Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums

Other Hondas & General Topics => Off Topic (Non-Honda) => Topic started by: Jocko on January 15, 2019, 08:45:27 PM

Title: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 15, 2019, 08:45:27 PM
Looks like we are heading to WTO Rules now. Don't think that would be the disaster that many are predicting. It would certainly get the EU clambering for a Free Trade Agreement.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 15, 2019, 08:59:39 PM
Looks like we are heading to WTO Rules now. Don't think that would be the disaster that many are predicting. It would certainly get the EU clambering for a Free Trade Agreement.

EU and Varadka ( aided by Tony B Liar ) really overplayed the Irish border importance - and the backstop is really what stopped the deal getting through parliament tonight - so 29th March here we come and WTO on the 30th.

Europe sliding into recession as we speak ( including Germany ) so no deal is the last thing they need - really will be the last straw for them and their precious Euro.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 15, 2019, 09:27:35 PM
The problem, as I see it, is the erection of tariffs and customs controls where none currently exist. This will adversely affect the firms that export to the EU - 44% of our total export performance.

Very few countries trade on WTO rules alone. Trade deals and organisations exist across the globe. The other thing that often gets missed is that we will also cease to benefit from the trade deals that the EU has with other countries such as Canada and more recently Japan.

We have to leave the EU in line with the referendum but we need to strike a deal that allows for business to continue unfettered by new customs restrictions and tariffs.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: 123Drive! on January 15, 2019, 10:10:23 PM
Hopefully we can buy all those Honda and Toyota that are out sold in Japan which aren't allowed due to EU rules!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 08:33:45 AM
There is no reason why the EU and UK cannot agree a temporary "no tariff" agreement from 30th March, until a permanent trade deal is agreed. The EU already has "no tariff/no trade deal" trade with over 40 countries worldwide. And after all, it is every bit in the EU's interest as it is the UK's not to immediately introduce tariffs.
With regard to "Project Fear II", yesterday afternoon the financial sector were forecasting Sterling crashing if there was a large vote against the Deal, and what happened? The pound rose on the back of the news.
If there is a Peoples Vote I will vote emphatically "Leave", and irrespective of the outcome I will never vote in another election for the remainder of what days I have left. Politicians and the "Establishment" cannot ride rough shod over the democratic will of the British people. Even if Brexit goes ahead, the SNP will never get my vote again, whether it is in a General Election, Scottish Election, Council Election or Indy Ref 2.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 16, 2019, 10:37:05 AM
There is no reason why the EU and UK cannot agree a temporary "no tariff" agreement from 30th March, until a permanent trade deal is agreed. The EU already has "no tariff/no trade deal" trade with over 40 countries worldwide. And after all, it is every bit in the EU's interest as it is the UK's not to immediately introduce tariffs.
With regard to "Project Fear II", yesterday afternoon the financial sector were forecasting Sterling crashing if there was a large vote against the Deal, and what happened? The pound rose on the back of the news.
If there is a Peoples Vote I will vote emphatically "Leave", and irrespective of the outcome I will never vote in another election for the remainder of what days I have left. Politicians and the "Establishment" cannot ride rough shod over the democratic will of the British people. Even if Brexit goes ahead, the SNP will never get my vote again, whether it is in a General Election, Scottish Election, Council Election or Indy Ref 2.


Even though I voted remain, I am against a second referendum. You can't keep asking the question until you get the result you want. Let's get an arrangement that allows wealth creators to go on creating wealth.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 16, 2019, 02:20:04 PM
First of all this government will never offer a second referendum because the would be a green light for Scotland to get anther one. 

The EU history is full of countries being told to vote again when they got the wrong answer the first time, the EU does not understand democracy and has put itself in an ideological straitjacket of its own making with its inflexibility, we cannot even get two political parties to agree, try that with 27+ countries. 2019 will be the year EU folds any way, we are the least of its problems.....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 16, 2019, 03:22:13 PM
I'm afraid you guys are still living in a parallel universe to me.
However, I think the Daily Mash hits it on the head with this.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/all-options-ruled-out-20190116181417
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 16, 2019, 03:27:39 PM
Here's another one:-
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brexiters-told-to-try-walking-away-with-no-deal-in-everyday-life-and-see-how-that-works-for-them-20181121179706
Sorry i'm just trying to cheer myself up. :-[
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 16, 2019, 03:34:08 PM
Here's another one:-
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brexiters-told-to-try-walking-away-with-no-deal-in-everyday-life-and-see-how-that-works-for-them-20181121179706
Sorry i'm just trying to cheer myself up. :-[

I do know people in manufacturing who are genuinely fearful of no deal. We have a big Airbus factory near us (well just outside Chester) and they need frictionless trade to continue or Airbus might leave. They make the wings for the A380. These then go to Toulouse to be stuck on the plane.

I don't give a toss about the EU to be quite frank but I do want a deal that doesn't cause economic harm. It should be possible.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 04:00:20 PM
I'm afraid you guys are still living in a parallel universe to me.
However, I think the Daily Mash hits it on the head with this.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/all-options-ruled-out-20190116181417

A bit like Schrödinger's cat?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 04:07:08 PM
I do know people in manufacturing who are genuinely fearful of no deal. We have a big Airbus factory near us (well just outside Chester) and they need frictionless trade to continue or Airbus might leave. They make the wings for the A380. These then go to Toulouse to be stuck on the plane.

I don't give a toss about the EU to be quite frank but I do want a deal that doesn't cause economic harm. It should be possible.
"Wings, for example, travel by barge along the River Dee from Broughton in North Wales to the Dee estuary, where they are loaded onto a large capacity roll-on/roll-off vessel. The craft is used to move aircraft sections by sea to the French port of Pauillac, near Bordeaux.
Here, the components are transferred to specially designed barges, which carry them on the penultimate part of their 95-km. voyage up Garonne River from Pauillac to Langon. Four river journeys are required to transport fuselage sections and the horizontal tail plane of one aircraft. In Langon, aircraft sections are transferred to outsized-load trucks to complete their journey to Toulouse by road."

From Airbus' site. Hardly friction-less at the moment. Don't imagine customs checks would add much to the time scale!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 16, 2019, 04:11:39 PM
Here's another one:-
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brexiters-told-to-try-walking-away-with-no-deal-in-everyday-life-and-see-how-that-works-for-them-20181121179706
Sorry i'm just trying to cheer myself up. :-[

The only time walking away without a deal does not work when the people you are dealing with are the only supplier and have a monopoly or a cartel.  This is clearly not the case with the EU.  I have walked away from many energy suppliers and ISPs during the last 20 years simply because their deal is not a good one for me.  There are many people who want to trade with Great Britain,  in fact as global brands go GB or Great Britain is right there at the top of the pile.

Project 'Brexit fear' is a rerun of project 'Euro fear', almost word for word - look back at the elite who said that not joining the Eurozone would be a disaster for UK, the pound would plummet, trade would be affected, investment in the UK would drop,  house prices would drop  etc. etc. and overlay it on project Brexit no-deal fear - don't be surprised if you get a strong feeling of deja-vu....  And don't mention the millenium bug, which was used to scare many people into parting with a fortune by 'project millenium bug fear' - others spent nothing and the millenium dawned - and no planes fell out of the sky,  nobody died, trade carried on as normal,  the banking system did not crash .....

Inward investment in UK still continues apace https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/04/07/why-foreign-investment-into-britain-remains-so-strong

When Boeing heard that Airbus may leave UK they said, 'hurry up then, we want to move in' - but don't forget that BAE is a big part of Airbus,  Sweden also keen to develop new aircraft with UK ( and we should consider it after Germany pulled out of Eurofighter Typhoon quite early in the project and left UK / BAE to carry on with all the development work).   

Project fear was coined by Peter Shaw in 1975 - even then he could see the 'European political project' for exactly what it was ( look at the video of his speech at Oxford embedded in following article).

https://labourheartlands.com/the-month-when-project-fear-became-project-hysteria/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 04:30:19 PM
In 2017 the EU imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we did into the EU (House of Commons Library). Unless the EU wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face, by punishing the UK for daring to leave, then it would be in everyone's interest to trade tariff free. Otherwise the EU would pay £20 Billion a years more in tariffs to the UK than we would to the EU (approximate figure).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on January 16, 2019, 04:44:48 PM
WTO would be an utter disaster & is already blocked as @ least 20 of it's members have already made moves to veto UK joining in a way that avoids big penalties
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on January 16, 2019, 04:46:38 PM
The problem, as I see it, is the erection of tariffs and customs controls where none currently exist. This will adversely affect the firms that export to the EU - 44% of our total export performance.

Very few countries trade on WTO rules alone. Trade deals and organisations exist across the globe. The other thing that often gets missed is that we will also cease to benefit from the trade deals that the EU has with other countries such as Canada and more recently Japan.

We have to leave the EU in line with the referendum but we need to strike a deal that allows for business to continue unfettered by new customs restrictions and tariffs.
Number of countries that trade on WTO alone is ZERO
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 16, 2019, 05:09:15 PM
WTO would be an utter disaster & is already blocked as @ least 20 of it's members have already made moves to veto UK joining in a way that avoids big penalties

Britain is a founder member of the WTO so does not 'need to apply for membership' - it is just a paperwork excercise to transfer  / update existing trade deals with existing members ( including EU ).  All trade deals are based on WTO terms but tweaked to suit slightly differing priorities, circumstances and needs of different countries.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 16, 2019, 05:13:59 PM
I do know people in manufacturing who are genuinely fearful of no deal. We have a big Airbus factory near us (well just outside Chester) and they need frictionless trade to continue or Airbus might leave. They make the wings for the A380. These then go to Toulouse to be stuck on the plane.

I don't give a toss about the EU to be quite frank but I do want a deal that doesn't cause economic harm. It should be possible.
"Wings, for example, travel by barge along the River Dee from Broughton in North Wales to the Dee estuary, where they are loaded onto a large capacity roll-on/roll-off vessel. The craft is used to move aircraft sections by sea to the French port of Pauillac, near Bordeaux.
Here, the components are transferred to specially designed barges, which carry them on the penultimate part of their 95-km. voyage up Garonne River from Pauillac to Langon. Four river journeys are required to transport fuselage sections and the horizontal tail plane of one aircraft. In Langon, aircraft sections are transferred to outsized-load trucks to complete their journey to Toulouse by road."

From Airbus' site. Hardly friction-less at the moment. Don't imagine customs checks would add much to the time scale!

Yes - I was fully aware of the logistical issues involved. It's why there has always been a feeling at Broughton that Airbus might close the factory at some point in any event. Exiting the EU could be the final straw is what my source tells me. It's why we need a deal. Add tariffs on to the issue and it's curtains.


WTO rules exist but as another poster has pointed out almost nobody relies on them alone. Trade deals are the norm.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 05:23:25 PM
If the UK government was to announce tomorrow that we were leaving on WTO rules, and Parliament was to back the government we would have a free trade deal with the EU by the 29th of March. But it could never happen. We have people who didn't want Brexit running the show, a parliament who never wanted Brexit voting on the affair, and a Speaker who is so anti Brexit that even if MPs were in favour it could never happen.
On top of all that, the BBC immediately changes the subject whenever someone knowledgeable in what WTO rules would mean, starts to explain.
Me, I'd like Canada +++, as offered by the EU back in October.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/tusk-slams-uk-slurs-on-eu-urges-canada-brexit-deal/ (https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/tusk-slams-uk-slurs-on-eu-urges-canada-brexit-deal/)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on January 16, 2019, 06:00:48 PM
WTO would be an utter disaster & is already blocked as @ least 20 of it's members have already made moves to veto UK joining in a way that avoids big penalties

Britain is a founder member of the WTO so does not 'need to apply for membership' - it is just a paperwork excercise to transfer  / update existing trade deals with existing members ( including EU ).  All trade deals are based on WTO terms but tweaked to suit slightly differing priorities, circumstances and needs of different countries.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/
re-join as a separate member I meant, UK has been blocked from that government procurement bit already btw
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 16, 2019, 08:02:19 PM
WTO would be an utter disaster & is already blocked as @ least 20 of it's members have already made moves to veto UK joining in a way that avoids big penalties

Britain is a founder member of the WTO so does not 'need to apply for membership' - it is just a paperwork excercise to transfer  / update existing trade deals with existing members ( including EU ).  All trade deals are based on WTO terms but tweaked to suit slightly differing priorities, circumstances and needs of different countries.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/
re-join as a separate member I meant, UK has been blocked from that government procurement bit already btw
I've just read your reference there and the second half doesn't seem very straightforward at all. It implies that it would be much more complicated if the EU and UK were not in a customs union. Just as Dr Fox assured us that leaving the EU would be easiest deal ever, I would think that there are many ramifications as yet unconsidered.

What really bothers me is that despite last night's defeat, Theresa May seems resolved to sit on in Downing Street and allow the clock to run down till the end of March.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 08:13:54 PM
What really bothers me is that despite last night's defeat, Theresa May seems resolved to sit on in Downing Street and allow the clock to run down till the end of March.
I don't think there is a lot of options. If she was to stand down it would be weeks before a new PM was elected (unless one candidate was presented and that would never happen). We don't have that time. And Article 50 can only be extended if there is an General Election or a second referendum AND all 27 countries agree.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 16, 2019, 08:30:19 PM
What really bothers me is that despite last night's defeat, Theresa May seems resolved to sit on in Downing Street and allow the clock to run down till the end of March.
I don't think there is a lot of options. If she was to stand down it would be weeks before a new PM was elected (unless one candidate was presented and that would never happen). We don't have that time. And Article 50 can only be extended if there is an General Election or a second referendum AND all 27 countries agree.

Aye. There's the rub. The latest news is that Corbyn has refused to take part in May's substantive talks unless she takes no deal off the table.
 It's time this FPTP system was replaced.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 16, 2019, 08:43:05 PM
WTO would be an utter disaster & is already blocked as @ least 20 of it's members have already made moves to veto UK joining in a way that avoids big penalties

Britain is a founder member of the WTO so does not 'need to apply for membership' - it is just a paperwork excercise to transfer  / update existing trade deals with existing members ( including EU ).  All trade deals are based on WTO terms but tweaked to suit slightly differing priorities, circumstances and needs of different countries.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/
re-join as a separate member I meant, UK has been blocked from that government procurement bit already btw
I've just read your reference there and the second half doesn't seem very straightforward at all. It implies that it would be much more complicated if the EU and UK were not in a customs union. Just as Dr Fox assured us that leaving the EU would be easiest deal ever, I would think that there are many ramifications as yet unconsidered.

What really bothers me is that despite last night's defeat, Theresa May seems resolved to sit on in Downing Street and allow the clock to run down till the end of March.

The only thing that will get EU negotiators attention is the prospect of no deal, EU has had low growth for years ( never really recovered from 2008 crash ) their banking system is in tatters and are on edge of recession - no deal would push the whole Eurozone over the edge - they cannot  risk it - funny how pound has recovered once the worst deal in history was thrown out..  Problem with treeza is she has never ceased being a remainer and was far too reasonable.. the EU knew that no deal was not on her agenda, but now it is... if ( and a big IF ) art 50 is extended we will have to take part in EU elections and their new budget.  There's a reason 29 March was selected to leave, and we will leave on that date deal or no deal - the default position was always no deal on 29th March, it is in domestic UK and international law.. sorry lads don't get your hopes up...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 16, 2019, 08:55:45 PM
The threat of no deal will not have any effect on the EU. They must maintain their four freedoms.
It's not the same as  bargaining for a car or a cheaper energy deal.
A no deal will affect them but it will hurt the UK much worse.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 09:08:17 PM
A no deal will affect them but it will hurt the UK much worse.
How come? As I said earlier, in 2017 they imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we imported into the EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 17, 2019, 10:15:15 AM
European Editor of Irish broadcaster RTE reporting that Article 50 can only be extended if we agree Backstop before hand. No one saw that coming!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 17, 2019, 10:38:27 AM
European Editor of Irish broadcaster RTE reporting that Article 50 can only be extended if we agree Backstop before hand. No one saw that coming!


Interesting. Extremely busy at the moment and just catching up with the thread so behind the curve here. Some good points 'put'. Truth is, as always, truth is the first casualty.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 17, 2019, 10:50:37 AM
Here's another one:-
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brexiters-told-to-try-walking-away-with-no-deal-in-everyday-life-and-see-how-that-works-for-them-20181121179706
Sorry i'm just trying to cheer myself up. :-[

The only time walking away without a deal does not work when the people you are dealing with are the only supplier and have a monopoly or a cartel.  This is clearly not the case with the EU.  I have walked away from many energy suppliers and ISPs during the last 20 years simply because their deal is not a good one for me.  There are many people who want to trade with Great Britain,  in fact as global brands go GB or Great Britain is right there at the top of the pile.

Project 'Brexit fear' is a rerun of project 'Euro fear', almost word for word - look back at the elite who said that not joining the Eurozone would be a disaster for UK, the pound would plummet, trade would be affected, investment in the UK would drop,  house prices would drop  etc. etc. and overlay it on project Brexit no-deal fear - don't be surprised if you get a strong feeling of deja-vu....  And don't mention the millenium bug, which was used to scare many people into parting with a fortune by 'project millenium bug fear' - others spent nothing and the millenium dawned - and no planes fell out of the sky,  nobody died, trade carried on as normal,  the banking system did not crash .....

Inward investment in UK still continues apace https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/04/07/why-foreign-investment-into-britain-remains-so-strong

When Boeing heard that Airbus may leave UK they said, 'hurry up then, we want to move in' - but don't forget that BAE is a big part of Airbus,  Sweden also keen to develop new aircraft with UK ( and we should consider it after Germany pulled out of Eurofighter Typhoon quite early in the project and left UK / BAE to carry on with all the development work).   

Project fear was coined by Peter Shaw in 1975 - even then he could see the 'European political project' for exactly what it was ( look at the video of his speech at Oxford embedded in following article).

https://labourheartlands.com/the-month-when-project-fear-became-project-hysteria/

Thanks for the link to Peter Shore's speech. Watched it late last night. Excellent. Compare and contrast the MP's then with the majority of the committee creatures today and you realise the extent to which freedom of thought and speech is under threat. The price we are paying today is just the beginning of an almighty unravelling ball of years of spin and the cost, well, trillions of mickey mouse pounds in debt for a start. My first impression of the EEC was the generous use of 'subsidies' notably in agricultural policies. We now face the spectre of a world on subsidy and debt that is just too hot to handle. Meanwhile, the children play...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 17, 2019, 12:16:19 PM
A no deal will affect them but it will hurt the UK much worse.
How come? As I said earlier, in 2017 they imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we imported into the EU.

I’ve never really understood this argument.
The UK will still trade with the EU. We will still buy German cars and Italian fridges and wine. Britain will source some goods elsewhere and the EU will  find other markets for its goods.
Any loss to the EU can be split 27 ways. Britain will have to take any hits to its exports on its own.
More importantly the UK will lose jobs to mainland Europe. I expect it will lose the car industry and others dependent on just in time production.
It will also lose jobs in the financial sector since many of these are at the moment are based in Britain as a gateway to Europe.
Britain will also either have to buy into EU agencies  like Euratom , Europol  the European chemical agency or set up its own to replace them again bearing the cost on its own rather than splitting it 28 times.
https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/brexit-european-agencies/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 17, 2019, 03:30:18 PM
The threat of no deal will not have any effect on the EU. They must maintain their four freedoms.
It's not the same as  bargaining for a car or a cheaper energy deal.
A no deal will affect them but it will hurt the UK much worse.

As I said earlier the EU is in a political straitjacket of its own making which also affects their businesses, which is why it is rapidly becoming uncompetitive in the world.  Still it won't be around much longer so why worry about it. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/16/europe-no-fit-state-handle-risks-brexit-brinkmanship/


The European / eurozone banking system is not fit for purpose and is a bit of an oddball in world terms, the ECB has been printing worthless  duetschemarks /
 ( AKA euros ) since 2008, They like to call it QE / quantitative easing, but really it is just printing money that the economy cannot back up - the EU need London as their gateway to the real financial world from their cloud cuckoo land....

Call EU the EUSSR and Brexit is the fall of Berlin wall - which killed the USSR political project . 
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 17, 2019, 04:39:07 PM


As I said earlier the EU is in a political straitjacket of its own making which also affects their businesses, which is why it is rapidly becoming uncompetitive in the world.  Still it won't be around much longer so why worry about it. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/16/europe-no-fit-state-handle-risks-brexit-brinkmanship/


The European / eurozone banking system is not fit for purpose and is a bit of an oddball in world terms, the ECB has been printing worthless  duetschemarks /
 ( AKA euros ) since 2008, They like to call it QE / quantitative easing, but really it is just printing money that the economy cannot back up - the EU need London as their gateway to the real financial world from their cloud cuckoo land....

Call EU the EUSSR and Brexit is the fall of Berlin wall - which killed the USSR political project .
Sorry, your quote is behind a pay wall. I think you and I will just have to agree to differ.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 17, 2019, 05:22:01 PM
A no deal will affect them but it will hurt the UK much worse.
How come? As I said earlier, in 2017 they imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we imported into the EU.

I’ve never really understood this argument.
The UK will still trade with the EU. We will still buy German cars and Italian fridges and wine. Britain will source some goods elsewhere and the EU will  find other markets for its goods.
Any loss to the EU can be split 27 ways. Britain will have to take any hits to its exports on its own.
More importantly the UK will lose jobs to mainland Europe. I expect it will lose the car industry and others dependent on just in time production.
It will also lose jobs in the financial sector since many of these are at the moment are based in Britain as a gateway to Europe.
Britain will also either have to buy into EU agencies  like Euratom , Europol  the European chemical agency or set up its own to replace them again bearing the cost on its own rather than splitting it 28 times.
https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/brexit-european-agencies/

This is my fear. I've tried to avoid biased views on this (Guardian on one side, the Mail on the other plus opinion pieces generally and asked people I know who actually know the nuts and bolts. Leaving the EU will cause economic harm. I think we will survive but we will be poorer. The more honest approach to Brexit for a Leaver is to say that it is nothing to do with the economy but more to do with loss of sovereignty. I know people who are prepared for economic sacrifice just to achieve that. I don't agree with that view but it is at least coherent. What isn't credible is to argue that we are better off, economically, out rather than in.

I accept the referendum result however so let's crack on and get a deal that causes the least disruption.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 17, 2019, 05:36:14 PM
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2018/03/08/the-eus-current-problems-are-largely-of-its-own-making/

The EU has overeached itself and exceeded its original remit.  Their answer to everything is ' more Europe' - as a common market to ease trade, a great idea, as a political monster that wants to micro manage every aspect of members lives - no thank you.  You would be shocked at the number of member states who want a referendum on membership but will not be given one ( at least until they get a change of government ) - Macron is quoted recently as saying France would vote leave if they had the chance, as would Austria, Netherlands, Italy and even Belgium ( plus most former Russian states ).

Project fear has never changed its mantra since 1975 referendum, if anyone  watched my posted video from Peter Shore Oxford union speech just before 1975 vote, the same old phrases came out..   same happened with project fear about UK joining Euro, if we did not join apparently our economy was going to nosedive, industry loss to eurozone, house prices up, travel more difficult, food prices up etc etc.

As far as Airbus moving out .. https://capx.co/airbus-project-fear-and-the-truth-about-a-no-deal-brexit/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 17, 2019, 07:12:23 PM
Or ----------
You've been fed the same big bad EU fake news for the last 45 years by the Telegraph.
Here's a post from November 2017

Things seem to be going well?  After 6 months of talks UK must pay EU an undisclosed sum somewhere between £20bn and  £100bn to get a deal which at best will give them 2 years of enjoying the same rights as they have just now but with no say in the running  of the EU.
In that 2 years they have to sort out the problem of the Irish border.
Train enough doctors and nurses to replace those leaving the NHS.
Set up customs posts for imports/exports. Establish large carparks for lorries.
Set up agencies for maintaining standards similar to EU.
Negotiate deals with the rest of the world for trade.
Recruit and train 8000+ civil servants.
Find enough food to feed the population train farmers and employ labourers.
Re-establish a fishing industry. Find away of policing the UK waters.
Maintain a power supply to the UK.
Plus 1001 things I haven't thought about and probably neither have the government.
Time to call the whole thing off and revoke article 50?
https://theavengeruk.com/tag/article-50/

https://eurovote.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/theresa-may-and-the-emperors-new-clothes/

and as far as I see it the only one of the present politicians to see it as it is

https://twitter.com/i/status/1083442098551033857
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 17, 2019, 07:24:01 PM
UK voted to leave, not only to leave if we got a deal. A second 'people's vote' are weasel words by remainders who want to deny the vote result.

Any secondref would mean Scotland would demand ( with good reason ) another indyref - so it ain't going to happen. 

Our present trembling chin crop of politicians are not fit for purpose, and the deal we were offered was because a remainer was leading negotiations, the EU never took her seriously, she should have left the table a few times when EU started talking sh1te..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 17, 2019, 07:49:05 PM
As I have previously said. the EU were, and still are constrained by their four freedoms and could not move from that.
This could have been predicted by the UK politicians. In hindsight big mistakes were made in calling a referendum in the first place and in activating article 50 without having any plan. I would agree with your opinion of the current crop of politicians. Having read a bit about the situation I am finding out that they are not much worse than there predecessors.
I am from Scotland where the the vote was 67% to remain. Scotland has been persistently ignored in the negotiations.
The people of Ireland, both North and South of the Border have also been treated abysmally in this shambles of a negotiation with the real possibility of violence recurring if the border issue is not resolved and the problem seems to me insoluble. The EU has treated the Irish with a lot more respect than the Westminster government has treated Scotland.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on January 18, 2019, 10:22:00 AM
And don't mention the millenium bug, which was used to scare many people into parting with a fortune by 'project millenium bug fear' - others spent nothing and the millenium dawned - and no planes fell out of the sky,  nobody died, trade carried on as normal,  the banking system did not crash .....

...

but don't forget that BAE is a big part of Airbus

Without commenting on either side of the argument, I just need to call you out on two things...

1. The millenium bug was a real thing. The reason it mostly went smoothly is a lot of work was put in to deal with it.
2. BAE is not a big part of Airbus. It sold its stake in 2006 and avoided a merger with EADS in 2012.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 18, 2019, 11:20:30 AM

I think the 'remainer' end game is to grind the pro leave down and then force a referendum on the grounds of 'democracy'. Let's face it, they never envisaged a leave vote in the first place and they were caught red faced with their pants down. A referendum would give them chance to marshall their cavaliers. However, if they feel the need to go back to the people for a re match, surely, in the interest of democracy they should ask the people if they want another referendum? Seems elementary to me...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 18, 2019, 03:08:08 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.

Has anyone seen any figures what Brexit has actually cost so far, including the thousands of civil servants working on legislation, the fall in the FTSE and the Pound, the number of jobs lost ?


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on January 18, 2019, 04:20:48 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 18, 2019, 04:38:45 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.

Has anyone seen any figures what Brexit has actually cost so far, including the thousands of civil servants working on legislation, the fall in the FTSE and the Pound, the number of jobs lost ?



According to the Express £500m per week.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1045243/Brexit-cost-how-much-has-brexit-cost-uk-june-2018-500-million-pounds-a-week
The article was dated last November and according to the title refers to last June. certainly before they ramped up our necessary precautions for a no deal Brexit like simulating traffic jams in SE England with empty lorries and hiring ferries from non-existent companies.
 Don't know if it would include all the man hours involved in stockpiling food and drugs.
Seems strange that the Express would publish this. Wouldn't this money have been better spent on the NHS?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 18, 2019, 04:41:25 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.

We had never lost control of our borders and laws.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on January 18, 2019, 05:05:06 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.

We had never lost control of our borders and laws.
Laughs Out Loud
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 18, 2019, 06:56:00 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.

Has anyone seen any figures what Brexit has actually cost so far, including the thousands of civil servants working on legislation, the fall in the FTSE and the Pound, the number of jobs lost ?

You really are being condescending to leave voters now, politicians tell porkies all the time and nobody that I know was taken in by that supposed extra money.

 I see the electoral commission had to back down over the Leave campaign prosecution as well when it turned out that vote leave had asked the question about transfer of funds and had been told it was OK,  so they had egg all over their smug remain supporting faces ( hint - EC are supposed to be neutral but most of their top echelon were outed as ardent remainers ).

As for jobs,  project fear told us we would have rocketing unemployment if we dared vote to leave,  and the very opposite happened ,  whatever few thousand jobs we have lost recently ( which probably have no link to Brexit) you have to subtract them from +800,000 we gained since June 2016.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 18, 2019, 07:15:10 PM
As I have previously said. the EU were, and still are constrained by their four freedoms and could not move from that.
This could have been predicted by the UK politicians. In hindsight big mistakes were made in calling a referendum in the first place and in activating article 50

As I said EU are in a political straitjacket of their own making - they have gone from a trading bloc to a political monster - that was their mistake. 

There was pretty much a unanimous vote by MP to trigger article 50, and for any MP to try and block leaving after voting to trigger art 50 is unforgivable....

The UK vote as a bloc,  not as individual nations in the 2016 referendum,  fishing has always been a big part of Scottish economy and the only way to get their fishing waters back is to leave EU ( whatever Sturgeon says).

As I said earlier,  we are leading the charge with Brexit,  most EU member governments will not give their population a referendum because they could very well vote to leave,  anti-EU ( the political bit ) feeling is running very high amongst members and a lot of countries are envious of UK democratic vote and looking to us for leadership.  Brexit vote is the tip of an iceberg much larger than the one that sunk the Titanic.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on January 18, 2019, 07:37:07 PM
As I have previously said. the EU were, and still are constrained by their four freedoms and could not move from that.
This could have been predicted by the UK politicians. In hindsight big mistakes were made in calling a referendum in the first place and in activating article 50

As I said EU are in a political straitjacket of their own making - they have gone from a trading bloc to a political monster - that was their mistake. 

There was pretty much a unanimous vote by MP to trigger article 50, and for any MP to try and block leaving after voting to trigger art 50 is unforgivable....

The UK vote as a bloc,  not as individual nations in the 2016 referendum,  fishing has always been a big part of Scottish economy and the only way to get their fishing waters back is to leave EU ( whatever Sturgeon says).

As I said earlier,  we are leading the charge with Brexit,  most EU member governments will not give their population a referendum because they could very well vote to leave,  anti-EU ( the political bit ) feeling is running very high amongst members and a lot of countries are envious of UK democratic vote and looking to us for leadership.  Brexit vote is the tip of an iceberg much larger than the one that sunk the Titanic.
not sure where you get yer info but it's very muddled looking to me .. obviously not worth trying to explain in detail as you seem sure of what you post up but IF brexit happens (& it is still IF) you are likely in for shock/disappointment ... will leave you to it ....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 18, 2019, 08:32:43 PM

As I said earlier,  we are leading the charge with Brexit,  most EU member governments will not give their population a referendum because they could very well vote to leave,  anti-EU ( the political bit ) feeling is running very high amongst members and a lot of countries are envious of UK democratic vote and looking to us for leadership.  Brexit vote is the tip of an iceberg much larger than the one that sunk the Titanic.

Wow. As I have said before I think we live in parallel universes.
Your last sentence may be correct but I suspect not in the way you intended.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 18, 2019, 10:54:06 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.

Do you really think it's a good idea to give control of our laws to this government because that's who would be gaining control. Not you or me.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-act-repeal-brexit-echr-commons-parliament-conservatives-a8734886.html

Much of the problems of immigration are due to the failure of the Home Office to implement a proper registration and
limited stay policy.
If they mess things up with the Irish Border as they appear to be angling for, our borders will be wide open. This is why the EU are insistent  on the Backstop.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Kazcoco on January 19, 2019, 08:19:28 AM
This thread is an example of why we are were we are .
Democratic vote yes or no easy
Winner dictates direction for all on what needs doing to achieve what was set out in vote .
Usually get on get behind objective arguments as to result null and void it was a result .
Pick your team to make it happen and setup sub committee party nominated by opposition ......done
Head off as a united solid country get best deal possible .
Only group at negotiating table was meant to be government .
Every other leader held talks independently with EU........position of strength gone EU happy as Larry ....
There isn't ant right or wrong it's been a free for all of self interest from start to finish .
In truth EU needs us and we need them we are trading partners and that will continue .
I'd prefer an EFTA result but will take what comes as 29th is agreed deal or no deal as written into the article 50 deceleration and passed by parliament without any problems ..
For two years there has been a fervour of hate and recrimination on both side and not one iota of reconciliation I have seen first hand how fast and how disastrous democracy can become chaos .....that's my penny steps down from box thank you for reading 🤫
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Kenneve on January 19, 2019, 09:22:42 AM
This may be going slightly off topic, but of far more concern to me is the so called 'Triple lock'.
I recently came across this article, from the BNP, yes I know what a lot of people think about that party, but if true has far more repercussions than the WTO rules

Within May’s unnecessary ‘Withdrawal Agreements’ – “withdrawal” being an “Orwellian misnomer”, meaning precisely the opposite – legally-minded civil servants had inserted conditions which, by way of stealth, would have guaranteed Britain being shackled to the EU.
Embedded within May’s ‘Withdrawal Agreements’ was her “triple lock” structure, which would play out during the transitional period.
First, it involved ceding an estimated £39 Billion to the EU for nothing, while still being bound by EU law.
Second, it carved out Northern Ireland as an EU province, set a border in the Irish Sea and imposed EU trade tariffs for crossing it.
Third, unless a “future partnership” – a capitulation – was to be conceded to with the bloc, all EU conditions would remain on Britain. In other words, Britain would remain shackled to the EU whichever path she took.
That was Theresa May’s “deal”. A stab in the back for our nation and the British electorate.
 

Is it any wonder that so many MPs voted against the deal?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 19, 2019, 10:37:45 AM
I would settle for Norway + as well. At least we would be out of the political union. The MPs all voted for a default "no deal" when they enacted the Article 50 legislation. Are they now saying they got it wrong? Or is it like the original referendum, where no one thought it would come to pass?
Today I received my Postal Vote registration forms. It made me think about the possibility of having to select another herd of MEPs if Article 50 is extended (and the costs that will incur). I for one won't vote for an MEP (unless there is a UKIP type on the paper). Not many people will I would expect. We could end up with MEPs going to Strasbourg with not enough votes to get elected to the local council!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on January 19, 2019, 12:56:21 PM
In 2017 the EU imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we did into the EU (House of Commons Library). Unless the EU wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face, by punishing the UK for daring to leave, then it would be in everyone's interest to trade tariff free. Otherwise the EU would pay £20 Billion a years more in tariffs to the UK than we would to the EU (approximate figure).

Sorry the EP don't pay tariffs . The importer does. Which are then added to the import price.
And ditto with our exports to the EU. The tariffs are paid by the importer in the EU who increases prices to consumers.

Given that most of our imports are : food, cars and car parts,medicines etc..- some of which are non discretionary - car parts for our car factories for example, and food - UK inflation will rise.. a lot...

Strangely enough no politicians tell you that..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 19, 2019, 12:57:25 PM
This may be going slightly off topic, but of far more concern to me is the so called 'Triple lock'.
I recently came across this article, from the BNP, yes I know what a lot of people think about that party, but if true has far more repercussions than the WTO rules

Within May’s unnecessary ‘Withdrawal Agreements’ – “withdrawal” being an “Orwellian misnomer”, meaning precisely the opposite – legally-minded civil servants had inserted conditions which, by way of stealth, would have guaranteed Britain being shackled to the EU.
Embedded within May’s ‘Withdrawal Agreements’ was her “triple lock” structure, which would play out during the transitional period.
First, it involved ceding an estimated £39 Billion to the EU for nothing, while still being bound by EU law.
Second, it carved out Northern Ireland as an EU province, set a border in the Irish Sea and imposed EU trade tariffs for crossing it.
Third, unless a “future partnership” – a capitulation – was to be conceded to with the bloc, all EU conditions would remain on Britain. In other words, Britain would remain shackled to the EU whichever path she took.
That was Theresa May’s “deal”. A stab in the back for our nation and the British electorate.
 

Is it any wonder that so many MPs voted against the deal?

There was an article about triple lock on UKIP website as well, it makes it impossible to leave EU customs union, which means being a rule taker for ever.  Mendacious civil servants , oily Robbins and mother treeza the remainer who remained a remainer all connived to keep us locked to EU.

Too many fifth columnist quisling politicians ( and former failed politicians like Tony b liar and John minor ) tripping off to EU to pass information to EU about how to put maximum pressure of our negotiators ( is the treason act still in force, and do they still hang traitors ? )

If we had approached negotiations as a united country instead of pulling in all directions they may have taken us seriously,  but the EU was laughing at us every step of the way armed with crucial insider information from traitors.


Huge cheer from BBC question time audience about no deal.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/question-time-no-deal-brexit-diane-abbott-isabel-oakeshott/O

Hands up who thinks it is a good idea to let Dianne Abbot go on TV representing the Labour party .....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 19, 2019, 02:35:54 PM
In 2017 the EU imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we did into the EU (House of Commons Library). Unless the EU wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face, by punishing the UK for daring to leave, then it would be in everyone's interest to trade tariff free. Otherwise the EU would pay £20 Billion a years more in tariffs to the UK than we would to the EU (approximate figure).

Sorry the EP don't pay tariffs . The importer does. Which are then added to the import price.
And ditto with our exports to the EU. The tariffs are paid by the importer in the EU who increases prices to consumers.

Given that most of our imports are : food, cars and car parts,medicines etc..- some of which are non discretionary - car parts for our car factories for example, and food - UK inflation will rise.. a lot...

Strangely enough no politicians tell you that..

Imports already more expensive due to lower £, but has anyone noticed ? I doubt it.  Exporter may not pay tariffs directly but in practice they do affect them because the tariff makes their goods more expensive / less competitive.  It is good when imports get more expensive as it stimulates  things getting made in UK.   Eurozone in general and Germany in particular are teetering on edge of recession and Germany's woes are due to same cause as Jaguar, the shrinking Chinese economy due to shrinking more expensive exports and lack of a proper consumer market in China because Chinese are by nature savers not spenders ( and who can blame them, they have seen some tough times ).

Brexit is the least of EU problems, they are going down the gurgler anyway and any reprieve will be a short lived affair.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 19, 2019, 02:54:34 PM
Given that most of our imports are : food, cars and car parts,medicines etc..- some of which are non discretionary - car parts for our car factories for example, and food - UK inflation will rise.. a lot...

Strangely enough no politicians tell you that..
Only if the UK government imposes tariffs. Tariffs are at the discretion of the importing country, up to the WTO max.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 19, 2019, 03:00:56 PM
If we had approached negotiations as a united country instead of pulling in all directions they may have taken us seriously
No truer word said. We should have started from the point of leaving on WTO rules and let the EU barter for a better agreement.
Can you imagine going in to your local car dealer and telling him you need a car and you need it now? Doubt you would come out with a good deal and a full tank of petrol!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 19, 2019, 03:04:59 PM
Given that most of our imports are : food, cars and car parts,medicines etc..- some of which are non discretionary - car parts for our car factories for example, and food - UK inflation will rise.. a lot...

Strangely enough no politicians tell you that..
Only if the UK government imposes tariffs. Tariffs are at the discretion of the importing country, up to the WTO max.

+1

The receiving country has to impose tariffs,  UK has always championed free trade - the EU only does it as a last resort,   the EU puts up plenty of ' non-tariff barriers' as well, by setting all sorts of needless standards and requirements for imports ( to protect inefficient EU companies ), EU has caused many industries including agriculture to become less efficient by paying subsidies rather than market forces controlling production and demand.

Interesting article mentions how far back the yearning for an EU superstate goes...

“There can be no democratic choice against European treaties,” said Jean-Claude Juncker. National sovereignty is a thing of the past in this globalised  world.

https://brexitcentral.com/brexit-debate-sovereignty-subordination-compromise-impossible/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 21, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.

Sorry, I didn't mean everyone who voted leave but enough people were taken in by it to swing the vote.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 21, 2019, 02:02:41 PM
but enough people were taken in by it to swing the vote.
Perhaps it did. perhaps it didn't. There was enough backlash and publicity against it to cry it down. That is the problem. No one knows why people voted to leave or what they expected from Brexit.
I voted Leave to escape the political union of the EU, and to give a poke in the eye to the "Establishment". Immigration never figured in my decision. I would have been happy if they had instigated Article 50 on the morning of the vote and left, on WTO rules, two years later. At least it would be all over by now and we would have had two years to prep for "No deal".
If there is another referendum I will vote exactly the same, only this time I will also campaign for it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 21, 2019, 03:01:34 PM
but enough people were taken in by it to swing the vote.
Perhaps it did. perhaps it didn't. There was enough backlash and publicity against it to cry it down. That is the problem. No one knows why people voted to leave or what they expected from Brexit.
I voted Leave to escape the political union of the EU, and to give a poke in the eye to the "Establishment". Immigration never figured in my decision. I would have been happy if they had instigated Article 50 on the morning of the vote and left, on WTO rules, two years later. At least it would be all over by now and we would have had two years to prep for "No deal".
If there is another referendum I will vote exactly the same, only this time I will also campaign for it.

I always describe myself as a 60/40 remainer - maybe even 55/45 - and, like you, it's the political stuff that makes up most the anti EU side of my brain.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 21, 2019, 04:57:06 PM
The EU has morphed out of a purely trading bloc into a political monster that will only be satisfied ( maybe) when all national boundaries and identities are completely erased from the face of Europe and everyone has the same currency, a European army, same tax system, and UK drives on the right. They are obsessed with standardisation of everything - there used to be a joke ( true in fact ) that the EU standard for caramel was longer than the official bible.  They are obsessed with micro managing the member countries affairs and have forgotten what it was like to be democratic, the main people are appointed not elected and Junckers is reported as saying that there is no reason any EU treaties should be subject to democratic approval by members, in other words they should be imposed rather than being voted in.  This explains why several countries who dared hold referendums on some of the treaties were told to vote again because they got the wrong answer the first time, and who is to say that their governments even bothered to count the second vote ? The main worry I have about any people's vote or second referendum is that the establishment would rig the result,  the great British public caught them out the first time, they will not let it happen again......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 21, 2019, 05:53:44 PM
If there is a second vote I will feel that the Establishment has usurped the electorates wishes to suit their own needs. And that requires the people to rise up, with civil disobedience, and I would willingly join them.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 21, 2019, 08:07:15 PM
If there is a second vote I will feel that the Establishment has usurped the electorates wishes to suit their own needs. And that requires the people to rise up, with civil disobedience, and I would willingly join them.

Can we really call the result of the 2016 referendum "the will of the people" - it was a narrow if clear win I grant you but it was 51.9% to 48.1% and a third of the people didn't vote at all. In Scotland, the people wanted remain by a large margin.

I don't want a second referendum btw.


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on January 21, 2019, 08:26:55 PM
Hi

I would say that it is a clear win and shows that a greater number of voters wished to leave.

The people whom chose not to vote cannot complain either way as to the result if they had their chance to vote but chose not too. There were postal votes and proxies

I believe there should not be another vote and if there was, or a general election before leaving, I think if the raving looney party was listed, they might just win on the basis of free beer for everyone

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 21, 2019, 08:57:48 PM
The Welsh devolution referendum had 0.3% or about 6000 votes as the margin, and that was accepted.  In the house of commons laws that affect all our lives are passed by 1 vote out of 650.  What people are saying is that if a cricket team win by 1 run it is not a win, or if a golfer wins by 1 stroke there should be a replay ' because they did not really win'.  People had enough notice of referendum to enable them to vote, and the voting deadline was extended because a lot of people crashed the website - the general consensus at the time was that the extension favoured remain vote....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 21, 2019, 09:32:11 PM
Interesting article about EU.  Seems EU is the Titanic ( the unsinkable ship that sunk ) and Brexit is the UK lifeboat ...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/17/how-brexit-can-save-britain-from-eus-sinking-ship/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on January 21, 2019, 11:08:20 PM
I suspect the masses are being sold something of a pup with this deal-no deal saga.

Under WTO use of Article 24 of the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) allows both parties to agree to operate current terms of trade in relation to, for example, tariffs for a period of time while a free trade agreement (FTA) is being negotiated.

Provided both parties commit to an FTA and set out to negotiate one, this period of time can be many years.

This can be agreed quickly and would result in there being no tariffs between the EU and the UK (in it's third country status) for at least until an FTA is completed. We don't need two years plus of implementation nor a hard border in Ireland.

PS It does not need 585 pages of a withdrawal agreement - any agreement that long must be very suspect!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 21, 2019, 11:44:16 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.


Do you really think it's a good idea to give control of our laws to this government because that's who would be gaining control. Not you or me.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-act-repeal-brexit-echr-commons-parliament-conservatives-a8734886.html

Much of the problems of immigration are due to the failure of the Home Office to implement a proper registration and
limited stay policy.
If they mess things up with the Irish Border as they appear to be angling for, our borders will be wide open. This is why the EU are insistent  on the Backstop.

At least we have a better chance of holding them to account
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 22, 2019, 12:08:54 AM
I would settle for Norway + as well. At least we would be out of the political union. The MPs all voted for a default "no deal" when they enacted the Article 50 legislation. Are they now saying they got it wrong? Or is it like the original referendum, where no one thought it would come to pass?
Today I received my Postal Vote registration forms. It made me think about the possibility of having to select another herd of MEPs if Article 50 is extended (and the costs that will incur). I for one won't vote for an MEP (unless there is a UKIP type on the paper). Not many people will I would expect. We could end up with MEPs going to Strasbourg with not enough votes to get elected to the local council!

This is precisely one of the reasons we are in this mess. I am afraid one of the less commendable bi products of democracy is apathy, a paradox if ever there was one in view of the feelings currently on display. Alas, there is the real chance that too many will walk away in disgust and for understandable reasons when they should in fact stand firm. That is exactly what the pencil necks crave and play on. We have all seen it time and again at every level. While the peasants are drowning their sorrows in the local, the pushers will be running their rulers over the texts and invoking various reincarnations of suitable precedent. I am afraid bull***t does indeed baffle even the best brains given half the chance. The bitter irony is that the taxpayer has actually funded the spaghetti of legislation that binds us all together in this not terribly moot scenario.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 22, 2019, 12:23:13 AM
If there is a second vote I will feel that the Establishment has usurped the electorates wishes to suit their own needs. And that requires the people to rise up, with civil disobedience, and I would willingly join them.

Can we really call the result of the 2016 referendum "the will of the people" - it was a narrow if clear win I grant you but it was 51.9% to 48.1% and a third of the people didn't vote at all. In Scotland, the people wanted remain by a large margin.

I don't want a second referendum btw.

The fact is, everyone had the opportunity to vote. For those that did not, or cannot reconcile the result, it begs the question over which bit of the majority they appear not to understand. 
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 22, 2019, 12:26:08 AM
Interesting article about EU.  Seems EU is the Titanic ( the unsinkable ship that sunk ) and Brexit is the UK lifeboat ...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/17/how-brexit-can-save-britain-from-eus-sinking-ship/

Yes, and the rather ironic twist is that if common sense ever prevails, Brexit could well be the very thing that saves Europe from the EU. They need to wake up first.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 22, 2019, 06:44:13 AM
An ICM poll, published yesterday, show that "No Deal" is the public's preferred option with 28% voting for it. 24% would choose a second referendum, with only 8% supporting the current deal.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 08:37:54 AM
Interesting article about EU.  Seems EU is the Titanic ( the unsinkable ship that sunk ) and Brexit is the UK lifeboat ...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/17/how-brexit-can-save-britain-from-eus-sinking-ship/

Sure the EU has problems but Brexit is one of them .It's certainly not a cure.
It's similar to a man sitting in his car in a traffic jam complaining there are to many cars on the road.
By way of a bit of balance here's another speech by David Lammy.
You can click on the link at the top to hear the speech or read the transcript. The video improves after a few seconds.

https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/a410o4/brexit_speech_by_david_lammy_what_a_speech/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on January 22, 2019, 08:51:08 AM
Interesting article about EU.  Seems EU is the Titanic ( the unsinkable ship that sunk ) and Brexit is the UK lifeboat ...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/17/how-brexit-can-save-britain-from-eus-sinking-ship/

Sure the EU has problems but Brexit is one of them .It's certainly not a cure.
It's similar to a man sitting in his car in a traffic jam complaining there are to many cars on the road.
By way of a bit of balance here's another speech by David Lammy.
You can click on the link at the top to hear the speech or read the transcript. The video improves after a few seconds.

https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/a410o4/brexit_speech_by_david_lammy_what_a_speech/

This bunch of politicians we have currently must be the worst collection in history. They are childish, stupid, self serving and dishourable. With the notable exception of David Lammy. He has been a consistent voice if reason for months throughout this.

I do not understand why Corbyn cannot do the honourable thing and meet with May. Neither of them want a 'No Deal' but they can't openly admit that they agree for some stupid reason.

I voted Remain. The public voted Leave. So let's leave. But let's not also shoot ourselves in the foot whilst we do it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 09:12:59 AM
Agree completely except for last sentence. I still think we are (rather, they are) shooting us in the head. I still want to remain.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on January 22, 2019, 09:58:55 AM
The Daily Telegraph - fervent Leave  supporters- have LOTS of economics/comments on Brexit and its impact on the world economy plus a comparison of what UK growth would be with WTO vs without.
Worth reading.

(IF you are not prepared to buy one,it's behind a paywall - but you can subscribe for an initial free period)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 22, 2019, 10:01:58 AM
I suspect the masses are being sold something of a pup with this deal-no deal saga.

Under WTO use of Article 24 of the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) allows both parties to agree to operate current terms of trade in relation to, for example, tariffs for a period of time while a free trade agreement (FTA) is being negotiated.

Provided both parties commit to an FTA and set out to negotiate one, this period of time can be many years.

This can be agreed quickly and would result in there being no tariffs between the EU and the UK (in it's third country status) for at least until an FTA is completed. We don't need two years plus of implementation nor a hard border in Ireland.

PS It does not need 585 pages of a withdrawal agreement - any agreement that long must be very suspect!

+1

Here is an article on article 24 of the GATT agreement referred to,  it is by John Longworth former head of British Chamber of Commerce ( not the CBI who are all rabid remainers). He has actually been to see his old mates in WTO headquarters in Switzerland and discussed Art 24 with them,  their answer was it is a no-brainer,  it helps us and the EU,  but they also said that if the EU does not agree to this obvious solution it just proves that they are not negotiating about trade at all,  but are desperate to punish UK.

https://brexitcentral.com/brexit-plan-b-built-like-springboard-uk-eu-embrace/

Comment from the article ..

