in an orderly way, and at this point, expected to have some clarity on the future of my country. But that hasn't happened. Instead we are getting technical notices from the government on how to cope with a no deal Brexit, and are stockpiling medicines. In the light of this, it might be reasonable to wonder if the will of the people has changed. Surely, it would be sane to ask them, once we know what the terms of our exit would be?

I think it's undemocratic not to ask.

In my opinion Gill, it's 80% that the UK leave without a deal. The EU cannot be seen to a compromise on their 'four freedoms' with Ex members.
If they did, the flood gates would open.
After that, both sides can then start serious discussions about a free trade agreement that benefits both sides.
Leaving the EU without a trade agreement will not be the end of the world.
They will agree many 11th hour things like movement of freight and flights etc, but the nuts and bolts of a trade deal will have to wait until we are a third country.

PS most polls indicate that few have changed their minds, either way.
The presumption of a Remain vote on another referendum is exactly that. A presumption. ( as was the first vote)
I think that most just want the whole thing over and done with.

This is just my opinion and is based on no absolute fact. I do not have a crystal ball.

I can get half a dozen at a very competitive price

[Gill W]

Gill, cannot you see that your proposal is undemocratic, demanding a new election every time you disagree with the result would just lead to anarchy.

No, I'm suggesting that, when the electorate have something tangible to consider, shouldn't they be asked if their will is still to leave.

Two years ago, I accepted the result of the referendum. I expected the government to deal with the exit negotiations in an orderly way, and at this point, expected to have some clarity on the future of my country. But that hasn't happened. Instead we are getting technical notices from the government on how to cope with a no deal Brexit, and are stockpiling medicines. In the light of this, it might be reasonable to wonder if the will of the people has changed. Surely, it would be sane to ask them, once we know what the terms of our exit would be?

I think it's undemocratic not to ask.

In my opinion Gill, it's 80% that the UK leave without a deal. The EU cannot be seen to a compromise on their 'four freedoms' with Ex members.
If they did, the flood gates would open.
After that, both sides can then start serious discussions about a free trade agreement that benefits both sides.
Leaving the EU without a trade agreement will not be the end of the world.
They will agree many 11th hour things like movement of freight and flights etc, but the nuts and bolts of a trade deal will have to wait until we are a third country.

PS most polls indicate that few have changed their minds, either way.
The presumption of a Remain vote on another referendum is exactly that. A presumption. ( as was the first vote)
I think that most just want the whole thing over and done with.

This is just my opinion and is based on no absolute fact. I do not have a crystal ball.

If few have changed their minds then no leaver should fear a second vote

[Onelife]

Gill, cannot you see that your proposal is undemocratic, demanding a new election every time you disagree with the result would just lead to anarchy.

No, I'm suggesting that, when the electorate have something tangible to consider, shouldn't they be asked if their will is still to leave.

Two years ago, I accepted the result of the referendum. I expected the government to deal with the exit negotiations in an orderly way, and at this point, expected to have some clarity on the future of my country. But that hasn't happened. Instead we are getting technical notices from the government on how to cope with a no deal Brexit, and are stockpiling medicines. In the light of this, it might be reasonable to wonder if the will of the people has changed. Surely, it would be sane to ask them, once we know what the terms of our exit would be?

I think it's undemocratic not to ask.

In my opinion Gill, it's 80% that the UK leave without a deal. The EU cannot be seen to a compromise on their 'four freedoms' with Ex members.
If they did, the flood gates would open.
After that, both sides can then start serious discussions about a free trade agreement that benefits both sides.
Leaving the EU without a trade agreement will not be the end of the world.
They will agree many 11th hour things like movement of freight and flights etc, but the nuts and bolts of a trade deal will have to wait until we are a third country.

PS most polls indicate that few have changed their minds, either way.
The presumption of a Remain vote on another referendum is exactly that. A presumption. ( as was the first vote)
I think that most just want the whole thing over and done with.

This is just my opinion and is based on no absolute fact. I do not have a crystal ball.

If few have changed their minds then no leaver should fear a second vote

That may be so Gill but if there were to be a second vote with the same amount of votes cast but the other way round would the brexiteers get a deciding vote......or would we just be going round in circles?....what would it be the next time....vote rigging?