So, why has the Government not adopted this simple approach as Plan B? It would seem, if they do not, that it is proof positive we have a Remain Government hell bent on remaining locked into the EU.

It seems we have a remain parliament ( or even government ) and a leave population.....

Something for the remain 5th columnist MP's to think about ( as well as the poison dwarf John Bercow ) who want to tear up the rule book and trample over democracy..

https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/government-entitled-ask-queen-not-give-assent-brexit-wreckers-bills/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 22, 2019, 10:32:38 AM
The Welsh devolution referendum had 0.3% or about 6000 votes as the margin, and that was accepted.  In the house of commons laws that affect all our lives are passed by 1 vote out of 650.  What people are saying is that if a cricket team win by 1 run it is not a win, or if a golfer wins by 1 stroke there should be a replay ' because they did not really win'.  People had enough notice of referendum to enable them to vote, and the voting deadline was extended because a lot of people crashed the website - the general consensus at the time was that the extension favoured remain vote....

I would re-iterate that I, personally, do not favour a second referendum. My objection is to use of the phrase "the will of the people" as if the entire nation were behind Brexit.

The government said it would respect the result of the referendum so it has to deliver Brexit. The problem with the original referendum was that it should, in my view, have been accompanied by an automatic second referendum so the people could vote on the deal the government negotiated or to remain.

That's all water under the bridge now. Another referendum would just muddy the waters even further. We have to get on with it and provide certainty for both people and wealth creators.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: RichardA on January 22, 2019, 10:48:04 AM
All this sounds very familiar, like the clock has been turned back to 2000. Is Craig David back in the charts?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/oct/31/emu.theeuro

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on January 22, 2019, 11:01:29 AM
I suspect the masses are being sold something of a pup with this deal-no deal saga.

Under WTO use of Article 24 of the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) allows both parties to agree to operate current terms of trade in relation to, for example, tariffs for a period of time while a free trade agreement (FTA) is being negotiated.

Provided both parties commit to an FTA and set out to negotiate one, this period of time can be many years.

This can be agreed quickly and would result in there being no tariffs between the EU and the UK (in it's third country status) for at least until an FTA is completed. We don't need two years plus of implementation nor a hard border in Ireland.

PS It does not need 585 pages of a withdrawal agreement - any agreement that long must be very suspect!

+1

Here is an article on article 24 of the GATT agreement referred to,  it is by John Longworth former head of British Chamber of Commerce ( not the CBI who are all rabid remainers). He has actually been to see his old mates in WTO headquarters in Switzerland and discussed Art 24 with them,  their answer was it is a no-brainer,  it helps us and the EU,  but they also said that if the EU does not agree to this obvious solution it just proves that they are not negotiating about trade at all,  but are desperate to punish UK.

https://brexitcentral.com/brexit-plan-b-built-like-springboard-uk-eu-embrace/

Comment from the article ..

So, why has the Government not adopted this simple approach as Plan B? It would seem, if they do not, that it is proof positive we have a Remain Government hell bent on remaining locked into the EU.

It seems we have a remain parliament ( or even government ) and a leave population.....

Something for the remain 5th columnist MP's to think about ( as well as the poison dwarf John Bercow ) who want to tear up the rule book and trample over democracy..

https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/government-entitled-ask-queen-not-give-assent-brexit-wreckers-bills/

This is disingenuous.

If ALL  we were discussing is trade, I would agree. But it is NOT just trade but freedom of movement, borders etc.

Why would the EU agree free access to its markets if we don't agree and  don't hold to EU rules?

Norway has to.

It is so simplistic and ignores so much it is at best disingenuous and at worst lies.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 22, 2019, 11:19:48 AM
The EU allows many countries access to trade who do not 'obey their rules' on free movement etc. ( their sacred 4 pillars) but   there is no totally free movement  between countries outside EU and the EU, sure if you are a Canadian you can stay for 90 days without a Visa but cannot live there without applying through normal procedure. Their 4 pillars are political, they hold the EU in a straitjacket of its own making,  they are mixing politics with trade and politics is winning,  poor old EU....

 
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 22, 2019, 11:26:17 AM
Interesting article about EU.  Seems EU is the Titanic ( the unsinkable ship that sunk ) and Brexit is the UK lifeboat ...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/17/how-brexit-can-save-britain-from-eus-sinking-ship/

Sure the EU has problems but Brexit is one of them .It's certainly not a cure.
It's similar to a man sitting in his car in a traffic jam complaining there are to many cars on the road.
By way of a bit of balance here's another speech by David Lammy.
You can click on the link at the top to hear the speech or read the transcript. The video improves after a few seconds.

https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/a410o4/brexit_speech_by_david_lammy_what_a_speech/

This bunch of politicians we have currently must be the worst collection in history. They are childish, stupid, self serving and dishourable. With the notable exception of David Lammy. He has been a consistent voice if reason for months throughout this.

I do not understand why Corbyn cannot do the honourable thing and meet with May. Neither of them want a 'No Deal' but they can't openly admit that they agree for some stupid reason.

I voted Remain. The public voted Leave. So let's leave. But let's not also shoot ourselves in the foot whilst we do it.

I suspect the answer is party politics. Corbyn is afraid to commit to anything because he knows his hand is worth more as a potential threat than it actually is in reality simply because the labour party is so divided. If push comes to shove, they will be forced to play their hand which would be even more embarrassing for him. He knows that at the moment, the Conservatives are forced to treat labour as un unpredictable and potentially united opposition. This is why he will not be drawn, despite May's best efforts. It's the same psychology that was employed by the Bismarck in WW2. It was parked in a Norwegian fjord doing nothing but it posed a threat which diverted allied resources. Where the plan went wrong was that the Brits found a way of sinking it much to the surprise and annoyance of the owners...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 22, 2019, 11:40:40 AM
The Welsh devolution referendum had 0.3% or about 6000 votes as the margin, and that was accepted.  In the house of commons laws that affect all our lives are passed by 1 vote out of 650.  What people are saying is that if a cricket team win by 1 run it is not a win, or if a golfer wins by 1 stroke there should be a replay ' because they did not really win'.  People had enough notice of referendum to enable them to vote, and the voting deadline was extended because a lot of people crashed the website - the general consensus at the time was that the extension favoured remain vote....

A good analogy. I believe May is a keen follower of cricket and a fan of Boycott's bloody minded determination at the crease. So far so good but she appears to have overlooked one key point. He played with a straight bat.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 22, 2019, 01:04:54 PM
My objection is to use of the phrase "the will of the people" as if the entire nation were behind Brexit.
I am quite happy to use the term "the decision of the people" as was coined on today's "Politics Live".
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 02:24:04 PM
I suspect the masses are being sold something of a pup with this deal-no deal saga.



I suspect the masses are being sold something of a pup with this brexit saga. FTFY. See my first (more recent David Lammy speech). The British public were taken in by soundbites like "send 350m per week to the NHS" " Take back control of our borders, laws and money"  and "will of the people" just as the Americans were conned by  "Make America great again"
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1083442098551033857

The no deal threat was never going to make any difference to the EU.
It is now being used to threaten the UK parliament and people into accepting Theresa May's deal.
Time to take it off the table and have a straight vote between May's deal and remain.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 22, 2019, 02:53:25 PM
To say people were swayed by £350million for NHS is disingenuous in the extreme, the message was that we will have more to spend on what we want to spend it on, rather than giving it to EU to bribe other members to join with infrastructure projects.

Sir Walter Scott must have known a bit about europhiles when he wrote this...

https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/breathes-there-man-soul-so-dead

To pretend EU not worried about no deal is up there with snow white and Cinderella ..  rep of Ireland in particular will be very hard hit by no deal, which makes it even more inexplicable why they volunteered to be the EU useful fool - and no deal could tip EU into recession - while UK unemployment set another low record in last figures of 4%...

As for David Lammy, woo hooo....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 03:19:39 PM
To say people were swayed by £350million for NHS is disingenuous in the extreme, the message was that we will have more to spend on what we want to spend it on, rather than giving it to EU to bribe other members to join with infrastructure projects.


To pretend EU not worried about no deal is up there with snow white and Cinderella ..  rep of Ireland in particular will be very hard hit by no deal, which makes it even more inexplicable why they volunteered to be the EU useful fool - and no deal could tip EU into recession - while UK unemployment set another low record in last figures of 4%...

As for David Lammy, woo hooo....

Not at all disingenuous. How do you (or Theresa May) know what people are thinking?
The EU wil be affected by a no deal Brexit but not nearly as badly as the UK.
Ireland will indeed be badly affected.
What gives the UK the right to hurt other people? Is it OK to damage the liveliehoods of people in Ireland and indeed the rest of Europe so that we can get a beter deal.  The people most affected will be the disadvantaged people of Britain. The only people to benefit will be the ultra rich tax avoiders and disaster capitalists.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 22, 2019, 03:24:31 PM
I don't know where the idea that the £350 Million per week would all go to the NHS. At no time did I read into the slogan that all the money would go to the NHS.
The slogan pointed out how much went to the EU each week, before rebates, etc, and suggested it we voted leave we could fund the NHS. How the slogan was misconstrued was down to the reader (or more precisely, the remainer press).
(http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/brexit-bus-e1511953625149.jpg)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 03:29:38 PM
I don't know where the idea that the £350 Million per week would all go to the NHS. At no time did I read into the slogan that all the money would go to the NHS.
The slogan pointed out how much went to the EU each week, before rebates, etc, and suggested it we voted leave we could fund the NHS. How the slogan was misconstrued was down to the reader (or more precisely, the remainer press).
(http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/brexit-bus-e1511953625149.jpg)
Thanks for posting Jocko. I hadn't noticed previously that the "take back control " slogan was on the bus too.
Powerful stuff tht psychology.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 04:24:18 PM
WTO rules
Doesn't seem like such a clever idea now.
The European Union has confirmed it would enforce a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, in a blow to hopes that a workaround could be found.

A spokesperson for the European Commission told reporters in Brussels that it was “pretty obvious” that new infrastructure would be needed if the UK crashed out without a withdrawal agreement.

Though the premise that a border would appear has defined Brexit talks for months, all sides have so far shied away from saying they would enforce one – as required by World Trade Organisation rules.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-irish-border-hard-backstop-theresa-may-withdrawal-good-friday-agreement-a8740676.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 22, 2019, 07:26:56 PM
EU are determined not to negotiate at all and to punish UK, it will bite them in the bum though.  I am ashamed and dismayed how much help the EU 'negotiators' have had from UK fifth columnist europhiles ' the enemy within' ....

As far as Ireland taking EU side,  they do say no good deed ever goes unpunished..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9813358/British-taxpayers-funded-Irelands-14bn-bail-out.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 08:03:03 PM
EU are determined not to negotiate at all and to punish UK, it will bite them in the bum though.  I am ashamed and dismayed how much help the EU 'negotiators' have had from UK fifth columnist europhiles ' the enemy within' ....

The EU have been completely organised from the start. The list of options available to the UKwas freely available on the internet. They even showed it in a  descending staircase diagram. The UK seemed to enter  the negotiations with no sort of plan and prepared to wing it. The picture of the EU team complete with folders of notes facing David Davis armed only with his silly grin may only be symbolic, since presumably no real negotiations would be done on the first day but it pretty much sums up the situation.
If we leave the EU with or without a deal we will have to negotiate trade deals-- the withdrawal arrangements were supposed to be the easy bit. Then we would be entering the situation similar to the one you mentioned earlier where we go into negotiate the purchase of a car stating that we are going to buy at any cost.
 "Give me a deal or I'll starve myself"
The UK hasn't negotiated a deal in 40 years. They will be negotiating with expert negotiators.
 Of course everybody will be queuing up to negotiate wih us.
They're on to a winner there.
Sorry, this is just project fear
I hope the government has thought this through.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-brexit-no-notes-brexit-negotiations-a7845686.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 22, 2019, 08:28:05 PM
David Davis was not our negotiator, Olly Robbins had that job, his opposite number was Sabine Weyand.

Barnier and Davis were just figure heads / spokesmen.

https://www.ft.com/content/d4ab87ba-6ba2-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on January 22, 2019, 08:52:27 PM
EU are determined not to negotiate at all and to punish UK, it will bite them in the bum though.  I am ashamed and dismayed how much help the EU 'negotiators' have had from UK fifth columnist europhiles ' the enemy within' ....

Real negotiations haven't started yet, just at exit stage & it's UK punishing UK - ONLY
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 23, 2019, 10:42:10 AM
Interesting article about Remainers getting Brexiteers motives wrong ( but maybe on purpose ).

https://brexitcentral.com/remainers-wont-get-brexit-understand-caricature-brexiteers-entirely-wrong/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 24, 2019, 12:28:43 PM
Question for Culzean and Jocko, what do you think will happen to all the foreign manufacturing companies (Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Ford etc.) that are currently based in Britain if we crash out of the EU with no deal ?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 24, 2019, 01:11:13 PM
Question for Culzean and Jocko, what do you think will happen to all the foreign manufacturing companies (Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Ford etc.) that are currently based in Britain if we crash out of the EU with no deal ?

Same thing that happened when we crashed out of ERM ( exchange rate mechanism ) and the same that happened when UK did not join eurozone - we were threatened by exactly the same institutions that are involved in brexit project fear ( CBI, treasury, house of lords and various members of the elite great and good)   with pretty much the same things ( they do not have much imagination and do not learn from their past failures ). 

And what happened ? UK carried on as normal ( as you would expect one of the world's largest markets and economies to do ) - the project fear people have no shame and expect people to have a short memory of their previous attempts to scare the population of UK which ended up being so far from reality that they should have been thoroughly shamed - just remember ex is 'used to be' and spurt is a drip under pressure that is the root of the word 'expert'.....

UK is a great place to do business, people do not flock here to work and have headquarters for their businesses because we are part of EU but because we have great attraction to them, Google is building a massive headquarters in London they ( and many others ) know that UK is going to thrive outside the choking over-regulated uncompetitive EU and they want a piece of it....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 24, 2019, 01:12:39 PM
I think they will remain and wait for the trade deal that the UK and the EU will ultimately strike.
Leaving with "No deal" doesn't suit either side, so if that is the result on the 29th March, or later, then both sides will be desperate to come to an agreement over trade.
That is one of the Remoaner "lies", that if we leave the EU with no deal then we will simply stop trading with them. Trade will go on, just not as smoothly as it currently does, and both sides will work to resolve that situation.
I was listening to Caroline Flint talking yesterday. A Labour MP, who voted Remain, but serves a Leave constituency. She said, "Lets take No Deal off the table, but lets also take Remain off the table". I'd go along with that.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 24, 2019, 01:37:28 PM
Don't kid yourself, these companies are here for easy access to the European market, they wouldn't be here if they didn't have tariff free trade and easy access to source parts from across Europe.
 
A trade deal some time in the future is no good and crashing out of the customs union would mean utter chaos.

I think your in for a big shock if we do crash out but I don't think it will come to that, I hope not anyway.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 24, 2019, 01:50:39 PM
Don't kid yourself, these companies are here for easy access to the European market, they wouldn't be here if they didn't have tariff free trade and easy access to source parts from across Europe.
 
A trade deal some time in the future is no good and crashing out of the customs union would mean utter chaos.

I think your in for a big shock if we do crash out but I don't think it will come to that, I hope not anyway.

EU market is shrinking in relation to world trade, EU has massive problems and brexit is just one of many. Business can see the problems in EU and know that UK will certainly not put tariffs on EU goods and EU would have rocks in their head to put tariffs on UK goods.  There is a lot of talk and bluster but EU knows its days are numbered and is trying to limit damage - but think of poor old King Canute and his antics on the beach and you get the picture...


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/ten-myths-from-the-no-deal-project-fear/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 24, 2019, 03:20:36 PM
Don't kid yourself, these companies are here for easy access to the European market, they wouldn't be here if they didn't have tariff free trade and easy access to source parts from across Europe.
 
A trade deal some time in the future is no good and crashing out of the customs union would mean utter chaos.

I think your in for a big shock if we do crash out but I don't think it will come to that, I hope not anyway.

EU market is shrinking in relation to world trade, EU has massive problems and brexit is just one of many. Business can see the problems in EU and know that UK will certainly not put tariffs on EU goods and EU would have rocks in their head to put tariffs on UK goods.  There is a lot of talk and bluster but EU knows its days are numbered and is trying to limit damage - but think of poor old King Canute and his antics on the beach and you get the picture...


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/ten-myths-from-the-no-deal-project-fear/

I'm with Basil here.
The EU is a much bigger target market than the UK so why bother with all the shipping backwards and forwards of parts especially when there is all the hassle of tariffs and disruption to just in time manufacturing.
As Culzean says Brexit is only one of the problems the EU has so why be a part of the problem rather than part of the solution?
What makes you think Britain would have any advantages over mainland Europe?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: RichardA on January 24, 2019, 03:58:20 PM


Question for Culzean and Jocko, what do you think will happen to all the foreign manufacturing companies (Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Ford etc.) that are currently based in Britain if we crash out of the EU with no deal ?

Same thing that happened when we crashed out of ERM ( exchange rate mechanism ) and the same that happened when UK did not join eurozone - we were threatened by exactly the same institutions that are involved in brexit project fear ( CBI, treasury, house of lords and various members of the elite great and good)   with pretty much the same things ( they do not have much imagination and do not learn from their past failures ). 

And what happened ? UK carried on as normal ( as you would expect one of the world's largest markets and economies to do ) - the project fear people have no shame and expect people to have a short memory of their previous attempts to scare the population of UK which ended up being so far from reality that they should have been thoroughly shamed - just remember ex is 'used to be' and spurt is a drip under pressure that is the root of the word 'expert'.....

UK is a great place to do business, people do not flock here to work and have headquarters for their businesses because we are part of EU but because we have great attraction to them, Google is building a massive headquarters in London they ( and many others ) know that UK is going to thrive outside the choking over-regulated uncompetitive EU and they want a piece of it....

That's why I posted the link to The Guardian from 2000 a few posts back. The same dire predictions were made about not joining the Euro back then as we're hearing now about Brexit. It all seems ridiculous looking back now. Who knows if the same will be said about Brexit.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 24, 2019, 04:16:02 PM
No one knows how long the slow motion train crash that is the eurozone can carry on, the eurozone banks are pretty much bankrupt, the ECB is printing worthless money to prop the currency up, they call it quantitive easing but it is the same as Zimbabwe and other third world countries do most of the time - printing money as the economy fails, fiddling while Rome burns..........  The euro has only been a success for Germany, for all other countries it has been a disaster.  If you call the euro the deutschmark it makes sense.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/02/euro-zone-woes-continue-enshrouded-by.html

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/the-failure-of-the-euro

https://www.ftadviser.com/investments/2018/12/12/buxton-says-eurozone-is-unsustainable/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 24, 2019, 04:28:13 PM
All this sounds very familiar, like the clock has been turned back to 2000. Is Craig David back in the charts?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/oct/31/emu.theeuro

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

It's that deja vu again.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/05/theobserver.observerbusiness4
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 25, 2019, 06:44:22 AM
So the Pound is on the rise and the Euro is on the decline. I wonder why?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 25, 2019, 08:47:07 AM
So the Pound is on the rise and the Euro is on the decline. I wonder why?

Because it's looking increasingly likely that that the deadline is going to be extended.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 25, 2019, 08:48:34 AM
I don't know why that would depress the Euro.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 25, 2019, 09:26:33 AM
Here is a little poem - sadly more true than funny .....

Won’t you join our Common Market? said the Spider to the Fly,
It really is a winner and the cost is not too high,
I know De Gaulle said “Non”, but he hadn’t got a clue,
We want you in, my friends and I, for we have plans for you.

You’ll have to pay a little more than we do, just for now,
As Herr Kohl said, and I agree, we need a new milch cow.
It’s just a continental term believe me, mon ami,
Like “Vive la France” or “Mad Anglais” or even “E.E.C.”

As to the rules, don’t worry friend, there’s really but a few,
You’ll find that we ignore them – but they all apply to you!
Give and share between us, that’s what it’s all about
You do all the giving, and we all share it out.

It’s very British, is it not, to help a friend in need?
You’ve done it twice in two World Wars, a fact we must concede,
So climb aboard the Market Train, don’t sit there on the side,
Your continental cousins want to take you for a ride.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 25, 2019, 09:31:09 AM
I don't know why that would depress the Euro.

Why is the Euro dropping ?  mainly because it is a 'dead man walking' and investors know it..
( hint - it is dropping against all currencies not just the pound,  the ECB has stopped its economic
stimulus program QE - or printing worthless banknotes to prop up the failing Euro ... ).

Add that Germany as an exporting country is going to be badly hit by Chinese economy shutting down and other world events such as Donald Trump 'leveling the playing field on trade' ( Germany is the main support of Euro and the EU paymaster) and watch out for Euro dropping even further.

http://www.eurorateforecast.com/category/the-week-ahead/



So the Pound is on the rise and the Euro is on the decline. I wonder why?

Because it's looking increasingly likely that that the deadline is going to be extended.

Ha Ha ( or should it be boom-boom Basil) - dream on,  there is nothing that the EU bully boys can come up with during an extension that they couldn't have come up with during the last 2 years, the EU always 'negotiates' down to the wire expecting the others to blink first,  so we leave on the 29th and then negotiate from a stronger position as a non member that the EU wants to have a trade deal with - simples... The other way lies madness and humiliation - like when someone keeps talking to a brick wall hoping that it will answer.

The EU already backing off on Irish border,  withdrawing support for the hard line Varadkar position ( he was only their useful fool while he was useful) and saying checks will have to be done away from the border - which UK suggested 2 years ago,  but this will hit RoI hard,  but EU wont care as they have bigger problems.

Here is a good article from London School of Economics about some of the myths of UK membership of EU and the wilful distortion of the effects of leaving by establishment.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/08/how-the-economics-profession-got-it-wrong-on-brexit/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 25, 2019, 10:21:01 AM
The problem with quoting economists is you can take your pick and just select the ones who agree with your point of view. It's confirmation bias pure and simple. Both sides do it.



Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 25, 2019, 10:24:52 AM
The problem with quoting economists is you can take your pick and just select the ones who agree with your point of view. It's confirmation bias pure and simple. Both sides do it.

True but 'establishment' economists tend to input the very worst figures and scenarios into the computer models to justify their pro-EU bias and make matters look as bad as can be.

One of the myths about EEC / EU is that the economy of the UK improved after joining, but the real figures tell a different story.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/eu-membership-accelerate-uk-economic-growth
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 25, 2019, 01:02:00 PM
I don't know why that would depress the Euro.

Look at it the other way around, it's more that it's boosted the pound as we don't appear to be crashing out in March without a deal.

Remember it was almost 1.3 euros to the pound before the referendum.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 25, 2019, 01:22:32 PM
I am not talking about the Euro against the Pound, that is skewed by Brexit. I am talking about the Euro against the US Dollar, the Yen the Yuan and other world currencies.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 25, 2019, 01:56:12 PM
Maybe all is not lost.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46999458 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46999458)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 25, 2019, 03:36:13 PM
So the Pound is on the rise and the Euro is on the decline. I wonder why?

I wouldn't read too much into short term fluctuations but Euro was at about 1.3 to pound in 2016 and now about 1.15
and can I say "we haven't left yet "
Don't know if this link will work. but it should give an idea of fluctuations.

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y

 The Sun interprets the high of the pound midweek to Labour being about to table an amendment to block no deal Brexit
https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y

Anyway Pound back down again on Thursday due to uncertainty

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-sterling-open/pound-slips-after-reaching-11-week-highs-idUKKCN1PI126

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 26, 2019, 08:17:16 AM
Every time there is a threat of a Corbyn government the £ drops,  only to rebound when that prospect is taken off the table,  It is not so much Brexit as Corbyn that gives investors chills down their spines......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 28, 2019, 07:48:00 PM
My brother has just written to his local ( Labour ) MP who despite representing a constituency that voted over 60% leave is now calling for a 'peoples vote'. He just said that because she was ignoring the Labour party manifesto pledges that she was elected on, that her constituents would be well within their rights to demand another vote on whether she could carry on being their MP and was she OK with that ? She accepted the electors first vote for her although she stood on a false prospectus as she never supported leaving EU.. although it was in black and white on her party  manifesto that we would be leaving single market and customs union.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 28, 2019, 08:00:26 PM
Quite a few MPs run the risk of being deselected before the next general election, on both sides of the house and both sides of the debate.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 28, 2019, 10:09:41 PM
Indeed. Brexiter Labour MP Kate Hoey represents Vauxhall in London which voted 78% to remain. Her constituents are not pleased!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on January 28, 2019, 10:27:21 PM
Yay. Major retailers are telling us there will be food shortages following a no deal Brexit. Isn’t that what Brexiteers wanted? To take us back to the glory days of rationing just after the war?

To be honest, I can’t really apply too much credit to KFC warning on food shortages when they couldn’t even deliver chicken to their own chicken shops last year.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 29, 2019, 09:40:00 AM
Indeed. Brexiter Labour MP Kate Hoey represents Vauxhall in London which voted 78% to remain. Her constituents are not pleased!

But Labour had leaving the single market and customs union in their 2017 manifesto,  the Labour party is such a mess on their policy about Brexit - they have the benefit of being in opposition and can basically say anything they like without having to do anything about it,  John McDonald and Corbyn ( and many others ) have been lifelong Eurosceptics,  but since Labour party membership was invaded by remainers before 2017 election they have been sending out totally mixed messages.  What Labour leadership should realise is that members / supporters are not the same as voters, so if a few thousand members say no to brexit but Labour core voters want it ( 70% of labour constituencies voted Leave) - guess who will have the final say ?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 29, 2019, 09:51:00 AM
A shortage of fresh, tasteless, fruit and vegetables. As a Scot that will barely trouble me at all!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 29, 2019, 10:33:55 AM
EU stance appears to be altering.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on January 29, 2019, 11:30:58 AM
A shortage of fresh, tasteless, fruit and vegetables. As a Scot that will barely trouble me at all!
I was laughing at that too. If a few weeks without lettuce is the worst part of a no deal Brexit, I say bring it on. And I'm a remainer. We fought two World Wars to retain our freedom. A month without salad hardly seems to compare.

So I am a remainer and I would like us to stay in Europe. But I also hate bullies and something perverse about me is reacting against all the threats and project fear stuff coming from the EU and big business.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on January 29, 2019, 12:01:56 PM
EU stance appears to be altering.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591)

I note this from the link:

"Ireland - as every other EU member - has a veto over any future EU-UK trade deal and could use it if Dublin felt the border wasn't adequately protected."

and, in the Withdrawal Agreement, we cannot sign new trade deals until we have agreed a future trade deal with EU.


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 29, 2019, 12:10:04 PM
and, in the Withdrawal Agreement, we cannot sign new trade deals until we have agreed a future trade deal with EU.
But not if we leave on WTO Rules!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on January 29, 2019, 12:57:25 PM
Quite!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 29, 2019, 02:35:10 PM
and, in the Withdrawal Agreement, we cannot sign new trade deals until we have agreed a future trade deal with EU.
But not if we leave on WTO Rules!

But not even the most enthusiastic Leave campaigners claimed to want to do that

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 29, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
EU stance appears to be altering.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591)

I note this from the link:

"Ireland - as every other EU member - has a veto over any future EU-UK trade deal and could use it if Dublin felt the border wasn't adequately protected."

and, in the Withdrawal Agreement, we cannot sign new trade deals until we have agreed a future trade deal with EU.

I think it might be a bit worse than that.
I don't think the EU have bullied us in any way.
Their case was made quite clear at the start of negotiations and they have stuck to it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 29, 2019, 02:48:16 PM
A shortage of fresh, tasteless, fruit and vegetables. As a Scot that will barely trouble me at all!
I was laughing at that too. If a few weeks without lettuce is the worst part of a no deal Brexit, I say bring it on. And I'm a remainer. We fought two World Wars to retain our freedom. A month without salad hardly seems to compare.

So I am a remainer and I would like us to stay in Europe. But I also hate bullies and something perverse about me is reacting against all the threats and project fear stuff coming from the EU and big business.

Sorry  I linked my last post to the wrong quote. I meant to reply to this one.

I think it might be a bit worse than that.
I don't think the EU have bullied us in any way.
Their case was made quite clear at the start of negotiations and they have stuck to it.

https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-bbc-news-interview-food-shortages-supplies-no-deal-video-8751676
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 29, 2019, 03:08:32 PM
That YouTube video is the one I posted on another site in answer to somebody who said that he knew exactly what we were voting for and that was coming out of the single market and the customs union. It absolutely was not what we voted for which was quite simple - to come out of the EU - end of.

To be fair, the guy I sent the video too admitted he had been clean bowled. It's odd but I have seen Farage and Hannan drone on about how great the Swiss or Norway option was for years - I don't know why they haven't been picked up on it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on January 29, 2019, 03:15:04 PM
I have just bought new headlamp bulbs: Philips Extreme.
Ordered Sunday, shipped by plane from Germany Monday and delivered this pm..

Will WTO rules change that?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 29, 2019, 03:25:50 PM
It is only the former USSR and i5lam where people are not allowed to leave  ( ok the Hotel California is another one ).

We are the EU biggest single market and Germany's biggest trading partner,  if EU had the will and were not protecting the politics of the EU rather than looking at future trade it would have been simple.  Nowhere else are trade deals combined with visa free movement of people ( if we send all EU people back they will have an even bigger unemployment problem than they have now).  This is all about politics and setting precedents for the other countries who would follow UK if only they were allowed a referendum on membership.

The EU needs to go back to its roots as a free trade area and forget all the purely political stuff about social democrat federal superstates and wiping out borders and national identities - if they had realised sooner they were going in the wrong direction we would have probably voted to stay,  but they have political zealots running the show.....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 29, 2019, 03:29:14 PM
I have just bought new headlamp bulbs: Philips Extreme.
Ordered Sunday, shipped by plane from Germany Monday and delivered this pm..

Will WTO rules change that?

Why should it ?

You can order stuff from USA or China and get it delivered by plane. Nobody in their right mind is going to refuse to sell you stuff, it is a very bad business model..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on January 29, 2019, 03:40:23 PM
I have just bought new headlamp bulbs: Philips Extreme.
Ordered Sunday, shipped by plane from Germany Monday and delivered this pm..

Will WTO rules change that?

Why should it ?

You can order stuff from USA or China and get it delivered by plane. Nobody in their right mind is going to refuse to sell you stuff, it is a very bad business model..


Yes you can, but airmail takes 2-4 weeks, has to go through customs, and there's a £15 value limit before you're hit for Import VAT, any Excise duty and handling fees of £8 plus. Customs Duties are also levied on goods over £135.

I trade overseas all the time, and trading both ways with EU and EFTA countries is infinitely preferable.

Of course no one will refuse to trade with you on WTO rules, that's quite plainly nonsense. It just adds cost and administrative burden at both ends, before you even consider tariffs.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 29, 2019, 09:21:34 PM
I think we can get hung up on various trading models and systems. For me, and I am not a passionate remainer, the EU is far from perfect, the problem is that a hard or no deal Brexit erects financial and bureaucratic barriers to trade that do not currently exist.

That's why we should be looking to keep frictionless trade as far as possible when we leave the EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 08:57:05 AM
A good analogy to last night's pantomime here:-

" MPs do battle over amendments to motions that change standing orders to permit bills to insist on extensions to a negotiating period, without saying what they think the outcome of that negotiation should be. Meanwhile, the prime minister invites her backbenchers to vote against something she has agreed in Brussels so she can go back and ask for something that she knows will be rejected."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/may-brexit-brady-amendment
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 30, 2019, 09:19:29 AM
Did anyone watch "Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil" on Monday night? Well the government knew what to expect from the EU. I think May is just running the clock down to the last minute, hoping, when all else fails, that MPs will vote for her deal, but content to take us to WTO rules if the deal is still voted down.
Stephen Barclay did a fine job of that, last night, just prior to the votes. When asked what the "alternative arrangements" would be he said "I'll come to that", then kept allowing interruptions, knowing that the time would run out before he would need to answer. Basically what May has been doing for 2 years.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 09:20:15 AM
The Irish border is such a rotten red herring that people as far as Norfolk and Newcastle can smell it.

It is a cooked up scheme between EU and RofI to unite Ireland, the upside for the EU is that it increases the area they control.  Varadkar has been played by the EU as their useful fool, but if the border becomes the only sticking point on 28th March the EU will pull the rug on Varadkar.

I have no doubt whatever that on the day after referendum that Tony B Liar was on the phone to Barnier and Varadkar telling them about how to muddy the water and weaponise the GFR...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 10:39:28 AM
Did anyone watch "Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil" on Monday night? Well the government knew what to expect from the EU. I think May is just running the clock down to the last minute, hoping, when all else fails, that MPs will vote for her deal, but content to take us to WTO rules if the deal is still voted down.
Stephen Barclay did a fine job of that, last night, just prior to the votes. When asked what the "alternative arrangements" would be he said "I'll come to that", then kept allowing interruptions, knowing that the time would run out before he would need to answer. Basically what May has been doing for 2 years.

Yes, I watched it. My interpretation is that the country has been shafted by Cameron's arrogance.
Agree that May is just running down the clock.
Disagree that this is clever. There is no feasible plan.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 10:47:41 AM
The Irish border is such a rotten red herring that people as far as Norfolk and Newcastle can smell it.

It is a cooked up scheme between EU and RofI to unite Ireland, the upside for the EU is that it increases the area they control.  Varadkar has been played by the EU as their useful fool, but if the border becomes the only sticking point on 28th March the EU will pull the rug on Varadkar.

I have no doubt whatever that on the day after referendum that Tony B Liar was on the phone to Barnier and Varadkar telling them about how to muddy the water and weaponise the GFR...

The Irish border problem is very real.
Brexit risks the Good Friday Agreement.
That the UK government risks the peace in Ireland so that it can pursue it's fantasy ideas of economic freedom is beyond my comprehension.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 30, 2019, 10:52:00 AM
I agree Jim. All the good work that went into getting peace in Ireland must not be put at risk.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 11:09:50 AM
I agree Jim. All the good work that went into getting peace in Ireland must not be put at risk.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ruth-dudley-edwards/why-i-think-the-good-friday-agreement-needs-to-be-fixed-36640426.html

Brexit is a red - or rather, green herring. Like Trimble - now a Conservative peer - I voted Brexit because I think the EU has also outlived its usefulness and is doing more harm than good. Trimble has pointed out that the GFA was about constitutional not economic issues and the EU had nothing to do with it. The only threat to peace he sees would be if the Irish Government persists in trying to out out-Sinn Fein Sinn Fein by pushing for an internal border running down the Irish Sea as part of a strategy to break up the UK.
Neither the British nor the Irish want direct rule, but under the actual rather than the imaginary terms of the agreement, that's the only option if no deal materialises. Can't we just face the fact that the agreement was expected to be transitionary, that it no longer works, and that it needs to be renegotiated so as to give hope to all those people in Northern Ireland who just want to work and live together in peace?


Don't forget that Blair had letters sent to known IRA killers pardoning them,  while doing nothing to protect British Army personnel from prosecution,  no statute of limitations for them.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 11:15:30 AM
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-new-mood-of-question-time-audiences-reflects-the-changing-brexit-debate/

People just want government to get on with job they were given get out of EU.  There has been far too much obfuscation and stalling from people putting politics before country.  The EU were never going to play ball,  see comment about Barnier making deal so bad that UK would want to stay --- too many trembling chins amongst our elected representatives..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 11:35:06 AM
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-new-mood-of-question-time-audiences-reflects-the-changing-brexit-debate/

People just want government to get on with job they were given get out of EU.
Conservative politicians keep telling people that


 There has been far too much obfuscation and stalling from people putting politics before country. 
Couldn't agree more. Although you and I have completely different people in mind.

 The whole shambles has been about placating the right wing Eurosceptics in the Conservative party
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 12:26:54 PM
Quote
Couldn't agree more. Although you and I have completely different people in mind.

 The whole shambles has been about placating the right wing Eurosceptics in the Conservative party

The eurosceptics have the result of referendum on their side, it is more a case of pandering to europhiles within the parties - who voted to trigger article 50 and then renaged on manifesto pledges - all their antics have achieved is to embolden the EU and ensure they gave us  a terrible deal. 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/01/it-s-time-accept-labour-manifesto-you-voted-promised-hard-brexit
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 30, 2019, 12:50:35 PM
As the programme the other night pointed out, it was not just the Eurosceptics in the Conservative party that forced Cameron's hand, but the people of the UK and the success of UKIP in the European voting.
It is the people of the UK that voted to leave the EU, me among them.
With regards to taking "No Deal" of the table, that is impossible. To do that would mean that the EU could tell us to leave, but they will retain our fishing rights, or leave but Gibraltar would return to Spain, in fact anything they like. It is only the threat of us leaving with "No Deal" that gives us any leverage at all.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 30, 2019, 02:52:11 PM
Leave won the referendum and the government promised to implement the result so Brexit it must be but the combined total of remainers and don't knows far exceeds the leave vote which was 17 million out of an electorate of 46 million.

So I dispute that the "people" voted Leave. Brexit is not the will of the entire British Nation or anything close to a majority of the population. I would also say that the narrowness of the victory gives no mandate for a hard Brexit and the consequent economic harm.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 03:17:49 PM
Leave won the referendum and the government promised to implement the result so Brexit it must be but the combined total of remainers and don't knows far exceeds the leave vote which was 17 million out of an electorate of 46 million.

So I dispute that the "people" voted Leave. Brexit is not the will of the entire British Nation or anything close to a majority of the population. I would also say that the narrowness of the victory gives no mandate for a hard Brexit and the consequent economic harm.

That argument will get no one anywhere.  Only 64% of electorate voted in 1975 EU referendum, 73% in 2016.

Democracy can be messy sometimes but no one has come up with anything better.  By constituency over 400 out of 650 voted leave, no general election has ever come close to that mandate. The libdums were the only people to specifically have oppose brexit on their 2017 manifesto and voters did not flock to them ( they got a couple of extra seats to add to their existing 8 ) over 80% of people voted for parties who had it in their manifesto to leave customs union and single market.

Labour membership was invaded by remainers who did not read Labour manifesto or realise that Labour party has always been eurosceptic. Problem for Labour is that a few thousand of their 'members' may want customs union and second vote, but their core voters do not.....

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 30, 2019, 04:41:36 PM
I think it should be compulsory to vote, like Australia, Belgium, Switzerland and quite a few others. In Australia, if you fail to vote and don't have a valid reason, you are fined $170.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on January 30, 2019, 05:01:58 PM
I think it should be compulsory to vote, like Australia, Belgium, Switzerland and quite a few others. In Australia, if you fail to vote and don't have a valid reason, you are fined $170.

I agree and I think it should be compulsory not to moan if you fail to vote.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 30, 2019, 05:07:42 PM
Leave won the referendum and the government promised to implement the result so Brexit it must be but the combined total of remainers and don't knows far exceeds the leave vote which was 17 million out of an electorate of 46 million.

So I dispute that the "people" voted Leave. Brexit is not the will of the entire British Nation or anything close to a majority of the population. I would also say that the narrowness of the victory gives no mandate for a hard Brexit and the consequent economic harm.

No - my problem is when people use phrases like the will of the people. I object to that phrase and I wonder why people in the press and in politics use it. It is the will of 37% of the electorate - no more no less.


Just to be clear - I accept that Brexit has to go ahead because the government said it would implement the result of the referendum. In my own view there is much to be said for compulsory voting as Jocko has implied.

That argument will get no one anywhere.  Only 64% of electorate voted in 1975 EU referendum, 73% in 2016.

Democracy can be messy sometimes but no one has come up with anything better.  By constituency over 400 out of 650 voted leave, no general election has ever come close to that mandate. The libdums were the only people to specifically have oppose brexit on their 2017 manifesto and voters did not flock to them ( they got a couple of extra seats to add to their existing 8 ) over 80% of people voted for parties who had it in their manifesto to leave customs union and single market.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on January 30, 2019, 06:59:42 PM
No - my problem is when people use phrases like the will of the people. I object to that phrase and I wonder why people in the press and in politics use it. It is the will of 37% of the electorate - no more no less.

I don't like that either.

With regard to the 27% who failed to vote, what proportion of those would you think would be pro-Brexit? It seems to me that people will turn out and mark their X if they want change, and folk who don't vote are more likely to be happy with things as they are. That's why referenda to decide such complex issues are totally inadequate, unless as was suggested above, people are forced to choose one way or the other.

As I like to put it, 27% were so incensed by the status quo that they couldn't be arsed to vote.

By constituency over 400 out of 650 voted leave, no general election has ever come close to that mandate.

Purely a technical point, but I thought you would be old enough to remember the 1997 general election  ;)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on January 30, 2019, 08:28:18 PM
But surely Pete intended posting something. It is just a case of changing it to what was originally intended.

I think his comment ended up in the middle of the quote, it just needs moving to the end.

I'm guessing it was meant to be like this

Leave won the referendum and the government promised to implement the result so Brexit it must be but the combined total of remainers and don't knows far exceeds the leave vote which was 17 million out of an electorate of 46 million.

So I dispute that the "people" voted Leave. Brexit is not the will of the entire British Nation or anything close to a majority of the population. I would also say that the narrowness of the victory gives no mandate for a hard Brexit and the consequent economic harm.

That argument will get no one anywhere.  Only 64% of electorate voted in 1975 EU referendum, 73% in 2016.

Democracy can be messy sometimes but no one has come up with anything better.  By constituency over 400 out of 650 voted leave, no general election has ever come close to that mandate. The libdums were the only people to specifically have oppose brexit on their 2017 manifesto and voters did not flock to them ( they got a couple of extra seats to add to their existing 8 ) over 80% of people voted for parties who had it in their manifesto to leave customs union and single market.


No - my problem is when people use phrases like the will of the people. I object to that phrase and I wonder why people in the press and in politics use it. It is the will of 37% of the electorate - no more no less.

Just to be clear - I accept that Brexit has to go ahead because the government said it would implement the result of the referendum. In my own view there is much to be said for compulsory voting as Jocko has implied.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 08:54:42 PM
As the programme the other night pointed out, it was not just the Eurosceptics in the Conservative party that forced Cameron's hand, but the people of the UK and the success of UKIP in the European voting.
It is the people of the UK that voted to leave the EU, me among them.
With regards to taking "No Deal" of the table, that is impossible. To do that would mean that the EU could tell us to leave, but they will retain our fishing rights, or leave but Gibraltar would return to Spain, in fact anything they like. It is only the threat of us leaving with "No Deal" that gives us any leverage at all.

As the programme the other night pointed out, the Tory party had been in disarray for some time before the referendum. David Cameron tried to heal it by offering a referendum which he never expected to lose.
The conservative party is still very split and Theresa May has spent the last two years trying to placate first one side and then the other and ended up pleasing no-one. Many Leave voters were targeted and  influenced, maybe subconsciously,  by internet advertisements promoted by the Leave campaigns ( I watched an item on Channel 4 news about them ramping up these adverts again) (preempting a Peoples’ Vote? )
A No Deal situation would be disastrous – border chaos, food and medicine shortages etc. (not all Project Fear) and would be much worse for the UK than the EU.
 The EU ‘s four freedoms are more important to them than any financial hit and so they are not going to move on the backstop.
A No Deal threat gives us no leverage. Theresa May must know she has no chance of achieving anything by going back to Brussels but she will succeed in running down the clock by another two weeks.
The EU have been completely transparent. All their cards were laid on the table throughout. Unlike the UK side who would not disclose any of their plans (if they had any) for fear of giving away secrets to the “enemy.” Remember David Davis and his “constructive ambiguity” and his “statement of intent.”
It was this sort of attitude that led to the EU putting everything into legal documents,  making them Davis proof,
and leading to the Backstop.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/12/david-davis-has-damaged-trust-in-the-uk-for-brexit-talks-says-verhofstadt

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 08:59:07 PM
No - my problem is when people use phrases like the will of the people. I object to that phrase and I wonder why people in the press and in politics use it. It is the will of 37% of the electorate - no more no less.

I don't like that either.

With regard to the 27% who failed to vote, what proportion of those would you think would be pro-Brexit? It seems to me that people will turn out and mark their X if they want change, and folk who don't vote are more likely to be happy with things as they are. That's why referenda to decide such complex issues are totally inadequate, unless as was suggested above, people are forced to choose one way or the other.

As I like to put it, 27% were so incensed by the status quo that they couldn't be arsed to vote.

By constituency over 400 out of 650 voted leave, no general election has ever come close to that mandate.

Purely a technical point, but I thought you would be old enough to remember the 1997 general election  ;)

yeah but I was living in Australia then.....

Remainers love to claim that the ones who did not vote would have voted remain,  they already extended the cut-off for voter registration which probably favoured remain..  You can advertise something all over national press and TV for 12 months and some idiots still leave it until the night before to register..

Young people can't be arsed to vote because they have  more important things to do like playing with their phones and getting pi55ed.   There is a statistic that voters get 0.5% more conservative every year as they grow up ( and they realise that Labours handling of the economy is unsustainable, and money does not grow on trees ).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 09:10:34 PM
The EU have been completely transparent. All their cards were laid on the table throughout.

The EU is as transparent as a solid wooden door

https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/olivier-hoedeman/transparency-ethics-accountability-and-democracy-brussels-crisis

here are 5 books you should read 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rotten-Heart-Europe-Dirty-Europes-ebook/dp/B009UMZWTI

The only transparent thing about their negotiations was the fact that they would make any deal so bad that they hoped it would scare the UK into staying.  Their precious 4 freedoms are political, and politics never made your unemployment any less - " its the economy stupid " ( thanks Bill Clinton ).  As I have said before the EU is a 1950's project that is now starting to smell ( as most things do when they go way past their 'use by ' date and are going rotten ).

Everything happens behind closed doors in Brussels,  the multinational companies love the EU because they can be lobbied in secret and deals done that nobody gets to know about.

The real reason Cameron held a referendum ( which was voted through parliament on a large majority by the way) was because UKIP was running away with Conservative votes,  it was actually Nigel Fagage who caused the referendum due to UKIP success in the polls and Cameron wanted to shut them down..  The law of unintended consequences claimed another victim......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on January 30, 2019, 10:39:32 PM
Remainers love to claim that the ones who did not vote would have voted remain

It seems patently obvious to me, for the reasons I gave earlier. Someone who wants change is surely more motivated to vote.

Also, take "No Deal". It's been proven in polling that a significant number of the public believe that "No Deal" means that everything will stay as it is, blame Noel Edmonds for that one.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 10:52:53 PM
The EU have been completely transparent. All their cards were laid on the table throughout.

The EU is as transparent as a solid wooden door



Everything recorded and available on internet

https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/brexit_en
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 31, 2019, 07:03:27 AM
I remember the UK before the EU, and everything tootled along nicely under WTO rules. I don't doubt there will be issues initially, but nothing we will not be able to overcome.
I was listening to Owen Paterson, former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the other night. Granted, he is a Brexiteer, but he explained that there is already a managed economic border between the North and South which requires no infrastructure on the border itself and he can see no reason, other than Ireland and the EU's insistence, why we would need one under the current proposed deal, minus Backstop.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 31, 2019, 08:31:43 AM
I remember the UK before the EU, and everything tootled along nicely under WTO rules. I don't doubt there will be issues initially, but nothing we will not be able to overcome.
I was listening to Owen Paterson, former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the other night. Granted, he is a Brexiteer, but he explained that there is already a managed economic border between the North and South which requires no infrastructure on the border itself and he can see no reason, other than Ireland and the EU's insistence, why we would need one under the current proposed deal, minus Backstop.

Aye but times have changed Jocko.
Things weren't really that great back then either.

https://www.economist.com/buttonwoods-notebook/2017/07/19/britain-back-to-being-the-sick-man-of-europe

"IN THE 1970s, Britain was dubbed “the sick man of Europe”, a role previously played by the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century. A poor growth record since the second world war combined with terrible industrial relations (29m days lost to strikes in 1979) to make many ask the question “Is Britain governable?”.

The reason Britain joined what was then the EEC in 1973 (at the third attempt) was, in large part, a desperate attempt to find a way of forcing the country to become more competitive. Whether Europe was the key factor, or whether it was Margaret Thatcher’s reforms, by the mid-1990s, the trick seemed to have worked. In particular, London, which lost a quarter of its population between 1939 and the early 1990s, became a global, self-confident city, attracting expats from all over the world. There was a point, a decade ago, when London started to talk of overtaking New York as the global financial centre."
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on January 31, 2019, 10:12:30 AM
A poor growth record since the second world war

To be fair, Britain spent most of the late '40s and 1950s famously rebuilding Germany, including the VW business. Did you know that rationing carried on in the UK for much longer than Germany, 4 years longer I believe, and during that time we continued to provide food to Europe. People forget that we won the war and lost the peace. Britain and the USA effectively carried on fighting the war and funding NATO until very recently, with little financial support from the rest of Europe, other than, say, France.

There was a point, a decade ago, when London started to talk of overtaking New York as the global financial centre."
Would that have been just before the crash and burn of 2008/9?

I am on your side Jim, but I am also a fact checker. There is a lot of crap being talked on this thread by a lot of people. Recently, for example, about why we might have joined the EEC in 1973.

The fact is, no one really knows why, and there was no one reason. All I know is if I am in some sort of agreement and enjoy all the benefits of that until stuff starts to go wrong, and then I just leave, that makes me a bit pathetic. The way forward is to fix the problems, not run away from them. And you can't fix the problems from the outside looking in. Which is where we will be after Brexit. We will not be the sick man of Europe. We will be the pathetic loser that left the party because momentarily these was something we didn't like.

I have no doubt that after many years of turmoil, hardship and hard work, we will emerge better off as a nation than we are now. But we will never know how things could have been had we stayed in Europe and tried to make things better.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 31, 2019, 10:14:41 AM
Was funny to watch the Dutch Onion producers and Belgian fishermen on BBC this morning.  In the event of no deal the Dutch were proposing a fast track trusted trader system where shipments were 'pre-cleared electronically before they got to the docks' - don't they know that the EU already said that would not work and refused to admit it could be used in Ireland >

The Belgian fishermen are at present fishing in British waters and in no deal they would not be able to do that,  they would have to buy British fish from British fishermen LOL

All over EU businesses are pi55ing themselves at the thought of losing British market, The EU council is pi55ing itself that UK will out-compete them when EU regulations are removed - I guess Claude Drunkers has got through a lake of booze these past couple of years to be able to keep saying ' that is the deal and we will not change it'...  keep opening the bottles but when you stop drinking and face reality you are going to have one hell of a hangover

http://www.cityam.com/249559/why-single-market-problem-not-solution

it was Thatchers reforms, curbing union power and fiscal changes that reformed UK,  not particularly being a member of EU.

https://www.ft.com/content/0b0afe92-ac40-11e8-8253-48106866cd8a
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Kenneve on January 31, 2019, 11:07:03 AM
A colleague sent me an interesting article which appeared in one our daily papers, written by the editor of a large German paper, which paints a quite different slant on the Brexit issue by the likes of Merkel compared with many of the German population.
Unfortunately part of the title was missed during the scanning process, but it reads:-

'We Germans have insulted you. How can we have forgotten the huge debt that we owe you?'

Maybe the french should also read it!!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 31, 2019, 11:37:34 AM
A poor growth record since the second world war

To be fair, Britain spent most of the late '40s and 1950s famously rebuilding Germany, including the VW business. Did you know that rationing carried on in the UK for much longer than Germany, 4 years longer I believe, and during that time we continued to provide food to Europe. People forget that we won the war and lost the peace. Britain and the USA effectively carried on fighting the war and funding NATO until very recently, with little financial support from the rest of Europe, other than, say, France.

There was a point, a decade ago, when London started to talk of overtaking New York as the global financial centre."
Would that have been just before the crash and burn of 2008/9?

I am on your side Jim, but I am also a fact checker. There is a lot of crap being talked on this thread by a lot of people. Recently, for example, about why we might have joined the EEC in 1973.

The fact is, no one really knows why, and there was no one reason. All I know is if I am in some sort of agreement and enjoy all the benefits of that until stuff starts to go wrong, and then I just leave, that makes me a bit pathetic. The way forward is to fix the problems, not run away from them. And you can't fix the problems from the outside looking in. Which is where we will be after Brexit. We will not be the sick man of Europe. We will be the pathetic loser that left the party because momentarily these was something we didn't like.

I have no doubt that after many years of turmoil, hardship and hard work, we will emerge better off as a nation than we are now. But we will never know how things could have been had we stayed in Europe and tried to make things better.
That's what  I get from quoting from the Economist.
Re. Recovery after the war. We  are talking 70 years ago. Surely we should have recovered by now.
Re. Last paragraph. Wish I had your confidence in the present government. Have just been listening to Jeremy Hunt finally admitting we might need a bit more time.
This government wants to take back control of our laws, money and borders.
They want to retain all the power in the British ruling class and return to the days of the empire -except there is no longer an empire.
It would have been so much better to have remained inside to improve the EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on January 31, 2019, 02:02:37 PM
Unfortunately part of the title was missed during the scanning process, but it reads:-

'We Germans have insulted you. How can we have forgotten the huge debt that we owe you?'

Scottish Daily Mail - 2019-01-24
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on January 31, 2019, 02:10:20 PM
It would have been so much better to have remained inside to improve the EU.
If only the British public had thought that way.  This thread wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have spent ££££s trying to set up deals. 

But clearly they didn't as they couldn't be bothered to get off their arses and vote.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 31, 2019, 03:21:29 PM
Unfortunately part of the title was missed during the scanning process, but it reads:-

'We Germans have insulted you. How can we have forgotten the huge debt that we owe you?'

Scottish Daily Mail - 2019-01-24
Thanks
I wondered about the validity of the article especially since it was written in English.
Looked up Bild on Google.  Found Wiki entry.
I wonder if the article featured in the German edition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild

"The Bild newspaper (or Bild-Zeitung, literally Picture; [ˈbɪlt]) is a German tabloid published by Axel Springer AG. The paper is published from Monday to Saturday; on Sundays, its sister paper Bild am Sonntag ("Bild on Sunday") is published instead, which has a different style and its own editors. Bild is tabloid in style but broadsheet in size. It is the best-selling non-Asian newspaper and has the eight-largest circulation worldwide.[1] Bild has been described as "notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism" and as having a huge influence on German politicians.[2] Its nearest English-language stylistic and journalistic equivalent is often considered to be the British national newspaper The Sun, the second highest selling European tabloid newspaper, with which it shares a degree of rivalry.[3][4][5]

Der Spiegel wrote in 2006 that Bild "flies just under the nonsense threshold of American and British tabloids ... For the German desperate, it is a daily dose of high-resolution soft porn"."
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Kenneve on January 31, 2019, 03:47:07 PM
Thanks for the info, JimSh
I understand it was published here in the Daily Mail 24th Jan.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 31, 2019, 03:54:26 PM
Alexander von Schoenburg is German correspondent for Vanity Fair and the Bild-Zeitung, among others. Kenneve did say it was in a local paper. Just because his piece was in the Scottish Daily Mail in no way detracts from the sentiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander,_Count_of_Sch%C3%B6nburg-Glauchau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander,_Count_of_Sch%C3%B6nburg-Glauchau)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 31, 2019, 04:04:59 PM
It would have been so much better to have remained inside to improve the EU.
If only the British public had thought that way.  This thread wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have spent ££££s trying to set up deals. 

But clearly they didn't as they couldn't be bothered to get off their arses and vote.

Trying to reform the EU from within is like old King Canute putting his throne on the beach - we all know he got wet feet.  We have been trying to reform the EU since we joined,  but they continued to go in a direction that does not suit us - their answer to everything is 'more Europe' ( closer integration ) - Thatcher managed to get them to be more open and free trading but they continue to be inward looking and protectionist, opaque and unaccountable.

We will be well shot of them - I notice the cheeky bar-stewards have said we still have to pay them all the money even without a deal,  we leave a massive hole in their budget, one of their milch cows is leaving and the others will have to start paying in now - they won't like that after being used to taking all the time.

Germany should be ashamed of themselves,  we should have left them to rot after they had tried to destroy Europe for the second time, instead we put up with rationing in UK until into the 1950's so that we could send them food and then saved them again with the Berlin airlift.. and through NATO ( which they hardly contribute to ) we have protected them from USSR / Russia.  The Euro has suited Germans while it has impoverished most of southern Europe - why were they not honest enough to call it the Deutschmark ?

If this is the way the EU treats their allies words fail me -
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 31, 2019, 04:16:02 PM
Thanks for the info, JimSh
I understand it was published here in the Daily Mail 24th Jan.

Sorry,
I misread the original post by Kenneve and thought that the article had originated in Germany.
Seems like a lot of discrediting of sources today.
Nobody knows who to believe anymore.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 31, 2019, 05:07:35 PM
When I was an apprentice I worked with an engineer who worked in aviation industry during and after ww2.  He told me a story that I could hardly believe - after the war government people came round their factory putting tags on machinery, he said that a lot of their best machine tools got tagged and shipped to Germany - how stupid are we as a country ?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on January 31, 2019, 05:15:43 PM
Trying to reform the EU from within is like old King Canute putting his throne on the beach - we all know he got wet feet. 

Just for reference: King Canute was one of our greatest Kings and was very highly regarded throughout the Anglo Scandinavian Empire  and the Holy Roman Empire of the time.

"Henry of Huntingdon tells the story as one of three examples of Canute's "graceful and magnificent" behaviour*.

In Huntingdon's account, Canute set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the incoming tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person.

Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.'"

He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again "to the honour of God the almighty King".

*[the other two being his arrangement of the marriage of his daughter to the later [not]Holy [not] Roman [not] Emperor, [ the Holy Roman Empire being the precursor to the Third Reich (military) and now the EU (economic)] and the negotiation of a reduction in tolls [read tariffs] on the roads across Gaul to Rome at the imperial coronation of 1027]".

Nothing much seems to have changed in 1,000 years!




Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: RichardA on January 31, 2019, 08:26:51 PM
The libdums were the only people to specifically have oppose brexit on their 2017 manifesto and voters did not flock to them ( they got a couple of extra seats to add to their existing 8 ) over 80% of people voted for parties who had it in their manifesto to leave customs union and single market.

Minus that figure by one. Lib Dem Stephen Lloyd won back his seat in 2017 (after losing it in the 2015 GE) on a promise made on local TV that he'd respect the 57% that voted leave. He's honoured his promise by voting for May's deal and has now lost the party whip and stands as an independent. 

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 01, 2019, 05:19:23 PM
So now Gibraltar is a "colony" under EU law. The quicker we are out the better.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47087439 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47087439)
Can you imagine the conditions that will be put on the UK to allow an agreement that releases us from the Backstop?
Gibraltar a colony that is ceded to Spain? Whatever they ask we will have to give. They will have us over a barrel, or more likely in the barrel.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=in%20the%20barrel (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=in%20the%20barrel)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 01, 2019, 05:46:37 PM
EU really taking the pi55 now, well they should enjoy it while it is still funny !

I thought article 50 obliged EU to negotiate in good faith - there has been precious little of that, just pushing and shoving and sniggering. 

At the moment the EU are mainly involved in rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic , and Junckers getting as much free booze as he can before his supply sinks....

They have elections coming up in May this year, now it will be funny if the right wing populists do very well..... and upset their cosy political applecart.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 02, 2019, 05:20:32 PM
Welcome to the future.

https://news.sky.com/story/nissan-casts-further-gloom-on-car-industry-with-x-trail-blow-11625885

Quote
One automotive analyst said that falling consumer demand for diesel vehicles and Nissan's weak recent sales performance in Europe were likely to be factors in the decision.

That may be, but they have to build them somewhere.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 02, 2019, 06:01:04 PM
Welcome to the future.

https://news.sky.com/story/nissan-casts-further-gloom-on-car-industry-with-x-trail-blow-11625885

Quote
One automotive analyst said that falling consumer demand for diesel vehicles and Nissan's weak recent sales performance in Europe were likely to be factors in the decision.

That may be, but they have to build them somewhere.

The government can't say they weren't warned.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/04/will-nissan-stay-once-britain-leaves-sunderland-brexit-business-dilemma
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 02, 2019, 06:07:46 PM
Welcome to the future.

https://news.sky.com/story/nissan-casts-further-gloom-on-car-industry-with-x-trail-blow-11625885

Quote
One automotive analyst said that falling consumer demand for diesel vehicles and Nissan's weak recent sales performance in Europe were likely to be factors in the decision.

That may be, but they have to build them somewhere.

They will more than likely be built in Japan, where they are built now - without UK contribution to their budget the EU will not have the cash to bribe Nissan to build them in EU.

It is because of the EU legislators being in car companies pockets that VW et al were able to fake emissions on diesels, this has resulted in a massive drop in demand for diesels like X- Trail, so no point in building the in Europe anyway, unless they are going to make an electric X-Trail.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 02, 2019, 09:07:26 PM
this has resulted in a massive drop in demand for diesels like X- Trail, so no point in building the in Europe anyway, unless they are going to make an electric X-Trail.

They make a petrol version of the old model, as well as hybrids for other markets. I'm sure that electric versions of most model segments are on the horizon.

Production may stay in Japan, but there's the problem. They obviously thought that the cost savings involved in building the car with the shared platform Qashqai in Sunderland made sense when certain Government assurances were made to them in 2016, but now the UK will probably end up outside the single market, and quite possibly any sort of trading arrangement too.

If production at Sunderland is outside the EU, and in particular the single market, there's little incentive to base new production in the UK, especially as Nissan have access to multiple production facilities in France, Slovakia, Romania and other EU countries. The Micra is already being built at Flins in France, alongside the Renault Clio and Zoe, with most of the major components coming from the Le Mans plant.

There's a worrying trend developing, and too many people don't want to see it - it's like the Emperor's New Clothes. Brexiters are now telling us that these things "were going to happen anyway", after two years of telling us they wouldn't happen.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 02, 2019, 09:54:06 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/08/its-not-brexit-britain-most-likely-to-suffer-recession-its-germany

The whole Eurozone is heading for recession - and it will be speeded up by a deal that interrupts trade between UK and Europe. At the moment the EU is fighting to save its political project and has ignored the problems facing its economies.  UK has a massive trade deficit with EU,  we have a surplus with pretty much every other country we trade with - that should speak volumes for what the EU has done for us...

The ECB can no longer afford to keep printing worthless Euros and stopped its quantitive easing program in December,  since then the slippery slope into recession has got steeper and more slippery.  We are Germanies biggest market in the EU - pretty soon German business leaders are gonna bang Barnier - Junckers and Verhofstadt heads together as the reality of the situation hits - B,J and V are letting their members economies down in their search for the holy grail of a European superstate,  but power outside their control are taking over, the next Euro crisis may well be the last...

Itis good insurance and business for car makers to build the same model in different countries,  it encourages people to buy a car that is made in  'their' country and it dates back to the days of strong trade unions where worker in UK would not go on strike to support workers in Belgium, or the other way round.  The reason Honda is so strong in USA is that they were probably the first Japanese maker to open a production plant there, no doubt the Japanese workers objected to start with but it was a great move for Honda as a company.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 03, 2019, 10:38:55 AM
If production at Sunderland is outside the EU, and in particular the single market, there's little incentive to base new production in the UK, especially as Nissan have access to multiple production facilities in France, Slovakia, Romania and other EU countries. The Micra is already being built at Flins in France, alongside the Renault Clio and Zoe, with most of the major components coming from the Le Mans plant.
If they end up building the model elsewhere in Europe I will admit that Brexit played its part, but if they build it in Japan, or what is looking increasingly likely, the don't build it for Europe at all, then it will be down to the market and the particular falling out of favour for diesel in Europe.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 03, 2019, 12:47:08 PM
If they end up building the model elsewhere in Europe I will admit that Brexit played its part, but if they build it in Japan, or what is looking increasingly likely, the don't build it for Europe at all, then it will be down to the market and the particular falling out of favour for diesel in Europe.

But they already build the platform in the EU, here in the UK. The investment announced in 2016 was to increase capacity to enable production of the the sister model there too. If they end up building the car in Japan, the deciding factors will be the tariff-free access to the EU markets and unfettered access to component supply lines. It is not a good sign.

The problem is not so much what is happening now, but maybe over the next 10-20 years when it comes to major investment to build new models and platforms. I have no doubt that production of the Qashqa, Juke & Leaf is safe at Sunderland in the short and probably medium term, but the long term outlook has to be less secure outside of the EU market - which is ten times the size of the UK. Even if British loyalty to UK built cars kicked in and everyone bought cars manufactured here, there will be less incentive to make large investments in vehicle manufacturing in a country which is based outside the main market you are trying to sell to, especially if there are also logistical difficulties moving components and finished goods across borders. The current freedoms are the reason these companies are here now, building cars for the EU market.

The risk of all this is significant. 160,000+ work directly in the UK car industry, many more work in support industries and the local economy. Of the 1.75 million vehicles produced in the UK, 80% are exported, over half are exported to the EU, and many more are exported to countries we already have free trade agreements with through the EU, including Japan. The EU exports only 11.7% of their total car production to the UK, so proportionately, we are far more vulnerable.

Let's face it, whatever the outcome, the UK will not stop buying cars produced in the EU. Where else are people going to buy their BMWs, Mercs, Audis, VWs, etc., from? It is completely disingenuous to suggest that it will damage EU car manufacturers anywhere as much as those in the UK. The danger will not come from short term logistics difficulties and tariffs, but from the long term drift towards building cars within the EU market.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 03, 2019, 01:47:35 PM
All these are fair points – however potential tariff costs have already been absorbed in the lower pound. Imported cars into UK will be at a double disadvantage with import tariffs added to the lower pound. I can’t speak for Korean cars which presumably bear an EU import tariff at the moment.

In the medium (5 year) / longer (10 year) if we were to [ever] achieve a Free Trade Deal with EU then the situation will be back to where we were before plus other markets would become available too.

Looking at my Honda many of the parts seem to have been made in Japan but it was assembled in EU so presumably they would have come in through the existing WTO rules. I can’t speak for UK assembled Toyota or Nissan (which I count as French these days). I don’t know what the UK content is.

Honestly I do not know enough about this, but I have the feeling “it ain’t that simple”!

Anyway, we could always treat car plants as Tax Free Economic Zones or Customs Bonded Factories as we used to have.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 03, 2019, 02:16:19 PM
I can’t speak for Korean cars which presumably bear an EU import tariff at the moment.

South Korea has had a free trade agreement with the EU since 2011. Kia Motors have also had a large manufacturing facility within the EU since 2006, building over 300,000 vehicles annually in their Slovakia plant, and half of their EU vehicle sales.

Looking at my Honda many of the parts seem to have been made in Japan but it was assembled in EU so presumably they would have come in through the existing WTO rules.

40% of Honda UK components are sourced from other EU countries, 350 lorry loads per day via the Channel Tunnel.

A free trade agreement between the EU and Japan came into force on 1st February.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 03, 2019, 03:45:36 PM
It is so much easier to be a pessimist than an optimist. I would love to know why the EU is treating us as the enemy, we have poured billions into their political project and are their biggest market.  Why they have to treat us as a hostile country just to prop up their failing political project is unfathomable to me,  make no mistake the EU is fighting for its continued existence over Brexit, there are many countries disillusioned and disturbed with the way the EU is heading and would undoubtedly vote leave if they were given the chance.  The political union was dreamed of as far back as Charlemaine and has festered in the minds of people like Junker - it is a religion with people like him, a lot of our failed politicians like the Kinnock clan have gone over to the dark side of EU and grown fat and sleek with their noses in the trough, they can live of expenses without touching their fat salary, and don't start me about their fat pensions. The EU is possibly the most wasteful and extravagant set-up on planet Earth.

As I said in earlier post, brexit project fear is just a rerun of earlier project fears, such as if we did not join Euro all the companies would move to countries that used the euro. The slow motion economic train crash that the euro has inflicted on every country except its main beneficiary ( Germany ) is still going on, and now it is even dragging Germany down because they have to pay to support it, we would also be paying if we had been stupid enough to join.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/02/britain-euro-what-if-joined

The same europhile idiots like Ken Clarke who are trying to keep us in EU today were the ones trying to push us into Euro, they are too stupid to learn...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 03, 2019, 04:22:52 PM
It is so much easier to be a pessimist than an optimist. I would love to know why the EU is treating us as the enemy, we have poured billions into their political project and are their biggest market.  Why they have to treat us as a hostile country just to prop up their failing political project is unfathomable to me,  make no mistake the EU is fighting for its continued existence over Brexit, there are many countries disillusioned and disturbed with the way the EU is heading and would undoubtedly vote leave if they were given the chance.  The political union was dreamed of as far back as Charlemaine and has festered in the minds of people like Junker - it is a religion with people like him, a lot of our failed politicians like the Kinnock clan have gone over to the dark side of EU and grown fat and sleek with their noses in the trough, they can live of expenses without touching their fat salary, and don't start me about their fat pensions. The EU is possibly the most wasteful and extravagant set-up on planet Earth.

As I said in earlier post, brexit project fear is just a rerun of earlier project fears, such as if we did not join Euro all the companies would move to countries that used the euro. The slow motion economic train crash that the euro has inflicted on every country except its main beneficiary ( Germany ) is still going on, and now it is even dragging Germany down because they have to pay to support it, we would also be paying if we had been stupid enough to join.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/02/britain-euro-what-if-joined

The same europhile idiots like Ken Clarke who are trying to keep us in EU today were the ones trying to push us into Euro, they are too stupid to learn...

The EU is not treating us as the enemy. At every point they have expressed regret that we are leaving.
The UK chose to leave. The EU have to defend their principles. Their four freedoms.
If anything is a religion it is the idea of Brexit which its followers are intent on following despite the harm it will do to to the UK, the EU and in particular the people of Ireland.
 If we are their biggest market does that not mean it suits us to buy from them?

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 03, 2019, 04:32:30 PM
The main reason EU is sorry we are leaving is the hole we leave in their budget, they will have to curb their extravagant ways. They also fear a successful UK ( and it will be ) outside of EU, which will show the EU up for what it is, a bloated uncompetitive political construct out of place in the modern world, a late 19th early 20th century idea past its 'best before'  date.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 03, 2019, 04:47:45 PM
The main reason EU is sorry we are leaving is the hole we leave in their budget, they will have to curb their extravagant ways. They also fear a successful UK ( and it will be ) outside of EU, which will show the EU up for what it is, a bloated uncompetitive political construct out of place in the modern world, a late 19th early 20th century idea past its 'best before'  date.
I see it more as the Brexiteers wishing to return to a previous time when Britain had an empire.
The only British people to profit from Brexit will be the tax avoiders, disaster capitalists and the Eton and Oxbridge- educated ruling classes.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 03, 2019, 05:36:57 PM
The main reason EU is sorry we are leaving is the hole we leave in their budget, they will have to curb their extravagant ways. They also fear a successful UK ( and it will be ) outside of EU, which will show the EU up for what it is, a bloated uncompetitive political construct out of place in the modern world, a late 19th early 20th century idea past its 'best before'  date.
I see it more as the Brexiteers wishing to return to a previous time when Britain had an empire.
The only British people to profit from Brexit will be the disaster capitalists and the Eton and Oxbridge- educated ruling classes.

So junckers and company building an empire does not bother you,  see junckers quote that there should be no democratic oversight of EU treaties - in other words we propose something and you say yes, because if you don't we will send in the heavy mob to ask you again, nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of their 4th Reich..

The hypocrisy of Germany is staggering, they never paid back their international debts after WW1 and half their WW2 debts were written off in 1953. Yet Germany insists that Greece pays in full for bailout.  UK only paid the last of its lend-lease debt to USA and Canada in 2006.  When the EU puts its hands out for our money to leave their club they need to remember history..

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/business/economy/germanys-debt-history-echoed-in-greece.html

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on February 03, 2019, 09:22:36 PM
The main reason EU is sorry we are leaving is the hole we leave in their budget, they will have to curb their extravagant ways. They also fear a successful UK ( and it will be ) outside of EU, which will show the EU up for what it is, a bloated uncompetitive political construct out of place in the modern world, a late 19th early 20th century idea past its 'best before'  date.
I see it more as the Brexiteers wishing to return to a previous time when Britain had an empire.
The only British people to profit from Brexit will be the tax avoiders, disaster capitalists and the Eton and Oxbridge- educated ruling classes.

Ironically, I think that is actually quite a revealing statement and one which is consistent with many a remainer argument. The fact is, what is really on the table here is the balance of power and that is as old as the hills, Eton or not. To believe otherwise is, at best, naive. Anyone who has even a loose grasp of history will know that. You might think the cuddly EU is a blessed institution but just check the price tag before you get too carried away. Let me assure you, they will not be the ones who settle the bill. This is nothing more than a trinity between corporates, central banks and central government all with their own different agenda but with one thing in common. Mass manipulation where democracy is reduced to little more than a sham. Fortunately, there are those who see through it and are prepared to act before it is too late. Just remember, power corrupts and absolute power is even nicer.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 03, 2019, 09:41:47 PM
Tony Blair is a europhile but his judgement is really bad, he wanted UK to join the euro, but this is the same guy that thought illegally invading Iraq was a good thing - and lied through his teeth to convince MPs that Iraq had WMD, even though UN inspectors had been looking for years and found nothing.  What the invasion did was destabilise the whole middle east for the foreseeable future.  The Euro has succeeded in destabilising Europe.

Blair has not realised yet that he is so despised in UK that every time he opens his mouth majority of people either take no notice or do the exact opposite ..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 04, 2019, 02:04:50 PM
https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1092134878697717762
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/928482/diesel-car-scrappage-toyota-diesel-engine-UK

Many car makers are stopping manufacture of Diesel for Europe and UK,  Nissan X-Trail is nothing to do with Brexit,  if they did make petrol version in UK the engines would be shipped from Japan anyway, not a particularly good idea..

The £60Million grant to Nissan was to help develop their EV production in UK
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on February 04, 2019, 03:24:23 PM
I am amazed.

People are quoting WW2.

WW2 ended nearly 74 years ago.

Over 80% of the UK's population were born after the end of the War.

Talk about living in the past.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 04, 2019, 03:52:33 PM
Talk is that the change of plan by Nissan is as much to do with Ghosn's arrest, then anything else.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 04, 2019, 04:52:01 PM
if they did make petrol version in UK the engines would be shipped from Japan anyway, not a particularly good idea..

Why would they do that when they already manufacture the same MR20 petrol engine in Sunderland for the Qashqai?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 04, 2019, 04:56:50 PM
I am amazed.

People are quoting WW2.

WW2 ended nearly 74 years ago.

Over 80% of the UK's population were born after the end of the War.

Talk about living in the past.



It is certainly necessary to mention history ( if you do not learn from history your are doomed to repeat the same mistakes ) ,  it just shows how trustworthy the people UK is dealing with in EU are,  it was merely highlighting that Germany defaulted on WW1 payments, and was relieved of the need to pay more than 50% of WW2 debt) - the UK on the other hand received money under the Marshal plan to rebuild ( so did pretty much every country in Europe) but the UK did not pay the last installment on lend-lease we had from USA until 2006.  Pointing out the hypocrisy of Germany ( paymaster and leader of EU who call all the shots ) is necessary.  WW2 bankrupted the UK,  but Germany was relieved of debt and spent the money on building up their economy - there are still rumblings from many countries like Poland and Greece who suffered massively under German aggression that Germany should be paying them reparations - don't hold your breath guys, Germany does not even pay its way in NATO.

For Germany to insist that Greece repays all bail outs they had to have,  which were directly cause by the Euro is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 04, 2019, 05:25:27 PM
it just shows how trustworthy the people UK is dealing with in EU are

I have to agree with MaaF. All this talk of hypocrisy, the "people" the UK are dealing with now are not responsible for the history of Europe, they weren't even alive in WW2, let alone WW1.

Quite bizarre.

Germany defaulted on WW1 payments, and was relieved of the need to pay more than 50% of WW2 debt

If we are going to bring stuff like this up, it should at least be factually accurate. Whilst Germany did indeed default on WW1 reparations in the 1930s, after WW2 it offered to repay them in addition to WW2 debts. Germany was subsequently relieved of roughly half of the total of WW1 and WW2 debts, it didn't only pay half of the WW2 debts.

The UK was indeed broke, but was the largest recipient of non-repayable grants from the Marshall plan, 26% of the total. West Germany received 11%.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 04, 2019, 06:34:17 PM
it just shows how trustworthy the people UK is dealing with in EU are

I have to agree with MaaF. All this talk of hypocrisy, the "people" the UK are dealing with now are not responsible for the history of Europe, they weren't even alive in WW2, let alone WW1.

Quite bizarre.

Germany defaulted on WW1 payments, and was relieved of the need to pay more than 50% of WW2 debt

If we are going to bring stuff like this up, it should at least be factually accurate. Whilst Germany defaulted on WW1 reparations in the 1930s, after WW2 it offered to repay them in addition to WW2 debts. Germany was subsequently relieved of roughly half of the total of WW1 and WW2 debts, it didn't only pay half of the WW2 debts.

The UK was indeed broke, but was the largest recipient of non-repayable grants from the Marshall plan, 26% of the total. West Germany received 11%.

Germany has wreaked destruction on the world twice in 20th century with its expansionist ambitions, it has also ruined Europe culturally with its EU project and economically with the Euro ( the Deustchmark ). Well done Germany, you lost the wars but won the peace.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 04, 2019, 07:48:39 PM
https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1092134878697717762
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/928482/diesel-car-scrappage-toyota-diesel-engine-UK



The £60Million grant to Nissan was to help develop their EV production in UK

Not according to the letter from Greg Clark to Carlos Ghosn in 2016 which the Government published this morning.

"Nissan was promised protection from any Brexit fallout in a 2016 letter from business secretary Greg Clark to Carlos Ghosn, then-chief executive of Nissan.

The British government told the car maker that it would not be “adversely affected” by Brexit, and said it would look after the company if it went ahead with plans to expand operations in Sunderland.

It was previously known that the government had “offered reassurances” to Nissan, sparking concerns over secret deals.

The correspondence with the business ministry had not been released publicly because it was deemed to be too commercially sensitive.

However, on Monday the government published the letter in full.

The letter from Mr Clark promised approximately £80m in investment in the Sunderland site in return for Nissan’s pledge to expand SUV production there, as well as “a positive decision by the Nissan board to allocate production of the Qashqai and X-Trail models to the Sunderland plant”."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nissan-sunderland-brexit-factory-x-trail-letter-greg-clark-carlos-ghosn-a8762521.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 04, 2019, 08:10:19 PM
Greg Clark's statement to parliament this afternoon was very enlightening. I recommend watching it to see the extent of the original agreement with Nissan.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 04, 2019, 08:29:58 PM
I am amazed.

People are quoting WW2.

WW2 ended nearly 74 years ago.

Over 80% of the UK's population were born after the end of the War.

Talk about living in the past.



I have to agree with MaaF. All this talk of hypocrisy, the "people" the UK are dealing with now are not responsible for the history of Europe, they weren't even alive in WW2, let alone WW1.

Quite bizarre.

Lest we forget 70/ 85 millions of people (yes - 70/85 millions - more than today's population of UK)  died in WW2 so that .................80% of the UK population could even be born.

Be amazed but do not forget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

While we are at this history thing, this all started way back in 800 AD with Charlemagne - you could even argue the Romans.
 
And lets not forget that Richard the Lion Heart was ransomed on his way back from the Crusades for today's equivalent of £12 billion and England became (nominally) a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire.

No one is harking back to the old British Empire (which actually wasn't really an Empire) - only India was an Empire. We muddled into our overseas possessions more so than the French, Germans (very brutal colonialists), Belgians (even more brutal), Spanish (even more brutal) or Dutch).  And let's not forget the Russians more recently.

We shouldn't over rate ourselves - we are still muddling about today - even tomorrow!

Nothing changes.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 04, 2019, 08:52:33 PM
Greg Clark's statement to parliament this afternoon was very enlightening. I recommend watching it to see the extent of the original agreement with Nissan.


He puts a good spin on it after the event.

"Now we know why the government was so keen to keep Greg Clark’s letter to Nissan in 2016 under wraps. The document was embarrassing. The business secretary was making promises he couldn’t underwrite and was offering cash he would struggle to reclaim if the Japanese car company didn’t stick to its half of the supposed bargain at Sunderland.

On both scores, the foolishness has been exposed. Clark’s vow that Nissan’s UK plants would not be “adversely affected” by Brexit was merely an expression of hope. Two months before the UK is supposed to leave the European Union, the minister is in no position to guarantee that a no-deal exit can be avoided or, if a deal is secured, say what trading terms with the EU will apply."




https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/promises-promises-greg-clark-apos-194159151.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/government-letter-to-nissan-reveals-brexit-promise-to-carmarkers

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/04/north-east-england-nissan-eu-membership-japanese-carmaker
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 05, 2019, 09:25:18 AM
Car makers and other companies often move production around,  and a lot of it boils down to which country offers the best financial deals ( no or very low rates on business premises, lump sum payments, etc.)   The EU is guilty of offering financial aid to companies to move production plants, normally by 'back door' schemes to get below radar,  there is a reason the EU finances have never passed an audit.  State aid to industries is forbidden under EU rules,  if you obey the rules that is....

https://www.ft.com/content/74ab02a6-fd85-11df-a049-00144feab49a

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-merkel-germany-breaks-more-eu-rules-worst-bottom-class-a8198271.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 05, 2019, 02:23:51 PM


Lest we forget 70/ 85 millions of people (yes - 70/85 millions - more than today's population of UK)  died in WW2 so that .................80% of the UK population could even be born.

Be amazed but do not forget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

While we are at this history thing, this all started way back in 800 AD with Charlemagne - you could even argue the Romans.
 
And lets not forget that Richard the Lion Heart was ransomed on his way back from the Crusades for today's equivalent of £12 billion and England became (nominally) a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire.

No one is harking back to the old British Empire (which actually wasn't really an Empire) - only India was an Empire. We muddled into our overseas possessions more so than the French, Germans (very brutal colonialists), Belgians (even more brutal), Spanish (even more brutal) or Dutch).  And let's not forget the Russians more recently.

We shouldn't over rate ourselves - we are still muddling about today - even tomorrow!

Nothing changes.

Which is why it would be such a mistake to break up the EU which has been responsible for maintaining peace in Europe for the second half of the 20th century.
All these people didn't die so that their descendents could return to the murder and mayhem of the first half.
Co-operation is much better than confrontation.
I would imagine that a lot of the people on this forum are like myself and have been lucky enough to have lived for the last seven decades in peace.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 05, 2019, 02:26:02 PM
I am a Remainer, as I said before, but even I can see that all the noise around Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover is not really related to Brexit. It is down to changing demand for vehicles and these particular manufacturer's business challenges in re-configuring themselves for a world where Diesel is plummeting in popularity.

Which is why it would be such a mistake to break up the EU which has been responsible for maintaining peace in Europe for the second half of the 20th century.

And I am sorry but this argument doesn't work for me either. I think the UK and the USA and, to a degree, the rest of NATO, was responsible for that. I think what happens on the edge of the EU (former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Turkey) gives a clue as to how the EU has been ineffective at keeping the peace. The EU is a political and financial union. When it starts to become some sort of military union, even I start to get concerned.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 05, 2019, 02:50:53 PM
The arguments in favour of EU that it has kept the peace is fallacious - NATO and the thermo Nuclear device have been responsible.  The EU was thrown into a state of paralysis by the violence in Bosnia and it fell mainly to UK / USA to sort it out. I hate to think how they would respond to anything larger.  The EU is good at making regulations and expanding its political empire,  but when it comes to making real decisions and taking real actions they are utterly useless..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 05, 2019, 02:52:17 PM
Irrespective of the outcome the two sides will never agree. No wonder the politicians cannot come to an agreement. Remainers will always be remainers, Leavers will always be leavers. We here are the same. Entrenched in our views and not about to change.
About the only thing to come out of the entire Brexit debacle is that Scotland will never vote for independence.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 05, 2019, 03:01:08 PM
I am a Remainer, as I said before, but even I can see that all the noise around Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover is not really related to Brexit. It is down to changing demand for vehicles and these particular manufacturer's business challenges in re-configuring themselves for a world where Diesel is plummeting in popularity.

Which is why it would be such a mistake to break up the EU which has been responsible for maintaining peace in Europe for the second half of the 20th century.

And I am sorry but this argument doesn't work for me either. I think the UK and the USA and, to a degree, the rest of NATO, was responsible for that. I think what happens on the edge of the EU (former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Turkey) gives a clue as to how the EU has been ineffective at keeping the peace. The EU is a political and financial union. When it starts to become some sort of military union, even I start to get concerned.

I didn't mean that it was a military union.
But if two guys are co-operating together to build an aeroplane. They are not going to be building their own aeroplanes to kill each other.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 05, 2019, 03:04:25 PM

About the only thing to come out of the entire Brexit debacle is that Scotland will never vote for independence.

I wouldn't bet on that either Jocko
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 05, 2019, 03:23:32 PM
I wouldn't bet on that either Jocko
I voted for Independence last time, but not next time. The principle sounds good, but the issues with leaving the EU would be multiplied if Scotland was trying to leave the UK. Besides, the SNP's input into the whole Brexit debate has shown me what a bunch of Numpties they are.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 05, 2019, 03:52:25 PM

About the only thing to come out of the entire Brexit debacle is that Scotland will never vote for independence.

I wouldn't bet on that either Jocko

Would be utterly insane for Scotland to remain in a post brexit UK, all the supposed benefits of being in UK would be gone & Scotland would end up getting same trade deal with remainder of UK that France, Germany & rest of EU would get
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 05, 2019, 04:25:23 PM
Would be utterly insane for Scotland to remain in a post brexit UK, all the supposed benefits of being in UK would be gone & Scotland would end up getting same trade deal with remainder of UK that France, Germany & rest of EU would get
Take it you voted Remain. I am am ardent Leaver.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 05, 2019, 04:35:10 PM
I wouldn't bet on that either Jocko
I voted for Independence last time, but not next time. The principle sounds good, but the issues with leaving the EU would be multiplied if Scotland was trying to leave the UK. Besides, the SNP's input into the whole Brexit debate has shown me what a bunch of Numpties they are.
The only party who have had a consistent and sensible position in this shambles has been the SNP.
They have been treated with contempt by the government.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 05, 2019, 04:40:32 PM
But if two guys are co-operating together to build an aeroplane. They are not going to be building their own aeroplanes to kill each other.
You'd like to think that but tell that to those aboard HMS Sheffield, hit and killed by French missiles sold to Argentina. Or the many more victims on the General Belgrano, a former US Navy ship equipped with French helicopters and British Sea Cat anti-aircraft missiles, sunk by ourselves.

The prospect of a military force governed by 27 nation states in a political union does not fill me with a massive amount of confidence. The talk of an EU military is one of the things that has alarmed people on both sides of this argument.

I would agree that nations trading and working closely together can keep the peace between themselves in a potentially destabilised zone like Europe was, but it is not a strong argument for me. We don't see South American states at war with each other any more. Even Asia has been relatively free of localised conflicts that aren't at least agitated by super powers.

I think the real argument for political union in Europe was to create an economic superpower to compete with the USA and the USSR. With the rise of China, South Korea, Brazil and other economies, the effectiveness of this European super state is diminished by the need for it to be governed by an unelected clique in order to avoid constantly gaining the agreement of each individual state. That does make me nervous too.

And yet I remain a Remainer.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 05, 2019, 04:47:24 PM
The only party who have had a consistent and sensible position in this shambles has been the SNP.
They have been treated with contempt by the government.
Once again it depends on your point of view and what side of the argument you are on.
Regarding Scotland rejoining the EU after Brexit and a Yes Indyref 2 vote, do you think the EU would want another land border with the smaller UK? And if it was a No deal Brexit, would Scotland want a hard border? Too many obstacles to contemplate.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 05, 2019, 05:46:42 PM
The only party who have had a consistent and sensible position in this shambles has been the SNP.
They have been treated with contempt by the government.
Once again it depends on your point of view and what side of the argument you are on.
Regarding Scotland rejoining the EU after Brexit and a Yes Indyref 2 vote, do you think the EU would want another land border with the smaller UK? And if it was a No deal Brexit, would Scotland want a hard border? Too many obstacles to contemplate.

The only consistent SNP policies are being obnoxious in Westminster and wanting their cake and eating it in regard to wanting to be free of CFP but remaining in EU.  Scotland in the EU without UK would be exposed just the way Ireland was, but UK came to Ireland's aid many times, only to be stabbed in the back by Varadkar who chose to be the EU useful idiot in Brexit negotiations. A hard brexit will not be ideal for UK, but we will get over it,  but a hard Brexit will be catastrophic for RofI.

https://theweeflea.com/2018/03/22/the-great-betrayal-fishing-the-eu-and-the-scottish-and-uk-governments/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 05, 2019, 08:52:20 PM
But if two guys are co-operating together to build an aeroplane. They are not going to be building their own aeroplanes to kill each other.
You'd like to think that but tell that to those aboard HMS Sheffield, hit and killed by French missiles sold to Argentina. Or the many more victims on the General Belgrano, a former US Navy ship equipped with French helicopters and British Sea Cat anti-aircraft missiles, sunk by ourselves.

The prospect of a military force governed by 27 nation states in a political union does not fill me with a massive amount of confidence. The talk of an EU military is one of the things that has alarmed people on both sides of this argument.

I would agree that nations trading and working closely together can keep the peace between themselves in a potentially destabilised zone like Europe was, but it is not a strong argument for me. We don't see South American states at war with each other any more. Even Asia has been relatively free of localised conflicts that aren't at least agitated by super powers.

I think the real argument for political union in Europe was to create an economic superpower to compete with the USA and the USSR. With the rise of China, South Korea, Brazil and other economies, the effectiveness of this European super state is diminished by the need for it to be governed by an unelected clique in order to avoid constantly gaining the agreement of each individual state. That does make me nervous too.

And yet I remain a Remainer.


Good post Richard and I think it encapsulates nicely that this Remain/Leaver debate is far too binary. I am a 60/40 Remainer and I think there will be 60/40 Leavers. I deplore this division that we are seeing now.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 05, 2019, 08:57:06 PM
But if two guys are co-operating together to build an aeroplane. They are not going to be building their own aeroplanes to kill each other.
You'd like to think that but tell that to those aboard HMS Sheffield, hit and killed by French missiles sold to Argentina. Or the many more victims on the General Belgrano, a former US Navy ship equipped with French helicopters and British Sea Cat anti-aircraft missiles, sunk by ourselves.

Maybe I used a bad example. I didn't expect to be taken so literally. Anyway I was thinking of Concorde or Airbus rather than weapons of war.
The Falklands War was a terrible waste of nearly 1000 lives. Was it really necessary?

The prospect of a military force governed by 27 nation states in a political union does not fill me with a massive amount of confidence. The talk of an EU military is one of the things that has alarmed people on both sides of this argument.

Is this much different from NATO?
Is it not better to have one army,rather than 28 individual ones?

I would agree that nations trading and working closely together can keep the peace between themselves in a potentially destabilised zone like Europe was, but it is not a strong argument for me. We don't see South American states at war with each other any more. Even Asia has been relatively free of localised conflicts that aren't at least agitated by super powers.


Are South American countries not united in a union (USAN) ?
http://www.internationaldemocracywatch.org/index.php/union-of-south-american-nations

I think the real argument for political union in Europe was to create an economic superpower to compete with the USA and the USSR. With the rise of China, South Korea, Brazil and other economies, the effectiveness of this European super state is diminished by the need for it to be governed by an unelected clique in order to avoid constantly gaining the agreement of each individual state. That does make me nervous too.

I think so but I would disagree with the "unelected clique" In lots of ways the EU system is more democratic than the UK system.(it  also seems to gain agreement a lot quicker than than the UK parliament during the current negotiations).
If any good comes out of this Brexit fiasco I would hope it would be the reform of our present effectively (or should it be ineffectively) two party confrontational system.


And yet I remain a Remainer.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 05, 2019, 09:22:46 PM
Any of you guys who want to help sort out the backstop mess.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/judicial-review-of-irish-backstop/

Lord David Trimble is a Nobel prize winner and one of the original authors of the good Friday / Belfast agreement and he is concerned over the total mis-use of the agreement by republic and EU to justify a backstop.  Trimble has said before that the Belfast agreement should not have been used to weaponise the border issue.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 06, 2019, 09:07:41 AM
Lord David Trimble is a Nobel prize winner and one of the original authors of the good Friday / Belfast agreement

...and a Conservative Peer and committed leave campaigner. No thanks.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 06, 2019, 04:15:09 PM
Before anybody starts posting on soundbites on the television or in the papers, here is the full text of Donald Tusk's speech today.
It's the first time in this debate that I've heard any senior politician express any sympathy  for the people who did not want this fiasco.

 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/06/remarks-by-president-donald-tusk-after-his-meeting-with-taoiseach-leo-varadkar/pdf 4
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 06, 2019, 06:50:54 PM
UK is a democracy and EU commissars do not understand democracy, certainly not at a nation state level, such things are verboten in the EU and not discussed much.  The EU have a track record of ignoring national referendums.  The pressure is telling on Tusk, he just wishes the whole thing would go away,  but it won't !! Watch this space.

Trimble is gonna make things a whole lot worse for EU when he exposes in court their cynical plan to illegally use the Belfast GF agreement to tie UK to EU in perpetuity...

Looks like Tusk and EU have finally got the message that there will be no second referendum with remain as an option because many labour MPs have realised they will not be forgiven by voters for frustrating brexit.  The Labour party membership has been infiltrated by remainers, but party members are different to voters, the members can say what they like,  but it is voters that count.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 06, 2019, 09:35:45 PM
John Crace is usually a sketch writer but things aren't really funny any more.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/06/donald-tusks-special-place-in-hell-looks-like-where-we-are-right-now
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 06, 2019, 10:07:45 PM
UK is a democracy and EU commissars do not understand democracy, certainly not at a nation state level, such things are verboten in the EU and not discussed much.  The EU have a track record of ignoring national referendums.  The pressure is telling on Tusk, he just wishes the whole thing would go away,  but it won't !! Watch this space.

Trimble is gonna make things a whole lot worse for EU when he exposes in court their cynical plan to illegally use the Belfast GF agreement to tie UK to EU in perpetuity...

Looks like Tusk and EU have finally got the message that there will be no second referendum with remain as an option because many labour MPs have realised they will not be forgiven by voters for frustrating brexit.  The Labour party membership has been infiltrated by remainers, but party members are different to voters, the members can say what they like,  but it is voters that count.
UK a democracy? Not really true - brexit is a takeover of what was left of democracy in UK concentrating power even further in the elite untouchable few - MPs are just managers - it's UK in trouble, NOT the EU
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 06, 2019, 10:25:11 PM
Would be utterly insane for Scotland to remain in a post brexit UK, all the supposed benefits of being in UK would be gone & Scotland would end up getting same trade deal with remainder of UK that France, Germany & rest of EU would get
Take it you voted Remain. I am am ardent Leaver.
How did you guess? Been Pro-EU & anti-westminster for a long, long time ever since I realised how rotten to core westminster is ... have seen nothing in UK gov handling of brexit that inspires any hope they have slightest clue what they are doing. UK side has wrongly assumed they had leverage & wrongly suggested WTO is the answer. Underlying problem is internal UK incompetence over decades which instead of being dealt with has been blamed on forces outside UK, EEC/EU in recent decades ... got to stage now where UK break up could be imminent
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 07, 2019, 04:55:03 PM
Would be utterly insane for Scotland to remain in a post brexit UK, all the supposed benefits of being in UK would be gone & Scotland would end up getting same trade deal with remainder of UK that France, Germany & rest of EU would get
Take it you voted Remain. I am am ardent Leaver.
How did you guess? Been Pro-EU & anti-westminster for a long, long time ever since I realised how rotten to core westminster is ... have seen nothing in UK gov handling of brexit that inspires any hope they have slightest clue what they are doing. UK side has wrongly assumed they had leverage & wrongly suggested WTO is the answer. Underlying problem is internal UK incompetence over decades which instead of being dealt with has been blamed on forces outside UK, EEC/EU in recent decades ... got to stage now where UK break up could be imminent

Here is the story of how the EU CAP has decimated farmland, caused widespread loss of trees ( and therefore massive runoff and widespread flooding ), paid farmers and landowners to grub up hedges then once the damage was done it paid farmers and landowners to replant hedges.   What a total mess the 50 billion Euro CAP is,  no wonder landowners ( but not farmers) want to stay in EU,  it now pays them to take land out of production....  What a load of idiots those EU rule makers are.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/europe-bung-landowners-farm-subsidies
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 07, 2019, 07:49:55 PM

Here is the story of how the EU CAP has decimated farmland, caused widespread loss of trees ( and therefore massive runoff and widespread flooding ), paid farmers and landowners to grub up hedges then once the damage was done it paid farmers and landowners to replant hedges.   What a total mess the 50 billion Euro CAP is,  no wonder landowners ( but not farmers) want to stay in EU,  it now pays them to take land out of production....  What a load of idiots those EU rule makers are.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/europe-bung-landowners-farm-subsidies

Monbiot talks a lot of sense on the environment. However I notice that your link leads to an article in 2012.
 The EU policy on farming may be far from perfect but I still think it would be preferable to one devised by Gove and co. which would no doubt be skewed even further towards the benefit of wealthy landowners.
Also the economics of Patrick Minford which is the one always quoted by the Brexiteers depends on almost wiping out manufacturing and farming which, when you think about it , isn't a great idea for an isolated island nation.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 07, 2019, 08:05:26 PM

Here is the story of how the EU CAP has decimated farmland, caused widespread loss of trees ( and therefore massive runoff and widespread flooding ), paid farmers and landowners to grub up hedges then once the damage was done it paid farmers and landowners to replant hedges.   What a total mess the 50 billion Euro CAP is,  no wonder landowners ( but not farmers) want to stay in EU,  it now pays them to take land out of production....  What a load of idiots those EU rule makers are.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/europe-bung-landowners-farm-subsidies

Monbiot talks a lot of sense on the environment. However I notice that your link leads to an article in 2012.
 The EU policy on farming may be far from perfect but I still think it would be preferable to one devised by Gove and co. which would no doubt be skewed even further towards the benefit of wealthy landowners.
Also the economics of Patrick Minford which is the one always quoted by the Brexiteers depends on almost wiping out manufacturing and farming which, when you think about it , isn't a great idea for an isolated island nation.
Yes, way things are going a huge % of farming in UK is going to stop - around 40%
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 07, 2019, 08:27:06 PM

Monbiot talks a lot of sense on the environment. However I notice that your link leads to an article in 2012.
 

The CAP has been trashing the environment since 1957, so a few years won't make anything better.

The CAP is horrendously expensive and wasteful, but it also keeps food prices high - a lose-lose situation.  French farmers have been the biggest winners from CAP, the farms are kept in the family and regularly sub-divided which brings even more people into the CAP gravy train....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 08, 2019, 08:16:06 AM

Monbiot talks a lot of sense on the environment. However I notice that your link leads to an article in 2012.
 

The CAP has been trashing the environment since 1957, so a few years won't make anything better.

The CAP is horrendously expensive and wasteful, but it also keeps food prices high - a lose-lose situation.  French farmers have been the biggest winners from CAP, the farms are kept in the family and regularly sub-divided which brings even more people into the CAP gravy train....

No, but it's before 2016.
Here is Monbiot's take on a no deal Brexit --
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/disaster-capitalists-no-deal-brexit-environment
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 08, 2019, 09:48:10 AM

No, but it's before 2016.


Well anyone reading that before the 2016 referendum would have been given a very good reason to vote leave,  so what has changed except a bit of tinkering around the edges so as not to upset the French farmers ? Bit like re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic if you ask me..

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/policy-perspectives/policy-briefs/05_en.pdf

https://iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on February 08, 2019, 11:26:48 AM
One thing I will say on Brexit  which I hope we can all agree on:

The Irish position (that is the country of Ireland - not NI) - is likely to be self defeating. To insist on a LEGAL agreement which prevents a Hard Border  and have that insistence lead to a Hard Brexit - which WILL mean a Hard Border - seems irrational to me..

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 08, 2019, 12:30:45 PM
https://iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble

Not the IEA, please. From wikipedia:

"The Institute of Economic Affairs is a non-profit, right-wing libertarian think tank based in Westminster, London, United Kingdom. Founded by businessman and battery farming pioneer Antony Fisher in 1955, it promotes free market economics."

If, as they seem to suggest, farmers receive 28% of their income in subsidies, and farm gate prices are 17% higher than they need to be, how come many British pastoral farmers are already saying they're on the verge of going out of business?

I was speaking to someone the other day who has come over from the US, they can't get over how cheap food is here.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 08, 2019, 02:16:46 PM
I was speaking to someone the other day who has come over from the US, they can't get over how cheap food is here.
I have not been to the US since 9-11, but when I was working in the States they were paying in $ what we paid in £ for their food.
And their wages were (on average), 2.5 times what a similar worker was paid here in the UK
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 08, 2019, 04:17:08 PM
I was speaking to someone the other day who has come over from the US, they can't get over how cheap food is here.
I have not been to the US since 9-11, but when I was working in the States they were paying in $ what we paid in £ for their food.
And their wages were (on average), 2.5 times what a similar worker was paid here in the UK

It was a friend's brother in law, I couldn't tell you where they live, whether it's town or country. He said the supermarkets here are cheap, I was surprised too - I always thought food was cheap in the US.

This is interesting

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

The UK appears to be at the lower end of the western world for grocery prices. If you order by grocery cost index on the linky above, US is currently the 11th most expensive (67.44) and the UK is the 30th most expensive (51.85). That's a significant difference, putting US groceries 30% more expensive than the UK in 2019.

Switzerland is a scary 120.81 on the index, Norway 92.67 - both in Europe, but outside the EU and the CAP.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 09, 2019, 04:42:44 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-no-deal-medicine-shortage-stockpile-nhs-health-netherlands-a8769796.html

Stockpiling works both ways, lots of medicines and other stuff Europe gets from UK.

This is about the time where EU business people will bang the heads together of zealots like Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker and tell them to stop playing politics and negotiate for business.. They could always threaten to take Junckers booze allowance away and make him pay for his own.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 09, 2019, 05:19:23 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-no-deal-medicine-shortage-stockpile-nhs-health-netherlands-a8769796.html

Stockpiling works both ways, lots of medicines and other stuff Europe gets from UK.

This is about the time where EU business people will bang the heads together of zealots like Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker and tell them to stop playing politics and negotiate for business.. They could always threaten to take Junckers booze allowance away and make him pay for his own.
It's NOT Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker that are playing politics, & playing it very poorly, It's the clueless Theresa May etc
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 09, 2019, 06:08:02 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-no-deal-medicine-shortage-stockpile-nhs-health-netherlands-a8769796.html

Stockpiling works both ways, lots of medicines and other stuff Europe gets from UK.

This is about the time where EU business people will bang the heads together of zealots like Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker and tell them to stop playing politics and negotiate for business.. They could always threaten to take Junckers booze allowance away and make him pay for his own.
It's NOT Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker that are playing politics, & playing it very poorly, It's the clueless Theresa May etc

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/27/brexit-the-four-freedoms-and-the-indivisibility-dogma/

It is a pity the EU is run on political dogma and not business, it long ago ceased to be a trading bloc for business ( just about the time the zealots took over the asylum ) but it was always destined to creep from trading into a political superstate bound by a common currency - this was done 'slowly, slowly catchee monkey' style by the various treaties that popped up from time to time ( and Junckers said 'there can be no democratic oversight of EU treaties by member states ) - Imagine how hard it would be for UK to leave if we were using the Euro,  and that was always the idea,  to make it harder for any country to leave..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 10, 2019, 05:53:19 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-no-deal-medicine-shortage-stockpile-nhs-health-netherlands-a8769796.html

Stockpiling works both ways, lots of medicines and other stuff Europe gets from UK.

This is about the time where EU business people will bang the heads together of zealots like Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker and tell them to stop playing politics and negotiate for business.. They could always threaten to take Junckers booze allowance away and make him pay for his own.
It's NOT Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker that are playing politics, & playing it very poorly, It's the clueless Theresa May etc

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/27/brexit-the-four-freedoms-and-the-indivisibility-dogma/

It is a pity the EU is run on political dogma and not business, it long ago ceased to be a trading bloc for business ( just about the time the zealots took over the asylum ) but it was always destined to creep from trading into a political superstate bound by a common currency - this was done 'slowly, slowly catchee monkey' style by the various treaties that popped up from time to time ( and Junckers said 'there can be no democratic oversight of EU treaties by member states ) - Imagine how hard it would be for UK to leave if we were using the Euro,  and that was always the idea,  to make it harder for any country to leave..
Sorry, EU superstate is just Boris Johnson etc scaremongering & joining Euro currency entirely voluntary ... guidance for leaving that makes it come with big penalty was of course set down by a current member of house of lords
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 10, 2019, 07:36:28 PM
https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/06/eu-unmasked-after-brexit-plans-for-full-eu-superstate-revealed/

The super state is not a figment of Bojos imagination, the Polish leaked an EU document that shows it was real and maybe still is.   The EU has never ceased in its quest for ever closer union, their answer to everything is more Europe.  It is no good thinking there has ever been a status quo with the EU, Think of it as the 4th Reich, but with even more ambitious goals than the 3rd Reich. UK was subject to same project fear about the Euro as we have been regaled with over Brexit, almost word for word, about companies leaving, London losing its financial institutions to Europe etc. etc. Ad nauseam........
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 11, 2019, 08:42:43 AM
https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/06/eu-unmasked-after-brexit-plans-for-full-eu-superstate-revealed/

The super state is not a figment of Bojos imagination, the Polish leaked an EU document that shows it was real and maybe still is.   The EU has never ceased in its quest for ever closer union, their answer to everything is more Europe.  It is no good thinking there has ever been a status quo with the EU, Think of it as the 4th Reich, but with even more ambitious goals than the 3rd Reich. UK was subject to same project fear about the Euro as we have been regaled with over Brexit, almost word for word, about companies leaving, London losing its financial institutions to Europe etc. etc. Ad nauseam........
Looks like another reputable unbiased source you are quoting there. Not.
Meanwhile back in the real world.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/brexit-uk-companies-discuss-moving-to-netherlands
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 11, 2019, 08:49:19 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 09:57:27 AM
Looks like the Irish backstop implementation in the EU withdrawal agreement is illegal even in EU law..

https://sites-herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/20/19043/landing-pages/a-view-from-brussels-february-2018-briefing(2).pdf
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 11, 2019, 09:59:49 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

And it's all Chinese whispers. ::)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 10:03:02 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

Thanks for that,

As I have said previously the EU answer to everything is 'more Europe' - which is ( amongst other reasons) why I voted to leave - the EU is not only un-democratic it is proactively anti-democracy..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 10:05:24 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

And it's all Chinese whispers. ::)

No Chinese whispers on that document,  it is a clear statement of intent to centralise even more power with an un-elected poiltburo.

In fact it is the next step towards the EU federal superstate that remain voters are in denial about.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 10:24:01 AM

Looks like another reputable unbiased source you are quoting there. Not.
Meanwhile back in the real world.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/brexit-uk-companies-discuss-moving-to-netherlands

Nothing wrong with companies setting up representative agencies in EU, makes business sense - but my feeling is that they are doing it temporarily while Brexit is sorted and then quietly move back to UK,  watch out for the 'to let' signs in Netherlands later in the year.

On another subject,  looks like the EU politburo is not happy with Tony B Liar,  looks like he ( and other anti-UK pro-EU British political has-beens ) gave them bad advice,  they should have looked at this most hated of British Prime Ministers track record of bad judgements before they trusted him..

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1085094/brexit-news-tony-blair-donald-tusk-eu-deal-theresa-may
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 11, 2019, 10:30:16 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

And it's all Chinese whispers. ::)

No Chinese whispers on that document,  it is a clear statement of intent to centralise even more power with an un-elected poiltburo.

Sorry, I hadn't read Jocko's link.
Now that I have, I don't see anything scary in it. I see it as sensible and promoting peace unlike Williamson's silly sabre rattlings.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/11/brexit-uk-military-defence-gavin-williamson
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 11, 2019, 01:08:53 PM
I don't see anything scary in it.
You don't think Germany and France, working bilaterally, to control the way forward for Europe, without the rest of Europe on board, is scary? Other European countries are worried about it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 11, 2019, 01:54:58 PM
I don't see anything scary in it.
You don't think Germany and France, working bilaterally, to control the way forward for Europe, without the rest of Europe on board, is scary? Other European countries are worried about it.
Nope. The original purpose of the EU was to keep Germany and France from being at each other's throats.
It doesn't say it is bilateral. It talks about bringing other European nations on board.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 02:12:15 PM
I don't see anything scary in it.
You don't think Germany and France, working bilaterally, to control the way forward for Europe, without the rest of Europe on board, is scary? Other European countries are worried about it.
Nope. The original purpose of the EU was to keep Germany and France from being at each other's throats.

The British and French have had more battles than French and Jermans and even after WW2 ( when De Gaulle hid in UK for the course of the war ) De Gaulle went back to France and started slagging the British off, ungrateful cheese eating surrender monkey that he was,  mind you maybe De Gaulle did like us after all because he tried to block us from joining EU... and he was right because our economic system, our law system and our style of democracy do not fit in with European ways of doing things - and he was worried that English language would take over EU ( which it did ).

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/if-france-kept-fighting-how-world-war-ii-might-have-gone-17590

When the French white flag factory was bombed by the Jermans,  this single act wiped out 95% of the French military capability at a stroke.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 11, 2019, 03:49:13 PM
https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/06/eu-unmasked-after-brexit-plans-for-full-eu-superstate-revealed/

The super state is not a figment of Bojos imagination, the Polish leaked an EU document that shows it was real and maybe still is.   The EU has never ceased in its quest for ever closer union, their answer to everything is more Europe.  It is no good thinking there has ever been a status quo with the EU, Think of it as the 4th Reich, but with even more ambitious goals than the 3rd Reich. UK was subject to same project fear about the Euro as we have been regaled with over Brexit, almost word for word, about companies leaving, London losing its financial institutions to Europe etc. etc. Ad nauseam........
A small number in EU like idea of superstate, majority don't so it's not going to happen. I do realise why idea seems so abhorrent as it revives part of what Nazis were about BUT that was 80 years ago & EU exists to prevent nations of Europe going down a path to warfare again.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 11, 2019, 03:54:19 PM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

And it's all Chinese whispers. ::)

No Chinese whispers on that document,  it is a clear statement of intent to centralise even more power with an un-elected poiltburo.

In fact it is the next step towards the EU federal superstate that remain voters are in denial about.
what? un-elected poiltburo? The EU officials/MEPs & Council of Europe members (different organisation) are ALL elected
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 05:42:35 PM
what? un-elected poiltburo? The EU officials/MEPs & Council of Europe members (different organisation) are ALL elected

MEPs have no real power and are just window dressing, they can only 'vote' on stuff proposed by commission, and are not allowed to put forward bills like our MPs are.  The big boys like J Claude Junket and Martin Selmayr are appointed by some arcane process.  The EU civil servants who dream up all the stuff for commissioners are employees, and there are a huge number of them.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 11, 2019, 08:08:02 PM
The EU civil servants who dream up all the stuff for commissioners are employees, and there are a huge number of them.

And none of them pay any tax and have pensions to absolutely dream of.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 12, 2019, 12:53:55 PM
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/7089/full

Interesting article comparing project fear 2016 with the 1975 version.  It is notable that after UK joined the EEC in 1973 our exports to Europe fell, and our economic growth was strangled for the next 10 years, then Thatcher came along with her new ideas and supercharged the economy ( but this was nothing to do with EU MEmbership ).  We still run a mahoosive deficit between exports to and imports from EU, they have never really liked us and our free trade and democracy ideas,  but they like our contributions to their budget - we will leave a brexit shaped hole in their spending ambition after March this year.


Also this about uncontrolled immigration and open borders.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/features-september-2018-rw-johnson-the-inevitability-of-fortress-europe-migration
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 13, 2019, 09:49:38 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

And it's all Chinese whispers. ::)

No Chinese whispers on that document,  it is a clear statement of intent to centralise even more power with an un-elected poiltburo.

In fact it is the next step towards the EU federal superstate that remain voters are in denial about.


Leaked Letter in Polish Paper ?????

Meanwhile, here's Monbiot on something much more important :-

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/13/dark-money-hard-brexit-targeted-ads-facebook

and
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/18/dark-money-democracy-political-crisis-institute-economic-affairs
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 13, 2019, 03:08:04 PM
See also Monbiot's reply to criticism of his first article.


"Some people are suggesting I've highlighted these abuses because I'm desperate to prevent Brexit from occuring. It's true that Brexit worries me, but I'm much more concerned about what's happening to democracy. This is why my article is highly critical not only of the anonymity of Britain's Future, but also of the failure by both People's Vote and Best for Britain to reveal all their major funders. Their lack of transparency on this issue is disgraceful, and seriously undermines the credibility of their campaigns.

I am a Eurosceptic Remainer. I voted remain, but for me it was a finely balanced decision. There is plenty wrong with the EU. I hate the Common Agricultural Policy, the EC's disgraceful attempt to strike the TTIP trade deal against the wishes of so many citizens, the shocking levels of corporate lobbying. To me, being in the EU is like democracy, diplomacy and old age: the best that can be said for it is that it's better than the alternative. I think leaving the EU will do us great harm, and provide opportunities for the worst forms of disaster capitalism, especially with this grisly crew in charge, but at the same time I understand the Leave case, and sympathise with it.

But bigger even than Brexit is the subversion of democracy by big money - particularly hidden money - not just in the EU Referendum, but throughout the political cycle. If, like me, you want to take back control, you don't want your life to be governed by remote and faceless elites, and you want popular and parliamentary sovereignty to count for something, you should be equally concerned about it, whether you voted Remain or Leave."
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 13, 2019, 05:06:16 PM
A German think tank says German industry is already suffering because of Brexit, and calls for concessions.
"The EU should, as a quick fix at least, offer to remove both the backstop and the withdrawal agreement's current time limit on the mobility of goods and capital so that the provisional agreement would keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020 without making a difference between Northern Ireland and the UK. That would be key,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 13, 2019, 05:24:47 PM
"...keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020..,"

...only the ERG don't want that at any costs, do they?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 13, 2019, 05:46:53 PM
A German think tank says German industry is already suffering because of Brexit, and calls for concessions.
"The EU should, as a quick fix at least, offer to remove both the backstop and the withdrawal agreement's current time limit on the mobility of goods and capital so that the provisional agreement would keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020 without making a difference between Northern Ireland and the UK. That would be key,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787)

I have said many times that when the EUropolitical fanatics have had their say about 'protecting the four pillars etc.' that the business community will step in and bang their heads together.  So far the EU has not negotiated with business in mind,  just their precious political project,  they need to now get real and look at the bigger picture - the Euro is already in big trouble ( all of its own making ) with young people in southern Europe consigned to unemployment because the unbalancing effect the Euro has had on the different economies in the Eurozone.  There is no 'one size fits all' solution available for the vastly differing economies tied together by Euro ( or by the whole outdated 1950's  EU project for that matter).

The whole of the Eurozone is already on slippery slope to depression, are Drunckers and Barmier really willing to a full scale depression for the sake of their political fanaticism ?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 13, 2019, 05:50:03 PM
...only the ERG don't want that at any costs, do they?
I know, but that is a stop gap to get us out and allow further negotiation without a backstop. "as a quick fix at least,"
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 13, 2019, 06:46:22 PM
A German think tank says German industry is already suffering because of Brexit, and calls for concessions.
"The EU should, as a quick fix at least, offer to remove both the backstop and the withdrawal agreement's current time limit on the mobility of goods and capital so that the provisional agreement would keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020 without making a difference between Northern Ireland and the UK. That would be key,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787)

Do German think tanks have any more credibility than UK ones?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 13, 2019, 06:54:30 PM
A German think tank says German industry is already suffering because of Brexit, and calls for concessions.
"The EU should, as a quick fix at least, offer to remove both the backstop and the withdrawal agreement's current time limit on the mobility of goods and capital so that the provisional agreement would keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020 without making a difference between Northern Ireland and the UK. That would be key,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787)


I have said many times that when the EUropolitical fanatics have had their say about 'protecting the four pillars etc.' that the business community will step in and bang their heads together.  So far the EU has not negotiated with business in mind,  just their precious political project,  they need to now get real and look at the bigger picture - the Euro is already in big trouble ( all of its own making ) with young people in southern Europe consigned to unemployment because the unbalancing effect the Euro has had on the different economies in the Eurozone.  There is no 'one size fits all' solution available for the vastly differing economies tied together by Euro ( or by the whole outdated 1950's  EU project for that matter).

The whole of the Eurozone is already on slippery slope to depression, are Drunckers and Barmier really willing to a full scale depression for the sake of their political fanaticism ?

Your main objective would appear to be to damage the EU as much as possible rather than to benefit the UK.
A hard Brexit will hurt the EU but will hurt the UK much worse. Why make everybody suffer?
The EU will not back down over its four freedoms.
Perhaps you could explain why the collapse of the EU would benefit the UK?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 13, 2019, 07:01:01 PM
...only the ERG don't want that at any costs, do they?
I know, but that is a stop gap to get us out and allow further negotiation without a backstop. "as a quick fix at least,"

The ERG and its backers want to avoid the clampdown on tax evasion which the EU is bringing in and so want to press for a quick hard Brexit.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 14, 2019, 08:13:34 AM
I see Germany narrowly avoided going into recession, with zero growth in the last quarter. If it is anything like the UK government's figures they were probably well massaged to avoid a negative number.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 14, 2019, 09:48:25 AM
Your main objective would appear to be to damage the EU as much as possible rather than to benefit the UK.
A hard Brexit will hurt the EU but will hurt the UK much worse. Why make everybody suffer?
The EU will not back down over its four freedoms.
Perhaps you could explain why the collapse of the EU would benefit the UK?

I am not saying damage the EU, ( it can do that very well on its own) - but the EU sells much more to UK ( £95billion more in goods,  but we have a surplus of £28billion in services - so overall deficit £67billion in 2017) The LCH handle vast majority of Euro transactions ( something like Euro 900 billion per day),  which involves standing surety for any defaults by buyer or sellers in contracts - which needs a massive amount of financial muscle that the City of London has but nowhere in the EU has because their financial system is not fit for purpose - the costs to EU business would be far greater if the EU tried to take over the clearing,  you would have expected Frankfurt and Paris to have attracted service businesses from UK by now ( they have been trying hard enough ) but it just ain't happening .

The Euro clearing is why the EU has drafted emergency powers to keep access to UK financial system ( services ) in event of no-deal.

The EU think they are the only game in town, but they are rapidly shrinking both in world trade and influence - they need a reality check and the EU business leaders will give them one - as I said they will bang together the heads of Drunckers, Barmier and Verhofstagger  when push comes to shove,  telling them to forget the politics because they need the business.

If it had not been for sore-loser remain chatter and pulling in the opposite direction we would have had a deal months ago,  but the opposition within the UK emboldened the EU that if they cooked up the worst possible deal they could persuade the UK to not leave. But despite mother Theresa being a remainer who still wants to stay in EU she has not found it so easy because she has one eye on the ballot box and knows that if she does get a deal she will attract millions of voters who are totally fed up with labour party disarray and their MPs trying to frustrate Brexit, despite 70% of labour constituencies voting leave.  The labour party is being pushed by the members ( who have been well and truly infiltrated by remainers) to frustrate Brexit but in the process many true labour supporters are leaving the party ( about 150,000 at last count ) - labour leaders need to realise the difference between party members and voters, a few hundred thousand members do not have enough election votes to make any difference compared to the millions of voters who are being driven away..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 14, 2019, 09:52:54 AM
I see Germany narrowly avoided going into recession, with zero growth in the last quarter. If it is anything like the UK government's figures they were probably well massaged to avoid a negative number.

The Chinese are best at massaging trade figures because they have centralised control of everything and heavy censorship - they are still a hybrid capitalist / communist dictatorship who want to have 'best of both worlds'.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 14, 2019, 10:29:57 AM
Do German think tanks have any more credibility than UK ones?
Don't know about their Think Tanks, but their Tank Tanks used to be pretty good.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 14, 2019, 12:03:24 PM
Your main objective would appear to be to damage the EU as much as possible rather than to benefit the UK.
A hard Brexit will hurt the EU but will hurt the UK much worse. Why make everybody suffer?
The EU will not back down over its four freedoms.
Perhaps you could explain why the collapse of the EU would benefit the UK?

I am not saying damage the EU, ( it can do that very well on its own) - but the EU sells much more to UK ( £95billion more in goods,  but we have a surplus of £28billion in services - so overall deficit £67billion in 2017) The LCH handle vast majority of Euro transactions ( something like Euro 900 billion per day),  which involves standing surety for any defaults by buyer or sellers in contracts - which needs a massive amount of financial muscle that the City of London has but nowhere in the EU has because their financial system is not fit for purpose - the costs to EU business would be far greater if the EU tried to take over the clearing,  you would have expected Frankfurt and Paris to have attracted service businesses from UK by now ( they have been trying hard enough ) but it just ain't happening .

The Euro clearing is why the EU has drafted emergency powers to keep access to UK financial system ( services ) in event of no-deal.

The EU think they are the only game in town, but they are rapidly shrinking both in world trade and influence - they need a reality check and the EU business leaders will give them one - as I said they will bang together the heads of Drunckers, Barmier and Verhofstagger  when push comes to shove,  telling them to forget the politics because they need the business.

If it had not been for sore-loser remain chatter and pulling in the opposite direction we would have had a deal months ago,  but the opposition within the UK emboldened the EU that if they cooked up the worst possible deal they could persuade the UK to not leave. But despite mother Theresa being a remainer who still wants to stay in EU she has not found it so easy because she has one eye on the ballot box and knows that if she does get a deal she will attract millions of voters who are totally fed up with labour party disarray and their MPs trying to frustrate Brexit, despite 70% of labour constituencies voting leave.  The labour party is being pushed by the members ( who have been well and truly infiltrated by remainers) to frustrate Brexit but in the process many true labour supporters are leaving the party ( about 150,000 at last count ) - labour leaders need to realise the difference between party members and voters, a few hundred thousand members do not have enough election votes to make any difference compared to the millions of voters who are being driven away..

Thanks for the reply.
I’ve never bought into your first argument. It just implies that we rely on the EU to supply most of our goods.
The banking  business was mainly in London due to the UK being in the EU. (passporting) . If we leave the EU that business will be more easily done through mainland Europe.  I would imagine the European financial institutions are just as capable as the city of London.
The EU business leaders have accepted right from the start of negotiations that their profits are not as important as the unity of the EU.
The whole sorry mess has been about, first Cameron and then May trying to keep control of their party and not thinking through the consequences.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 14, 2019, 01:08:04 PM
Thanks for the reply.
I’ve never bought into your first argument. It just implies that we rely on the EU to supply most of our goods.
The banking  business was mainly in London due to the UK being in the EU. (passporting) . If we leave the EU that business will be more easily done through mainland Europe.  I would imagine the European financial institutions are just as capable as the city of London.
The EU business leaders have accepted right from the start of negotiations that their profits are not as important as the unity of the EU.
The whole sorry mess has been about, first Cameron and then May trying to keep control of their party and not thinking through the consequences.

You have the trade gap wrong way around, we don't have to buy their goods but are a 'good customer' because they need and like selling to UK,  we have the biggest profit margin for many companies in EU that sell to us.

As for your second point about the City of London - Europe has nothing like the City and it would take decades and a lot of money to even get within spitting distance.  London and New York take it in turns to get top world financial centre crown,  there is only a whisker in it.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6258533/Trillions-reasons-EU-needs-deal-Bank-England-warns-risk-European-lenders.html

 Europes banks are broken,  the whole financial sector is a huge toxic mess. The whole point you make about capable EU banks is very far from the truth,  Deutsche Bank ( Germanys largest) has been downgraded to BBB and the ECB is funding the whole sagging Eurozone single-handedly - but how long can they continue ?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-5796597/ALEX-BRUMMER-Eurozones-broken-banks.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 14, 2019, 01:37:21 PM
As for your second point about the City of London - Europe has nothing like the City and it would take decades and a lot of money to even get within spitting distance.  London and New York take it in turns to get top world financial centre crown,  there is only a whisker in it.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6258533/Trillions-reasons-EU-needs-deal-Bank-England-warns-risk-European-lenders.html

 Europes banks are broken,  the whole financial sector is a huge toxic mess. The whole point you make about capable EU banks is very far from the truth,  Deutsche Bank ( Germanys largest) has been downgraded to BBB and the ECB is funding the whole sagging Eurozone single-handedly - but how long can they continue ?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-5796597/ALEX-BRUMMER-Eurozones-broken-banks.html

You know,I respect your knowledge, expertise and research on most things, but I work in Banking and have done for 30 years. On this, I believe differently. If Brexit happens, you won't believe how quickly the banking markets will change. Germany will rise and London will dip. There is no one I know in banking who thinks otherwise, and quietly, they are making plans accordingly.

Just to add, Banks are the most ruthless money making machines in history. Look how they have looked after themselves over the last ten years, despite increasing regulation. And the people in their Treasury departments, where the trading and the real money is made, are more ruthless than ever. They will go where the banks go, and the banks will follow the money.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 14, 2019, 03:12:04 PM
Thanks for the reply.
I’ve never bought into your first argument. It just implies that we rely on the EU to supply most of our goods.
The banking  business was mainly in London due to the UK being in the EU. (passporting) . If we leave the EU that business will be more easily done through mainland Europe.  I would imagine the European financial institutions are just as capable as the city of London.
The EU business leaders have accepted right from the start of negotiations that their profits are not as important as the unity of the EU.
The whole sorry mess has been about, first Cameron and then May trying to keep control of their party and not thinking through the consequences.

You have the trade gap wrong way around, we don't have to buy their goods but are a 'good customer' because they need and like selling to UK,  we have the biggest profit margin for many companies in EU that sell to us.

 

Here is a list of the countries and organisations to which the EU has access.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

Here is an article showing the present state of the UK's attempts at signing trade agreements

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842

The EU has many more outlets for trade than the UK has sources.
Dr Fox will need to work very hard in the next month.
Besides we will still source much of our goods through the EU
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 14, 2019, 04:06:05 PM
I watched an interview with Liam Fox who said that most of the trade deals were ready to be signed but could not be signed until we left the EU. May just be BS, but it does make sense and it would be very awkward, not to say damaging, to his reputation and future career if it was BS.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 14, 2019, 04:58:20 PM
This Dr Fox
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/14/biggest-failure-brexit-cabinet-chris-grayling-liam-fox

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/trade-deals-britain-liam-fox-brexit
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 14, 2019, 05:07:32 PM
May just be BS

More than likely

but it does make sense and it would be very awkward, not to say damaging, to his reputation and future career if it was BS.

Damage what reputation? Fox isn't fit to hold a ministerial role.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-cabinet-liam-fox-disgraced-mp-2011-defence-secretary-boris-johnson-back-into-frontline-a7136236.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 14, 2019, 05:10:47 PM
There will not be any large scale movement of business to EU because it has its own massive problems that dwarf Brexit.  It is a hostile place to do financial business and its regulations have affected the operations of London based financial institutions.

The Euro is on life support and although it suits German export businesses because it is valued lower than a currency specific to Germany would be, its value is kept artificially low by southern European economies, but the currency is still too highly valued for their economies.  It is these massive imbalances that will finally finish off the Euro, and it makes Eurozone a risky place for investors.

http://worldmag.uk.com/european-union-history/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 14, 2019, 05:54:40 PM
Reports coming out today that Theresa May is going to prevent no deal happening whatever happens so the already dead prospect of WTO could well just have been a empty threat on UK by UK after all?

WTO option as hoped for by Tories has as most will know already been blocked by WTO members
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 14, 2019, 06:03:13 PM
I watched an interview with Liam Fox who said that most of the trade deals were ready to be signed but could not be signed until we left the EU. May just be BS, but it does make sense and it would be very awkward, not to say damaging, to his reputation and future career if it was BS.
It's Liam Fox so it's guaranteed BS, they won't be ready to sign - just ready to start negotiations lasting x number of years with clauses that won't be liked by UK & anything with China has just his a big set back thanks to unfortunate threatening words of Gavin Williamson MP towards China
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 14, 2019, 06:54:16 PM
Pots and Kettles.
No 10 accuses Labour of putting party interests ahead of national interest

Downing Street has released this statement about the result. A spokesman said:

Jeremy Corbyn yet again put partisan considerations ahead of the national interest – and yet again, by voting against the government’s motion, he is in effect voting to make no deal more likely.

While we didn’t secure the support of the Commons this evening, the prime minister continues to believe, and the debate itself indicated, that far from objecting to securing changes to the backstop that will allow us to leave with a deal, there was a concern from some Conservative colleagues about taking no deal off the table at this stage.

The motion on 29 January remains the only one the House of Commons has passed expressing what it does want – and that is legally binding changes to address concerns about the backstop. The government will continue to pursue this with the EU to ensure we leave on time on 29 March.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 18, 2019, 11:13:25 AM
What are they playing at?
First Williamson rattles his sabre at the Chinese and now Hunt and Fox insult the Japanese.
https://www.ft.com/content/9cd62bde-32ba-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5?fbclid=IwAR1CTjPSbrQQbOV7w4a-010AeebCA0RGzSFmwleSdgNWRxRNtqrhXfyhE_g

Sorry, I see my link is behind a paywall.

   
   "The UK’s latest attempt to persuade Japan to agree a quick post-Brexit trade deal has backfired after officials in Tokyo reacted with dismay at British tactics.

Theresa May’s government is already battling to mend relations with China, after Beijing cancelled a key trade meeting with chancellor Philip Hammond in protest at a UK pledge to send an aircraft carrier to the Pacific."

The gist of the article is that the UK wants a quick deal with the Japanese post Brexit essentially wanting to roll over the deal the Japanese have just made with the EU and implies that it is the Japanese who are dragging their feet.
They just need to pick a fight with the Americans now.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 18, 2019, 11:48:20 AM
Found similatr article in Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/18/japan-almost-cancelled-brexit-talks-high-handed-letter-liam-fox-jeremy-hunt
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 01:04:10 PM
The Japanese and Koreans have already said that they will be looking for more favourable terms in any UK trade deal than that which already exists with the EU, with the UK being a much smaller trading area.

Now we seem to be going out of out way to rub them up wrong.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on February 18, 2019, 02:31:30 PM
Honda set to close Swindon car plant

Japanese carmaker Honda set to announce closure of Swindon plant in 2022, putting 3,500 jobs at risk, sources say.
The Japanese carmaker will shut the plant in 2022 but retain its European headquarters in Bracknell, Berkshire.
Sources say Honda will make an announcement on the future of the company on Tuesday morning.
Honda declined to comment on the claims which were first reported by Sky News.
Last month Honda has said it would shut down its Swindon factory for six days in April as part of its preparations for any disruption caused post-Brexit.
The company said the move was to ensure it could adjust to "all possible outcomes caused by logistics and border issues".
The firm said it would help in recovering lost production if shipments of parts were held up at borders.
Last year, the senior vice-president of Honda Europe warned that if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.
Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe.
He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant.
The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on February 18, 2019, 02:41:08 PM
Honda is not going to close Swindon: it's all lies

"There will not be any large scale movement of business to EU"  said a poster here...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 02:50:55 PM
Honda set to close Swindon car plant

Japanese carmaker Honda set to announce closure of Swindon plant in 2022, putting 3,500 jobs at risk, sources say.
The Japanese carmaker will shut the plant in 2022 but retain its European headquarters in Bracknell, Berkshire.
Sources say Honda will make an announcement on the future of the company on Tuesday morning.
Honda declined to comment on the claims which were first reported by Sky News.
Last month Honda has said it would shut down its Swindon factory for six days in April as part of its preparations for any disruption caused post-Brexit.
The company said the move was to ensure it could adjust to "all possible outcomes caused by logistics and border issues".
The firm said it would help in recovering lost production if shipments of parts were held up at borders.
Last year, the senior vice-president of Honda Europe warned that if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.
Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe.
He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant.
The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market.

Fake news alert..........
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 18, 2019, 02:55:32 PM
Why would they stay is the bigger question.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 18, 2019, 03:39:08 PM
Reports coming out today that Theresa May is going to prevent no deal happening whatever happens so the already dead prospect of WTO could well just have been a empty threat on UK by UK after all?

WTO option as hoped for by Tories has as most will know already been blocked by WTO members

Correct to a degree...... but (ex Reuters) "the process will not necessarily interfere with the implementation of Brexit, since many WTO members continue to trade under outdated agreements while they agree their new text." not forgetting Article 24 of GATT of course.

How is TM going to prevent no deal happening?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 18, 2019, 03:41:19 PM
How is TM going to prevent no deal happening?
She could rescind Article 50.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 18, 2019, 03:59:06 PM
The government must surely have known about these likely closures for some time.
This is a quote from the Guardian

"Des Quinn, the union’s national officer for the automotive sector, called for an urgent statement from business minister Greg Clark.

“The car industry in the UK over the last two decades has been the jewel in the crown for the manufacturing sector – and now it has been brought low by the chaotic Brexit uncertainty created by the rigid approach adopted by prime minister Theresa May,” he said.

“We are seeking urgent clarification from Honda on the implications of these serious reports. The 3,500-strong workforce do skilled, well paid jobs that the UK can ill-afford to lose.


“If the government had advance warning of this dreadful news and did not alert the unions, this is an appalling and cavalier attitude by ministers.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/18/carmaker-honda-plans-to-close-swindon-factory-reports


Could I add:
If the government had advance warning of this dreadful news and did not alert the country, this is an appalling and cavalier attitude to the people.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 18, 2019, 04:10:01 PM
Honda set to close Swindon car plant

Japanese carmaker Honda set to announce closure of Swindon plant in 2022, putting 3,500 jobs at risk, sources say.
The Japanese carmaker will shut the plant in 2022 but retain its European headquarters in Bracknell, Berkshire.
Sources say Honda will make an announcement on the future of the company on Tuesday morning.
Honda declined to comment on the claims which were first reported by Sky News.
Last month Honda has said it would shut down its Swindon factory for six days in April as part of its preparations for any disruption caused post-Brexit.
The company said the move was to ensure it could adjust to "all possible outcomes caused by logistics and border issues".
The firm said it would help in recovering lost production if shipments of parts were held up at borders.
Last year, the senior vice-president of Honda Europe warned that if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.
Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe.
He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant.
The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market.

This quite poetic.

If you shut a factory, rather than putting jobs at risk, there are no jobs.

"Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe."

No more than the quality of management or lack of.

Honda in Europe is one of the world's great lost opportunities.

"He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant."

Because they were closing down their European manufacturing?

"The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market."

This indicates this is coming to the end of its model life in 2022.

The plant has run under capacity for years and there have been doubts over its viability even longer.

Perhaps blaming Brexit gives them cover.

Why else make the decision before deal/ no deal has been agreed or not?

Sounds a bit like Airbus threatening to move off one week then following the next with the decision to stop building the A380 anyway!

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 04:11:34 PM
Fake news alert..........

Looks pretty serious to me.


If the government had advance warning of this dreadful news and did not alert the country, this is an appalling and cavalier attitude to the people.

Seems to be confirmed by a back bench MP on twitter that the Business Secretary knew this was happening.


No surprise that today was chosen to bubble this out to the press, given other events.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 18, 2019, 04:47:24 PM
It makes sense for companies to announce closures now and blame Brexit than to wait and have to blame poor management or lack of a suitable product. The wee hairdresser on the corner, near me, is shutting and she is blaming Brexit! And the  contraction of the motor industry worldwide, has been widely reported over the past few years.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 18, 2019, 05:05:24 PM
I think it's more complex than that. Brexit is toxic for the UK car industry because of complex supply chains and the fact that many companies invested here precisely to gain tariff free access to the European market. Post Brexit, tariffs and customs checks will be erected where none currently exist. It will make the UK less attractive to these companies.


Now each closure may be multi-faceted. The decision by Nissan not to build the X Trail in the UK was mostly down to a decline in diesel sales but Brexit won't have helped especially when cars made in Japan will have tariff free access to the EU as opposed to cars made here which will have a 10% tariff on them. Japan, of course, has tariff free access to Europe whereas we won't unless we get a deal.


Don't get me wrong, I accept we have to leave but we must do everything we can to support business to trade with the European market on a tariff free basis. All this gung ho talk of No Deal isn't helping and it isn't the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg who will suffer.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 05:13:44 PM
The wee hairdresser on the corner, near me, is shutting and she is blaming Brexit!

To be fair, a lot of smaller businesses are struggling, and any effects from Brexit may just be the straw to break the camel's back.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 05:20:54 PM
Although Honda never liked Diesel and said emissions wise diesel was a dead end technology they were forced to offer them in Europe by short sighted government policies th st just looked at CO2 and not total emissions.  They are now suffering for their switch to diesel as the bottom has dropped out of the market. Worldwide Honda has suffered a 40% drop in profits, the whole worldwide car industry is in trouble - collapse of Chinese economy is to blame for strife in Germany and also Jaguar.  The Ford engine plant in Wales supplied engines to Jaguar and they don't need them any more as they have their own massive engine plant in Wolverhampton.    But remoaners never let the facts get in the way of blaming Brexit.......

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-ford-motor-jaguarlandrover-britain/fords-welsh-engine-plant-to-lose-jlr-business-in-2020-idUKKCN1C318X

The latest EU deal with Japan has zero tariffs on imports of cars from Japan so their car makers are consolidating production in Japan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47282603
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 05:35:08 PM
remoaners never let the facts get in the way of blaming Brexit.......

...and Brexiters seem to be completely blind to what's going on. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexit is the sole reason why these decisions are being made, but it's not helping the UK's cause.

By the way, do you still think Swindon closing is fake news?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 05:39:15 PM
remoaners never let the facts get in the way of blaming Brexit.......




...and Brexiters seem to be completely blind to what's going on. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexit is the sole reason why these decisions are being made, but it's not helping the UK's cause.

By the way, do you still think Swindon closing is fake news?

It is fake news in relation to Brexit

https://blog.autokartz.com/japan-could-consolidate-to-three-automakers-by-2020/

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/motors/2019/01/02/worlds-biggest-car-makers-suffer-as-profits-plummet-in-2018/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 18, 2019, 05:52:52 PM
remoaners never let the facts get in the way of blaming Brexit.......

...and Brexiters seem to be completely blind to what's going on. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexit is the sole reason why these decisions are being made, but it's not helping the UK's cause.

By the way, do you still think Swindon closing is fake news?

We've got a classic case of confirmation bias on both sides. I have seen many remain voters (I voted remain) blaming every bit of bad news on Brexit and I have yet to see a leave voter accept that Brexit has played even the slightest part when production stops or some business closes.


We can't leave a big trading block without consequences. These may be outweighed by other advantages and who knows what the future holds but, come on guys, don't even try to suggest that Brexit wasn't at least one issue in the Honda closure.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 06:03:21 PM
Honda set to close Swindon car plant

Japanese carmaker Honda set to announce closure of Swindon plant in 2022, putting 3,500 jobs at risk, sources say.
The Japanese carmaker will shut the plant in 2022 but retain its European headquarters in Bracknell, Berkshire.
Sources say Honda will make an announcement on the future of the company on Tuesday morning.
Honda declined to comment on the claims which were first reported by Sky News.
Last month Honda has said it would shut down its Swindon factory for six days in April as part of its preparations for any disruption caused post-Brexit.
The company said the move was to ensure it could adjust to "all possible outcomes caused by logistics and border issues".
The firm said it would help in recovering lost production if shipments of parts were held up at borders.
Last year, the senior vice-president of Honda Europe warned that if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.
Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe.
He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant.
The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market.

This quite poetic.

If you shut a factory, rather than putting jobs at risk, there are no jobs.

"Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe."

No more than the quality of management or lack of.

Honda in Europe is one of the world's great lost opportunities.

"He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant."

Because they were closing down their European manufacturing?

"The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market."

This indicates this is coming to the end of its model life in 2022.

The plant has run under capacity for years and there have been doubts over its viability even longer.

Perhaps blaming Brexit gives them cover.

Why else make the decision before deal/ no deal has been agreed or not?

Sounds a bit like Airbus threatening to move off one week then following the next with the decision to stop building the A380 anyway!

A company I used to work for built body sub-assemblies for Honda, they never asked for more than 30% of their 'predicted' volume,  this speaks 'volumes' about Honda operations in UK.

The A380 was always a bit of a white elephant anyway, a vanity project by Airbus. Impressive, but still a white elephant with the best bits made in UK ( wings, engines, landing gear and avionics ).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 06:13:11 PM
It is fake news in relation to Brexit

https://blog.autokartz.com/japan-could-consolidate-to-three-automakers-by-2020/

Well, that's one opinion of course.

Quote
The smaller automakers like Suzuki, Mazda, and Mitsubishi are challenged to make it on their own...

I'm not sure where they got their information, but this consolidation is certainly nothing new. GM have been involved with Suzuki since 1981, Mitsubishi are now part of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, having previous shared platforms with other companies including Volvo, Mazda have been long entwined with Ford, and although Toyota now wholly own Daihatsu, they have been a major shareholder since 1967.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 06:14:40 PM
We've got a classic case of confirmation bias on both sides. I have seen many remain voters (I voted remain) blaming every bit of bad news on Brexit and I have yet to see a leave voter accept that Brexit has played even the slightest part when production stops or some business closes.


We can't leave a big trading block without consequences. These may be outweighed by other advantages and who knows what the future holds but, come on guys, don't even try to suggest that Brexit wasn't at least one issue in the Honda closure.

Absolutely spot on.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 07:23:21 PM

I'm not sure where they got their information, but this consolidation is certainly nothing new. GM have been involved with Suzuki since 1981, Mitsubishi are now part of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, having previous shared platforms with other companies including Volvo, Mazda have been long entwined with Ford, and although Toyota now wholly own Daihatsu, they have been a major shareholder since 1967.

Cooperation in motor industry nothing new, I have been involved in manufacturing in motor industry for decades and they all had their hands in each others pockets with technical and production tie-ups - but they maintained their individual identities.  The odd man out was Honda who have always done their own thing.

The new world order will be different, the R&D is now prohibitively expensive and it needs larger companies to afford it,  the production of cars is a low profit high volume business and is getting more complicated by the day.

The evolution of battery EV has thrown another spanner in the works, people keep expecting the massive breakthrough that the hype merchants have been promising  for years and with demise of diesel people ( except company cars ) will put off buying until something sorts itself out. 

The motor industry is in a state of flux ( especially electric cars LOL ) all over the world and there will be casualties as countries ' look after their own interests first' ..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on February 18, 2019, 07:36:48 PM

I'm not sure where they got their information, but this consolidation is certainly nothing new. GM have been involved with Suzuki since 1981, Mitsubishi are now part of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, having previous shared platforms with other companies including Volvo, Mazda have been long entwined with Ford, and although Toyota now wholly own Daihatsu, they have been a major shareholder since 1967.

Cooperation in motor industry nothing new, I have been involved in manufacturing in motor industry for decades and they all had their hands in each others pockets with technical and production tie-ups - but they maintained their individual identities.  The odd man out was Honda who have always done their own thing.

The new world order will be different, the R&D is now prohibitively expensive and it needs larger companies to afford it,  the production of cars is a low profit high volume business and is getting more complicated by the day.

The evolution of battery EV has thrown another spanner in the works, people keep expecting the massive breakthrough that the hype merchants have been promising  for years and with demise of diesel people ( except company cars ) will put off buying until something sorts itself out. 

The motor industry is in a state of flux ( especially electric cars LOL ) all over the world and there will be casualties as countries ' look after their own interests first' ..

Not untrue but not the reason the Japanese companies are starting to move out of the UK, I posted on here a year ago they would.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 08:03:11 PM
The odd man out was Honda who have always done their own thing.

Honda have had some collaboration with other companies, including in China currently, and here in the UK with a 20% stake in Rover Group, until it was sold to BMW.

While some of this was ARG badge engineering Honda products, such as the Triumph Acclaim and Rover 600, there were instances where collaboration worked the other way - such as the R8 Rover 200 / Honda Concerto project, and Rover solving the terrible corkscrewing of the Ballade (SD3 Rover 200) suspension for Honda.

The motor industry is in a state of flux ( especially electric cars LOL ) all over the world and there will be casualties as countries ' look after their own interests first' ..

That's certainly true enough, but as Basil suggests, most decisions are made with regard to cost rather than some sort of patriotism to their home country.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 18, 2019, 09:14:34 PM


We can't leave a big trading block without consequences. These may be outweighed by other advantages and who knows what the future holds but, come on guys, don't even try to suggest that Brexit wasn't at least one issue in the Honda closure.

Agreed. It was irresponsible of the government to invoke Article 50 without thinking through the implications and to press ahead having seen what the consequences might be.
I have yet to see any advantages and it should be obvious that the pie in the sky promises of Farage, Gove, Johnson etc. are not going to come to fruition.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on February 18, 2019, 09:56:30 PM
I personally ignore the 'soft' chatter of hacks and politicians when it comes to grown up matters. In the real world, business runs in cycles. Cast your eye back over time and observe the number of household names which are no longer. Like it or not, it boils down to natural selection and the survival of the fittest and not the furtherance of the survival of the thickest. That way lies ruin. It is a simple matter of adapt or dwindle. The extent to which people will go to avoid confronting the truth never ceases to amaze me. The automotive industry is over supplied and has been for decades. Forget new technology. There are just too many out there and the big name bosses know this better than anyone. So out come the political footballs. As for blaming Brexit, of course they will, and anything else that suits their agenda. The harsh truth is that if the recession had played out back in the financial crisis and the dead wood had been cut away we would had a painful but necessary correction for further sustainable growth. We now have the ludicrous scenario where money markets no longer fulfil their proper function in pricing risk capital at free market levels and instead, are busy peddling paper at fake rates set by central funksters at the expense of the overall economy and future generations. I shudder to think how many so called enterprises would collapse if interest rates even threatened to return to trend levels. The funny thing is that most people instinctively know that you do not get something for nothing. Like it or not, everything has its price.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 10:26:47 PM


We can't leave a big trading block without consequences. These may be outweighed by other advantages and who knows what the future holds but, come on guys, don't even try to suggest that Brexit wasn't at least one issue in the Honda closure.

Agreed. It was irresponsible of the government to invoke Article 50 without thinking through the implications and to press ahead having seen what the consequences might be.
I have yet to see any advantages and it should be obvious that the pie in the sky promises of Farage, Gove, Johnson etc. are not going to come to fruition.

498 members of parliament voted to trigger article 50, but remainers will come out with their standard ' but they did not know what they were voting for' .  For any of those 498 to now turn around and oppose leaving on 29 March is just not on.  Any extension of article 50 will be abject surrender to EU bullies and will achieve nothing that could not be achieved in the previous 2 years ( with goodwill of course, which was sadly absent ).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 18, 2019, 11:02:54 PM

498 members of parliament voted to trigger article 50, but remainers will come out with their standard ' but they did not know what they were voting for' .  For any of those 498 to now turn around and oppose leaving on 29 March is just not on.  Any extension of article 50 will be abject surrender to EU bullies and will achieve nothing that could not be achieved in the previous 2 years ( with goodwill of course, which was sadly absent ).
What has been achieved in the last  2 years?
The UK parliament has frittered it away arguing amongst themselves and are still arguing amongst themselves with about 5 weeks left.
 The people could not be expected to know exactly what they were voting for. Who could have predicted all the possible implications? Even now it appears that even the politicians do not understand and they are charged with making the decisions.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 19, 2019, 08:20:38 AM
What has been achieved in the last  2 years?
The UK parliament has frittered it away arguing amongst themselves and are still arguing amongst themselves with about 5 weeks left.
 The people could not be expected to know exactly what they were voting for.  Who could have predicted all the possible implications? Even now it appears that even the politicians do not understand and they are charged with making the decisions.

Even Rees-Mogg advocated the perfectly sensible strategy of two referenda back in 2011, the first to decide in principle to explore leaving the EU, and the second to ratify any subsequent deal and confirm leaving.

It's hard to see where the Government is heading with this now. They have always had to deal with the hard brexiters, but May now has a problem with a significant number of ministers threatening to resign if no-deal is the outcome, which could spell disaster for the Government.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 19, 2019, 08:33:12 AM
I personally ignore the 'soft' chatter of hacks and politicians when it comes to grown up matters. In the real world, business runs in cycles. Cast your eye back over time and observe the number of household names which are no longer. Like it or not, it boils down to natural selection and the survival of the fittest and not the furtherance of the survival of the thickest. That way lies ruin. It is a simple matter of adapt or dwindle. The extent to which people will go to avoid confronting the truth never ceases to amaze me.

Unfortunately your Darwinian theory could be applied to nations as well as businesses and the UK is about to become an isolated small fish in a big pond.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 19, 2019, 08:43:05 AM

It's hard to see where the Government is heading with this now. They have always had to deal with the hard brexiters, but May now has a problem with a significant number of ministers threatening to resign if no-deal is the outcome, which could spell disaster for the Government.

Don't know.
May will probably continue to hang on and let the clock run down until the last minute and try to blackmail MPs into accepting her deal rather than no deal. I don't think there is a sufficient number of MP's willing to put country before party and they're not as ruthless as the ERG and DUP.
We live in interesting times.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 19, 2019, 09:12:44 AM
It was irresponsible of the government to invoke Article 50 without thinking through the implications
I must point out that it was Parliament who voted to invoke Article 50, not just the government. All the MPs who are now squirming and wanting to delay Brexit or have a second referendum are the ones that voted Article 50 through.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 09:46:32 AM
I personally ignore the 'soft' chatter of hacks and politicians when it comes to grown up matters. In the real world, business runs in cycles. Cast your eye back over time and observe the number of household names which are no longer. Like it or not, it boils down to natural selection and the survival of the fittest and not the furtherance of the survival of the thickest. That way lies ruin. It is a simple matter of adapt or dwindle. The extent to which people will go to avoid confronting the truth never ceases to amaze me.

Unfortunately your Darwinian theory could be applied to nations as well as businesses and the UK is about to become an isolated small fish in a big pond.

As the worlds 5th largest economy and a great place to do business,  attracting more inward investment than the rest of Europe put together it is just plain wrong and disingenuous to describe UK as 'a small fish in a big pond'.  EU has had plenty of time to build up its financial system ( it still does not have a coherent one,  its banks are in big trouble and very fragile).

The UK legal system ( not that horrible Napoleonic system that Europe uses ) is a massive plus for UK financial system.  http://www.cityam.com/236942/the-uk-legal-sector-is-vital-to-the-citys-international-success

I have noticed a common theme amongst remainers on various sites,  they seem to be trying to outdo each other on compiling the absolute worst scenarios for the future,  they do not seem to have any optimism at all,  proper chicken lickens - maybe more prozac is called for, still available in UK from GlaxoSmithKline,  good news is they have stocks available for remainers ( only if you are over 18 though)..

Using the Darwinian theme you could look on the Brexit vote as an important mutation in our nations DNA,  and it is mutations that drive evolution,  it is the EU that needs to evolve too or Darwins laws will be proven in a bad way..

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 19, 2019, 10:09:15 AM
It was irresponsible of the government to invoke Article 50 without thinking through the implications
I must point out that it was Parliament who voted to invoke Article 50, not just the government. All the MPs who are now squirming and wanting to delay Brexit or have a second referendum are the ones that voted Article 50 through.

To be fair, it was a whipped vote on both sides of the House, so means little at a personal level.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 10:21:16 AM
tweet of the day...

 https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1097443893749170176

'its good that Chuka ( amoaner ) now knows that if an organisation cannot be reformed from within it is best to leave'.

Maybe these proponents of a 'peoples vote' should now have the honesty to submit to a peoples vote ( By-election)  rather than just leaving the party they were elected as an MP for and form another party,  just carrying on as if nothing had changed - but I doubt that will happen,  they want to have their cake and eat it..  Maybe Soubry and Clarke will be joining their 'we just threw our teddy out of the pram' party..

Maybe the 'we will respect the result of referendum and leave the EU' on Labour 2017 manifesto was not clear enough and the electors did not know what they were voting for.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 10:50:05 AM
It was irresponsible of the government to invoke Article 50 without thinking through the implications
I must point out that it was Parliament who voted to invoke Article 50, not just the government. All the MPs who are now squirming and wanting to delay Brexit or have a second referendum are the ones that voted Article 50 through.

To be fair, it was a whipped vote on both sides of the House, so means little at a personal level.

There are cases where MP's with strong views defy their party whip ( some of them are happy not to respect the way their constituency voted ), and Labour party has always ( except new labour under B Liar which was to the Right of Tories) had strong anti-EU leanings.  Maybe a lot of the MPs have been taught in school not to be confrontational because there may be people who will be offended,  or are they just sheep..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 19, 2019, 11:07:06 AM
There are cases where MP's with strong views defy their party whip ( some of them are happy not to respect the way their constituency voted ), and Labour party has always ( except new labour under B Liar which was to the Right of Tories) had strong anti-EU leanings.  Maybe a lot of the MPs have been taught in school not to be confrontational because there may be people who will be offended,  or are they just sheep..

Some MPs also defied the party whip in order to respect the way their constituents voted.

In normal times, defying party whip would certainly mean the end of any ministerial post, and the significant risk of being thrown out of the party... but these are not normal times.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 19, 2019, 11:12:13 AM
Just coming back to Swindon for a moment, can I just point out the bleeding obvious...

Japan has (or will soon have) tariff free car sales into the EU.

The UK currently has no deal on the cards for car sales into the EU post Brexit.

What business in it's right mind would make any other choice than to return manufacturing to Japan in this scenario?

In my mind, we have two years to fix this and make Honda change its mind.

Timing is everything.

EDIT: This is neither an argument for or against Brexit. Just for common sense.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 19, 2019, 11:20:36 AM
Quite right Richard. We need a deal.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 19, 2019, 04:03:15 PM

As the worlds 5th largest economy and a great place to do business,  attracting more inward investment than the rest of Europe put together it is just plain wrong and disingenuous to describe UK as 'a small fish in a big pond'.  EU has had plenty of time to build up its financial system ( it still does not have a coherent one,  its banks are in big trouble and very fragile).

Now 7th largest & slipping
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 19, 2019, 04:38:25 PM
Not according to Focus Economics
https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/the-largest-economies-in-the-world (https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/the-largest-economies-in-the-world)
or Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy)
or Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/ (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/)

I didn't check any other sites, but if you care to post your reference I will happily read it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 19, 2019, 04:47:07 PM
According to Reuters it RISKS slipping to 7th after Brexit. A difference between risks and is!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 19, 2019, 04:56:53 PM
You can't do much about India - it's so big and will probably get in the top 3 in time so that would push us down to 6th. I did read a forecast that saw France overhauling us after Brexit but the same forecast said the UK might bounce back above France after a few years.

The truth is we don't know what will happen. I do expect the car industry to contract because of Brexit but other sectors, like fishing and agriculture might benefit.

Even the worst forecasts see some growth albeit anaemic. I voted remain but I don't expect mass starvation to ensue as a result of Brexit.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 19, 2019, 05:01:34 PM
I voted remain but I don't expect mass starvation to ensue as a result of Brexit.
Me neither, but I did read a report that some EU countries are preparing to send food aid to the UK after Brexit!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1088265/Brexit-latest-news-eu-food-aid-no-deal-brexit-eu-news (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1088265/Brexit-latest-news-eu-food-aid-no-deal-brexit-eu-news)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 19, 2019, 05:36:50 PM
We did go through a trial period of 5 years of not importing anything from Europe and that turned out fine.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 06:03:20 PM
I voted remain but I don't expect mass starvation to ensue as a result of Brexit.
Me neither, but I did read a report that some EU countries are preparing to send food aid to the UK after Brexit!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1088265/Brexit-latest-news-eu-food-aid-no-deal-brexit-eu-news (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1088265/Brexit-latest-news-eu-food-aid-no-deal-brexit-eu-news)

Well rationing was kept in UK into the 1950's so that we could send food to Europe, its payback time....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on February 19, 2019, 06:56:00 PM
RR moves Discovery production out of UK
Ford engine plant on way to total closure
Nissan not building new model in UK.
Honda closing.
Hitachi not building nuclear plant

Dyson moving R&D to Singapore.*
Ratcliffe relocating out of UK. (UK's richest man)*


* both Leave supporters.

Now a reasonable man would say there must be some successes to offset the above. Mr Fox told us people would be queuing to invest in the UK.. 

So where are these successes to prove Remainers are wrong  ?

Let's have  a list. (confirmed investments only over £1b to keep it short . I am sure there are lots.)

And no sensible list is obviously self explanatory.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 07:32:50 PM
In exchange for free trade deal with EU Japan has to allow EU citizens freedom to travel to Japan and stay as long as they like, even buy homes and businesses there, the EU citizens will also be able to freely use Japanese healthcare and their benefits system.  The Japanese will be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and implement any new directives and laws that the EU tells them to.  Within a few years Japan will have to join the Eurozone and ditch the Yen, they will also have to supply soldiers and equipment for new EU army.  Japan will also have to stay in a customs union with EU and cannot negotiate or sign any free trade agreements with any other countries.  I wonder if the Japs know what they have signed up for.. The EU has yet to announce the amount of money that Japan will be expected to contribute to EU budget - all this just for a free trade agreement with EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 19, 2019, 07:49:59 PM
http://www.cityam.com/270147/uk-foreign-investment-hits-record-high-investors-shun (http://www.cityam.com/270147/uk-foreign-investment-hits-record-high-investors-shun)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 08:43:23 PM
http://www.cityam.com/270147/uk-foreign-investment-hits-record-high-investors-shun (http://www.cityam.com/270147/uk-foreign-investment-hits-record-high-investors-shun)

That's right I have seen similar articles,  investors are more worried about the problems in Eurozone and EU in general, which make remainers brexit doom-mongering fade into insignificance.  The EU and Euro currency have deep rooted structural problems that will bring the whole thing down around their ears, and the European banks are in a fragile state, as are Eurozone economies including Germany and France in addition to the well known problems of southern Eurozone, who have 50 to 60% unemployment for under 25's - many of them will probably never have a job, all down to the Euro which suits Germany but condemns other users to poverty and austerity.

I see UK unemployment is down to 4% - and wages rising at 3.5% - eat you hearts out Eurozone members......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 08:48:44 PM
We did go through a trial period of 5 years of not importing anything from Europe and that turned out fine.

Was that in the early 1940's when we were exporting far more explosive devices to Germany than they were exporting to us, one of the few times we have had a surplus with them, and they still haven't paid us for any of them despite the fact we arranged free delivery by air.......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 19, 2019, 10:24:53 PM
RR moves Discovery production out of UK
Ford engine plant on way to total closure
Nissan not building new model in UK.
Honda closing.
Hitachi not building nuclear plant

Dyson moving R&D to Singapore.*
Ratcliffe relocating out of UK. (UK's richest man)*


* both Leave supporters.

Now a reasonable man would say there must be some successes to offset the above. Mr Fox told us people would be queuing to invest in the UK.. 

So where are these successes to prove Remainers are wrong  ?

Let's have  a list. (confirmed investments only over £1b to keep it short . I am sure there are lots.)

And no sensible list is obviously self explanatory.

None of these are Britex related!

This is joining up dots and creating unicorns. The media, these days, are excellent at creating "fake" sensationalist news.

For a more rational and balanced view on inward investment (from Ernst & Young and which uses the latest available figures - 2017):

"UK remains top destination for inward investment, but Germany and France are closing the gap as Brexit bites
(11 June 2018)"

https://www.ey.com/uk/en/newsroom/news-releases/18-06-11-uk-remains-top-destination-for-inward-investment

It would be reasonable to expect the trend to continue until the dust settles.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 20, 2019, 09:12:45 AM
Ford is closing a truck making plant, after 50 years, in Brazil. I suppose this is Brexit related too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47300317 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47300317)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 10:20:27 AM
Ford is closing a truck making plant, after 50 years, in Brazil. I suppose this is Brexit related too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47300317 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47300317)

Yup,  anything that happens in the world now is somehow related to Brexit.  Even the Chinese economy tanking and
affecting JLR sales is Brexit related,  the demise of Diesel is Brexit related - just shows that we can still make band-wagons in the UK ( or will the band-wagon factory also be moved abroad soon ).

I love the Junckers quote a couple of days ago 'the final withdrawal agreement  is in the hands of God' - typical modesty from Jean Claude Drunkers -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/18/brexit-breakthrough-gods-hands-says-juncker/

question - What is the difference between an EU commissioner and God ? 
answer - God does not think he is an EU commissioner.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 20, 2019, 10:30:27 AM
In exchange for free trade deal with EU Japan has to allow EU citizens freedom to travel to Japan and stay as long as they like, even buy homes and businesses there, the EU citizens will also be able to freely use Japanese healthcare and their benefits system.  The Japanese will be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and implement any new directives and laws that the EU tells them to.  Within a few years Japan will have to join the Eurozone and ditch the Yen, they will also have to supply soldiers and equipment for new EU army.  Japan will also have to stay in a customs union with EU and cannot negotiate or sign any free trade agreements with any other countries.  I wonder if the Japs know what they have signed up for.. The EU has yet to announce the amount of money that Japan will be expected to contribute to EU budget - all this just for a free trade agreement with EU.

Evidence for this please.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 11:17:45 AM
In exchange for free trade deal with EU Japan has to allow EU citizens freedom to travel to Japan and stay as long as they like, even buy homes and businesses there, the EU citizens will also be able to freely use Japanese healthcare and their benefits system.  The Japanese will be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and implement any new directives and laws that the EU tells them to.  Within a few years Japan will have to join the Eurozone and ditch the Yen, they will also have to supply soldiers and equipment for new EU army.  Japan will also have to stay in a customs union with EU and cannot negotiate or sign any free trade agreements with any other countries.  I wonder if the Japs know what they have signed up for.. The EU has yet to announce the amount of money that Japan will be expected to contribute to EU budget - all this just for a free trade agreement with EU.

Evidence for this please.

LOL  ;D
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 20, 2019, 12:08:37 PM
Will Sushi meet EU food standards?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 01:28:29 PM
How dare MPs think they can quit the party they were voted to represent, and were elected under that parties manifesto.  These remainer MPs should have the integrity to allow a peoples vote on the new changed circumstances of their tenure, they were quick enough to call for another referendum or the more catchy 'peoples vote' because people may have changed their minds since 2016, but people who voted for a Labour or conservative candidate in 2017 who stood for that party and their manifesto surely deserve another vote on these turncoats now their position has changed so much. Come on chuka and company, show some respect and integrity and stand again at a by election.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 01:31:42 PM
Will Sushi meet EU food standards?

Only if there are red herrings being served.

Still waiting for EU to change their 'tuna'..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 20, 2019, 01:51:08 PM
How dare MPs think they can quit the party they were voted to represent, and were elected under that parties manifesto.  These remainer MPs should have the integrity to allow a peoples vote on the new changed circumstances of their tenure, they were quick enough to call for another referendum or the more catchy 'peoples vote' because people may have changed their minds since 2016, but people who voted for a Labour or conservative candidate in 2017 who stood for that party and their manifesto surely deserve another vote on these turncoats now their position has changed so much. Come on chuka and company, show some respect and integrity and stand again at a by election.

Here's why:-  ( Excerpt from letter from  Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen)

"The final straw for us has been this Government’s disastrous handling of Brexit.

Following the EU referendum of 2016, no genuine effort was made to build a cross party, let alone a national consensus to deliver Brexit. Instead of seeking to heal the divisions or to tackle the underlying causes of Brexit, the priority was to draw up “red lines”. The 48% were not only sidelined, they were alienated.

We find it unconscionable that a Party once trusted on the economy, more than any other, is now recklessly marching the country to the cliff edge of no deal. No responsible government should knowingly and deliberately inflict the dire consequences of such a destructive exit on individuals, communities and businesses and put at risk the prospect of ending austerity.

We also reject the false binary choice that you have presented to Parliament between a bad deal and no deal. Running down the clock to March 20 amounts to a policy of no deal and we are not prepared to wait until our toes are at the edge of the cliff. "
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 20, 2019, 02:38:39 PM
The Remainers will support them, the Leavers will denigrate them. No change there then.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 02:41:23 PM
How dare MPs think they can quit the party they were voted to represent, and were elected under that parties manifesto.  These remainer MPs should have the integrity to allow a peoples vote on the new changed circumstances of their tenure, they were quick enough to call for another referendum or the more catchy 'peoples vote' because people may have changed their minds since 2016, but people who voted for a Labour or conservative candidate in 2017 who stood for that party and their manifesto surely deserve another vote on these turncoats now their position has changed so much. Come on chuka and company, show some respect and integrity and stand again at a by election.

Here's why:-  ( Excerpt from letter from  Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen)

"The final straw for us has been this Government’s disastrous handling of Brexit.

Following the EU referendum of 2016, no genuine effort was made to build a cross party, let alone a national consensus to deliver Brexit. Instead of seeking to heal the divisions or to tackle the underlying causes of Brexit, the priority was to draw up “red lines”. The 48% were not only sidelined, they were alienated.

We find it unconscionable that a Party once trusted on the economy, more than any other, is now recklessly marching the country to the cliff edge of no deal. No responsible government should knowingly and deliberately inflict the dire consequences of such a destructive exit on individuals, communities and businesses and put at risk the prospect of ending austerity.

We also reject the false binary choice that you have presented to Parliament between a bad deal and no deal. Running down the clock to March 20 amounts to a policy of no deal and we are not prepared to wait until our toes are at the edge of the cliff. "

All Labour and conservative MPs were elected in 2017 on a manifesto to respect referendum result and leave the EU  ( did not specify ' with a deal ' ) my point was that these people were pushing for a peoples vote but they will not allow a peoples vote on their decision to renage on the party they were elected to represent and in UK people vote for a party ( if our constituency  MP changed parties I would have to think twice about voting for them under their new colours )  , not an MP and only one candidate from each registered party is selected and stands for election, so if you want a Labour or conservative MP you have to vote for the only one standing for election.  When Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless switched from conservative to UKIP a few years ago at least they had the integrity to stand for re-election - this present bunch have no honesty or integrity.

The only parties to stand on a remain ticket in 2017, SNP, ( lost 30% of MPs) greens ( still only have one MP) and Libdumbs ( only gained a couple of MPs ) show that vast majority voted for parties with leave on their manifesto.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 20, 2019, 03:16:55 PM
Some sympathy with what you say but there is no constitutional reason for them to quit. I agree about second referendum though - I'm a remainer but I'm against it. The Government of the day said it would implement the result so it has to do just that. That said, it is dishonest to pretend as some extreme Brexiters do, that every single one of the 17.4 million people who voted for it wanted a hard no deal with everything that entails.

You are right that both main parties said they would implement Brexit which is another reason why it has to happen. That said, detailed polling shows that Labour voters are largely remain so it their own damn fault if they voted for a Brexiter like Corbyn who has spent his entire political life campaigning against the EU (when not consorting with terrorists and anti-semites). They should have voted Lib Dem as that party is openly pro EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 20, 2019, 03:27:11 PM
As most MPs were returned to parliament in 2016 on a Leave manifesto, and as the majority of the voters in the referendum voted to leave the EU then I think we should have a Peoples Vote with Leave with the current plan or Leave with No Deal as the two options on the paper. No need for Remain, as that has been rejected in the two 2016 votes!

Waiting for the howls.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 20, 2019, 03:30:11 PM
  When Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless switched from conservative to UKIP a few years ago at least they had the integrity to stand for re-election - this present bunch have no honesty or integrity.


Carswell and Reckless  and integrity in the same sentence ??????????
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/owen-bennett/mark-reckless-ukip_b_15846852.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 20, 2019, 04:12:53 PM
I think we should have a Peoples Vote with Leave with the current plan or Leave with No Deal as the two options on the paper.

In that case, can we count abstainers as the Remain vote?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 04:30:46 PM
I think we should have a Peoples Vote with Leave with the current plan or Leave with No Deal as the two options on the paper.

In that case, can we count abstainers as the Remain vote?

People who abstain do not get to decide anything, apparently all the people who did not vote in 2016 were remain voters - in democracy only those who can be ar53d to vote change things..

We could phrase the questions another way and have 3,  'leave with a deal' or  'leave without a deal' or 'remain'  and combine the votes for questions with leave in them as votes for leave.. there, sorted....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 20, 2019, 04:37:36 PM
I think any second referendum is going to be problematic. Let's not do this but let's not damage our economy just to satisfy an extreme interpretation of Brexit.

There was a case for a 2 referendum scenario at the outset - govt to negotiate our departure then final choice between that and remain. Even Brextremist Jacob Rees Mogg used to argue for this but we need to get beyond this. The uncertaintly is no good for anybody.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 04:38:37 PM
Some sympathy with what you say but there is no constitutional reason for them to quit. I agree about second referendum though - I'm a remainer but I'm against it. The Government of the day said it would implement the result so it has to do just that. That said, it is dishonest to pretend as some extreme Brexiters do, that every single one of the 17.4 million people who voted for it wanted a hard no deal with everything that entails.

You are right that both main parties said they would implement Brexit which is another reason why it has to happen. That said, detailed polling shows that Labour voters are largely remain so it their own damn fault if they voted for a Brexiter like Corbyn who has spent his entire political life campaigning against the EU (when not consorting with terrorists and anti-semites). They should have voted Lib Dem as that party is openly pro EU.

https://brexitcentral.com/labour-forgotten-eurosceptic-heritage-left-working-classes-behind/

Labour party has traditionally been eurosceptic - Tony B liar was the exception but then again 'new' labour stood well to the right of conservatives.  After 2016 a lot of  remainers joined ( infiltrated ) labour membership to try to hijack the party and convert it to a remain party, but members are not the same as voters and a few hundred thousand members votes in a national election will not change much compared to millions of traditional grassroots labour voters.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 20, 2019, 04:40:13 PM
Whether it be a vote in Parliament, a union ballot, an election, or a referendum, abstainers get what the majority of voters vote for. That's the way it has always been and the way it should always be.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 20, 2019, 04:44:07 PM
I think any second referendum is going to be problematic. Let's not do this but let's not damage our economy just to satisfy an extreme interpretation of Brexit.
I think a second referendum would be a bigger mistake than the first. If there is one, I will vote in it, then never cast another vote in any future election or referendum, If my vote didn't count last time why should I post it in future?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 20, 2019, 04:54:35 PM
Whether it be a vote in Parliament, a union ballot, an election, or a referendum, abstainers get what the majority of voters vote for. That's the way it has always been and the way it should always be.

Sorry Jocko, there should have been a winky on the end.

I've run enough ballots and elections to know how it works.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 20, 2019, 05:00:38 PM
 :)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 20, 2019, 05:40:12 PM
As most MPs were returned to parliament in 2016 on a Leave manifesto, and as the majority of the voters in the referendum voted to leave the EU then I think we should have a Peoples Vote with Leave with the current plan or Leave with No Deal as the two options on the paper. No need for Remain, as that has been rejected in the two 2016 votes!

Waiting for the howls.

I am a remainer but I would be happy with the options:

'Leave now with the current plan'
and
'Leave in x months with a different plan or no deal, no further extensions allowed'

There should not be a remain option. Abstainers can be deprived of their British citizenship. I would only make this concession (of an extension) because our entire collection of MPs have all let us down badly.

I would also insist we have a general election in 2019 post Brexit so we can clear the decks and start again.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 20, 2019, 05:51:33 PM
I am a remainer but I would be happy with the options:

'Leave now with the current plan'
and
'Leave in x months with a different plan or no deal, no further extensions allowed'

There should not be a remain option. Abstainers can be deprived of their British citizenship. I would only make this concession (of an extension) because our entire collection of MPs have all let us down badly.

I would also insist we have a general election in 2019 post Brexit so we can clear the decks and start again.
I would be happy with that, as long as x months isn't longer than the planned time until Backstop is due to kick in.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 20, 2019, 05:57:28 PM
x would have to be less than 6 in order to allow time for a 2019 General Election post Brexit.

And another thing - anyone leaving their party because they no longer agree with their manifesto at the election should have to stand for reelection on their current beliefs. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. There are very few MPs who get elected solely on the basis of who they are. Michael Portaloo and Eb Ballsup are proof of that.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 20, 2019, 06:25:56 PM
And another thing - anyone leaving their party because they no longer agree with their manifesto at the election should have to stand for reelection on their current beliefs.
Is that not the way it works anyway. Parties normally do not admit those that have left, back in.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 20, 2019, 06:49:36 PM
As most MPs were returned to parliament in 2016 on a Leave manifesto, and as the majority of the voters in the referendum voted to leave the EU then I think we should have a Peoples Vote with Leave with the current plan or Leave with No Deal as the two options on the paper. No need for Remain, as that has been rejected in the two 2016 votes!

Waiting for the howls.

I am a remainer but I would be happy with the options:

'Leave now with the current plan'
and
'Leave in x months with a different plan or no deal, no further extensions allowed'

There should not be a remain option. Abstainers can be deprived of their British citizenship. I would only make this concession (of an extension) because our entire collection of MPs have all let us down badly.

I would also insist we have a general election in 2019 post Brexit so we can clear the decks and start again.

They would spend the x months/years arguing about the wording of the referendum. :-[ :'( ::)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 20, 2019, 07:03:06 PM
And another thing - anyone leaving their party because they no longer agree with their manifesto at the election should have to stand for reelection on their current beliefs.
Is that not the way it works anyway. Parties normally do not admit those that have left, back in.

I think what he means is that anyone who changes party affiliation between elections should vacate their seat, triggering a by-election, and stand for re-election as an independent or for their new party affiliation.

Labour are currently consulting on such a move, and will look at whether constituents should be able to eject MPs if they resign from a party under which they were elected.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 07:14:46 PM
Some people claim that constituents vote for the MP as a person rather than for the party but if that is the case why are there so many 'safe' seats for both main parties where party could basically put a tailors dummy up for election and he would win.  There are also a few swing constituencies or marginals with small majorities where the personality of the candidate may make a difference.   
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 20, 2019, 09:21:07 PM
And another thing - anyone leaving their party because they no longer agree with their manifesto at the election should have to stand for reelection on their current beliefs.
Is that not the way it works anyway. Parties normally do not admit those that have left, back in.
I meant they should be subject to an immediate by election.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 20, 2019, 10:52:47 PM
These people became MPs because of the efforts of local activists and the financial investment of their particular parties in 2010, 2015 and 2017.

Having been elected with someone else's funding and manifestos, as well as the considerable efforts of those they have now betrayed,  they need to be true to their "new" beliefs and seek their own mandate with their constituents.

They must take full responsibility for their actions.

Otherwise they can have no credibility

To do anything else is not to be true to themselves, or their potential supporters, and for them to forever to live on as very unreliable cheats who have abused the "system".

Back to WTO rules?

Nothing much has changed - again!  :-X
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 21, 2019, 09:15:16 AM
And another thing - anyone leaving their party because they no longer agree with their manifesto at the election should have to stand for reelection on their current beliefs.
Is that not the way it works anyway. Parties normally do not admit those that have left, back in.

In which case there would be a candidate from their 'old' party ( as well as other registered parties who have nominated a candidate ) standing against them.  If these defectors really believed in what they were doing they should be happy to fight a by election to give them some credibility,  but as it stands the electorate have seen them call for a peoples vote on Brexit but these turncoats are not willing to submit to a peoples vote on their actions....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 21, 2019, 09:34:02 PM
And another thing - anyone leaving their party because they no longer agree with their manifesto at the election should have to stand for reelection on their current beliefs.
Is that not the way it works anyway. Parties normally do not admit those that have left, back in.

In which case there would be a candidate from their 'old' party ( as well as other registered parties who have nominated a candidate ) standing against them.  If these defectors really believed in what they were doing they should be happy to fight a by election to give them some credibility

The only problem with a by-election is the risk of splitting the vote for the incumbent party between the new candidate and the incumbent MP standing as an independent, skewing the result of the election.~

That said, doing nothing is highly unsatisfactory, and I absolutely agree with you regarding forcing them to stand for re-election. It's probably the best option there is.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 21, 2019, 09:44:10 PM
I see that Honda are softening their stance regarding the closure having nothing to do with Brexit after being challenged over comments that were made to the workforce last year. Interesting piece in The Guardian from a couple of days ago, I missed it until now but it's worth a quick read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/19/carmakers-quitting-britain-wont-blame-brexit-its-not-in-their-interest
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 21, 2019, 10:00:29 PM
Similar article here
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/21/honda-european-chief-outlined-no-deal-brexit-concerns-in-2018
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 22, 2019, 10:14:49 AM
If all these MPs stood down and triggered by elections, and they were all on the same day, would that not constitute some kind of People's Vote?

I get that there would be split loyalties between them and their original party's new official candidate.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 22, 2019, 10:24:38 AM
As an ardent leaver, deal or no deal, I hope she says "f*** you", and calls an election next week. There would be a few MPs, on both sides of the house, shi**ing themselves then.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 22, 2019, 10:47:07 AM
As an ardent leaver, deal or no deal, I hope she says "f*** you", and calls an election next week. There would be a few MPs, on both sides of the house, shi**ing themselves then.

The can's been kicked down the road time and time again. The excrement has to hit the fan next week, surely?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 24, 2019, 03:29:06 PM
Seems like next week, like tomorrow, never comes. Can to be kicked even further down the road.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-latest-theresa-may-meaningful-vote-commons-eu-a8794466.html

Wonder if there will be any more defections next week.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-theresa-may-no-deal-commons-vote-independence-group-tory-labour-a8792251.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 24, 2019, 04:42:08 PM
Seems like next week, like tomorrow, never comes. Can to be kicked even further down the road.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-latest-theresa-may-meaningful-vote-commons-eu-a8794466.html

Wonder if there will be any more defections next week.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-theresa-may-no-deal-commons-vote-independence-group-tory-labour-a8792251.html
More of May trying to force her only slightly thought out deal on parliament .. whole deal is written in a way that kicks decisions into the long grass .. & she expects to be able to bribe & threaten MPs into that jump into the dark
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 24, 2019, 04:48:03 PM
What the BBC said:
Brexit should be delayed if Parliament does not approve a deal in the coming days, three cabinet ministers have warned publicly for the first time.

What they actually wrote:
the balance of opinion in Parliament is clear – that it would be better to seek to extend Article 50 and delay our date of departure rather than crash out of the European Union on March 29.

Not quite the three ministers saying they will vote for an extension. In fact, the BBC have reeled back from what they were saying even a day ago.

With regards to kicking the can down the road, that is the only way the EU will play it, so the government have to do the same.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 24, 2019, 07:52:19 PM
Time fast running out to get an extension, need agreement of all EU members to happen.

However am spotting some sources saying EU will permit brexit to be delayed by 2 years, a 2 year extension to article 50 before any transition period ... might be true, we'll see?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 24, 2019, 08:02:38 PM
Time fast running out to get an extension, need agreement of all EU members to happen.

However am spotting some sources saying EU will permit brexit to be delayed by 2 years, a 2 year extension to article 50 before any transition period ... might be true, we'll see?

And what exactly is the point of that,  it means the quivering chin remainers have got what they wanted, and the EU have got what they wanted when they offered a deal so bad that no sane person could be expected to accept it.  The EU will of course offer whatever they need to as long as UK is chained to their customs union, more in than out and unable to set up any of their own trade deals, basically abject surrender to their bullying... not the kind of thing a country like UK should accept, or even think about.

Saw an article the other day that found remainers are more than twice as likely than leavers to be hoarding food and stuff like toilet paper in case of a no deal, just about sums it up, shows which ones are the chicken licken types and who has more faith..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 24, 2019, 08:25:31 PM
Of course they want us to have a two years extension. Then the Remoaners will wear everyone down, and unless the civil war starts, we will never leave. The sooner we have a General Election the better, then the  MPs can answer to their constituents.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 24, 2019, 10:10:20 PM
Saw an article the other day that found remainers are more than twice as likely than leavers to be hoarding food and stuff like toilet paper in case of a no deal, just about sums it up, shows which ones are the chicken licken types and who has more faith..
I disagree with this. By their definition, a remainer will generally believe things will be worse post Brexit so will be more likely to consider hoarding. A leader believes things will be ok or better, so why hoard.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 25, 2019, 06:36:15 AM
I disagree with this. By their definition, a remainer will generally believe things will be worse post Brexit so will be more likely to consider hoarding. A leader believes things will be ok or better, so why hoard.
You say you disagree then give your reasons for agreeing with the statement. I take it you misread the original post?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 25, 2019, 09:10:13 AM
I disagree with this. By their definition, a remainer will generally believe things will be worse post Brexit so will be more likely to consider hoarding. A leader believes things will be ok or better, so why hoard.
You say you disagree then give your reasons for agreeing with the statement. I take it you misread the original post?

Read what I wrote again Jocko if you don't mind. I don't disagree that Remainers might be hoarding. I do disagree that they might be chicken licken types (not a fan of name calling to be honest). I give the reason they might be hoarding as being their belief that things will be worse if Brexit happens, hence the need to hoard. And Brexiteers believe the opposite so see no need to hoard.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 25, 2019, 09:22:21 AM
I'll give you that. I read it as you disagreeing that remainers were hoarding then explaining why you thought they were hoarding. If you had specifically mentioned "Chicken Licken" types I would have got your gist.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 25, 2019, 10:41:18 AM
Read what I wrote again Jocko if you don't mind. I don't disagree that Remainers might be hoarding. I do disagree that they might be chicken licken types (not a fan of name calling to be honest). I give the reason they might be hoarding as being their belief that things will be worse if Brexit happens, hence the need to hoard. And Brexiteers believe the opposite so see no need to hoard.

From what I have read of remain voter comments on other forums and in newspapers etc their DNA seems to be missing the optimistic gene,  to a man ( and woman ) they are downbeat and seem to revel in seeing who can post the absolute worst scenario,  just an extension of the official establishment project fear.  They really do seem to think that the 'sky is gonna fall in' - just like CL.  As for the idea of extending Art50,  words fail me, I struggle to think what can be achieved in another 3 months, 6 months, 12 months etc. that could not have been achieved in the previous 31 months since the referendum,  but the lack of goodwill from the other side has been painfully obvious.  Their only ploy was to put every obstacle they could find in the way ( and a few of the obstacles were no doubt suggested by former failed 5th columnist politicians from the UK side ) and come up with a deal so bad that pressure would be put on UK government to remain (  from remain faction within the UK ).

Anyone who knows how the EU works must realise that they always make an agreement at the 59th minute of the last hour,  and to take the pressure off them just when the USA is ramping up their tariff war which could further decimate the EU economy and growth would be total folly..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 25, 2019, 11:38:54 AM
I listened to Michael Gove (cannot stand the man) on yesterday's Andrew Marr Show. He was asked about increases in food prices with No Deal tariffs and he said yes, there would be increases if we added the tariffs the EU adds to supplying countries, but the UK government has no intention of adding tariffs like that. The only tariffs we would introduce would be to protect our farmers and growers. Goods we cannot supply (like strawberries in February) would not have tariffs added. Mind you, why anyone wants to buy strawberries with the taste and texture of turnips is beyond me!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 25, 2019, 03:11:18 PM
I listened to Michael Gove (cannot stand the man) on yesterday's Andrew Marr Show. He was asked about increases in food prices with No Deal tariffs and he said yes, there would be increases if we added the tariffs the EU adds to supplying countries, but the UK government has no intention of adding tariffs like that. The only tariffs we would introduce would be to protect our farmers and growers. Goods we cannot supply (like strawberries in February) would not have tariffs added. Mind you, why anyone wants to buy strawberries with the taste and texture of turnips is beyond me!

Yet you seem to be willing to swallow all the BS that he spouts.
Trading on WTO terms is not going to be as easy as the Brexiteers like Gove, Fox and Mogg make out.
They can't just pick and choose when and where to fix tarriffs. They'll have to be negotiated. The last three years have shown we don't have the best of negotiators.
There are big unpredictable players like Trump out there looking for good deals.
I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs but I've copied a post from another forum from someone who seems to know what he@s talking about.

" LONG INFURIATED POST ALERT:
Right, let's tackle this WTO thing, because it's pissing me off.
1/ If we end up solely on WTO rules, then we need a hard border in Ireland. That risks peace, stability, and the Union. Plus we don't have any time to build the infrastructure required. Like, nowhere NEAR enough time. And there aren't any "alternative arrangements", I promise. They don't exist. There isn't a single border in the world that has any. And that means a hard border.
2/ If we rely on WTO rules for trade, then we need to apply tariffs to imports. And expect that other countries will apply tariffs to our exports. That makes things more expensive for us to buy, and makes our businesses less able to compete. Not really sure how this is a win.
3/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we lose all leverage for negotiating future trade deals. What on earth would we offer them?? We've already given them free access to our market.
4/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we destroy our own producers - why would you carry on trying to run a farm produce business when the market is flooded with much cheaper products from abroad?
5/ If we decide to only reduce tariffs on products from the EU, then the Most Favoured Nation clause (WTO rules) kicks in - this says that you can't offer more favourable terms to one bloc, and not everyone else. So - no tariffs from the EU, means no tariffs from anyone. See points 3 and 4.
6/ If you were looking forward to getting your bendy bananas back, then tough **********; this rule didn't come from the EU (no matter what Boris told you), it came from the WTO - specifically, the Codex Alimentarius. So, no change there. Except now bananas are extortionately expensive, because, well, tariffs.
7/ If you're relying on the idea that there's an obscure WTO rule that says we can just carry on trading with the EU on the same terms we have now for 10 years, then tough ********** again - this isn't correct. The "rule" is Article XXIV of the GATT, and is specifically an allowance for deviating from the MFN (see 5) because you and another bloc are working towards implementing your bilateral trade deal. It requires an end point - a fully thrashed out trade agreement. It is specifically NOT a clause that comes into play when you decide to drop out of a trading arrangement.
8/ If one of the benefits of "going WTO" is that we can make our own rules, then I can understand that. We could decide, unilaterally, that it's too expensive for us to produce electronics with an earthing wire, so we're not going to insist on that anymore. Cool. But then we can't sell our products to our closest trading neighbours. We want to sell stuff to the EU, we need to follow their rules. Except now we don't get a say in what they are.
9/ Having a "world trade deal" sounds quite attractive - quite romantic. The idea of Britain going out on her own, bravely forging links with faraway lands - it's quite appealing. Except trade doesn't work like that. There's a gravity towards your closest neighbours - proximity is important. I'm more likely to sell something to France than I am to Australia - I can get it there quicker, for example, and for a much lower cost. There is no nation on earth - none - that have prioritised trading with distant countries instead of those geographically closest. We're about to be the first - which will involve a pretty brutal lesson in the realities of logistics.
10/ If we go WTO, then we need to check goods coming into our internal market - including those from the EU. We don't have the infrastructure to do this. Nor do we have the staff. Nor the time. Plus - and this is deeply ironic - once we leave the EU, the pool of people from which we can recruit to do this essential work becomes much, much smaller. Do we have enough vets to perform the necessary checks on livestock coming into the country, for example? No. Where do we normally recruit them from? The EU. Ah, **********.
11/ A No Deal exit was never on the cards during the campaign. It is simply all that is left, once logic and reality strip away all the lies that we were told about Brexit. No, German car manufacturers haven't been knocking on Merkel's door demanding a trade deal with the UK. No, the EU doesn't need us more than we need them. No, we don't hold all the cards. None of that was true. It was never going to be true. But rather than facing up to reality, the rhetoric has just become more and more extreme. If you're dealt a bad hand in a game of poker - if the river turns against you - you don't HAVE to go all in. There are other options. You don't need to claim that was what you intended to do all along.
All of this - all of the above. That's what Donald Tusk was talking about. People who either ignored the above, or didn't even bother to find out about it - but sold us Brexit anyway. The people who - even now - print banners that say "LET'S GO WTO!" as if it's the easiest thing in the world, and without consequence."

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 25, 2019, 03:57:30 PM
Tariffs on exports yes. But the receiving country sets the tariffs on imports, up to a max set by WTO rules. If you manufacture bongos you set tariff on imported bongos at anything up to WTO levels. If you do not manufacture bongos but need bongos then you can set your import tariff at zero. It is the choice of the government of the importing country.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 25, 2019, 04:38:37 PM
Tariffs on exports yes. But the receiving country sets the tariffs on imports, up to a max set by WTO rules. If you manufacture bongos you set tariff on imported bongos at anything up to WTO levels. If you do not manufacture bongos but need bongos then you can set your import tariff at zero. It is the choice of the government of the importing country.
Article here on Tariff Rate Quotas
https://infacts.org/3-big-problems-with-brexiters-trade-on-wto-rules-plan/

Another one on agriculture re Gove on Sunday

https://infacts.org/price-hikes-or-bust-farmers-another-miserable-brexit-choice/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 25, 2019, 04:55:03 PM
The EU needs our £39billion, otherwise other members will have to pay,  they are not going to like it.  EU is bankrupt in every economic measure, the Euro has bankrupt them.

The EU never gives in until the 59th minute of the last hour - all we have to do is ignore background noise from the trembling chins and we will get a deal on 29th March,  if we extend we will get a deal on the 29th of never.

Eurozone economy is stagnant and actually going backwards if you look at latest figures, they are under massive pressure from USA to reduce tariffs - they need a deal.

RofI backed the wrong horse and will pay for it,  the EU was happy to use them as a useful idiot in negotiations but when push comes to shove they will pull the rug, UK has stood by the side of Ireland in eU matters for a long time,  they will be awful lonely without us.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 25, 2019, 05:24:59 PM
The EU needs our £39billion, otherwise other members will have to pay,  they are not going to like it.  EU is bankrupt in every economic measure, the Euro has bankrupt them.

The EU never gives in until the 59th minute of the last hour - all we have to do is ignore background noise from the trembling chins and we will get a deal on 29th March,  if we extend we will get a deal on the 29th of never.

Eurozone economy is stagnant and actually going backwards if you look at latest figures, they are under massive pressure from USA to reduce tariffs - they need a deal.

RofI backed the wrong horse and will pay for it,  the EU was happy to use them as a useful idiot in negotiations but when push comes to shove they will pull the rug, UK has stood by the side of Ireland in eU matters for a long time,  they will be awful lonely without us.

Don't thinkso.
EU stopped negotiating months ago. May is just keeping up the threat of no deal to frighten MPs into voting for her deal.
EU has stood by Ireland all the way. Ireland is profiting from businesses moving from UK (even Rees Mogg's )
UK has stood by Ireland. You must be joking!!

Time to stop and have a think, although they should have done this before invoking Article 50.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 25, 2019, 05:33:51 PM
not a fan of name calling to be honest

Me neither, and I refuse to indulge in it. I find it fatuous and disrespectful.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 25, 2019, 06:02:31 PM
not a fan of name calling to be honest

Me neither, and I refuse to indulge in it. I find it fatuous and disrespectful.

+1
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 25, 2019, 08:16:56 PM
Never been a fan of Emily Thornberry but have just seen her on Channel 4 news
The Labour frontbencher, Emily Thornberry, has said remain should be an option on a second referendum and, more than that, Labour would campaign for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/feb/25/brexit-latest-news-developments-theresa-may-increasingly-likely-to-accept-article-50-extension-minister-suggests-politics-live?page=with:block-5c7447bbe4b00307e95aa57b#block-5c7447bbe4b00307e95aa57b

Was she speaking out of turn?
She was asked several times. I don't think the interviewer quite believed it either.


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 25, 2019, 08:36:43 PM
About 150 Labour constituencies voted to remain, according to the best estimates. Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party will have to decide what is their priority. Brexit. Or the next election!

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/ (https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 25, 2019, 08:38:37 PM
"11/ A No Deal exit was never on the cards during the campaign."

I don't remember any mention of a Deal either.

And don't be deluded - what is being discussed is not a "Deal" but a Withdrawal Agreement with the proposal to discuss a Deal after we have left the EU. We haven't got to the start line yet.

It would have been a lot more sensible for everyone for the EU to have recognised we are leaving and to have recognised that the two year notice period was a sensible time to discuss the future trading arrangements. I know they have a rule which says they cannot discuss future arrangements with a member before they have left but once notice was given we have effectively left - a bit like going on "garden leave" or redundancy.

What is all this fretting about WTO and tariffs? Don't forget these would potentially apply to only a tiny, tiny, percentage of our economy, 80% is in services which are outside WTO and of the remaining 20% half is for domestic consumption. And any tariffs on exports have already been taken account of in the decline of the £. If UK farmers cannot compete in world markets, why should they be protected unlike the coal and steel and shipbuilding and car manufacturing and etc etc industries.  It's my money, and yours, which is going to them. Why?

And for all those afraid of leaving without having our Free Trade Agreements in place - that's exactly what 52% of the population voted for despite it being pointed out very clearly in a leaflet delivered to every house in the UK. The question was Leave or Remain. There was no "You can send it back for a refund if you change your mind".

If there was to be another referendum (haven't we discovered they can create more problems than they might solve?), it can only be on acceptance of the Withdrawal Agreement or not. That is the only issue outstanding. Parliament, by voting to implement Article 50, accepted the result of the Referendum and that we are leaving.

I would agree with comments made earlier that those who voted to leave are more optimistic and those who voted to remain are more pessimistic of the future. That actually should make a good balance.

I remember seeing just after the Referendum that those who voted Leave were concerned about regaining sovereignty and immigration and less concerned about the economy (and they were prepared to be less well off) and that those who voted to remain were concerned about the economy and less concerned about sovereignty and immigration.  I think that rings true.

To say that people who voted to leave are stupid and did not know what they were voting for, is foolhardy. All it indicates is that 48% of the population think 52% are stupid. That's not very civilised.

All these people trying to overturn, or obstruct, the democratic decision which was taken in a free vote are just acting like 5 year old children who are throwing a tantrum because they haven't got their own way. They should be ashamed of themselves.

We don't live in a perfect world but let's, at least, live with some dignity.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 25, 2019, 08:51:38 PM
If the original referendum is overturned, I think the civil unrest which will follow will be more disruptive, and worse for the economy, than a No Deal Brexit.
After all, a no deal now will be replaced by a deal as soon as all parties see how no deal affects them.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 25, 2019, 08:54:15 PM
https://guernseypress.com/news/uk-news/2019/01/11/abbott-labour-is-committed-to-honouring-brexit-vote/

Dianne Abbot who is rumoured to be very, very, very close to Corbyn, says differently...

Labour do not have a coherent Brexit policy, they are in as many pieces as they have MPs, because each one has a different idea, what Thornberry was saying is bugg3r the manifesto.....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 25, 2019, 10:23:12 PM
what Thornberry was saying is bugg3r the manifesto.....

Is nobody allowed to change their policies unless the incumbent Government calls an election? What if the circumstances change which influenced those original policy decisions? Are you stuck with your declared manifesto forever?

You can only enact a party manifesto if your party is elected to Government, and in those circumstances you would expect the manifesto pledges to be delivered during the term of the parliament. On the other hand, if you lose an election, it doesn't really make much sense to keep marching on without at least making a few tweaks.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 25, 2019, 10:49:09 PM
I am losing the will to live now. These people are playing a huge game. They asked us to vote. We voted. All they had to do was implement that. I seriously believe a general election is needed before we do anything now. It would give the people a voice and give us the chance to bin this batch of useless politicians.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 26, 2019, 06:45:25 AM
I am with you on a General Election. Labour's talk of a second referendum is just "noises off" to try and assuage the small section of their party who are thinking of forming a breakaway group. Labour is not even saying they will push to have "Remain" as an option on a second ballot! Brexit has become all about party and not about the country.

I genuinely believe that a General Election would lead to a heavy defeat for Labour. Just hope we are given that option.
As someone who was an ardent Labour supporter, who went over to SNP in my 30's, I will vote Tory next time round (unless we have a second referendum in which case I won't vote ever again).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 26, 2019, 09:57:33 AM
Brexit has become all about party and not about the country.

Isn't that how it started?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 26, 2019, 10:07:07 AM
Exactly. I wonder just what Cameron really thinks about what history will say regarding him.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 26, 2019, 10:41:33 AM
what Thornberry was saying is bugg3r the manifesto.....

Is nobody allowed to change their policies unless the incumbent Government calls an election? What if the circumstances change which influenced those original policy decisions? Are you stuck with your declared manifesto forever?

You can only enact a party manifesto if your party is elected to Government, and in those circumstances you would expect the manifesto pledges to be delivered during the term of the parliament. On the other hand, if you lose an election, it doesn't really make much sense to keep marching on without at least making a few tweaks.

Well it is entirely up to Labour,  but if you stand for election on a manifesto but then are not elected but get a lot of votes. Then when you get the chance to honour the pledges you proceed to vote against the very things you promised then that to me is blatant dishonesty and lack of respect for your voters.  Tories are trying to honour their pledge to respect the vote,  but at every turn they are negotiating with the EU and the Labour party at the same time ( and some of their own party like Soubry and Clarke),  this was a time for a government of national unity not party politics - no wonder the EU feel bold enough to offer a terrible deal, they have so many people helping them within the UK and so much disunity.  It was made plain in the run-up to referendum that the vote would be implemented, and we as a country should not shirk Brexit because it is hard, the EU was always going to make it hard, that was why Barnier was chosen and Verhofstadt - the dyed in the wool Federalists.

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

― John F. Kennedy
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 26, 2019, 10:45:11 AM
To be honest, I don't think he'll give a toss. His tenure was bereft of any sort of success, and seems to be long forgotten already.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 26, 2019, 10:48:59 AM

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

― John F. Kennedy


That's all very well, but what if the boffins had gone away, looked at it properly, and come to the conclusion that it cannot be done?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 26, 2019, 10:50:35 AM

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

― John F. Kennedy


That's all very well, but what if the boffins had gone away, looked at it properly, and come to the conclusion that it cannot be done?

Well here is a very recent quote from Mark Carney -

“In many respects, Brexit is the first test of the new global order. It could prove the acid test of whether a way can be found to broaden the benefits of openness, while enhancing democratic accountability… [through] a better balance of local and supranational authorities.”
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 26, 2019, 10:57:54 AM

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

― John F. Kennedy


That's all very well, but what if the boffins had gone away, looked at it properly, and come to the conclusion that it cannot be done?

That is a really relevant quote. NASA was well advanced in developing mid air launched space planes as a means to get into space in the late 1950s - much as Branson is doing now. What Kennedy did was choose a short term aim - win the Space Race. The result of which was to abandon the space plane and go all in on the rocket idea, as proposed by a certain ex Nazi scientist who had been pushing the same old story to anyone who would buy it since the 1930s.

All of this led to the magnificence of Apollo and all of the scientific advances, materials , computers etc. that were produced as a result of the space program. It also led to the single most complex piece of machinery of it's time, the Space Shuttle. A seemingly fantastic machine which in actual fact was to prove to be a very expensive false dawn in space travel - which ultimately doomed us to near Earth orbit manned space missions from then until who knows when.

So whilst I think the moon landings were one of mankind's crowning achievements, they were also a huge folly and distraction, aimed simply at putting the USSR in its place. Most of the real space science achievements of the last 50 years have been achieved through unmanned spacecraft, from many different nations and groupings of nations.

Remind you of anything?

Having said all of that, I am truly a huge fan of NASA and Apollo, having grown up in the 1960s and watched it unfold live on black and white TV. I have been to the Kennedy Space Centre, visited Launch Pad 39 a and b from where the Apollo missions launched, walked under a Saturn V rocket, touched a piece of moon rock and 'chatted' with Buzz Aldrin on Twitter. My kids bought me the Lego Saturn V model for my birthday last year too and I have a copy of 'First Man' on BluRay waiting for me at home to watch, as soon as I have rewatched 'The Right Stuff'.

Apollo inspired me to become a scientist and then a computer scientist. It had many good reasons to be.

{Edited to merge two posts}
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 26, 2019, 11:03:11 AM
Well here is a very recent quote from Mark Carney -

“In many respects, Brexit is the first test of the new global order. It could prove the acid test of whether a way can be found to broaden the benefits of openness, while enhancing democratic accountability… [through] a better balance of local and supranational authorities.”

The latter part of what he said was

"Brexit can lead to a new form of international cooperation and cross-border commerce built on a better balance of local and supranational authorities. In these respects, Brexit could affect both the short and long-term global outlooks."

...and that is true, but the 'new order' is long long way from being a certainty to happen. He then went on to warn about the risk of protectionism, the natural consequence of this sort of retreat from cooperation with other countries.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 26, 2019, 11:06:44 AM
Proposed new referendum options:

1. We the British people have messed up. We have voted to leave the EU but we have installed and entrusted a totally incompetent set of fools to carry out this mission. We accept that it is a hard thing to do, and therefore we accept that we now need to bin off this bunch of muppets and try again. We will have a General Election to allow us to start again and it will be mandatory for the incoming government to implement the will of the people with a well planned, thoroughly thought through Brexit to be completed no later than Summer 2021.

2. We the British people are totally messed up. We have voted to leave the EU and despite the fact that we are led by a  totally incompetent set of fools, there is no agreed plan and nobody really knows what will happen next, we want to proceed and commit Brexit at the earliest possible opportunity. Deal or no deal. Because we don't care about what might happen to the margins of society.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 26, 2019, 02:37:43 PM
The vast majority of the unmanned space craft that have explored the universe ( and some still going since the 1970s)  have been made and  launched by USA, using the good old space rockets.  I have not heard of any being launched from a ' space plane' ? Space planes may well be a distraction ( the sort of hyped up stuff you can expect from Branson), as a way of taking multi-millionaires on a joyride to spice up their boring lives. Space is such a hostile environment and the transition from atmosphere to space and back so hard on machine and materials that truly re-useable space vehicles have a limited life anyway.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 26, 2019, 02:40:02 PM
Well here is a very recent quote from Mark Carney -

“In many respects, Brexit is the first test of the new global order. It could prove the acid test of whether a way can be found to broaden the benefits of openness, while enhancing democratic accountability… [through] a better balance of local and supranational authorities.”

The latter part of what he said was

"Brexit can lead to a new form of international cooperation and cross-border commerce built on a better balance of local and supranational authorities. In these respects, Brexit could affect both the short and long-term global outlooks."

...and that is true, but the 'new order' is long long way from being a certainty to happen. He then went on to warn about the risk of protectionism, the natural consequence of this sort of retreat from cooperation with other countries.

Protectionism is what the EU is all about,  and it is suffering for it with stagnation and lack of competitiveness .
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 26, 2019, 06:16:23 PM
Proposed new referendum options:

1. We the British people have messed up. We have voted to leave the EU but we have installed and entrusted a totally incompetent set of fools to carry out this mission. We accept that it is a hard thing to do, and therefore we accept that we now need to bin off this bunch of muppets and try again. We will have a General Election to allow us to start again and it will be mandatory for the incoming government to implement the will of the people with a well planned, thoroughly thought through Brexit to be completed no later than Summer 2021.

2. We the British people are totally messed up. We have voted to leave the EU and despite the fact that we are led by a  totally incompetent set of fools, there is no agreed plan and nobody really knows what will happen next, we want to proceed and commit Brexit at the earliest possible opportunity. Deal or no deal. Because we don't care about what might happen to the margins of society.

3. We the British people have been messed about by our two main political parties (regarding Brexit) for the last three years. We have   come to the conclusion that neither of them could  organise a piss up in a brewery and we would now like to revoke Article 50.

last edit insert (regarding Brexit)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 26, 2019, 06:39:40 PM
Proposed new referendum options:

1. We the British people have messed up. We have voted to leave the EU but we have installed and entrusted a totally incompetent set of fools to carry out this mission. We accept that it is a hard thing to do, and therefore we accept that we now need to bin off this bunch of muppets and try again. We will have a General Election to allow us to start again and it will be mandatory for the incoming government to implement the will of the people with a well planned, thoroughly thought through Brexit to be completed no later than Summer 2021.

2. We the British people are totally messed up. We have voted to leave the EU and despite the fact that we are led by a  totally incompetent set of fools, there is no agreed plan and nobody really knows what will happen next, we want to proceed and commit Brexit at the earliest possible opportunity. Deal or no deal. Because we don't care about what might happen to the margins of society.

3. We the British people have been messed about by our two main political parties for the last three years. We have   come to the conclusion that neither of them could  organise a piss up in a brewery and we would now like to revoke Article 50.

4. We the British people are apparently too stupid for our politicians to trust us with anything other than a simple binary choice. Why are there now four choices on this Referendum? What would Boris do?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 26, 2019, 06:47:58 PM
Space is such a hostile environment and the transition from atmosphere to space and back so hard on machine and materials that truly re-useable space vehicles have a limited life anyway.
That is only true if you are using the atmosphere as a braking mechanism to slow down from orbital speeds. Otherwise all these random objects launched on weather balloons to the edge of space would burn up on reentry. And they don’t.

As for the point about unmanned missions launching on rockets only, well that’s kind of my point. Kennedy pivoted launch technology away from space planes and all in on rockets. Whilst Branson is using space tourism as his initial funding model for his technology, you’d better believe that efficient and low cost access to space is a very real goal for many.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 27, 2019, 07:07:32 AM
Benjamin Disraeli apparently spoke of "Lies, Damm lies and statistics". This morning, on BBC news, Sally Bundock was interviewing a woman from one of the many "business organisations", who said that 15% of businesses had already left the UK because of Brexit, and another 15% were going to. Now to me this sounds like utter tosh, if not downright lies. There was no questioning of the figure by the BBC's economics journalist, it was just put out there for everyone to listen to. Perhaps 15% of her members? But 15% of British businesses. Come on. Show us the proof.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 27, 2019, 09:27:57 AM
Was the interviewer Alan Partridge, Jocko?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 27, 2019, 09:47:36 AM
Saw that the other night. Thought it was brilliant. Especially when he introduced Alice Clunt and see said no, it's Fluck. I near wet myself.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 27, 2019, 10:47:03 AM
Saw that the other night. Thought it was brilliant. Especially when he introduced Alice Clunt and see said no, it's Fluck. I near wet myself.
Partridge is just a perfectly balanced character, well written, the right side of cringe and discomfort, without overdoing the inner vulnerability. I can see why Steve Coogan keeps returning to him, now that he has long established acting credentials and has no need to fear being typecast any more.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinB on February 27, 2019, 01:17:12 PM
Benjamin Disraeli apparently spoke of "Lies, Damm lies and statistics". This morning, on BBC news, Sally Bundock was interviewing a woman from one of the many "business organisations", who said that 15% of businesses had already left the UK because of Brexit, and another 15% were going to. Now to me this sounds like utter tosh, if not downright lies. There was no questioning of the figure by the BBC's economics journalist, it was just put out there for everyone to listen to. Perhaps 15% of her members? But 15% of British businesses. Come on. Show us the proof.

Not too difficult to find, try this:
https://www.iod.com/news/navigating-brexit-for-business/articles/nearly-a-third-of-firms-looking-overseas-due-to-brexit
Looks like Ms Bundock’s interviewee was generalising a bit but the basic message is pretty similar. Is it “utter tosh” ? That would depend on your views about the IOD and their motives, but they’re an organisation with a reputation to protect.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 27, 2019, 02:28:13 PM
Thanks. That is what I thought. 29% OF THEIR MEMBER. Statistics tell you what they want you to hear. 90% of owners drive Hondas. According to members of ClubJazz!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 27, 2019, 02:32:01 PM
4. We the British people are apparently too stupid for our politicians to trust us with anything other than a simple binary choice. .....
That's how Westminster system is set up to operate, public gets to vote in elections & referendums then elected politicians decide what's best for us - public's view on issues not important & can be ignored
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 27, 2019, 05:14:44 PM
Thanks. That is what I thought. 29% OF THEIR MEMBER. Statistics tell you what they want you to hear. 90% of owners drive Hondas. According to members of ClubJazz!

Agree,  there are lies, damned lies and biased statistics..

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-businesses-export-eu/

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exports-to-non-eu-countries-continue-to-outstrip-eu
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 27, 2019, 05:36:22 PM
Space is such a hostile environment and the transition from atmosphere to space and back so hard on machine and materials that truly re-useable space vehicles have a limited life anyway.
That is only true if you are using the atmosphere as a braking mechanism to slow down from orbital speeds. Otherwise all these random objects launched on weather balloons to the edge of space would burn up on reentry. And they don’t.

As for the point about unmanned missions launching on rockets only, well that’s kind of my point. Kennedy pivoted launch technology away from space planes and all in on rockets. Whilst Branson is using space tourism as his initial funding model for his technology, you’d better believe that efficient and low cost access to space is a very real goal for many.

Weather balloons do not go 'into space' they never leave the atmosphere.

Any orbiting object in low earth orbit like the international space station needs to be travelling at around 17,500 miles per hour to stay in orbit ( the higher the satellite the slower they can travel to stay in orbit),  so any space vehicle that is going to service them needs to transit the space / atmosphere border at high speed.  I believe spaceX rocket module has enough fuel to decelerate and land tail first, and new Boeing module can land on the ground by using deceleration rockets, parachute and 'airbags' to cushion its final landing, but that has a limited number of uses because of wear and tear..

Virgin plane is hoping to reach height of 50 miles and about 2500mph and needs a 'mother plane' to get it to a certain height and speed,  the ISS is 400 miles and 17,500 mph -  as I said Branson is offering bored multi-millionaires sub-orbital flights,  and not progressing the technology to service space stations and satellites very much at all.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinB on February 27, 2019, 06:18:38 PM
Thanks. That is what I thought. 29% OF THEIR MEMBER.

Well, to be fair, the IOD press release doesn’t make any claim other than about their members. There is no generalisation to the wider business community; if the BBC or anyone else has put that spin on it then that would be decidedly dodgy given the small sample size. Good reason for a healthy disbelief in reported news that doesn’t allow you to check the source.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 27, 2019, 11:53:38 PM
Space is such a hostile environment and the transition from atmosphere to space and back so hard on machine and materials that truly re-useable space vehicles have a limited life anyway.
That is only true if you are using the atmosphere as a braking mechanism to slow down from orbital speeds. Otherwise all these random objects launched on weather balloons to the edge of space would burn up on reentry. And they don’t.

As for the point about unmanned missions launching on rockets only, well that’s kind of my point. Kennedy pivoted launch technology away from space planes and all in on rockets. Whilst Branson is using space tourism as his initial funding model for his technology, you’d better believe that efficient and low cost access to space is a very real goal for many.

Weather balloons do not go 'into space' they never leave the atmosphere.

Any orbiting object in low earth orbit like the international space station needs to be travelling at around 17,500 miles per hour to stay in orbit ( the higher the satellite the slower they can travel to stay in orbit),  so any space vehicle that is going to service them needs to transit the space / atmosphere border at high speed.  I believe spaceX rocket module has enough fuel to decelerate and land tail first, and new Boeing module can land on the ground by using deceleration rockets, parachute and 'airbags' to cushion its final landing, but that has a limited number of uses because of wear and tear..

Virgin plane is hoping to reach height of 50 miles and about 2500mph and needs a 'mother plane' to get it to a certain height and speed,  the ISS is 400 miles and 17,500 mph -  as I said Branson is offering bored multi-millionaires sub-orbital flights,  and not progressing the technology to service space stations and satellites very much at all.

Not really sure what you are saying here as you are simply confirming what I said...
1. Weather balloons 'go to the edge of space' is what I said. Of course they don't go into outer space. My point is that they return to Earth at low speed.
2. As does the SpaceX rocket, as would a space plane. I never said anything about the space station or launching things into orbit. However, launching a self powered satellite from a space plane at 50 miles altitude and 2500mph would be an easy thing to do.

I don't disagree with your opinion on what Branson is doing. But the thing is, often this sort of thing is how a new technology is initially funded before costs start to fall. Wasn't it bored millionaires who bought the first motor vehicles? They were hardly a practical proposition in the late 19th century were they. Requiring a chauffeur, mechanic, man with flag and all that gubbins. Everything has to start somewhere.

But I tell you what, we have gone well off topic now  8)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 28, 2019, 08:27:43 AM
But I tell you what, we have gone well off topic now  8)

Don't worry, it's quite normal on here.  ;)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 28, 2019, 09:42:52 AM
Some people have confidence in UK's performance after Brexit.
Norway's giant state investment fund has said it will increase its investment in the UK. (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47399500)



Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on February 28, 2019, 11:39:22 AM
All those who expect net migration to fall when we leave the EU have more faith in politicians than I have..

Today's news is:
"UK migration: Rise in net migration from outside EU
Net migration to the UK from countries outside the European Union has hit its highest level for 15 years, the Office for National Statistics says.

Figures show 261,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in the year ending September 2018 - the highest since 2004."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47400679


Non EU migration is totally under UK control...

And we are not controlling it...



Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on February 28, 2019, 12:33:27 PM
All those who expect net migration to fall when we leave the EU have more faith in politicians than I have..

Today's news is:
"UK migration: Rise in net migration from outside EU
Net migration to the UK from countries outside the European Union has hit its highest level for 15 years, the Office for National Statistics says.

Figures show 261,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in the year ending September 2018 - the highest since 2004."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47400679


Non EU migration is totally under UK control...

And we are not controlling it...
This is a rise in net migration from outside EU.  So has nothing at all to do with leaving the EU ???
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 28, 2019, 12:47:02 PM
I continue to be amazed the overall volume of net immigration.

In the year to September that is equivalent to the population of a city the size of Hull, Nottingham or Belfast each year. This has been the case over many years.

My worry is where do they all live? There is not a city of that size being built every year.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 28, 2019, 03:11:59 PM
All those who expect net migration to fall when we leave the EU have more faith in politicians than I have..

Today's news is:
"UK migration: Rise in net migration from outside EU
Net migration to the UK from countries outside the European Union has hit its highest level for 15 years, the Office for National Statistics says.

Figures show 261,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in the year ending September 2018 - the highest since 2004."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47400679


Non EU migration is totally under UK control...

And we are not controlling it...
This is a rise in net migration from outside EU.  So has nothing at all to do with leaving the EU ???

Seems like a bit of a condradiction here however:-

"May hails surge in non-EU migration to 15-year high as evidence of strong economy - despite pledge to drastically reduce it"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-eu-net-migration-target-brexit-economy-a8801336.html

"A big leap in immigration from outside the EU is evidence of the strength of the UK economy, Theresa May says."

The prime minister appeared relaxed about the increase – to its highest level for 15 years – while insisting she remained committed to slashing numbers to “the tens of thousands”.

The latest figures show 283,000 more people moved to the UK than left the country in the year to last September – almost three times the government target of 100,000."

latest edit- insertion of quotation marks
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 28, 2019, 03:22:47 PM
For such a weak and feeble country a lot of people want to come here.

Funny how only former EU commissioners can be honest about UK...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1090531/brexit-news-theresa-may-EU-LSE-mario-monti-eu-commissioner-video-michel-barnier

Suppose it may be that they don't have to toe the party line anymore..

Romano Prodi, one of the people who pushed for the Euro recently admitted it was a big mistake,  shame he did not have that thought ten years earlier.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on February 28, 2019, 03:29:13 PM
All those who expect net migration to fall when we leave the EU have more faith in politicians than I have..

Today's news is:
"UK migration: Rise in net migration from outside EU
Net migration to the UK from countries outside the European Union has hit its highest level for 15 years, the Office for National Statistics says.

Figures show 261,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in the year ending September 2018 - the highest since 2004."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47400679


Non EU migration is totally under UK control...

And we are not controlling it...
This is a rise in net migration from outside EU.  So has nothing at all to do with leaving the EU ???

You clearly do not understand my point.
Non EU immigration ifs out of control-- but the Government could do something about it whenever they want. EU immigration has dropped.

One of the reasons for voting Leave was to reduce immigration. but the Government is doing nothing about the immigration which they can control - non EU. They could cut it 50% tomorrow if they wanted to.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 28, 2019, 03:55:21 PM
They could cut it 50% tomorrow if they wanted to.
They could. But they don't want to. Students, who pay to study here, are classed as immigrants. Most non EU immigrants are here for particular skilled jobs. EU immigrants can just turn up.
Don't get me wrong. As a Scot I feel that immigration is the lifeblood of my country and it had nothing to do with me voting leave. Like most Scots I welcome immigrants. EU or non EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 28, 2019, 03:59:59 PM
For such a weak and feeble country a lot of people want to come here.

Funny how only former EU commissioners can be honest about UK...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1090531/brexit-news-theresa-may-EU-LSE-mario-monti-eu-commissioner-video-michel-barnier

Suppose it may be that they don't have to toe the party line anymore..

Romano Prodi, one of the people who pushed for the Euro recently admitted it was a big mistake,  shame he did not have that thought ten years earlier.

Did you post the wrong link or do you think that this is an admirable characteristic?

'British are BRUTAL'! Former commissioner ADMITS EU will be LESS competitive after Brexit "
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 28, 2019, 04:21:12 PM
For such a weak and feeble country a lot of people want to come here.

Funny how only former EU commissioners can be honest about UK...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1090531/brexit-news-theresa-may-EU-LSE-mario-monti-eu-commissioner-video-michel-barnier

Suppose it may be that they don't have to toe the party line anymore..

Romano Prodi, one of the people who pushed for the Euro recently admitted it was a big mistake,  shame he did not have that thought ten years earlier.

Did you post the wrong link or do you think that this is an admirable characteristic?

'British are BRUTAL'! Former commissioner ADMITS EU will be LESS competitive after Brexit "

Obviously not the wrong link, he is admitting that UK has been driving force behind trying to open up EU to world trade and made it more competitive.... I would like to say to EU 'missing you (EU) already' - but I would be lying.

We had to be 'brutal' to make EU more open to free trade because the EU is naturally protectionist and inward looking.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 28, 2019, 05:04:25 PM



Obviously not the wrong link, he is admitting that UK has been driving force behind trying to open up EU to world trade and made it more competitive.... I would like to say to EU 'missing you (EU) already' - but I would be lying.

We had to be 'brutal' to make EU more open to free trade because the EU is naturally protectionist and inward looking.

They are doing not too badly with organising free trade with the rest of the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 28, 2019, 05:13:18 PM
They could cut it 50% tomorrow if they wanted to.
They could. But they don't want to. Students, who pay to study here, are classed as immigrants. Most non EU immigrants are here for particular skilled jobs. EU immigrants can just turn up.
Don't get me wrong. As a Scot I feel that immigration is the lifeblood of my country and it had nothing to do with me voting leave. Like most Scots I welcome immigrants. EU or non EU.

In the run-up to referendum some remainers claimed that introducing a points-based immigration system into UK after Brexit like Australia uses would increase the UK nett immigration figure. The logic ( LOL) behind this claim was that 'Australia had higher immigration than UK',  someone tried to explain to them that they had more because they wanted more ( did that really need explaining).

I had to go through the Aussie system when we moved there ( I already had a job to go to ) and you had to prove your qualifications, financial situation ( had to have enough money to support yourself) had to go to their appointed doctors in UK for health checks ( including chest x-rays ), provide birth and marriage certificates and a statement from UK police that you had no criminal record ( had to have fingerprints taken and checked against national database).  I can tell you the system is pretty rigorous,  we seemed to be filling in the same paperwork over and over again, and I have no doubt they check the answers to see if they are consistent, and then we had to go to consulate in London for a face to face interview. 

When you think that anyone who has an EU passport can waltz into any EU country with no real checks it is pretty frightening,  and some EU countries seem eager to give immigrants a passport to show how liberal they are.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on February 28, 2019, 05:45:32 PM
a statement from UK police that you had no criminal record.
Not that long ago, that would have denied you access ;)

If ever I did want to move there, I am lucky enough to hold an Australian passport ;D
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 28, 2019, 06:04:28 PM



Obviously not the wrong link, he is admitting that UK has been driving force behind trying to open up EU to world trade and made it more competitive.... I would like to say to EU 'missing you (EU) already' - but I would be lying.

We had to be 'brutal' to make EU more open to free trade because the EU is naturally protectionist and inward looking.


They are doing not too badly with organising free trade with the rest of the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

When the UK leaves the EU it will lose all these trade agreements.
How long will it take to remake them?
Will anybody give us a better deal than we already have via the EU?
Especially if we have been "brutal" to them in the past.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 28, 2019, 06:13:40 PM
Whatever happens, we will end up with a trade agreement PDQ. It is in both our and the EU's interests.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 28, 2019, 06:15:57 PM
a statement from UK police that you had no criminal record.
Not that long ago, that would have denied you access ;)

If ever I did want to move there, I am lucky enough to hold an Australian passport ;D

The old joke about the Aussie immigration officer asking a passenger if they had a criminal record and the passenger replying ' I didn't realise you still needed one' - I would recommend not trying that at Sydney airport as immigration people are not renowned for their sense of humour...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 28, 2019, 06:25:57 PM
Whatever happens, we will end up with a trade agreement PDQ. It is in both our and the EU's interests.

Considering the fragile state of EU and especially eurozone, it is definitely in their interest - but during negotiations the EU has acted as though it had nothing to lose. If UK had not had the appeasers making so much noise we would have had a deal ages ago.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 28, 2019, 06:43:15 PM
Whatever happens, we will end up with a trade agreement PDQ. It is in both our and the EU's interests.

Thought you wanted no deal.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 28, 2019, 07:12:56 PM
Whatever happens, we will end up with a trade agreement PDQ. It is in both our and the EU's interests.

Thought you wanted no deal.

What deal do you mean?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 28, 2019, 07:31:42 PM
No deal means no deal.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 28, 2019, 07:42:51 PM
Thought you wanted no deal.
My choice would be to leave without the Withdrawal agreement then arrange a Trade agreement. Not leave with the Withdrawal agreement then arrange a Trade agreement. It is only the Withdrawal agreement I have issues with
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 28, 2019, 07:51:34 PM
Thought you wanted no deal.
My choice would be to leave without the Withdrawal agreement then arrange a Trade agreement. Not leave with the Withdrawal agreement then arrange a Trade agreement. It is only the Withdrawal agreement I have issues with
Do you think that the UK negotiators will be any more successful when it comes to negotiating a Trade Agreement than they were when negotiating a Withdrawal agreement?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 28, 2019, 08:07:05 PM
I would imaging the negotiators would be eminently capable. Their hands were tied over the withdrawal agreement by a Remain Prime Minister in a Remain Government. Once we are out all that changes.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 28, 2019, 08:08:26 PM
No deal means no deal.

The present withdrawal agreement is a crock of sh1t3 that nobody in their right mind would sign up to..

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2019/02/25/why-the-withdrawal-agreement-is-bad-for-the-uk/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 28, 2019, 08:10:34 PM
I would imaging the negotiators would be eminently capable. Their hands were tied over the withdrawal agreement by a Remain Prime Minister in a Remain Government. Once we are out all that changes.

And the EU would not get a penny of the £39billion -
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 28, 2019, 08:44:53 PM
The present withdrawal agreement is a crock of sh1t3 that nobody in their right mind would sign up to.


The Plan

In the beginning was the Plan.

And then came the Assumptions.

And the Assumptions were without form.

And darkness was upon the face of the Workers.

And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of **********, and it stinketh."

And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odour thereof."

And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."

And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, "It is a vessel of fertiliser, and none may abide its strength."

And the Directors spoke amongst themselves, saying one to another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."

And the Directors then went onto the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, "It promotes growth and is very powerful."

And the Vice Presidents went unto the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigour of the company; with powerful effects."

And the President looked upon the Plan, and saw that it was good.

And the Plan became Policy.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 28, 2019, 09:28:50 PM
I would imaging the negotiators would be eminently capable. Their hands were tied over the withdrawal agreement by a Remain Prime Minister in a Remain Government. Once we are out all that changes.
Aye right
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 28, 2019, 09:40:29 PM
Aye right
Lovely bit of debate.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 28, 2019, 09:45:21 PM
The present withdrawal agreement is a crock of sh1t3 that nobody in their right mind would sign up to.


The Plan

In the beginning was the Plan.

And then came the Assumptions.

And the Assumptions were without form.

And darkness was upon the face of the Workers.

And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of **********, and it stinketh."

And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odour thereof."

And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."

And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, "It is a vessel of fertiliser, and none may abide its strength."

And the Directors spoke amongst themselves, saying one to another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."

And the Directors then went onto the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, "It promotes growth and is very powerful."

And the Vice Presidents went unto the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigour of the company; with powerful effects."

And the President looked upon the Plan, and saw that it was good.

And the Plan became Policy.
Very poetic but I believe that the plan was conceived by wealthy public schoolboys who thought they could make a lot of money by throwing ********** into a fan.
Not being completely daft and not wishing to get their hands dirty they enlisted a group of scallies from the local comprehensive to do the actual deed.
The adults around them could foresee the result and tried to warn them.
Unfortunately the boys were now intoxicated with power and refused to listen.


Last edit remove typo
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 28, 2019, 10:58:24 PM
Aye right
Lovely bit of debate.
Sorry.
Your faith in the likes of Mogg, Redwood, Bone, Johnson, Davis, Raab etc. is incomprehensible to me
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 01, 2019, 07:42:31 AM


The present withdrawal agreement is a crock of sh1t3 that nobody in their right mind would sign up to..


Agreed. But it's still a lot better than no deal.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 01, 2019, 08:12:30 AM
Your faith in the likes of Mogg, Redwood, Bone, Johnson, Davis, Raab etc. is incomprehensible to me
They are not the negotiators. The actual negotiations are done by the "brutal" civil servants. All Davis and Raab did was set policy dictated to them by the Remainer PM and government.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 01, 2019, 01:52:55 PM
Nick Timothy, who was Theresa May's right-hand man in her first year in office, says he is "sad" about how she has handled the Brexit negotiations, in his first TV interview.

He tells the BBC's Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg that while he respects Mrs May, she and other ministers are treating Brexit as a "damage limitation exercise" and are "struggling to see any economic upside".


Basically, what I have been saying all along.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 01, 2019, 02:59:37 PM
Nick Timothy, who was Theresa May's right-hand man in her first year in office, says he is "sad" about how she has handled the Brexit negotiations, in his first TV interview.

He tells the BBC's Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg that while he respects Mrs May, she and other ministers are treating Brexit as a "damage limitation exercise" and are "struggling to see any economic upside".


Basically, what I have been saying all along.

If Mrs May and her ministers, who are working full time on this, are struggling to see any economic upside, perhaps it means that there is no economic upside.
(except for the disaster capitalists)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 01, 2019, 03:18:21 PM
Nick Timothy, who was Theresa May's right-hand man in her first year in office, says he is "sad" about how she has handled the Brexit negotiations, in his first TV interview.

He tells the BBC's Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg that while he respects Mrs May, she and other ministers are treating Brexit as a "damage limitation exercise" and are "struggling to see any economic upside".


Basically, what I have been saying all along.

If Mrs May and her ministers, who are working full time on this, are struggling to see any economic upside, perhaps it means that there is no economic upside.
(except for the disaster capitalists)

Just found much the same take on it in the Guardian :-

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/01/brexit-latest-news-theresa-may-faces-further-backlash-over-decision-to-give-mps-vote-on-extending-article-50-politics-live?page=with:block-5c793026e4b09f04c9ee1d97#block-5c793026e4b09f04c9ee1d97
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 01, 2019, 03:21:23 PM
Nick Timothy, who was Theresa May's right-hand man in her first year in office, says he is "sad" about how she has handled the Brexit negotiations, in his first TV interview.

He tells the BBC's Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg that while he respects Mrs May, she and other ministers are treating Brexit as a "damage limitation exercise" and are "struggling to see any economic upside".


Basically, what I have been saying all along.

If Mrs May and her ministers, who are working full time on this, are struggling to see any economic upside, perhaps it means that there is no economic upside.
(except for the disaster capitalists)

Theresa May appears to be someone with little imagination, and no negotiating skills. In fact 'Theresa the appeaser' is an apt title.

Theresa May is a Remainer trying to appear as a leaver, but she won't be getting an Oscar for this performance. Our MPs have just been given a nice pay rise,  but definitely not performance related as a lot of them do not seem to understand how democracy works.

Once again the remain camp conjuring up the darkest possible outcomes.. not a single sign of optimism, now the people who voted leave are apparently the lackies of the rich people..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 01, 2019, 04:50:19 PM
Nick Timothy, who was Theresa May's right-hand man in her first year in office, says he is "sad" about how she has handled the Brexit negotiations, in his first TV interview.

He tells the BBC's Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg that while he respects Mrs May, she and other ministers are treating Brexit as a "damage limitation exercise" and are "struggling to see any economic upside".


Basically, what I have been saying all along.

If Mrs May and her ministers, who are working full time on this, are struggling to see any economic upside, perhaps it means that there is no economic upside.
(except for the disaster capitalists)
There is no economic upside of brexit, was never going to be except for a select few short term (disaster capitalists etc) oh & tax avoiders being immune from new pan-EU tax avoidance laws which member governments will be implementing soon.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 01, 2019, 10:30:14 PM
Just to lighten the tone a little :'(

For those who want a "deal" rather than no agreement (Deal - No Deal), they might just want to be sure they know what they are actually signing up to with the Withdrawal Agreement.
 
1. From 29 March the UK will be under the de facto jurisdiction of a group of 27 foreign powers, with no
ability to veto laws or procedures affecting our country and its citizens

2. The EU27 can make decisions in Council behind closed doors, with no published minutes, which would
profoundly affect British businesses, citizens, and the economy

3. The EU27 could even impose new taxes on the UK, and Parliament could do nothing about it

4. The EU27 could cripple the vitally-important UK financial sector, with new taxes and regulations

5. A major part of the Agreement (the Northern Irish Protocol) locks the UK into a permanent customs union
with the EU, with no unilateral right of the UK to terminate

6. The Northern Ireland Protocol requires the Province to obey existing and new Single Market rules, with
no say over them, and effectively splits off Northern Ireland into being a colony of the EU and the
Republic, thereby breaking the United Kingdom in two

7. The UK will have no right to do international free trade deals – a key economic benefit of Brexit – because
it must stick to protectionist EU tariffs. The British public cannot benefit from an independent trade policy
resulting in much cheaper imported goods, nor can our exporters thrive

8. Any new EU trade agreements would require the UK to match the new lower tariffs, but the countries
involved would not be required to reciprocate in respect of the UK

9. The UK would remain under the jurisdiction of the ECJ until at least the end of 2020 and the agreement
makes provision to extend this until 2022

10. In some parts of the law, British courts would have to obey the ECJ for over 100 years - the lifetimes of as
yet unborn children

11. The UK would not be a truly sovereign nation in the lifetimes of all reading this

12. The Agreement means the UK paying at least £39 billion, despite there being no legal obligation to pay
anything like that amount, and with no new UK-EU trade deal guaranteed in return

13. The final amount taken from British taxpayers would be decided by the EU, and the UK would have no say
because the ECJ would rule on this

14. Other aspects of the Agreement and Political Declaration would adversely affect the UK’s autonomy in
fishing, defence, foreign policy, competition law, state aid and many other areas of life

15. The Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration together lock the UK into a continuing and
subservient relationship with the EU, agreeing to match and “build upon” current arrangements, giving
away money, sovereignty, laws, and even decisions on the very composition of the United Kingdom itself.

© Brexit Facts4EU.Org, 28 Feb 2019


Whether people voted to Remain or Leave, no one voted for an agreement like the proposed Withdrawal Agreement.

I hope we can all agree on that.


https://facts4eu.org/static/media/15_reasons_withdrawal_agreement_is_abomination.pdf
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 02, 2019, 08:00:37 AM
The government have backed themselves into a corner where they must now choose between a sh1t deal and an even sh1tt13r no deal.

No wonder Donald Tusk said "I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted #Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely."

There must be a better way.





Last edit insert inverted commas
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MicktheMonster on March 02, 2019, 08:46:29 AM
I did vote to leave when given the option, but I wasn't overly bothered which way the vote went and had there not been a referendum in the first case I wouldn't have cared about it. However now the decision is made I am seriously annoyed, angered, dismayed and dissapointed by the way negotiations have been conducted by both the government and the EU. The government appear to be a complete bunch of incompetent buffoons (Labour are no better) and the EU seem intransigent to the point they are willing to damage their own economies in order to damage ours as some sort of 'punishment' for having the audacity to choose leave when we were asked.

I never understood why we paid money to EU so they could give it to poorer EU countries to improve their infrastructures so their industries could be more competitive against ours, whilst at the same time we had no control of the amount of citizens from these countries that came to the UK and overloaded our social, education and health services.

As bad deal or bad no-deal appear to be the current options we may as well have a bad no-deal and save 39 billion quid.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on March 02, 2019, 09:32:45 AM
I did vote to leave when given the option, but I wasn't overly bothered which way the vote went and had there not been a referendum in the first case I wouldn't have cared about it. However now the decision is made I am seriously annoyed, angered, dismayed and dissapointed by the way negotiations have been conducted by both the government and the EU. The government appear to be a complete bunch of incompetent buffoons (Labour are no better) and the EU seem intransigent to the point they are willing to damage their own economies in order to damage ours as some sort of 'punishment' for having the audacity to choose leave when we were asked.

I never understood why we paid money to EU so they could give it to poorer EU countries to improve their infrastructures so their industries could be more competitive against ours, whilst at the same time we had no control of the amount of citizens from these countries that came to the UK and overloaded our social, education and health services.

As bad deal or bad no-deal appear to be the current options we may as well have a bad no-deal and save 39 billion quid.
+1
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 02, 2019, 09:39:39 AM
12. The Agreement means the UK paying at least £39 billion, despite there being no legal obligation to pay
anything like that amount, and with no new UK-EU trade deal guaranteed in return

That is certainly quite wrong.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 02, 2019, 11:14:24 AM

I never understood why we paid money to EU so they could give it to poorer EU countries to improve their infrastructures so their industries could be more competitive against ours, whilst at the same time we had no control of the amount of citizens from these countries that came to the UK and overloaded our social, education and health services.

As bad deal or bad no-deal appear to be the current options we may as well have a bad no-deal and save 39 billion quid.

It's not a zero sum game. If we help other countries to become prosperous it means they will have more to trade with us.
It will however mean that they will be less likely to come and work here for cheap wages but I thought that reducing immigration was another objective of Brexit . So it was win win.
We will still be obliged to pay the £39 billion. This is for EU projects to which we are already committed.
See Sparky Paul's link above.

last edit typo
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 02, 2019, 02:47:17 PM
12. The Agreement means the UK paying at least £39 billion, despite there being no legal obligation to pay
anything like that amount, and with no new UK-EU trade deal guaranteed in return

That is certainly quite wrong.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill

Guess what,  if we leave without a deal the ECJ no longer has any jurisdiction over us ( we are no longer a member),  so who they gonna call ? 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1081066/brexit-news-latest-brexit-divorce-bill-european-court-of-justice-ecj

A house of Lords select committee decided years ago that we had no bill to pay,  we have so much money tied up in buildings and infra structure in the EU that they actually owe us money.  The £39billion is a goodwill payment,  but seeing as there has been very little goodwill from EU I guess £100 should cover that.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/uk-could-quit-eu-without-paying-a-penny-say-lords

Paying in money to EU to boost infrastructure in countries they have 'taken over' means more trade for EU countries,  but also more competition,  but then again it gives the EU somewhere to move industries from UK ( much of it paid for by our money under the cover of 'development grants' and rumour has it that the EU development grants are so poorly supervised that they are a nice little earner for organised crime,  the Mafia pocket alone millions of Euro.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9376202/Italy-repays-307-million-to-EU-after-road-project-mafia-corruption-exposed.html

The EU even ordered a study of the amount 'siphoned off' LOL

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201207/20120717ATT49041/20120717ATT49041EN.pdf
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 02, 2019, 03:30:14 PM
OOOh look, JLR are making big investment in UK - and despite the Brexit doomsayers, 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47420267
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 02, 2019, 03:40:39 PM
I saw that, yesterday. No job numbers as yet though.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 02, 2019, 04:23:26 PM
12. The Agreement means the UK paying at least £39 billion, despite there being no legal obligation to pay
anything like that amount, and with no new UK-EU trade deal guaranteed in return

That is certainly quite wrong.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill

Guess what,  if we leave without a deal the ECJ no longer has any jurisdiction over us ( we are no longer a member),  so who they gonna call ? 



From SP's link :-Even if we’re required to pay the divorce bill, who’s going to stop us if we don’t? After all, if there’s no deal, we’ll be completely free of the European courts – right?

Professor Begg again: “This is where the question of jurisdiction comes in.” It doesn’t have to be taken through in a European court, “it could be the International Court in The Hague, which could rule that Britain is required to make the payment”.

Emily Reid, Professor of International Economic Law at Southampton, told FactCheck that “as a matter of international law [she cites the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties] whether we leave the EU with or without a deal, the UK bears those liabilities and commitments, and resultant financial obligations, and legally is required to execute them.”

In other words, deal or no deal, the EU could still sue us over the divorce payment if we don’t pay up – and is likely to, given the huge amounts involved.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 02, 2019, 04:25:59 PM
12. The Agreement means the UK paying at least £39 billion, despite there being no legal obligation to pay
anything like that amount, and with no new UK-EU trade deal guaranteed in return

That is certainly quite wrong.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill

Guess what,  if we leave without a deal the ECJ no longer has any jurisdiction over us ( we are no longer a member),  so who they gonna call ? 

I would refer you to the link I posted.

Quote
David Davis and others have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels.

A House of Lords report from 2017 says that we won’t be bound by EU law after Brexit, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But that report is contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still bound to our financial commitments under international law.

And it’s worth remembering that even beyond the legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations is likely to make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, politically impossible.

Quote
Even if we’re required to pay the divorce bill, who’s going to stop us if we don’t? After all, if there’s no deal, we’ll be completely free of the European courts – right?

Professor Begg again: “This is where the question of jurisdiction comes in.” It doesn’t have to be taken through in a European court, “it could be the International Court in The Hague, which could rule that Britain is required to make the payment”.


Do you honestly think we could put two fingers up and refuse to pay these legal liabilities? The UK Government has already acknowledged the fact that we will have to settle the 'divorce bill', even if we leave with no deal.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 02, 2019, 05:04:03 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/britain-will-get-money-back-eu-instead-paying-leave-plans-considered/

What happened to all the UK money that EU used to build infrastructure etc. It is a bit like cancelling your gym membership and being asked to pay a lump sum before you can leave that will be used to continue to pay for other people to carry on using the facilities.

We have also contributed about £9billion to ECB, so the bill is only £30billion now...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 02, 2019, 05:43:57 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/britain-will-get-money-back-eu-instead-paying-leave-plans-considered/

What happened to all the UK money that EU used to build infrastructure etc. It is a bit like cancelling your gym membership and being asked to pay a lump sum before you can leave that will be used to continue to pay for other people to carry on using the facilities.

 What happened to 2017?
The Brexiteers were still making pie in the sky promises then.

 "On 11 July 2016, David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, wrote that within two years the UK could “negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU”. As recently as 20 July 2017, Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary, predicted that a new British trade deal with the EU would be “one of the easiest in human history”. "

This is an extract from November 2018 which sums things up pretty well
  https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/11/brexiteers-only-have-themselves-blame-uk-s-disastrous-fate

When will reality set in?

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 02, 2019, 05:51:54 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/britain-will-get-money-back-eu-instead-paying-leave-plans-considered/

What happened to all the UK money that EU used to build infrastructure etc. It is a bit like cancelling your gym membership and being asked to pay a lump sum before you can leave that will be used to continue to pay for other people to carry on using the facilities.

We have also contributed about £9billion to ECB, so the bill is only £30billion now...

Another old fantasy piece from the Telegraph, from back when we were promised "the easiest trade deal in history".

I'm afraid this argument is totally academic, the sum has already been negotiated and agreed by both parties.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 02, 2019, 06:40:44 PM
Part of the £39bn is to cover the Transition period. We would not have to pay that.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: gtd2000 on March 02, 2019, 07:29:35 PM
I think we have to be realistic:

1. Brexit was never meant to happen.
2. The EU has a habit of getting their way.
3. The Negotiating team are "facilitating" more of point 1 and 2.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 02, 2019, 07:37:57 PM
And Nicola thinks she will win a second Indyref !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on March 02, 2019, 07:41:41 PM
Being realistic:

1. We don't agree with one another
2. The journalists don't agree
3. The so called experts don't agree
3. The politicians don't agree.

What are the chances of this ending well?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 02, 2019, 08:04:44 PM
Being realistic:

1. We don't agree with one another
2. The journalists don't agree
3. The so called experts don't agree
3. The politicians don't agree.

What are the chances of this ending well?

Not high, I suspect.

Whatever the outcome, somewhere between 50% and 100% of the population are going to be unhappy.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 02, 2019, 08:17:32 PM
Near 100 I suspect.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 02, 2019, 08:38:44 PM
Near 100 I suspect.

Quite possibly. Unless there is either a no-deal brexit, or no brexit at all... when surely somebody is bound to be happy.  ;)

At least May's deal will unite the country in disgust.  :D
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 02, 2019, 08:46:34 PM
Near 100 I suspect.

Quite possibly. Unless there is either a no-deal brexit, or no brexit at all... when surely somebody is bound to be happy.  ;)

At least May's deal will unite the country in disgust.  :D

But in one case I suspect it will be very short lived. >:(

Agreed :(

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/22/mps-pile-on-from-all-sides-to-trash-mays-brexit-non-deal-deal :D

Even more appropriate
 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/29/after-two-years-of-no-progress-whatsoever-bring-on-plan-c-minus
 :D ;D

Latest edit Add link
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 07, 2019, 03:58:41 PM
It was announced today that the European parliament to keep Scotland office after Brexit. Do they know something we don't?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 08, 2019, 06:42:24 AM
The European Central Bank has had to introduce a round of fresh stimulus, offering banks cheap loans to try to help revive the economy. This comes amid evidence of a slowdown in the 19 countries using the single currency. So all is not rosy in the Eurozone garden.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 08, 2019, 11:54:29 AM
The European Central Bank has had to introduce a round of fresh stimulus, offering banks cheap loans to try to help revive the economy. This comes amid evidence of a slowdown in the 19 countries using the single currency. So all is not rosy in the Eurozone garden.

The Euro currency is described by most economists as 'a slow motion economic train crash'.  Good for Germany but economic catastrophe for the other users.. They could have been honest and called it the Deustchemark ...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 09, 2019, 09:14:53 AM
More Project Fear 2 stirred up by the BBC. Don't doubt the accuracy, just the sentiment at this time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47459859 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47459859)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 09, 2019, 09:19:15 AM
Another remain ploy to stop brexit goes down in flames..

https://order-order.com/2019/03/08/judge-crushes-remainers-claims-referendum-result-invalid/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 09, 2019, 09:42:57 AM
Looks like Barnier has resurrected the old chestnut that even even arch-remainer mother Theresa rejected outright last year,  and he tried to spin it as an EU concession.  His latest tweets that UK need not be trapped in a customs union because England, Wales and Scotland can leave anytime and leave NI in the union ( the old 'border down the Irish sea' proposal ).

The more this border issue goes on the more convinced I become that Varadkar and EU have done a deal to re-unify Ireland.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 09, 2019, 10:14:51 AM
The more this border issue goes on the more convinced I become that Varadkar and EU have done a deal to re-unify Ireland.
I have to agree with you. Mind you, sometimes I don't think it would be a bad thing.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 09, 2019, 11:01:38 AM
More Project Fear 2 stirred up by the BBC. Don't doubt the accuracy, just the sentiment at this time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47459859 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47459859)

I thought the situation with driving in foreign lands was already well known? Seems a bit odd to be pumping it out again, but the BBC is the Government's mouthpiece.

I'm guessing "Project Fear 1" was the threat of impending economic recession immediately after the no vote. You know, the one the Bank of England had to pump in £170billion of economic stimulus to avoid.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 09, 2019, 11:12:27 AM
The more this border issue goes on the more convinced I become that Varadkar and EU have done a deal to re-unify Ireland.
I have to agree with you. Mind you, sometimes I don't think it would be a bad thing.

Northern Ireland voted by 56%-44% to remain in the EU. Only the DUP wanted to  leave. Reunification will happen in the next few years.
The Irish border difficulty is the UK's making. It's up to the UK to sort it out and no amount of magic technology thinking is going to do that.

As with most other things the Brexiteers have been hoist with their own petard.

Correction They have shafted us with their petard.

Last edit Added Correction

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 09, 2019, 11:30:09 AM
Another remain ploy to stop brexit goes down in flames..

https://order-order.com/2019/03/08/judge-crushes-remainers-claims-referendum-result-invalid/

Or Vote Leave get off on technicality

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/did-vote-leave-break-spending-limits/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/corrupt-vote-leave-campaign-undermines-brexit-vote-court-told

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on March 09, 2019, 01:00:29 PM
Northern Ireland voted by 56%-44% to remain in the EU. Only the DUP wanted to  leave. Reunification will happen in the next few years.

Is than not what the backstop is for ;).  The Government of Ireland Act 1920 should have sorted it out (a bit like the split of Pakistan and India).  We British are good at that kind of thing :)   Then along came the Irish War of Independence.  I guess this will be the next chapter.  So only a couple of years to go for Reunification.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 09, 2019, 03:20:59 PM
Another remain ploy to stop brexit goes down in flames..

https://order-order.com/2019/03/08/judge-crushes-remainers-claims-referendum-result-invalid/

Or Vote Leave get off on technicality

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/did-vote-leave-break-spending-limits/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/corrupt-vote-leave-campaign-undermines-brexit-vote-court-told

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/

Here is another technicality for you, the remain campaign received an extra £9million pounds of taxpayers money ( the ' vote remain or else' leaflets dropped through every houses letterbox ) , plus an unknown amount of BBC ( biased broadcasting company) licence payers money..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 09, 2019, 03:26:36 PM
I'm guessing "Project Fear 1" was the threat of impending economic recession immediately after the no vote.
Project Fear 1 was the Indy referendum.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 09, 2019, 03:31:10 PM
More Project Fear 2 stirred up by the BBC. Don't doubt the accuracy, just the sentiment at this time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47459859 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47459859)

I thought the situation with driving in foreign lands was already well known? Seems a bit odd to be pumping it out again, but the BBC is the Government's mouthpiece.

I'm guessing "Project Fear 1" was the threat of impending economic recession immediately after the no vote. You know, the one the Bank of England had to pump in £170billion of economic stimulus to avoid.

UK economy has grown faster than any country in EU since referendum, has less unemployment than any of them except Germany.

The IMF have changed their tune as well in the face of hard facts rather than biased ' projections ' where you can alter the result of computer model depending upon your ( normally worst case + + ) assumptions.

https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/imf-uk-will-fastest-growing-european-g7-country-brexit/

Also ECB have been doing a bit of stimulating themselves, without which the Eurozone would certainly have been in recession years ago ( and UK contributes to ECB ). But they only delayed the inevitable recession a few years. The Euro is a case of ' one size does not fit all, it only fits Germany'

https://www.newsweek.com/ecb-pump-eu1-trillion-euro-economy-301227
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 09, 2019, 05:16:34 PM


UK economy has grown faster than any country in EU since referendum, has less unemployment than any of them except Germany.

The IMF have changed their tune as well in the face of hard facts rather than biased ' projections ' where you can alter the result of computer model depending upon your ( normally worst case + + ) assumptions.

https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/imf-uk-will-fastest-growing-european-g7-country-brexit/


The UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the last three months of 2016. Since then it has fallen to be the slowest along with Italy.

https://obr.uk/box/g7-growth-investment-since-eu-referendum/

The projections have proved to be roughly correct although the timing might have been out and as SP pointed out there was an injectionof cash from the BoE immediately after the referendum.

Your link refers to a "projection" and appears to be from a rather biased source judging from its other articles.

We haven't left yet.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 09, 2019, 06:19:23 PM
I'm guessing "Project Fear 1" was the threat of impending economic recession immediately after the no vote.
Project Fear 1 was the Indy referendum.

It was a serious error of judgement of Cameron's to try the same trick twice.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 09, 2019, 07:25:55 PM
Dirty Barstewards are at it again

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/13/dark-money-hard-brexit-targeted-ads-facebook
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/09/obscure-no-deal-brexit-group-is-uks-biggest-political-spender-on-facebook

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 10, 2019, 08:41:36 AM
Dirty Barstewards are at it again

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/13/dark-money-hard-brexit-targeted-ads-facebook
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/09/obscure-no-deal-brexit-group-is-uks-biggest-political-spender-on-facebook

What makes you laugh is that some of these MPs that are being targetted are in remain voting constituencies. So much for "the will of the people".
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 10, 2019, 10:45:15 AM
As was said on Andrew Marr this morning, as we are not in a campaign at the moment, this spending is perfectly legal. They also pointed out that it doesn't appear to be influencing the targeted recipients.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on March 10, 2019, 11:11:30 AM
Legal it might be but surely money from anonymous sources shouldn't be allowed to be used in this way.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 10, 2019, 11:36:09 AM
Legal it might be but surely money from anonymous sources shouldn't be allowed to be used in this way.

I agree, legal, but immoral. Particularly when it is open to players around the world which have a vested interest in destabilising the region politically.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 10, 2019, 12:19:07 PM
They also pointed out that it doesn't appear to be influencing the targeted recipients.

Then why are they spending all that money?
Targetting individuals with internet advertisements and messages worked the last time during the referendum.
Let's hope that like Cameron's project fear it will only work once.
I notice that TM has finally succeeded in uniting the country. (632 - 0 against her deal)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-deal-mp-house-of-commons-eu-brussels-peoples-vote-a8815826.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on March 10, 2019, 01:36:13 PM
I notice that TM has finally succeeded in uniting the country. (632 - 0 against her deal)

"No majority of voters in any of the 632 constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales want their MP to back Theresa May's deal"

That's not the same as saying "The majority of voters in any of the 632 constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales don't want their MP to back Theresa May's deal"

Just saying.  Journalists word things for the best impact.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 10, 2019, 03:18:00 PM
There is a poll out today saying 44% of participants would be happy to leave with "No deal".
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 10, 2019, 04:17:41 PM
There is a poll out today saying 44% of participants would be happy to leave with "No deal".

Yes I saw that too,  people are fed up with the expected EU bullying tactics, they certainly have not been negotiating in good faith.

Make no mistake the EU is fighting for its very survival at the moment, the Euro is on its knees, and has been kept alive this long by massive life-support injections of cash from ECB. The economic recession is well and truly a fact of life, the rise of what the EU call populism ( and what everyone else calls democracy) in the EU is against all their principles of countries not being allowed any meaningful say in how the EU is run.   The Politburo dogma of 'more Europe' ( being chanted by Macron as a diversion from his other troubles, like a stagnant economy and civil war) is being turned upon by more and more of EU member states who are fed up of EU micro-meddling in their affairs...

There will be some short term pain from a no-deal,  but it will be more than worth it..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 10, 2019, 04:27:25 PM
Some clarification here on tariffs. Basically, just what I have been espousing all along.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47458922 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47458922)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 10, 2019, 07:48:17 PM
Some clarification here on tariffs. Basically, just what I have been espousing all along.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47458922 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47458922)
UK can drop them but that would damage parts of UK economy, destroy others
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 10, 2019, 07:51:26 PM
There will be some short term pain from a no-deal,  but it will be more than worth it..
worth it how? long term damage that might not be repairable is more like it re: a no deal.
Short (to medium) term pain would be softest of soft brexits
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 10, 2019, 08:03:43 PM
There will be some short term pain from a no-deal,  but it will be more than worth it..

For who?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 10, 2019, 08:30:14 PM
UK can drop them but that would damage parts of UK economy, destroy others
No. Only if they dropped tariffs on goods we manufacture here in the UK. Who would be daft enough to do that? Oh, I forgot, the UK government.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 10, 2019, 08:44:54 PM
UK can drop them but that would damage parts of UK economy, destroy others
No. Only if they dropped tariffs on goods we manufacture here in the UK. Who would be daft enough to do that? Oh, I forgot, the UK government.
Farming is the obvious one.
Agree with your opinion of UK politicians.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 10, 2019, 08:56:01 PM
An interesting discussion on "The Papers", on the BBC today. One of the foreign correspondents said, that according to some German and French business organisations, a no deal Brexit would hit them harder than it would the UK, "by an order of magnitude". I was unable to catch the groups they mentioned (like our CBI), but anyone interested should be able to find it on the i-Player.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 10, 2019, 10:51:46 PM
An interesting discussion on "The Papers", on the BBC today. One of the foreign correspondents said, that according to some German and French business organisations, a no deal Brexit would hit them harder than it would the UK, "by an order of magnitude". I was unable to catch the groups they mentioned (like our CBI), but anyone interested should be able to find it on the i-Player.
The UK papers, or their owners, are responsible for a lot of the misinformation and agitation in this country.
Presumably European countries have their counterparts - maybe even the same owners.
A lot depends on which papers you choose to believe.

Why is it so important that a no deal Brexit hurts "them" more than "us"?
Surely it is better to act in everybody's best interests.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 11, 2019, 06:57:28 AM
Why is it so important that a no deal Brexit hurts "them" more than "us"?
Surely it is better to act in everybody's best interests.
Without a doubt, but the conscientious of the the Remainers on this site is that we will suffer more than the EU. My post was to help redress the balance.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 11, 2019, 09:37:41 AM
Why is it so important that a no deal Brexit hurts "them" more than "us"?
Surely it is better to act in everybody's best interests.

It is much better to act in your own best interests, that is the whole object of negotiating - something this lackluster remain PM does not seem to be capable of. It does not help when you have remain MP's who fail to grasp the meaning of, 'majority',  'democracy' and 'one man, one vote' (you can substitute person for man  ::) ).

I don't know what happened to 'collective responsibility' in the cabinet, some people like Rudd and Hammond are just doing their own thing and undermining things, the fact that Rudd is still in the cabinet speaks volumes about how mother Theresa really thinks.   Theresa May deal is BRINO - and the repeated bleats from remainers in Parliament and Lords to 'take no-deal off the table, but leave remain on' and 'we need a second vote' do nothing but embolden the EU to not budge on their dodgy deal, if only the members had put up a unified cohesive front to EU we would have been in a much better position now, but instead they played politics.

Remainers love to play 'any catastrophe you can do I can do better', maybe they need to put Prozac in the countries water supply  :o
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 11, 2019, 02:02:01 PM
Why is it so important that a no deal Brexit hurts "them" more than "us"?
Surely it is better to act in everybody's best interests.

It is much better to act in your own best interests, that is the whole object of negotiating - something this lackluster remain PM does not seem to be capable of. It does not help when you have remain MP's who fail to grasp the meaning of, 'majority',  'democracy' and 'one man, one vote' (you can substitute person for man  ::) ).

I don't know what happened to 'collective responsibility' in the cabinet, some people like Rudd and Hammond are just doing their own thing and undermining things, the fact that Rudd is still in the cabinet speaks volumes about how mother Theresa really thinks.   Theresa May deal is BRINO - and the repeated bleats from remainers in Parliament and Lords to 'take no-deal off the table, but leave remain on' and 'we need a second vote' do nothing but embolden the EU to not budge on their dodgy deal, if only the members had put up a unified cohesive front to EU we would have been in a much better position now, but instead they played politics.

Remainers love to play 'any catastrophe you can do I can do better', maybe they need to put Prozac in the countries water supply  :o
It's not EU's dodgy deal, it's Theresa May's dodgy deal - a deal that isn't even properly worked out. Real negotiations haven't even begun yet & as you can't do deals with individual EU states things are going to get much, much harder for UK. Can see Tories implode long before they could scrape themselves together into 1 cohesive path & Labour's dream of rewriting exit deal is also doomed, mostly as it's way, way too late. ONLY eventuality UK is prepared for is No Brexit - but that would nuke Tory party & most of Labour too - perhaps UK is heading for decades of coalition politics with no party controlling things, politics of compromise forced on westminster. Westminster acting in everybody's best interest would be a welcome change - but sadly won't come unless forced!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 11, 2019, 02:13:57 PM
Olly Robbins' dodgy deal.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 11, 2019, 02:34:48 PM
If there is a coalition then Nigel Farage Brexit party will be in there in a big way,  the existing parties are just not fit for purpose any more and certainly do not reflect the mood in present day UK.

As for the supposed unity of EU,  the cracks are visible from space,  we already have a deal with Swiss and when the economic consequences start to set in the cracks will be visible from the moon and individual countries will start to do deals - watch this space..  The EU political fanatics have badly let down the business people in EU,  and it will come back to bite them in the bum when more and more countries start to wonder how bad it is gonna get with EU stagnating and at the same time the political animals micro-managing their countries affairs from their thrones in Brussels. 
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 11, 2019, 03:19:49 PM
If there is a coalition then Nigel Farage Brexit party will be in there in a big way
I'm already signed up to it - in expectation.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 11, 2019, 03:50:26 PM
If there is a coalition then Nigel Farage Brexit party will be in there in a big way
I'm already signed up to it - in expectation.
I've said it before but I think you guys live in a parallel universe to me.
Has Nigel Farage ever done anything constructive?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 11, 2019, 05:14:27 PM
If there is a coalition then Nigel Farage Brexit party will be in there in a big way
I'm already signed up to it - in expectation.
I've said it before but I think you guys live in a parallel universe to me.
Has Nigel Farage ever done anything constructive?
Farage is just a failed ex-Tory politician, a publicity junky who once headed a single issue party that gets too much attention ... but compared to current crop of Tories he's balanced!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 11, 2019, 05:44:11 PM
who once headed a single issue party
It is the one issue that concerns me!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 11, 2019, 08:20:08 PM
Anybody else watching Ch 4 Brexit millionaires?
Very revealing
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 11, 2019, 08:32:47 PM
Anybody else watching Ch 4 Brexit millionaires?
Very revealing

Of course it's also on again at 9PM on 4+1, if anyone's missed it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on March 11, 2019, 08:53:09 PM
The thing about something like the EU is it only really works if you are all in. Everyone. All the constituent countries.

But we never really were. So on balance, our only choice was to go further in or leave.

With countries like Greece and others not really playing the game - I mean come on, do they work to the same health and safety standards as us, or building regs, for example - we would always be saying 'it’s not fair'. Why should we meet the exacting standards and be a nett contributor if others are swinging the lead.

Similarly, on refugees, Italy or Malta, for example, might say 'why do we have to support all these refugees/migrants while the UK sits behind the White Cliffs of Dover and picks and chooses a small number to allow in'?

Over the real long term, the only sensible trajectory for the EU was towards a US of E.

So us Brits, with our sense of fairness, playing the game, our sense of duty and our fierce independence which comes from our history and being an island nation, we would never become part of a US of E.

On balance then, I have shifted my position from when I voted remain. However, I do not agree with any of the bollocks that is going on right now. We should have employed clever, gifted, thoughtful negotiators to do the groundwork, not politicians. We should have then set the 2 year clock ticking, when we had some sense of where we were headed. Instead, we have left it to self promoting, self preserving party politicians and very rich people behind closed doors. We have truly shot ourselves in the foot.

I do not see an easy way back from this.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 11, 2019, 09:59:56 PM
Comment from Kevin Rudd, former Australian PM

Quote
I’m struck, as the British parliament moves towards the endgame on Brexit, with the number of times Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India have been advanced by the Brexiteers in the public debate as magical alternatives to Britain’s current trade and investment relationship with the European Union. This is the nuttiest of the many nutty arguments that have emerged from the Land of Hope and Glory set now masquerading as the authentic standard-bearers of British patriotism. It’s utter bollocks.


The whole article is definitely worth a read:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/11/commonwealth-save-brexit-britain-utter-delusion-kevin-rudd
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 12, 2019, 06:12:21 AM
After watching last night's announcement in parliament it is my feeling, if the Attorney General gives the legality the okay, that the MPs should vote for the deal, tonight, and get it through and out of the way.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 12, 2019, 10:47:02 AM
The thing about something like the EU is it only really works if you are all in. Everyone. All the constituent countries.

But we never really were. So on balance, our only choice was to go further in or leave.

With countries like Greece and others not really playing the game - I mean come on, do they work to the same health and safety standards as us, or building regs, for example - we would always be saying 'it’s not fair'. Why should we meet the exacting standards and be a nett contributor if others are swinging the lead.

Similarly, on refugees, Italy or Malta, for example, might say 'why do we have to support all these refugees/migrants while the UK sits behind the White Cliffs of Dover and picks and chooses a small number to allow in'?

Over the real long term, the only sensible trajectory for the EU was towards a US of E.

So us Brits, with our sense of fairness, playing the game, our sense of duty and our fierce independence which comes from our history and being an island nation, we would never become part of a US of E.

On balance then, I have shifted my position from when I voted remain. However, I do not agree with any of the bollocks that is going on right now. We should have employed clever, gifted, thoughtful negotiators to do the groundwork, not politicians. We should have then set the 2 year clock ticking, when we had some sense of where we were headed. Instead, we have left it to self promoting, self preserving party politicians and very rich people behind closed doors. We have truly shot ourselves in the foot.

I do not see an easy way back from this.

It is not just the Greeks and other southern European countries ' not playing the game' the Jermans and Frogs ignore the rules when it suits them. The only country the Euro really gives an advantage to is Germany, the rest of the European countries problems and economic situation keeps its value below what it should be ( and The Americans know this,  that is why they accuse German manufacturers of 'not playing fair' - because the Euro makes exports to rest of world cheaper than they should be) but the parity of the Euro with other Eurozone countries makes Germanys exports in EU competitive.  The Euro has bolstered the German economy while at the same time subjected most other countries to austerity and high unemployment, especially for those under 25.

Agreeing to use the Euro was a massive mistake for most countries,  we had more sense and stayed out but I did know some people, and saw people say it in interviews ' that it would be nice not to have to change money when I go on holiday' - that was the depth of understanding they had of the economic consequences of tying Lion and Donkey economies together in the straitjacket of a common currency when their economies and needs differed massively.

Here is one answer....

Leavers are going to have to take the hated EU flag and the Euro to the fires of Mount Doom and cast them into the abyss, then the buildings of Brussels and Strasbourg will crumble into dust and the EU commission will take their last meals from the EU gravy trough and fall senseless to the floor.

If only it was that easy,  that you only had to dodge the Dark Riders, Orcs, Nazgul and giant spiders, flag-wraiths and the duplicitous Gollum / Smeagol ( Junckers and Barnier )  to be free of the dark lords of the evil EU empire and free Middle England once and for all from their machinations and power grabs..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 12, 2019, 11:03:44 AM
Anybody else watching Ch 4 Brexit millionaires?
Very revealing

Of course it's also on again at 9PM on 4+1, if anyone's missed it.

Certain people make money out of any situations, and will act quickly when they see opportunities, these people make money when any economic uncertainty is around - they think it is a victimless crime but someone lower down the food chain always ends up paying - but 'you have to speculate to accumulate'.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 12, 2019, 11:08:45 AM
who once headed a single issue party
It is the one issue that concerns me!

+1
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 12, 2019, 02:12:36 PM
Anybody else watching Ch 4 Brexit millionaires?
Very revealing

Of course it's also on again at 9PM on 4+1, if anyone's missed it.

Certain people make money out of any situations, and will act quickly when they see opportunities, these people make money when any economic uncertainty is around - they think it is a victimless crime but someone lower down the food chain always ends up paying - but 'you have to speculate to accumulate'.

Certain people can engineer money making situations or at least have insider information on them.
It's usually other people's money they are speculating with.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 12, 2019, 02:22:58 PM
After watching last night's announcement in parliament it is my feeling, if the Attorney General gives the legality the okay, that the MPs should vote for the deal, tonight, and get it through and out of the way.

It won't be over . It's just starting. The WA should have been the easy bit.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 12, 2019, 02:41:21 PM


It won't be over . It's just starting. The WA should have been the easy bit.

Come on ! We are dealing with EU political zealots who put politics before trade and common sense.. They must be feeling like Germans from 1944 onwards though, they know their third Reich is no longer an option but continued to sow death and destruction anyway instead of putting their hands up, and admitting their struggle was hopeless..  The EU obviously does not have a very good future, it is a 1950's project which has been slipping further and further behind the real world, but still the EU old guard act as though they are still relevant and have a future.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 12, 2019, 03:31:23 PM


It won't be over . It's just starting. The WA should have been the easy bit.

Come on ! We are dealing with EU political zealots who put politics before trade and common sense.. They must be feeling like Germans from 1944 onwards though, they know their third Reich is no longer an option but continued to sow death and destruction anyway instead of putting their hands up, and admitting their struggle was hopeless..  The EU obviously does not have a very good future, it is a 1950's project which has been slipping further and further behind the real world, but still the EU old guard act as though they are still relevant and have a future.

The difficult bit is going to be negotiating trade deals. See Sparky Paul's link above re Commonwealth.
The UK underestimated the difficulties of negotiating the Withdrawal Arrangement.
They did not have a plan to negotiate a safe Brexit.
Fox has only negotiated about 10% of the deals he said he would.
They would be wise to think carefully before committing themselves to looser ties with the EU and placing themselves at the mercy of people like Trump.
Here's a reminder of some of the other promises the Brexiteers have made and the outcomes.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/09/uk/brexit-promises-gbr-intl/index.html

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 13, 2019, 07:30:29 AM
Tariffs pretty much as I expected despite forecasts from the doom merchants, including one industry "spokesman" on BBC World News this morning. When the announcement was only 90 minutes away you would think he would have enough sense to keep quiet, instead of showing his ignorance.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 13, 2019, 08:57:52 AM
Tariffs pretty much as I expected despite forecasts from the doom merchants, including one industry "spokesman" on BBC World News this morning. When the announcement was only 90 minutes away you would think he would have enough sense to keep quiet, instead of showing his ignorance.

Maybe he was just a wee bit upset that he hadn't been consulted earlier :o

Quote from BBC
"BBC business editor Simon Jack says the UK has taken a "balanced approach" to tariffs in the event of a no-deal.

"They've cut some and kept some in place, for example the tariff on sheep meat is exactly same as it is," he says.

He also says that the government did not consult businesses on its tariff plan, saying the topic was simply "too sensitive"."      (my Bold)
end quote

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-vote-result-no-deal-theresa-may-eu-commons-delay-spring-statement-a8820356.html


Last edit insert "my bold"
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 13, 2019, 10:11:26 AM
The IMF says that Greece is now one of the best economic performers in the EU. That is like saying Ross County is one of the best performers in the Scottish Championship! Says more about the rest of the competition.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/03/11/na031119-greece-economy-improves-key-reforms-still-needed (https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/03/11/na031119-greece-economy-improves-key-reforms-still-needed)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 13, 2019, 10:40:56 AM
https://unherd.com/2019/03/the-eu-is-flunking-its-brexit-opportunity/

Good article...  Shows just how much Germany does depend on Euro ( as its sole beneficiary it is vital to their economy).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 13, 2019, 04:02:07 PM
Currently watching the debate, in parliament, on the No Deal motion. The antics of the SNP makes me embarrass to be Scottish.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 13, 2019, 04:11:19 PM
Currently watching the debate, in parliament, on the No Deal motion. The antics of the SNP makes me embarrass to be Scottish.

From what I have read the No Deal vote is advisory and not binding on government anyway... If I was government I would just ignore the sn0*fl4k3 MPs who want to throw away our last bargaining tool... or charge them with 'aiding a foreign power' ( used to be called treason ).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 13, 2019, 04:56:38 PM
Currently watching the debate, in parliament, on the No Deal motion. The antics of the SNP makes me embarrass to be Scottish.

The SNP is the only party which has had a consistent and sensible approach throughout this debacle.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 13, 2019, 06:20:47 PM
It is not their politics I am talking about. It is their behaviour. Parliament is not the best conducted of places but the SNP, today, were totally out of order. Like a shower of drunken yobs - only sober.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 13, 2019, 06:39:26 PM
Currently watching the debate, in parliament, on the No Deal motion. The antics of the SNP makes me embarrass to be Scottish.
As a long time member I can only disagree ... Joanna Cherry QC MP makes PM & many other MPs look like a rank amateurs
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 13, 2019, 06:41:15 PM
It is not their politics I am talking about. It is their behaviour. Parliament is not the best conducted of places but the SNP, today, were totally out of order. Like a shower of drunken yobs - only sober.
Behaviour of Tory MPs is of course 1000x worse
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 13, 2019, 09:01:09 PM
]Behaviour of Tory MPs is of course 1000x worse
I take it you didn't watch the debate this afternoon?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 13, 2019, 09:04:54 PM

Behaviour of Tory MPs is of course 1000x worse

And they're devious beggars too. Here's the story of tonight's shenanigans according to the Guardian. I was watching the Channel 4 news but missed all the nonsense.
"After the prime minister’s deal was heavily voted down for a second time on Tuesday, she announced a government motion ruling out a no-deal Brexit on 29 March – overturning her longstanding policy of refusing to rule it out.

May promised MPs a free vote, but the motion was carefully worded, with the final sentence stating that, “leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this house and the EU ratify an agreement”.

However, MPs voted by 312 to 308 to support a backbench amendment which struck out that last phrase so as to rule out a no-deal exit altogether.

In chaotic scenes, the government then rescinded its promise of a free vote; and whipped its MPs to vote against the amended motion.
Several cabinet ministers who have warned about the risks of a no-deal Brexit, including Philip Hammond and Amber Rudd, appeared to abstain, but the government still lost the vote, by 321 votes to 278 – a majority of 43.

The prime minister responded with a defiant statement, insisting a no-deal Brexit could only be avoided by agreeing a deal, or cancelling Brexit."

I think there is now a strong possibility that somebody is going to make a mistake  or the government will be outwitted bythe ERG and they'll commit to an accidental no deal Brexit.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 13, 2019, 09:32:20 PM
However, MPs voted by 312 to 308 to support a backbench amendment which struck out that last phrase so as to rule out a no-deal exit altogether.
4 ministers abstained and will still keep their job. Which shows how much of a Remainer the PM is.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on March 13, 2019, 10:28:18 PM
She's tried every trick in the book and given 100% to get the hardest brexit she could agree with the EU whilst trying to avoid the disastrous no deal brexit that only a minority of hardliners want.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 13, 2019, 11:25:02 PM
However, MPs voted by 312 to 308 to support a backbench amendment which struck out that last phrase so as to rule out a no-deal exit altogether.
4 ministers abstained and will still keep their job. Which shows how much of a Remainer the PM is.

" Sources close to the abstaining ministers claimed they had been given the nod to skip the vote.

It was indicated by sources last night that cabinet ministers who abstained did not intend to resign and Downing Street said they would not be pushed.

Mundell, the Scotland secretary, said he could not in conscience have opposed the amendment. “I’ve always opposed a no-deal Brexit. The house made its view clear by agreeing the Spelman amendment. I didn’t think it was right for me to oppose that,” he said. “The PM has my full support in her objective of leaving the EU with a deal to deliver an orderly Brexit.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/approve-my-deal-or-face-article-50-extension-may-warns-brexiters

Mundell and conscience in the same sentence.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 14, 2019, 07:09:39 AM
Well how about weasel words,  a majority of 40 votes out of 650 ( 6% ) majority for 'remove no deal' and it is 'a sizeable majority' and 'the house has spoken' 'it is the will of the house' - but a majority of 1.2 million in referendum (4%) is 'very close', 'not a convincing majority' etc. etc.  These MPs have to realise we are negotiating with a vindictive and vengeful EU..  The the Yvette Cooper 'no deal amendment only got through by 8 votes but was hailed by the Guardian as 'a vote against the chaos of no deal'..

Here is a quote by Yvette Cooper in todays Guardian article

As a result, Cooper said, “the House of Commons has voted decisively tonight against the chaos of no deal”, a defeat that she said will force the prime minister to resolve the Brexit crisis, or leave backbenchers to try to take control of the process. 

So it appears in dear Yvettes mind that 8 votes in 640 is 'decisive' but 1.2 million is 'insignificant' - go girl, you convinced nobody but yourself..

Words fail me how spiteful politicians from parties like SNP and labour can attempt to take 'no deal' off the table ( even though the vote is advisory not binding the EU are watching and will be delighted at the antics of these idiots ) at a critical stage of the negotiations and not only bind out negotiators hand and foot, but gag them as well.  I we do have another GE soon I am sure the self-seeking idiots will get what they deserve at the hands of their constituents....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/14/rotten-parliament-worst-had-since-democracy-haters-1830s/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 14, 2019, 08:26:11 AM
Some prominent Brexiteers have been agitating with European leaders (Poland and Italy were mentioned) to get them to veto an extension of Article 50.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 14, 2019, 08:49:15 AM
If Theresa May was a strong Prime minister ( strong is not the same as stubborn by the way) she would have fared much better,  it would also help if she was not a remainer at heart - but Hey-ho WAWWA ( we are where we are  ). How she has allowed ministers to be so disrespectful and downright disobedient of 'collective cabinet responsibility' is the sign of a weak leader,  and why David Gauke, Amber Rudd and Phil Hammond are still in positions of responsibility is a mystery to me.

Some prominent Brexiteers have been agitating with European leaders (Poland and Italy were mentioned) to get them to veto an extension of Article 50.

No doubt if any country displays any democratic tendencies they will be told 'to vote again'..... 'there can be no democratic oversight of EU decisions' ( J-Claude Drunckers ).

I am sure Hungary would be only too glad to use their veto.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 14, 2019, 11:40:38 AM
After listening to all the talk, this morning, about whether or not we get an extension from the EU I have to laugh. If May went to the EU and said "We want and extension", and they said, "For what reason?", and her reply was "To take us through to the better weather". they would grant it, no problem. The EU want to keep us in at any cost, and would grant us an extension, a day at a time, if they thought it would keep us in.
And like charges on an over running building contract, the per diem cost they will charge will be exorbitant, because the voting of our MPs will mean we have no option but to pay. The £39bn divorce bill will start to look cheap by comparison.

I also feel that the nation is hardening in its contempt for parliament and the MPs, and I think that a second referendum could go as horribly wrong for those who wish to stay in the EU, as the first one did. Especially as the only campaign the leave side needs to run is "The establishment thinks you are too stupid to come to the right decision so they are making you vote again". Can you imagine how that will play to the 17,410,742 people who voted to leave last time?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 14, 2019, 11:46:58 AM
And like charges on an over running building contract, the per diem cost they will charge will be exorbitant, because the voting of our MPs will mean we have no option but to pay. The £39bn divorce bill will start to look cheap by comparison.

I have seen a figure of £1billion per month in the press... seems about right.

UK could never have any respect ever again in the world if it caves in to EU tactics,  those people who want to cancel art50 have no love or respect for their country,  If the second largest EU economy and one outside the Eurozone cannot leave then any other country in EU will know exactly where they stand..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 14, 2019, 12:15:56 PM
 Here comes the seventh cavalry ----Not :o

"Donald Trump has made a last-minute Brexit intervention - claiming his administration is looking forward to "negotiating a large scale Trade Deal with the UK" - after reportedly being lobbied to do so by Nigel Farage.

The former Ukip leader is said to have asked the American president to support the UK leaving the EU without a deal during a meeting in Washington this month."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-brexit-trade-deal-us-uk-farage-twitter-theresa-may-vote-a8822566.html

I'll bet he is  :P

Chlorinated chicken, hormone and antibiotic beef, big pharma health service all at America first prices. Is this what you really want?

Latest edit Change link
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 14, 2019, 12:26:12 PM
I've had a question on my mind for sometime.

Do people who complain about "chlorinated chicken" (i.e. chlorine washed chicken) drink chlorinated water?

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 14, 2019, 12:31:15 PM
Not the same thing.
Chlorine is used to kill germs in water and on vegetables. Chlorine used to disinfect chicken covers up for negligent practice in processing and animal welfare.

This is a distractor anyway.
The point of my post was that we would be at the mercy of Trump.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 14, 2019, 01:12:38 PM
Not the same thing.
Chlorine is used to kill germs in water and on vegetables. Chlorine used to disinfect chicken covers up for negligent practice in processing and animal welfare.
But if you don't give a toss about animal welfare it doesn't make any difference to the chicken you are eating.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 14, 2019, 01:19:59 PM
Not the same thing.
Chlorine is used to kill germs in water and on vegetables. Chlorine used to disinfect chicken covers up for negligent practice in processing and animal welfare.

This is a distractor anyway.
The point of my post was that we would be at the mercy of Trump.

Every egg and chicken has salmonella and other pathogens, every piece of meat has pathogens on it.. You speak as though the EU has never mass medicated animals with antibiotics, they certainly have and it is only recently passed regulation to try to stop using them by 2020  :o

The EU has done studies and published papers on washing chicken with chlorine and found it was perfectly safe, and all they could say was ' but there are better ways' - but if you are telling me EU companies never use chlorine then I will stop buying EU meat and salad products.

The EU history of animal care is not good, a lot of the better  ideas have come from UK. Same with workers rights, in many cases UK already had better workers rights that have transferred over to EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 14, 2019, 01:57:25 PM
"For years, in the US, instead of preventing that chickens get infected with pathogens during all stages of rearing and slaughter, the poultry industry has resorted to chemicals to eliminate bacteria at the end of the meat production chain. In other words, chemical washes aim to make up for inadequate hygiene on farms and abattoirs.

In contrast, the EU has chosen another strategy to fight meat-borne bacteria. The philosophy of the ‘farm to fork’ approach is essentially based on the wise proverb prevention is better than cure."

https://www.beuc.eu/blog/what-is-wrong-with-chlorinated-chicken/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 14, 2019, 03:21:53 PM
According to a report from the Adam Smith Institute , “immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”

Balanced article from The Grocer:

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/food-safety/chlorinated-chicken-explained-why-do-the-americans-treat-their-poultry-with-chlorine/555618.article

It sounds like chlorinated chicken is a very good preventative for reducing human health risk.

So people should risk their lives and their families lives to prevent any potential risk of harm to a chicken?

And what is wrong with more investment in our health care systems?

Or should people die because the money to save them comes from private individuals as shareholders rather than as tax payers?


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 14, 2019, 03:43:41 PM
I used to work for an American company based in Michigan and travelled to USA frequently.  I love American food and their steaks are absolutely great compared to stuff in UK and Europe - if we are going to get more American food,  ' bring it on '. 
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 14, 2019, 06:22:54 PM
I've had a question on my mind for sometime.

Do people who complain about "chlorinated chicken" (i.e. chlorine washed chicken) drink chlorinated water?

For quite a number of years, maintenance and operation of chlorination plant was part of my job.

The level of chlorine in drinking water is minute compared to the level in water used for bacterial control on organic matter.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 14, 2019, 07:02:56 PM
https://fullfact.org/europe/does-eu-say-its-safe-eat-chicken-rinsed-chlorine/

LOL

Just another case of notorious EU non tariff barriers to trade, protectionism, call it what you like....

Looks like EU farmers prefer to spray their chickens with toxic insecticide while they are still alive..

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/food/836905/egg-scandal-eu-fipronil-safe
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 14, 2019, 07:31:43 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47575445/mps-reject-a-second-brexit-referendum-by-334-votes-to-85

Sarah Wollaston ( a well known 2016 referendum result denier ) wanted a people's vote on Brexit but apparently does not want a people's vote on her completely changed MP status - well Dr Wollaston, parliament certainly showed what they think of you today..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 14, 2019, 07:34:02 PM
I've had a question on my mind for sometime.

Do people who complain about "chlorinated chicken" (i.e. chlorine washed chicken) drink chlorinated water?

For quite a number of years, maintenance and operation of chlorination plant was part of my job.

The level of chlorine in drinking water is minute compared to the level in water used for bacterial control on organic matter.

Surely chlorine in drinking water is also used for bacterial control on organic matter. Presumably the same amount is required to kill a bug. The issue seems to be the residual amount left on the chicken versus the amount in the drinking water not the amount used in the process. 

Chlorinated chicken appears to be much safer for human consumption than untreated chicken.

People appear to be made to feel averse to chlorinated chicken but not to drinking water (or swimming pools even).

This does sound like EU spin again protecting inefficient farmers.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 14, 2019, 07:40:17 PM
According to a report from the Adam Smith Institute , “immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”

Balanced article from The Grocer:

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/food-safety/chlorinated-chicken-explained-why-do-the-americans-treat-their-poultry-with-chlorine/555618.article

It sounds like chlorinated chicken is a very good preventative for reducing human health risk.

So people should risk their lives and their families lives to prevent any potential risk of harm to a chicken?

And what is wrong with more investment in our health care systems?

Or should people die because the money to save them comes from private individuals as shareholders rather than as tax payers?

The Adam Smith Institute is an economic think tank encouraging Free Trade not a biological research institution.

The chlorination at the end of the process encourages sloppy procedures during the rearing and slaughtering of the animals in the hope that it any harmful organisms are eliminated at the end.

I was not suggesting that people put their children at risk to prevent harm to a chicken. People's health may be put at risk through dangerous procedures in animal husbandry and slaughtering.

If our health system is opened up to American big Pharma it gives them a license to make money.

People will die because they cannot afford health care.


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 14, 2019, 07:53:41 PM
I've had a question on my mind for sometime.

Do people who complain about "chlorinated chicken" (i.e. chlorine washed chicken) drink chlorinated water?

For quite a number of years, maintenance and operation of chlorination plant was part of my job.

The level of chlorine in drinking water is minute compared to the level in water used for bacterial control on organic matter.

Surely chlorine in drinking water is also used for bacterial control on organic matter. Presumably the same amount is required to kill a bug. The issue seems to be the residual amount left on the chicken versus the amount in the drinking water not the amount used in the process. 

Chlorinated chicken appears to be much safer for human consumption than untreated chicken.

People appear to be made to feel averse to chlorinated chicken but not to drinking water (or swimming pools even).

This does sound like EU spin again protecting inefficient farmers.


The cheapest form of chlorine is chlorine gas ( same stuff Germany used on western front in WW2 ) this is used for water treatment together with High intensity UV light at the pumping station which kills bugs but the chlorine is added for residual protection further along the system,  I would add one thing, how many people drink 6 pints of chicken a day ?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 14, 2019, 08:47:43 PM
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-safe-to-eat-meat-from-animals-that-have-been-fed-growth-hormone-and-antibiotics

See charts in second answer, there is far more oestrogen in a potato than in hormone treated beef steak.......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 14, 2019, 08:58:56 PM
https://fullfact.org/europe/does-eu-say-its-safe-eat-chicken-rinsed-chlorine/

LOL

Just another case of notorious EU non tariff barriers to trade, protectionism, call it what you like....

I don't think anyone is saying it's intrinsically unsafe, just that it can be used to mask poor hygiene practises in the slaughterhouse or further down the line.

I live a few miles away from the business that was caught a few years ago processing vast quantities of chicken breast that had been condemned as not fit for human consumption, repackaging it and selling it on to the catering trade. The meat was dyed to mark it fit only for pet food, they were chlorine bleaching it to remove the dye, trimming the bad and repackaging it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 14, 2019, 09:04:47 PM
Surely chlorine in drinking water is also used for bacterial control on organic matter. Presumably the same amount is required to kill a bug.

We used to dose drinking water from borehole with 0.3 ppm Chlorine, 'chlorinated chicken' as they call it is washed with a 20-50ppm solution.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 14, 2019, 09:13:21 PM
Salad stuff from the EU.

For Lettuce, Tomato and Cucumber
Agitate for 5 to 10 minutes at 100 to 150 ppm active chlorine in water.

For Cress, Onions and Mushrooms
Agitate for 5 to 10 minutes at 200 to 300 ppm active chlorine in water. The concentration of active chlorine in the wash solution and the contact time can be varied within limits but active chlorine levels should be kept below 300 ppm.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 14, 2019, 09:24:53 PM
Washing vegetables in chlorine is currently banned in some European countries including Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/boost-efficient-safe-food-production
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 14, 2019, 09:41:09 PM
Washing vegetables in chlorine is currently banned in some European countries including Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/boost-efficient-safe-food-production

That article says they don't use chlorine but later on it says they use chlorine dioxide LOL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide

As I said earlier EU uses weasel words and non tariff barriers to protect inefficient farmers - EU even pays people subsidies for just owning land and growing nothing...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 14, 2019, 10:37:13 PM
Washing vegetables in chlorine is currently banned in some European countries including Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/boost-efficient-safe-food-production

That article says they don't use chlorine but later on it says they use chlorine dioxide LOL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide

As I said earlier EU uses weasel words and non tariff barriers to protect inefficient farmers - EU even pays people subsidies for just owning land and growing nothing...

Compounds of chlorine do not have the same properties as chlorine.
Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2) is becoming increasingly used for water purification because of its unique combination of properties: a powerful, yet selective oxidant and biocide, disinfectant and sanitiser.
https://feedwater.co.uk/chlorine-dioxide-water-treatment/

Sodium chloride is salt. You wouldn't object to putting that on your lettuce.


I would rather have small farmers managing the land even if they are being subsidised for maintaining some of it for environmental reasons than rich Tories owning vast tracts of lands for hunting shooting and fishing.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on March 14, 2019, 11:16:13 PM
The cheapest form of chlorine is chlorine gas ( same stuff Germany used on western front in WW2 )
Have you got evidence for this? First I have heard of gas being used in combat in WW2.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on March 14, 2019, 11:19:59 PM
I've had a question on my mind for sometime.

Do people who complain about "chlorinated chicken" (i.e. chlorine washed chicken) drink chlorinated water?
I certainly don’t drink chlorinated water. I suffered with irritable bowel syndrome for many years until I finally tracked it down to tap water. Specifically Yorkshire Water tap water. An ex colleague of mine who works there now tells my Yorkshire Water add chlorine to bleach out the peaty colour of their water. Since excluding tap water from my diet, I have been very healthy. I should say I drink a lot of water every day.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on March 15, 2019, 01:34:15 AM
The cheapest form of chlorine is chlorine gas ( same stuff Germany used on western front in WW2 )
Have you got evidence for this? First I have heard of gas being used in combat in WW2.

A reminder for those who are familiar. An education for those who are not.

Dulce et Decorum Est
BY WILFRED OWEN
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on March 15, 2019, 07:43:54 AM
Thank you for educating us ::).  That does in fact refer to WW1.  Further education is available at https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/a-brief-history-of-chemical-war (https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/a-brief-history-of-chemical-war), although I can't imagine that chemical warfare will be used during Brexit negotiations.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 15, 2019, 07:50:45 AM
Washing vegetables in chlorine is currently banned in some European countries including Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/boost-efficient-safe-food-production

That article says they don't use chlorine but later on it says they use chlorine dioxide LOL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide

As I said earlier EU uses weasel words and non tariff barriers to protect inefficient farmers - EU even pays people subsidies for just owning land and growing nothing...

Compounds of chlorine do not have the same properties as chlorine.
Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2) is becoming increasingly used for water purification because of its unique combination of properties: a powerful, yet selective oxidant and biocide, disinfectant and sanitiser.
https://feedwater.co.uk/chlorine-dioxide-water-treatment/

Sodium chloride is salt. You wouldn't object to putting that on your lettuce.


I would rather have small farmers managing the land even if they are being subsidised for maintaining some of it for environmental reasons than rich Tories owning vast tracts of lands for hunting shooting and fishing.

If you read the wikipedia article fully Chorine Dioxide is tightly controlled in USA because it forms a compound called chlorite and in American tapwater is limited to 1ppm,  and you are OK with EU using it on your food ?

here Is extract...

'The use of chlorine dioxide in water treatment leads to the formation of the by-product chlorite, which is currently limited to a maximum of 1 ppm in drinking water in the USA.[14]:4–33 This EPA standard limits the use of chlorine dioxide in the USA to relatively high-quality water[why?], or water that is to be treated with iron-based coagulants (iron can reduce chlorite to chloride)'.

'Chlorine dioxide is toxic, hence limits on exposure to it are needed to ensure its safe use. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has set a maximum level of 0.8 mg/L for chlorine dioxide in drinking water.[35] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an agency of the United States Department of Labor, has set an 8-hour permissible exposure limit of 0.1 ppm in air (0.3 mg/m3) for people working with chlorine dioxide'

The whole thing about EU subsidies is that the large landowners in UK ARE being paid just because they have land and that is why so much of the 'upper class' is miffed at leaving, including many MP#s and Lords, they stand to lose £100's of thousands a year ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/27/revealed-the-mps-and-peers-receiving-millions-in-eu-farm-subsidies-cap ) , an awful lot of working farmers ( not the same as a lot of awful farmers  :o ) as opposed to Chelsea & Kensington farmers driving Chelsea tractors ) voted to leave EU, as did 95% of fishermen ( don't know how many anglers voted leave).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 15, 2019, 07:55:37 AM
Thank you for educating us ::).  That does in fact refer to WW1.  Further education is available at https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/a-brief-history-of-chemical-war (https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/a-brief-history-of-chemical-war), although I can't imagine that chemical warfare will be used during Brexit negotiations.

When I was an apprentice is used to work with a couple of old guys who had eyes and lungs permanently and badly damaged by German Chlorine gas in WW1 and they had comrades who were killed by it, real nasty stuff..

'every day is a schoolday'..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 15, 2019, 08:01:08 AM
I've had a question on my mind for sometime.

Do people who complain about "chlorinated chicken" (i.e. chlorine washed chicken) drink chlorinated water?
I certainly don’t drink chlorinated water. I suffered with irritable bowel syndrome for many years until I finally tracked it down to tap water. Specifically Yorkshire Water tap water. An ex colleague of mine who works there now tells my Yorkshire Water add chlorine to bleach out the peaty colour of their water. Since excluding tap water from my diet, I have been very healthy. I should say I drink a lot of water every day.

So when are EU going to ban chlorinated water ? and while they are at it ban sodium flouride as well because it is a poison and by the look of latest tooth decay figures for people in UK has done little of nothing for their teeth, but may well have done bad things to their bones..

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154164.php
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 15, 2019, 08:13:42 AM
When I was an apprentice is used to work with a couple of old guys who had eyes and lungs permanently and badly damaged by German Chlorine gas in WW1 and they had comrades who were killed by it, real nasty stuff..

Neat gas is certainly is very nasty stuff, I used to work with it on a daily basis, and had quite a few close encounters.

Chlorine compounds are being increasingly used because they are more stable and safer to handle by personnel with limited training. I had to be trained in handling, and in using BA, which had to be donned regularly when locating and fixing leaks, after which a change of clothing was also required. You got used to the smell in low concentrations, but it has a cumulative effect even at low levels when it's oozing out of your clothing afterwards.

It's also extremely corrosive. Lead washers are used as seals in pipework couplings, because it was the only thing that doesn't get eaten away too quickly. Nasty.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on March 15, 2019, 01:53:03 PM
The cheapest form of chlorine is chlorine gas ( same stuff Germany used on western front in WW2 )
Have you got evidence for this? First I have heard of gas being used in combat in WW2.

A reminder for those who are familiar. An education for those who are not.

Dulce et Decorum Est
BY WILFRED OWEN
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Fully aware pf what went on in WW1. Culzean mentioned WW2. That is what I was querying.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 15, 2019, 01:54:51 PM
Fully aware pf what went on in WW1. Culzean mentioned WW2. That is what I was querying.

just a typo, moving on.....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 15, 2019, 04:02:41 PM

If you read the wikipedia article fully Chorine Dioxide is tightly controlled in USA because it forms a compound called chlorite and in American tapwater is limited to 1ppm,  and you are OK with EU using it on your food ?

here Is extract...

'The use of chlorine dioxide in water treatment leads to the formation of the by-product chlorite, which is currently limited to a maximum of 1 ppm in drinking water in the USA.[14]:4–33 This EPA standard limits the use of chlorine dioxide in the USA to relatively high-quality water[why?], or water that is to be treated with iron-based coagulants (iron can reduce chlorite to chloride)'.

'Chlorine dioxide is toxic, hence limits on exposure to it are needed to ensure its safe use. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has set a maximum level of 0.8 mg/L for chlorine dioxide in drinking water.[35] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an agency of the United States Department of Labor, has set an 8-hour permissible exposure limit of 0.1 ppm in air (0.3 mg/m3) for people working with chlorine dioxide'

The whole thing about EU subsidies is that the large landowners in UK ARE being paid just because they have land and that is why so much of the 'upper class' is miffed at leaving, including many MP#s and Lords, they stand to lose £100's of thousands a year ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/27/revealed-the-mps-and-peers-receiving-millions-in-eu-farm-subsidies-cap ) , an awful lot of working farmers ( not the same as a lot of awful farmers  :o ) as opposed to Chelsea & Kensington farmers driving Chelsea tractors ) voted to leave EU, as did 95% of fishermen ( don't know how many anglers voted leave).

See my previous post linking to
https://www.beuc.eu/blog/what-is-wrong-with-chlorinated-chicken/
The EU system for food production uses a minimimum of chemical washing. In the case of poultry, hygiene stipulations at farm level include the use of dedicated clothing and footwear by farm workers to avoid bringing bacteria into poultry houses. This must be complemented with proper transportation conditions as well as hygienic slaughtering and processing practices.
 In the US, instead of preventing that chickens get infected with pathogens during all stages of rearing and slaughter, the poultry industry has resorted to chemicals to eliminate bacteria at the end of the meat production chain. In other words, chemical washes aim to make up for inadequate hygiene on farms and abattoirs.


Re Landowners.   I would imagine most of the wealthy landowners voted to leave the EU. (James Dyson reportedly owns more land in England than the Queen) and I would imagine that they will be more than compensated for the loss of their EU subsidies when they not we take back control of our laws.

https://whoownsengland.org/2017/09/19/why-is-james-dyson-hoovering-up-land/

It's the small farmers, (the ones who get their hands dirty) that I'm sorry for.
Some will be forced to sell up due to not being able to compete with cheap imported food or not being able to export their produce. The land will no doubt be hoovered up by the big boys at bargain basement prices.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/24/no-deal-horrific-welsh-farmers-brexit-meat-eu-countries

Likewise I would not imagine that the fishermen will be able to do any better than they do at present.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-would-brexit-really-mean-for-the-uks-fishing-industry/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 15, 2019, 08:43:32 PM
Anybody watching this thing on Channel 4 about chlorine washed chicken?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 15, 2019, 08:46:04 PM
Anybody watching this thing on Channel 4 about chlorine washed chicken?
Yeah me.
My turn to say add on an hour and watch on Ch4+1
Item very short so approx 9:40 - 9:50
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 15, 2019, 08:58:12 PM
Anybody watching this thing on Channel 4 about chlorine washed chicken?
Yeah me.
My turn to say add on an hour and watch

The Southampton University study is an eye opener.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/chicken-health-fear-chlorine-washing-fails-bacteria-tests-brexit-salmonella-listeria

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2018/04/foodborne-illness-study.page

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 15, 2019, 09:49:45 PM
I was always a bit concerned about these adverts which said "kills 99% of all household germs".
It doesn't take long for the 1% to multiply.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 15, 2019, 10:04:12 PM
Apologies for sliding off topic. Read about why the say "Kills 99.9% of all germs". They believe they kill 100% of all germs but they cannot prove it, so to avoid future torts, they say 99.9%!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 15, 2019, 10:40:05 PM
I was always a bit concerned about these adverts which said "kills 99% of all household germs".
It doesn't take long for the 1% to multiply.

Not when they're given a free run.

Canneries have a similar issue with thermophiles surviving heat treatment in the cooking vessels (retorts). Steam at 250°F sterilises most stuff, but there is a risk of these heat resistant bacteria getting hold as soon as any competition is removed.

Apologies for sliding off topic.

...in true ClubJazz style.  ;D
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 16, 2019, 09:59:46 AM

And what is wrong with more investment in our health care systems?

Or should people die because the money to save them comes from private individuals as shareholders rather than as tax payers?

Here's an article about what we might be letting ourselves in for:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47491964?ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook&ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&fbclid=IwAR31tsKbC4q3fvrT3JZK0k1pMa3APp7-Eotvfa8gpDyUWUtarSzEhjUuxYo

For  "insulin" substitute "your prescribed drugs."
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 16, 2019, 10:10:02 AM
Anybody watching this thing on Channel 4 about chlorine washed chicken?
Yeah me.
My turn to say add on an hour and watch

The Southampton University study is an eye opener.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/chicken-health-fear-chlorine-washing-fails-bacteria-tests-brexit-salmonella-listeria

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2018/04/foodborne-illness-study.page

Does this mean that our chlorine treated public water supply is no longer safe either ? I know water companies use intense UV light to kill bugs at pumping stations but once the water has left and is in the mains pipes the chlorine takes over.

If anyone has ever been in an African or Asian market and seen the chickens hanging up ( and other meat including fish, fruit bats and monkey) crawling with flies and cockroaches then you have to wonder why there are still people alive in those countries.  I actually think that western homes that are too clean have ruined our immune system and it can no longer handle these everyday pathogens... plus fast travel by planes has meant that germs can travel around the world in hours,  I do not know what happened to the necessary quarantine system but now people can be China and travel to USA or Europe same day with no checks on their health..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 16, 2019, 10:12:51 AM

And what is wrong with more investment in our health care systems?

Or should people die because the money to save them comes from private individuals as shareholders rather than as tax payers?

Here's an article about what we might be letting ourselves in for:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47491964?ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook&ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&fbclid=IwAR31tsKbC4q3fvrT3JZK0k1pMa3APp7-Eotvfa8gpDyUWUtarSzEhjUuxYo

For  "insulin" substitute your prescribed drugs.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 16, 2019, 10:15:44 AM
Anybody watching this thing on Channel 4 about chlorine washed chicken?
Yeah me.
My turn to say add on an hour and watch on Ch4+1
Item very short so approx 9:40 - 9:50

'CH4 station is now owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation, a public corporation of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport'

in other words an arm of HM government propaganda machine, showing other such scientific programs as Big Brother..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 16, 2019, 12:12:04 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/chicken-health-fear-chlorine-washing-fails-bacteria-tests-brexit-salmonella-listeria

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2018/04/foodborne-illness-study.page

'CH4 station is now owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation, a public corporation of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport'

in other words an arm of HM government propaganda machine, showing other such scientific programs as Big Brother..

Facts are chiels that winna ding.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 16, 2019, 12:37:17 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/chicken-health-fear-chlorine-washing-fails-bacteria-tests-brexit-salmonella-listeria

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2018/04/foodborne-illness-study.page

'CH4 station is now owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation, a public corporation of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport'

in other words an arm of HM government propaganda machine, showing other such scientific programs as Big Brother..

Facts are chiels that winna ding.

What are facts?

Everyone took it as a fact that the earth was flat until someone pointed out it is actually round. >:(

To quote The Guardian in June 2012 :

"Facts are chiels that winna ding." When Labour members laughed at this impenetrable quote from Burns, Mr Gove denounced their party for their failure to increase foreign language skills. I don't imagine that Gove, who is Scottish by upbringing, actually means that 18th century Scots dialect should be taught in English schools, so I suppose he was joking, too. But these days, who can tell? Apparently what it means is "facts are fellows that cannot be overturned", not a view held by most politicians, who regard facts as chunks of Plasticene, to be moulded into whatever shape suits them best".

But then you really must not believe everything in press. I see that Ofcom are investigating the BBC for it's extreme bias over Brexit. Lord Spencer in the House of Lords was quite shocking in his analysis. You should read it in Hansard.

It is interesting to note also that the Government placed restrictions on media reporting of Brexit from mid December (in the interests of national security) after the first meaningful (less) vote stalled. Not many people know that. It wasn't reported! ;)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 16, 2019, 01:13:21 PM
But then you really must not believe everything in press. I see that Ofcom are investigating the BBC for it's extreme bias over Brexit. Lord Spencer in the House of Lords was quite shocking in his analysis. You should read it in Hansard.

It is interesting to note also that the Government placed restrictions on media reporting of Brexit from mid December (in the interests of national security) after the first meaningful (less) vote stalled. Not many people know that. It wasn't reported! ;)

A fact only remains a fact until someone comes up with a better fact.

The BBC has long been known as the 'Biased Broadcasting Corporation' due to its Liberal / left bias - but our schools and universities exhibit the same L/L bias, ( as do Universities the world over ) - people object to 'faith schools' because they indoctrinate people from a young age,  but the L/L indoctrination goes under the radar (but this indoctrination may well explain why people who spend a longer time in the education system develop a L/L leaning themselves).

https://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2018/12/a-cry-of-rage-against-the-bbc.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on March 16, 2019, 02:35:28 PM
Chlorinated chicken is an abomination.
Ever day, thousands of Americans - sorry MILLIONS of Americans - eat it. And none of them die or are unwell from food poisoning, thus avoiding an opportunity to sue the vendors and become rich. :'( :'(

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 16, 2019, 03:59:54 PM
Does this mean that our chlorine treated public water supply is no longer safe either ? I know water companies use intense UV light to kill bugs at pumping stations but once the water has left and is in the mains pipes the chlorine takes over.

If anyone has ever been in an African or Asian market and seen the chickens hanging up ( and other meat including fish, fruit bats and monkey) crawling with flies and cockroaches then you have to wonder why there are still people alive in those countries.

As I said earlier, free chlorine in drinking water is at minute levels compared to these chlorine washes.

I don't know if you have looked at the full study, it found that the high levels of chlorine forced certain bacteria into a viable but non-culturable state, in other words rendering it temporarily inactive and undetectable by normal testing. Once it begins to multiply again, it finds that all its competition has been eliminated.

If you have looked at the study and think all these studies are the contrivance of liberal/left wing indoctrination and all of the research faked, then there's not much I can say that will make a deal of difference.

As for hanging poultry and other meats in fresh air, that's how it always used to be stored before we had refrigerators, the surfaces dry out and become less hospitable to bacteria. You do have to keep the flies off it, not so much for the bacteria, but to prevent the meat getting blown. I've dressed shot birds and home reared poultry for years, and although I never really understood why, they always instruct you to never rinse out the birds once they have been drawn.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 16, 2019, 05:23:01 PM
The remain faction really have latched onto chlorine chicken as another string to their project fear bow.  The USA is a very active country in the personal and class action area, and I am sure that if people were getting sick from their chicken the legal actions would have been pretty thick on the ground.   The Americans outed VW permission despite the fact that their dodgy practices had a blind eye turned to them in Europe ( lobby groups and Brown envelopes to legislators springs to mind ).

https://order-order.com/2017/07/28/george-monbiot-fowls-chlorine-chicken/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 16, 2019, 07:14:17 PM
The USA is a very active country in the personal and class action area, and I am sure that if people were getting sick from their chicken the legal actions would have been pretty thick on the ground.

I don't think the US has any particular problem with food poisoning. The bigger problem with chlorine washing is the masking of poor hygiene standards up the chain. Would you want to be eating substandard chicken meat that had been made fit for human consumption by chemical treatment? I certainly wouldn't.

I know the case I mentioned earlier was extreme, but it involved over 1,000 tonnes of chicken meat and was going on for 3 years before they were rumbled. Some people have no scruples where there's money to be made.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 16, 2019, 07:53:19 PM
The USA is a very active country in the personal and class action area, and I am sure that if people were getting sick from their chicken the legal actions would have been pretty thick on the ground.

I don't think the US has any particular problem with food poisoning. The bigger problem with chlorine washing is the masking of poor hygiene standards up the chain. Would you want to be eating substandard chicken meat that had been made fit for human consumption by chemical treatment? I certainly wouldn't.

I know the case I mentioned earlier was extreme, but it involved over 1,000 tonnes of chicken meat and was going on for 3 years before they were rumbled. Some people have no scruples where there's money to be made.

This report points to a larger percetage incidence of food poisoning in the US than UK and Europe.
https://www.sustainweb.org/news/feb18_us_foodpoisoning/

Although I noticed the mention of two outbreaks of food poisoning in Europe and UK after the publication of the research which might have mitigated the figures somewhat.

I also noticed this link while looking at the first:-

https://www.sustainweb.org/news/mar19_pm_must_provide_no_deal_brexit_food_hardship_fund/

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on March 16, 2019, 09:40:57 PM
Oops! Just wondered in here by mistake - thought it was a motoring forum.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 17, 2019, 08:33:31 AM
Oops! Just wondered in here by mistake - thought it was a motoring forum.

Don't worry it will all go quiet soon, Brexit is too important to ignore though,
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 18, 2019, 02:22:06 PM
I see that the British government produced fake news and fake evidence to present to journalists during the Cold War.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47571253 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47571253)

So nothing changed there then!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 18, 2019, 04:17:17 PM
I see that the British government produced fake news and fake evidence to present to journalists during the Cold War.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47571253 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47571253)

So nothing changed there then!

BBC has long been the propaganda arm of the UK government / establishment with a distinct liberal / left bias- they work on the principle that if you repeat something often enough people absorb it and even though they may not believe it,  it nevertheless begins to take root as the truth.  UK may well be the only country that forces its citizens to pay a legally enforceable levy (dressed up as a licence fee) to an organisation that regularly pushes an agenda onto them. Any people within the BBC who want to tell people the truth are quickly weeded out and sacked - having said that there is still Andrew Neil,  but no one coming along to replace him.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 19, 2019, 12:48:07 PM
Just watched today's "Politics Live", and they discussed likelihood of a No Deal Brexit, now that Mr Speaker has shoved his ore in. There were 5 talking against it (including Jo Coburn) and only one talking for it. Typical BBC balance.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 19, 2019, 02:48:56 PM
Just watched today's "Politics Live", and they discussed likelihood of a No Deal Brexit, now that Mr Speaker has shoved his ore in. There were 5 talking against it (including Jo Coburn) and only one talking for it. Typical BBC balance.

If the speaker ' baby Bercow' was not so obviously biased and did not continually abuse his position and do so much grandstanding things may be better.  He made a decision earlier this year  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-brazen-bercow-accused-of-bias-after-ignoring-advice-by-clerks-nhzz0lqsx   against all precedent and his clerks advice and said 'if we always stuck to precedence nothing would ever change'. 

Well excuse me Baby John, by doing what you did you set a precedent that your decisions could also be open to  being ignored if they are based on precedence especially if that precedence was set over 400 years ago,  and parliament should just go ahead and hold an indicative vote on how much support Mays deal has and if it has a majority they will ignore you and hold a binding vote,  so ya boo sucks to you....

By scandalously abusing his position ( his term came to an end last year but he made the decision to 'stay on and see Brexit out)  Bercow has proved beyond doubt that the speaker has too much power,  speaker is supposed to be scrupulously neutral - not drive around with anti-brexit stickers on his car.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 19, 2019, 03:50:48 PM
Was slightly odd Bercow went back to a supposedly dissolved English parliaments 400 year old precedence in a UK parliament just over 300 years old (supposedly as it never actually was dissolved as in treaty of union & it absorbed Scotland instead) - BUT he was correct to block a 3rd vote on same bill in same session & May would more than likely still have lost the vote -- he's bought May more time, but time to do what?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 19, 2019, 04:06:28 PM
Was slightly odd Bercow went back to a supposedly dissolved English parliaments 400 year old precedence in a UK parliament just over 300 years old (supposedly as it never actually was dissolved as in treaty of union & it absorbed Scotland instead) - BUT he was correct to block a 3rd vote on same bill in same session & May would more than likely still have lost the vote -- he's bought May more time, but time to do what?

To justify his ignoring precedent in his last controversial and biased ruling the poison dwarf said the following...

“I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so”.

A lot of people in parliament thing that his intervention has actually made a no deal a lot more likely unless Brussels offers something when Theresa May goes back this week,  so it has actually strengthened her hand because she cannot put the original deal to another vote without some major concessions by EU ( the law of un-intended consequences strikes again ).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 19, 2019, 04:09:04 PM
A lot of people in parliament thing that his intervention has actually made a no deal a lot more likely
Hence the reason it was being discussed on Politics Live.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 19, 2019, 05:30:57 PM
Was slightly odd Bercow went back to a supposedly dissolved English parliaments 400 year old precedence in a UK parliament just over 300 years old (supposedly as it never actually was dissolved as in treaty of union & it absorbed Scotland instead) - BUT he was correct to block a 3rd vote on same bill in same session & May would more than likely still have lost the vote -- he's bought May more time, but time to do what?

That's very interesting. I have no real knowledge of the history of the union and how it was achieved.

I really just know England took on a Scottish King in James VI  of Scotland as James 1 of England and assumed it flowed from there.

Are there any books you could recommend on the subject? I would be interested in learning more.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 19, 2019, 07:13:24 PM
Was slightly odd Bercow went back to a supposedly dissolved English parliaments 400 year old precedence in a UK parliament just over 300 years old (supposedly as it never actually was dissolved as in treaty of union & it absorbed Scotland instead) - BUT he was correct to block a 3rd vote on same bill in same session & May would more than likely still have lost the vote -- he's bought May more time, but time to do what?

That's very interesting. I have no real knowledge of the history of the union and how it was achieved.

I really just know England took on a Scottish King in James VI  of Scotland as James 1 of England and assumed it flowed from there.

Are there any books you could recommend on the subject? I would be interested in learning more.
you're referring to union of the crowns, 100 years before union of parliaments ... and that union of parliaments was a messy affair with bribes & awarding of titles winning the day .... not that different to way May wanted her deal to get voted through
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 19, 2019, 07:41:33 PM
Mair Burns.
Google " Parcel of Rogues"
The title refers not to the English but the Scottish politicians and aristocracy involved, who were rewarded with titles, lands and money. Sound familiar?

https://open.spotify.com/album/4ZYIoxe6o7DSs2CrLaIMGw

 edit Added Link
Last edit from "who were ---"
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 19, 2019, 10:38:08 PM
Was slightly odd Bercow went back to a supposedly dissolved English parliaments 400 year old precedence in a UK parliament just over 300 years old (supposedly as it never actually was dissolved as in treaty of union & it absorbed Scotland instead) - BUT he was correct to block a 3rd vote on same bill in same session & May would more than likely still have lost the vote -- he's bought May more time, but time to do what?

Your points are very well made. (Thanks also to the excellent intervention of JimSh). The Wikipedia entry for the Treaty of Union is also very interesting.

England, not having a written constitution, can usually find a precedent for anything (a concept which, for the English, is quite fun but others can find very difficult to understand). The English don't do "Rules" very well which can often be misunderstood.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on March 20, 2019, 12:38:15 AM
the law of un-intended consequences strikes again

What makes you think it was unintended?

Methinks this is all playing out as someone has planned.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 20, 2019, 06:41:40 AM
Methinks this is all playing out as someone has planned.
Methinks too!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 20, 2019, 09:56:26 AM
the law of un-intended consequences strikes again

What makes you think it was unintended?

Methinks this is all playing out as someone has planned.

Well Baby Bercow ( or should that be Burco  https://www.ascotwholesale.co.uk/baby-burco-manual-fill-8-litre-50-cup-c8t?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxcSQ2rmQ4QIVSbvtCh263AZGEAYYByABEgJyZvD_BwE )      certainly shot himself in the foot,  but maybe Mother Theresa expected his predictable response ( Theresa May planning ahead, well I never ! )
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 20, 2019, 10:07:03 AM
Seems if you are a Leave voter 'your are damned if you do and damned if you don't' by the vindictive establishment minions ..

https://order-order.com/2019/03/19/vindictive-ico-hits-vote-leave-40000-fine-not-data-agreed-delete/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 20, 2019, 10:26:58 AM
This piece pretty well sums up why I voted Leave and how I feel about the current Brexit situation.

http://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-british-road-to-dirty-war-analysis-by-david-betz-mlr-smith-1 (http://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-british-road-to-dirty-war-analysis-by-david-betz-mlr-smith-1)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 20, 2019, 10:47:01 AM
This piece pretty well sums up why I voted Leave and how I feel about the current Brexit situation.

http://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-british-road-to-dirty-war-analysis-by-david-betz-mlr-smith-1 (http://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-british-road-to-dirty-war-analysis-by-david-betz-mlr-smith-1)


excellent article - just about sums up the arrogant and complacent 'remain' establishment..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 20, 2019, 01:13:39 PM
Listening to PMQ's today and what a lacklustre bunch of politicians we have.

If parliament cannot decide then let's put it to a peoples vote, as long as WALKING AWAY WITH NO DEAL IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS ON THE BALLOT. As an ardent leaver, I would be happy for that.
What do the remainers think?

If no option gets more than 50% of the vote then the least favourite is dropped and we have a second round of voting.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 20, 2019, 03:49:12 PM
This piece pretty well sums up why I voted Leave and how I feel about the current Brexit situation.

http://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-british-road-to-dirty-war-analysis-by-david-betz-mlr-smith-1 (http://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-british-road-to-dirty-war-analysis-by-david-betz-mlr-smith-1)


excellent article - just about sums up the arrogant and complacent 'remain' establishment..

The Bruges Group. I followed the link to their website. Another right wing "think tank". Members include Nigel Farage, Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, Daniel Hannan, Norman Lamont, Owen Paterson, John Redwood, Kate Hoey, Ian Duncan-Smith,Gisella Stuart and Norman Tebbit .
Just the sort of disaster capitalists willing to destroy the country for personal gain, and without a consideration of the liveliehoods of ordinary people.

I agree with the first couple of paragraphs in that the current crop  of politicians are useless but it's mainly down to this privileged group of people divorced from the realities of most of the population that the country is in the mess it's in. The English Public School system has a lot to answer for in instilling ineptitude and arrogance in the British ruling /political classes.  From the playing fields of Eton via  Oxford and Cambridge politics degrees and into jobs for the boys.
This guy tells it better than I can.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/bitain-brexit-crisis-public-schools
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 20, 2019, 04:05:40 PM
Listening to PMQ's today and what a lacklustre bunch of politicians we have.

If parliament cannot decide then let's put it to a peoples vote, as long as WALKING AWAY WITH NO DEAL IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS ON THE BALLOT. As an ardent leaver, I would be happy for that.
What do the remainers think?

If no option gets more than 50% of the vote then the least favourite is dropped and we have a second round of voting.
I'm  for it and agree with your opinion of politicians.
I have a few reservations about the form of the options for the vote.
A three way choice is more difficult to cater for than a binary choice.
Whoever words the questions will have to be very careful to balance the options so that neither Leave nor Remain is put at an advantage by the wording.
I am also a bit worried that the Leave campaign could revive dubious or indeed impossible claims from the first referendum (or 2nd if you're pedantic about it).
https://www.peoples-vote.uk/mythbusters
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 20, 2019, 04:43:54 PM
A binary choice would be fine. The deal or No deal. After all, we already voted to leave!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 20, 2019, 04:44:58 PM
If an option to remain is planned as a question the democracy is indeed dead in UK.  The self-serving numbskulls we call MPs have been give one job to do that takes a bit more effort than deciding what to order in their subsidised Westminster canteen and they have bottled it and gone off piste chasing their own agendas. Come on you lot, you have already undermined our negotiations with the EU with your childish tactics and dummy spitting, get a grip and do as you were told, and don't keep bleating about what people voted for, they voted to leave, no ifs no buts no maybe, so stop deciding what you think people voted for, there were only two questions on the ballot paper, leave or remain, no mention of 'leave but only if we get a deal' . You guys in parliament are well out of order..and not fit for purpose.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 20, 2019, 04:58:54 PM
There's certainly no democracy about the way TM is steamrollering her "deal" through.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 20, 2019, 05:54:10 PM
There's certainly no democracy about the way TM is steamrollering her "deal" through.

There is even less democracy when MPs decide off their own bat what people voted for, in the face of opposition from their constituents and local party associations. Some MPs pushing for a peoples vote have decided that even if
 they change parties they do not have to submit to a 'peoples vote' on their antics,  two faced and duplicitous spring to mind..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 20, 2019, 06:28:17 PM
A binary choice would be fine. The deal or No deal. After all, we already voted to leave!
Looks like parliament is getting that option forced on them by the EU. Exciting times.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 20, 2019, 06:50:22 PM
A binary choice would be fine. The deal or No deal. After all, we already voted to leave!
Looks like parliament is getting that option forced on them by the EU. Exciting times.
"Interesting Times"?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/pathetic-incoherent-chaotic-europes-verdict-on-brexit-shambles
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 20, 2019, 07:23:26 PM
A binary choice would be fine. The deal or No deal. After all, we already voted to leave!
Looks like parliament is getting that option forced on them by the EU. Exciting times.
"Interesting Times"?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/pathetic-incoherent-chaotic-europes-verdict-on-brexit-shambles


Ahh, the Guardian that bastion of remain views.  Of course EU had nothing to do with the mess, Trump was correct we should have sued the EU for not negotiating in good faith, Farage said as soon as Barnier was appointed that the EU had declared war on UK, and he was correct. Don't know how Drunckers got involved either, and Verhofstadt was up to his usual tricks.

Let's face it EU do not want UK to leave and will miss our money, but their tactics always were to keep offering bad deals and let the cry-baby remainers do the work for them in the UK, and guess what their plan worked, hence here we are with 9 days to go and remainers in parliament still busy with their shovels undermining our negotiations... treason.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 20, 2019, 07:36:19 PM
A binary choice would be fine. The deal or No deal. After all, we already voted to leave!
Looks like parliament is getting that option forced on them by the EU. Exciting times.
"Interesting Times"?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/pathetic-incoherent-chaotic-europes-verdict-on-brexit-shambles


Ahh, the Guardian that bastion of remain views.  Of course EU had nothing to do with the mess, Trump was correct we should have sued the EU for not negotiating in good faith, Farage said as soon as Barnier was appointed that the EU had declared war on UK, and he was correct. Don't know how Drunckers got involved either, and Verhofstadt was up to his usual tricks.

Let's face it EU do not want UK to leave and will miss our money, but their tactics always were to keep offering bad deals and let the cry-baby remainers do the work for them in the UK, and guess what their plan worked, hence here we are with 9 days to go and remainers in parliament still busy with their shovels undermining our negotiations... treason.
The EU  have been completely consistent in its approach. It set out all the possible options at the start of negotiations.
The UK has been unable to specify what it wanted and has now passed away 1000 days. The whole sh1tshow belongs to the Leavers. None of the blame can be attributed to the EU or those who chose to  remain.
The EU does not want Brexit because it will hurt them financially but not nearly as much as it will damage the UK.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 20, 2019, 08:00:47 PM
None of the blame can be attributed to the EU or those who chose to  remain.
So the MPs who were voted in for Leave constituencies, on a manifesto to deliver Brexit, whether Tory or Labour, are not to blame for reneging on the deal they made with their voters.
The problem is, the the government, parliament, the Establishment, business and the media are predominantly Remainers. The electorate are predominantly Leavers. All the power is with the former and they are trying so hard to thwart the will of the majority of the people who voted in the referendum. It will all end in grief. A Populist rise will be the least of the Establishments worries if Brexit is stopped.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 20, 2019, 09:03:11 PM
None of the blame can be attributed to the EU or those who chose to  remain.
So the MPs who were voted in for Leave constituencies, on a manifesto to deliver Brexit, whether Tory or Labour, are not to blame for reneging on the deal they made with their voters.
The problem is, the the government, parliament, the Establishment, business and the media are predominantly Remainers. The electorate are predominantly Leavers. All the power is with the former and they are trying so hard to thwart the will of the majority of the people who voted in the referendum. It will all end in grief. A Populist rise will be the least of the Establishments worries if Brexit is stopped.

The electorate were conned by people like Farage, Banks, Hannan, Johnson and their rich backers into voting for impossible dreams. The government could never deliver on these promises and yet, despite being warned by the civil service, business, academics (who needs experts ) they voted to deliver on them without thinking things through. It wasn't the fault of the people. It was the fault of the con men, who stand to make a great deal of money out of the shambles of Brexit and their backers who will gain a great deal of power and money and the Government for not thinking things through.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1083442098551033857


I know I've posted this before. Give it a look and have a think.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 20, 2019, 10:01:27 PM
May seems to have dropped another clanger in her address tonight. A number of MPs are not so chuffed about being blamed for the brexit delay, the very MPs she is trying to persuade to vote for her deal.

On top of that, rumours are that the DUP are not happy (not enough cash?) and are going to vote against again.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 21, 2019, 06:43:50 AM
May seems to have dropped another clanger in her address tonight. A number of MPs are not so chuffed about being blamed for the brexit delay, the very MPs she is trying to persuade to vote for her deal.

On top of that, rumours are that the DUP are not happy (not enough cash?) and are going to vote against again.
To be quite honest, I think that was planned. All along she has said "No deal is better than a bad deal" and I think she realises it's a bad deal. She is now trying to get No deal, but by the back door. With Operation Yellowhammer they have worked out what needs to be done when we drop out.

The EU, on the other hand, don't want the UK have have to vote in the European elections. Speaking for my self, if the choice in my constituency is SNP, Tory, Labour or Liberal, I won't bother to vote, but if there is a candidate from UKIP, The Brexit Party, the Monster Raving Loonies or Independence for Fife*, they will get my vote. I am sure a lot of the country will do the same.

* Just made up, but I might start it!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 21, 2019, 08:27:27 AM
May seems to have dropped another clanger in her address tonight. A number of MPs are not so chuffed about being blamed for the brexit delay, the very MPs she is trying to persuade to vote for her deal.

On top of that, rumours are that the DUP are not happy (not enough cash?) and are going to vote against again.

I didn't see her statement till the 10 o'clock news.
Seems a bit hypocritical to say the least.
May is obviously the one running down the clock. It's also amazing how she keeps saying she knows what everyone is thinking.
I think May has taken it upon herself, or more likely has orders from on high, to deliver some sort of Brexit deal.
No deal was never a bargaining tool against the EU. It is a threat to blackmail the more moderate MPs into voting for her deal.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 21, 2019, 09:42:22 AM
The electorate were conned by people like Farage, Banks, Hannan, Johnson and their rich backers into voting for impossible dreams. The government could never deliver on these promises and yet, despite being warned by the civil service, business, academics (who needs experts ) they voted to deliver on them without thinking things through. It wasn't the fault of the people. It was the fault of the con men, who stand to make a great deal of money out of the shambles of Brexit and their backers who will gain a great deal of power and money and the Government for not thinking things through.

Nobody was conned as the remainers like to keep harping on - ,  what about the government ( read taxpayer ) funded barrage of  propaganda about the sewers blocking up, house prices crashing,  unemployment skyrocketing, the economy crashing into massive recession etc etc, Now tell me that was not a planned assault on people to ensure they voted remain like good little sheep. Both sides told  porkies but the remain sides claims were given the veneer of truth by being called 'government / treasury projections or forecasts' but these were so obviously rigged that Stevie Wonder could have seen it from 200 yards.  The fact that non of the forecasts was anywhere near what happened ( in fact unemployment is at a 44 year low, growth is good, £ is recovering, and in fact it is EU that is  in recession) did not dent remainers claims. ( just waiting for someone to say ' but we haven't left yet' LOL )

You never mention the people who make a great deal of money out of us being in the EU.

You obviously do not understand negotiation if you think you can take no-deal off the table and the other side will not jump up and down, whoop for joy and hi-five each other..  Then again they probably did that anyway when they saw what a great job the remainers were doing to undermine UK position, IMHO the remain camp in UK ( sore losers) have a great deal to answer for the bad deal we were offered.

There is something to be learned from the repeat referendi on Quebec independence which dragged on for decades.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-referendum-1995
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 21, 2019, 10:25:59 AM


 Speaking for my self, if the choice in my constituency is SNP, Tory, Labour or Liberal, I won't bother to vote, but if there is a candidate from UKIP, The Brexit Party, the Monster Raving Loonies or Independence for Fife*, they will get my vote. I am sure a lot of the country will do the same.

* Just made up, but I might start it!

Why?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 21, 2019, 10:36:58 AM
Because the more sh!t we stir up in the European parliament the better. maybe then we will know who our MEP's are. Farage is the only one I know and I have no interest to even see who mine is.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 21, 2019, 10:50:50 AM
Because the more sh!t we stir up in the European parliament the better. maybe then we will know who our MEP's are. Farage is the only one I know and I have no interest to even see who mine is.
That seems a very negative attitude.
You could have easily looked up your MEP on the internet.
I must admit I didn't know who mine was until this shambles started and I have since forgotten.
What is the purpose of causing a sh1tstorm in the European parliament?
I think a lot of the trouble was we took the benefits of being in the EU for granted.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 21, 2019, 10:54:36 AM
Seems the will of the people is changing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47652071

I'm trying to sign the petition but it seems the site is still down or at least I'm not receiving the confirmation email.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 21, 2019, 11:15:15 AM
Seems the will of the people is changing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47652071

I'm trying to sign the petition but it seems the site is still down or at least I'm not receiving the confirmation email.

I think you might be a little optimistic! Another case of the noisy few (the 48ers)?

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/third-time-lucky-perhaps/

An interesting objective analysis of current opinion, such as it is.

John Curtice is Senior Research Fellow at NatCen, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, is very highly regarded in his independence and suggested early in the 2017 election that May might get a reduced majority.

Well worth a read even if you chose to disregard his thoughts...

He is probably as good an analyst as you would get.


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 21, 2019, 11:21:33 AM
Because the more sh!t we stir up in the European parliament the better. maybe then we will know who our MEP's are. Farage is the only one I know and I have no interest to even see who mine is.
That seems a very negative attitude.
You could have easily looked up your MEP on the internet.
I must admit I didn't know who mine was until this shambles started and I have since forgotten.
What is the purpose of causing a sh1tstorm in the European parliament?
I think a lot of the trouble was we took the benefits of being in the EU for granted.

I think you both have quite a few MEPs not just one.

The EU MEPs don't represent you but the EU region which may be Scotland as a whole. So you may just share the same MEPs.

DYOR.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 21, 2019, 12:54:50 PM
Seems the will of the people is changing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47652071

I'm trying to sign the petition but it seems the site is still down or at least I'm not receiving the confirmation email.

I think you might be a little optimistic! Another case of the noisy few (the 48ers)?



One can but try.
(Surely more now.)
Approx 850000 signatures already mostly since TM's speech and site has been off and on all morning. ::)
(As a reaction to the speech I mean.)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 21, 2019, 01:11:05 PM
Seems the will of the people is changing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47652071

I'm trying to sign the petition but it seems the site is still down or at least I'm not receiving the confirmation email.

I think you might be a little optimistic! Another case of the noisy few (the 48ers)?



One can but try.
(Surely more now.)
Approx 850000 signatures already mostly since TM's speech and site has been off and on all morning. ::)
(As a reaction to the speech I mean.)
Andrea Leadsom stood up in parliament and said she will consider it once the total passes 17.4 million.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 21, 2019, 01:13:45 PM
Nigel Farage said that if all else fails, then come next Thursday MPs should have a binary vote on whether to leave with No deal or to revoke Article 50. I'd go along with that. Will you?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 21, 2019, 01:58:27 PM
Sounds OK to me.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: springswood on March 21, 2019, 02:47:46 PM
Funny, to me it sounds like him playing the usual games to inflame the situation.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 21, 2019, 04:21:58 PM
Nigel Farage said that if all else fails, then come next Thursday MPs should have a binary vote on whether to leave with No deal or to revoke Article 50. I'd go along with that. Will you?

Isn't that sort of where we started off from in 2016, then voted on by MPs when they ratified the Article 50 notice two years ago in 2017?

Been there - done that.

Except of course someone (who was that?) introduced the concept of "a deal"......... where did the idea of "a deal" come from? It was meant to be an administrative withdrawal agreement - not 585 pages of servitude.

This whole affair is very strange.

If our Scottish cousins had won a referendum 52% by Leavers, Scotland would have been off PDQ.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 21, 2019, 04:38:55 PM
Was slightly odd Bercow went back to a supposedly dissolved English parliaments 400 year old precedence in a UK parliament just over 300 years old (supposedly as it never actually was dissolved as in treaty of union & it absorbed Scotland instead) - BUT he was correct to block a 3rd vote on same bill in same session & May would more than likely still have lost the vote -- he's bought May more time, but time to do what?

Your points are very well made. (Thanks also to the excellent intervention of JimSh). The Wikipedia entry for the Treaty of Union is also very interesting.

England, not having a written constitution, can usually find a precedent for anything (a concept which, for the English, is quite fun but others can find very difficult to understand). The English don't do "Rules" very well which can often be misunderstood.

Adding to this - on reflection, I do now feel the Act of Union is very suspect.

It is easy to over look the fact that England does not have a Parliament at all. Something called "The West Lothian Question" I believe.

Perhaps we should convert the House of Lords (what a waste of time that is!) into a voted UK Parliament and the House of Commons into a voted devolved English Parliament. That would allow precedents to be properly maintained - but seriously it would much better represent the UK as a whole and free up constraints from cultural and political  divergence.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 21, 2019, 05:14:59 PM
Seems the will of the people is changing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47652071

I'm trying to sign the petition but it seems the site is still down or at least I'm not receiving the confirmation email.

Bit of wishful remainer thinking going on - voting in online petitions is easy,  just a click of one finger,  that is why nobody really takes any notice of them - even young people can do it - although it seems beyond their capability to walk to local polling station and vote on the stuff that really matters... Then they moan that they don't have a say.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 21, 2019, 05:36:16 PM
Seems the will of the people is changing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47652071

I'm trying to sign the petition but it seems the site is still down or at least I'm not receiving the confirmation email.

Bit of wishful remainer thinking going on - voting in online petitions is easy,  just a click of one finger,  that is why nobody really takes any notice of them - even young people can do it - although it seems beyond their capability to walk to local polling station and vote on the stuff that really matters... Then they moan that they don't have a say.
Just put the link up in case you wanted to sign up. :D
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 21, 2019, 05:37:18 PM
Perhaps we should convert the House of Lords (what a waste of time that is!) into a voted UK Parliament and the House of Commons into a voted devolved English Parliament. That would allow precedents to be properly maintained - but seriously it would much better represent the UK as a whole and free up constraints from cultural and political  divergence.

Problem with having an elected house of Lords is that they would claim equal legitimacy and power to the House of Commons,  at the moment the HoL can advise but at the end of the day the government can ignore their advice,  if they were elected they would say they are justified in being much more obstructive than they are at present.   The HoL should be trimmed down a lot - at the moment there are over 800 and each can claim £300 a day just for turning up,  some just turn up and stay a short time and claim that money, bit of a gravy train for political has-beens at the moment,  and some of them sure do love the sound of their own voice..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 21, 2019, 06:32:39 PM
Seems the will of the people is changing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47652071

I'm trying to sign the petition but it seems the site is still down or at least I'm not receiving the confirmation email.

Bit of wishful remainer thinking going on - voting in online petitions is easy,  just a click of one finger,  that is why nobody really takes any notice of them - even young people can do it - although it seems beyond their capability to walk to local polling station and vote on the stuff that really matters... Then they moan that they don't have a say.
Just put the link up in case you wanted to sign up. :D
The thing with these polls is you do not have to be a UK voter to take part. All you need is an email address and a copy of Google street view for addresses. So simple a bot in Russia could do it!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 21, 2019, 07:36:23 PM
Perhaps we should convert the House of Lords (what a waste of time that is!) into a voted UK Parliament and the House of Commons into a voted devolved English Parliament. That would allow precedents to be properly maintained - but seriously it would much better represent the UK as a whole and free up constraints from cultural and political  divergence.

Problem with having an elected house of Lords is that they would claim equal legitimacy and power to the House of Commons,  at the moment the HoL can advise but at the end of the day the government can ignore their advice,  if they were elected they would say they are justified in being much more obstructive than they are at present.   The HoL should be trimmed down a lot - at the moment there are over 800 and each can claim £300 a day just for turning up,  some just turn up and stay a short time and claim that money, bit of a gravy train for political has-beens at the moment,  and some of them sure do love the sound of their own voice..

In case you missed my point:

Replace the House of Lords to be the UK wide Parliament for UK wide affairs (eg Defence, Foreign Affairs).

Replace the House of Commons to become a devolved English Parliament (as is the Scottish Parliament now).

Cancel the current House of Lords which, I think we agree, serves no useful purpose (some questions over the current House of Commons too, I hear you say).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 21, 2019, 07:52:28 PM
https://www.altnewsmedia.net/opinion/why-did-remainers-vote-remain/

You ask remainers why they voted remain and it becomes pretty obvious they do not understand the EU very well at all, but seem to be really scared of the big wide world outside of it..

I think they may have become 'institutionalised' - and anything outside their comfort zone causes stress.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 22, 2019, 06:47:05 AM
I think that the EU offering a short extension if the Withdrawal Agreement does not go through next week has effectively killed Brexit. The termination date has to be changed in law and the new date will not let the UK to leave with no agreement. Parliament will never allow it.
The EU has made it clear that whatever happens, be it a change of PM or a new government, the Withdrawal agreement must stand. The Political Declaration can be changed, but that is it. So unless parliament can swallow the current Withdrawal Agreement we will have to Revoke Article 50. Time to dig out my stab proof vest and prepare for open hostility on the streets. As will probably happen tomorrow.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on March 22, 2019, 07:09:55 AM
Hi

I do not understand where the option to revoke article 50 has come from

Been stated so often in the news/television or radio does not make it true

If article 50 is revoked, then that is a slap in the face to all voters (for and against) who voted

I do not fully understand why a lot of people are scared of no deal.

So it has to be deal or no deal and no other options and if I was in charge, no extensions and no exceptions, so we should keep the old deadline date of March 29.

Many thanks

John

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 22, 2019, 07:28:23 AM
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=30070EAD3C16AB345376A71509ACC49D?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=30070EAD3C16AB345376A71509ACC49D?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1)

Unfortunately the ECJ ruled that the UK government can revoke Article 50, unilaterally. The SNP took the "Scottish Case" to court and the ECJ ruled in their favour. It would be treating the voters like sh!t but it could happen. Regarding No Deal, I am with you completely.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on March 22, 2019, 07:41:47 AM
Hi jocko

Many thanks

Sorry I understood article 50 could be revoked but by revoking it, they go against the referendum vote

I do not understand why that option is now been portrayed as an option on the table if you see what I mean

Is it because a second referendum is a non starter as no one would trust the uk government again

Also, if the uk does not upload the result and leave, that makes the uk government very weak and eu will take advantage of this.

Bring back Margaret thatcher - there’s a lady not for turning

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 22, 2019, 07:59:44 AM
I think, if it comes to No Deal on either 12th April or 22nd May, the EU will offer a two year extension. Then it will be a second referendum, best of three? What ever.
If they do not offer a long extension and it comes down to No Deal, then I think the Establishment will be too powerful and the government of the day will revoke Article 50 and "bu**er the consequences".
Unless MV3 is allowed to go ahead next week, and voted through, I think Brexit is lost.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 22, 2019, 08:28:16 AM
The thing with these polls is you do not have to be a UK voter to take part. All you need is an email address and a copy of Google street view for addresses. So simple a bot in Russia could do it!

Somehow, I doubt a Russian bot would be voting for us to stay in the EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 22, 2019, 09:23:12 AM
Well a German Bot, or a French Bot. Russian or Chinese Bots would love to destabilise the EU. Anything to throw a spanner in the works.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 22, 2019, 09:46:29 AM
Funny that the BBC posts a direct link to the Revoke Article 50 petition, but you have to search for the Leave with No Deal petition.
Here is a direct link to that one.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963)

And I was mistaken. You do not require a UK address, just an email address.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 22, 2019, 10:18:02 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/20/german-alarm-grows-eus-dangerous-ultimatum-terms-britain/

Brexit chaos 'A failure of EU' - well some of us have said that for a long time now.

I knew Merkel would step in and bang their heads together at some point...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1103717/brexit-news-latest-delay-article-50-update-EU-Summit-theresa-may
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 22, 2019, 02:51:48 PM
Funny that the BBC posts a direct link to the Revoke Article 50 petition, but you have to search for the Leave with No Deal petition.
Here is a direct link to that one.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963)

And I was mistaken. You do not require a UK address, just an email address.



You need email and postcode - just to check I signed the 'leave without a deal' again ( I signed it ages ago ) and it sent me an email for a double signing.

from an article ( looks like you were correct that many people who signed so far do not even live in UK)

10.51am update: Almost half of Brexit petition signatures are from OUTSIDE Britain

More than half of the 2.7 million names on a record-breaking petition to derail Brexit by revoking Article 50 signed the petition from outside the UK, data on the Government’s Parliamentary website has revealed.

And some Remainers have even shared their own postcodes to Twitter in a bid to encourage people from around the world to add their names. One Brexiteer revealed, as an experiment, he had even used the Queen’s official residence in order to do so.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 22, 2019, 03:02:48 PM
Funny that the BBC posts a direct link to the Revoke Article 50 petition, but you have to search for the Leave with No Deal petition.
Here is a direct link to that one.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963)

And I was mistaken. You do not require a UK address, just an email address.


You need email and postcode
Yes. What I meant was you did not need a street and house number.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on March 22, 2019, 03:28:03 PM
Where is the 'Please shoot me now" petition?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 22, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
Theresa May is quite right to blame MPs,  they have behaved like a bunch of spoiled schoolkids all wanting their own way, despite what their constituents and the referendum told them to do - what a bunch of self-serving idiots we have in both houses of government. Serve MPs right if they all get thrown out on their ears next general election and replaced by either Brexit party or UKIP MPs... and maybe then there will be a will to have a root-and-branch sort out of House of Lords.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 22, 2019, 07:00:54 PM
Hi

I do not understand where the option to revoke article 50 has come from

Been stated so often in the news/television or radio does not make it true

If article 50 is revoked, then that is a slap in the face to all voters (for and against) who voted

I do not fully understand why a lot of people are scared of no deal.

So it has to be deal or no deal and no other options and if I was in charge, no extensions and no exceptions, so we should keep the old deadline date of March 29.

Many thanks

John
option to revoke article 50 has always been there, validity cemented by a court case - UK free to revoke it & that would end brexit ... which is increasingly obvious as only safe path now. As UK is a parliamentary democracy, not a democracy where public's opinion counts MPs have all the say - referendums can be ignored.
No deal would kill a lot of exporters, add tariffs that would in some cases add 150% to likes of a case of live seafood for export - & most goes for export!
No deal worst of all options, it's isolationist lunacy like putting a Trump style wall around UK
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 22, 2019, 07:06:39 PM
Theresa May is quite right to blame MPs,  they have behaved like a bunch of spoiled schoolkids all wanting their own way, despite what their constituents and the referendum told them to do - what a bunch of self-serving idiots we have in both houses of government. Serve MPs right if they all get thrown out on their ears next general election and replaced by either Brexit party or UKIP MPs... and maybe then there will be a will to have a root-and-branch sort out of House of Lords.
The spoilt child is Theresa May & MPs are free to vote against referendum results if they deem them bad for UK. UK still has no workable plan for a brexit & whatever happens now Westminster will be in for a big shake up (which it's needed for centuries) & I can't see current Conservative or Labour party hold together brexit or no brexit
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 22, 2019, 07:22:03 PM
Theresa May is quite right to blame MPs,  they have behaved like a bunch of spoiled schoolkids all wanting their own way, despite what their constituents and the referendum told them to do - what a bunch of self-serving idiots we have in both houses of government. Serve MPs right if they all get thrown out on their ears next general election and replaced by either Brexit party or UKIP MPs... and maybe then there will be a will to have a root-and-branch sort out of House of Lords.
The spoilt child is Theresa May & MPs are free to vote against referendum results if they deem them bad for UK. UK still has no workable plan for a brexit & whatever happens now Westminster will be in for a big shake up (which it's needed for centuries) & I can't see current Conservative or Labour party hold together brexit or no brexit

Over 400 constituencies voted leave, MPs have decided they know better and have embarked on a petty vindictive and childish campaign to ignore the result.. if there is another General election UKIP and Farage Brexit party will make massive gains and many of the disrespectful MPs will be out on their ear as the people willing to respect 2016 vote take the balance of power away from the infants we presently have in commons.  Vast majority of MPs voted the hold referendum and trigger art50 with the leave date of 29 of March set in UK law, now they are deciding otherwise, Labour have been the worst and have shown themselves as a party who do not understand democracy, and certainly no longer represent working people.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on March 22, 2019, 07:55:06 PM
Hi

Hmm what is the point of wasting all the money to have the referendum if the result is meaningless or ignored

Again I do not understand why people are scared of no deal brexit and stating loses without stating gains is biased.

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 22, 2019, 08:36:49 PM
Theresa May is quite right to blame MPs,

You are the only person I have seen express this view.
Her speech was abysmal. "It wasn't me - blame them".
"I'm on your side" She was setting the public against dissenting politicians.
It's obvious that it is TM who is wasting time and kicking the can down the road and I expect her to p!ss away the extra fortnight granted to her by the EU last night playing the same game.

they have behaved like a bunch of spoiled schoolkids all wanting their own way,
Agreed but is their job to avoid TM steamrolling her deal through if they feel it is not in the best interests of their constituents.
despite what their constituents and the referendum told them to do
It is the job of the politicians to act in the best interest of their constituents. Most politicians are failing in this for fear of losing their votes.

Here is an article from the Independent (boo) about TM's speech).
The embedded video of Gina Miller giving the speech TM should have given is worth a watch.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-brexit-speech-anna-soubry-jo-cox-extremism-a8834921.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 22, 2019, 08:42:31 PM
Hi

Hmm what is the point of wasting all the money to have the referendum if the result is meaningless or ignored

Again I do not understand why people are scared of no deal brexit and stating loses without stating gains is biased.

Many thanks

John

No deal would be a disaster. The country is nowhere near ready for a no deal.
It will only benefit disaster capitalists like Rees -Mogg,  Redwood, Bone etc

Could you give me an expected gain?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 22, 2019, 08:57:20 PM
It is the job of the politicians to act in the best interest of their constituents.
Is it? Or is it the job of politicians to act on the wishes of their constituents?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 22, 2019, 09:30:13 PM
Hi

I do not understand where the option to revoke article 50 has come from

Been stated so often in the news/television or radio does not make it true

If article 50 is revoked, then that is a slap in the face to all voters (for and against) who voted

I do not fully understand why a lot of people are scared of no deal.

So it has to be deal or no deal and no other options and if I was in charge, no extensions and no exceptions, so we should keep the old deadline date of March 29.

Many thanks

John


The UK is being subjected to an aggressive form of physiological warfare by EU. Don't laugh - it has been used in many wars to undermine the morale of the opposing side and is a pretty common military tactic. I could give you lots of examples over the years.

The Revoke campaign has suddenly popped up to again undermine confidence in the authorities. Then there is the referendum campaign to undermine confidence in the voting system.

There has been a lot of that undermining going on. TM?

Where in Greece they had street riots, (I expect we'll have some over the next few days - those hard right extremists, you know), here they have used the media some of which has been very supportive of their cause, e.g. BBC and Sky News, to create disruption and fear.

The objective is to undermine morale in the population - and their two week extension only gives them more opportunity. It would be naive to think that just the Russians do these things.

It is pretty normal stuff.

I would not be in the slightest surprised if we leave on 29 March as planned.

Remember that the UK Government has to be able to minimise civil unrest which, if the announcement was made too early, could well break out. Remember too that all plans are in place. No harm in having people let off (harmless) steam in the meantime and keep planing to bring that deal back time and again (or not) to keep everyone occupied. Good distraction exercise.

We, the people, will be the last to hear! We do not know what is really going on - papers have to fill their pages, TV screens have to be filled, the EU feeds them stories and even the vocabulary. That's why you should not believe everything you read. If you do, you'll get very confused or worn down (as many people are).

Nothing, so far, has changed - actually.

The state, even in a democracy, is very, very powerful. :-X

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on March 22, 2019, 09:38:48 PM
Hi

A client of ours made a statement which thinking about it, and given above post, would bring the uk to a stop if implemented by all

His statement was if uk does not leave, to stop paying tax until such time uk left eu

He did say it would have to be the majority of the vote leavers as it would be impossible to take them to court

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 22, 2019, 10:19:38 PM
It is the job of the politicians to act in the best interest of their constituents.
Is it? Or is it the job of politicians to act on the wishes of their constituents?

No, this is a representative democracy - we elect a representative to use their best judgement to act on our behalf.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 22, 2019, 10:20:03 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/secret-cabinet-office-document-reveals-chaotic-planning-for-no-deal-brexit

You'll notice that this has been undermined by an unnamed "source". Easy isn't it?

I find The Guardian's reporting on Brexit generally pretty professional and objective. 
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 22, 2019, 10:27:06 PM
And this one is for Jocko!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/brexit-uk-has-chance-to-rethink-the-whole-thing-say-eu-leaders

(Title in the link no way reflects the headline of the article or its content - but that's newspapers!)  ::)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 22, 2019, 10:31:30 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/secret-cabinet-office-document-reveals-chaotic-planning-for-no-deal-brexit

You'll notice that this has been undermined by an unnamed "source". Easy isn't it?

I find The Guardian's reporting on Brexit generally pretty professional and objective.

When even the cabinet are split down the middle, this stuff is bound to get bubbled.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 23, 2019, 08:50:36 AM
Hi

A client of ours made a statement which thinking about it, and given above post, would bring the uk to a stop if implemented by all

His statement was if uk does not leave, to stop paying tax until such time uk left eu

He did say it would have to be the majority of the vote leavers as it would be impossible to take them to court

Many thanks

John

Why would you want to bring the UK to a stop?

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 23, 2019, 08:52:36 AM
No, this is a representative democracy - we elect a representative to use their best judgement to act on our behalf.

That may well be the case with everyday business,  but a referendum is special - it directs the MPs to do as they are told by the country, that is why referendums are not used very often,  and it seems when they are MPs think they can ignore the result - that is really what sticks in my craw..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on March 23, 2019, 08:56:07 AM
It is the job of the politicians to act in the best interest of their constituents.
Is it? Or is it the job of politicians to act on the wishes of their constituents?

No, this is a representative democracy - we elect a representative to use their best judgement to act on our behalf.

So why would we ever have a referendum on anything?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on March 23, 2019, 09:01:05 AM
Hi

A client of ours made a statement which thinking about it, and given above post, would bring the uk to a stop if implemented by all

His statement was if uk does not leave, to stop paying tax until such time uk left eu

He did say it would have to be the majority of the vote leavers as it would be impossible to take them to court

Many thanks

John

Why would you want to bring the UK to a stop?

It is simple to understand and repeat, this is not my idea but the more I think about and the more the likely outcome is no brexit due to politicians who think they hold all the power.

If all vote leavers refuses to pay tax (note this is non violent), the uk would have to either take all to court (and what happens if all refuse to pay the court - certainly not prison) or the uk uphold the referendum

Politicians in power need to understand that power can quickly be removed by the people

However, realistically I would not think his idea would be acted on but it made me smile due to its simplicity

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 23, 2019, 09:02:09 AM
It is the job of the politicians to act in the best interest of their constituents.
Is it? Or is it the job of politicians to act on the wishes of their constituents?

No, this is a representative democracy - we elect a representative to use their best judgement to act on our behalf.

So why would we ever have a referendum on anything?

Good point. It was a stupid idea in the first place.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 23, 2019, 09:06:32 AM
https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1108518312105951235/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1108518312105951235&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2Fmar%2F21%2Fpetitions-site-crashes-after-thousands-back-call-to-revoke-article-50

Interesting twitter feed, the people signing the petition ( which May has rightly rejected) are concentrated in a small number of strong remain areas,  and as someone said earlier - when it gets over 17million signatures ( all from registered voters in UK by the way,  not the 12 year olds from London who are doing it as a class project ).

Online petitions have a very, very small place in decision making simply because the minuscule effort involved in signing and you really have no control over who is signing them,  they are just faint background noise to the main debate.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 23, 2019, 09:16:40 AM
BBC are reporting that it is unlikely that Bots are signing up for the Revoke Article 50 petition. However there is evidence that Bots were used to skew the votes in previous government petitions (Gov.org). Methinks the BBC are upping the propaganda campaign.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 23, 2019, 09:23:00 AM
Hi

A client of ours made a statement which thinking about it, and given above post, would bring the uk to a stop if implemented by all

His statement was if uk does not leave, to stop paying tax until such time uk left eu

He did say it would have to be the majority of the vote leavers as it would be impossible to take them to court

Many thanks

John

Why would you want to bring the UK to a stop?

It is simple to understand and repeat, this is not my idea but the more I think about and the more the likely outcome is no brexit due to politicians who think they hold all the power.

If all vote leavers refuses to pay tax (note this is non violent), the uk would have to either take all to court (and what happens if all refuse to pay the court - certainly not prison) or the uk uphold the referendum

Politicians in power need to understand that power can quickly be removed by the people

However, realistically I would not think his idea would be acted on but it made me smile due to its simplicity

Many thanks

John
I still don't understand why your client thinks it would do any good and what does he hope to achieve?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on March 23, 2019, 09:31:32 AM
Hi

I would have thought it was obvious - to uphold the result of the referendum and uk to leave the eu

A thought came to me though, I wonder if the result of the referendum was revered using same % ie the majority voted to remain

Would the leavers be crying as the current remain voters are

I don’t think so and i would state same to the leavers - the vote winner was remain

So everyone has to accept the result and get on and leave the uk under deal or no deal

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 23, 2019, 11:17:37 AM
Hi

I would have thought it was obvious - to uphold the result of the referendum and uk to leave the eu

A thought came to me though, I wonder if the result of the referendum was revered using same % ie the majority voted to remain

Would the leavers be crying as the current remain voters are

I don’t think so and i would state same to the leavers - the vote winner was remain

So everyone has to accept the result and get on and leave the uk under deal or no deal

Many thanks

John

Why would that ensure that the referendum vote was upheld?
Most people pay tax by PAYE and VAT. So how would you withhold your tax?
No tax - reduction of services. So the people lose not the politicians. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Sounds a bit like the way the government have treated the referendum really. No real thought to the consequences.


BTW Have you thought of any advantages to leaving the EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 23, 2019, 11:56:25 AM
Hi

I would have thought it was obvious - to uphold the result of the referendum and uk to leave the eu

A thought came to me though, I wonder if the result of the referendum was revered using same % ie the majority voted to remain

Would the leavers be crying as the current remain voters are

I don’t think so and i would state same to the leavers - the vote winner was remain

So everyone has to accept the result and get on and leave the uk under deal or no deal

Many thanks

John

Why would that ensure that the referendum vote was upheld?
Most people pay tax by PAYE and VAT. So how would you withhold your tax?
No tax - reduction of services. So the people lose not the politicians. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Sounds a bit like the way the government have treated the referendum really. No real thought to the consequences.


BTW Have you thought of any advantages to leaving the EU.

Most people do pay by PAYE and can't really get out of paying the all pervading VAT ( an EU tax by the way  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax ) - I agree with John that the childish MPs need reminding who pays their salaries and inflated expenses though ' lest they forget'.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on March 23, 2019, 12:08:41 PM
Most people do pay by PAYE and can't really get out of paying the all pervading VAT ( an EU tax by the way  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax ).
In my opinion VAT is much better that the 'point of manufacture' purchase tax it replaced.  When the EU was the Common Market, it worked well.  That is what I voted to join all those years ago.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on March 23, 2019, 12:33:40 PM
Hi

The time for quoting any figures for/against is over. It finished when the referendum was held.

The government placed its trust and faith in the voters and the result was leave

No if and buts

The voters place their trust and faith in the politicians to uphold the referendum and leave

This appears not to be happening

Would I cut my throat to spite my nose - yes under curtain circumstances and I have previously done just that - why - because I have principles and only like to deal with genuine people

Would services lose out - not really because the level of services is not particularly good.

However, it would be easy to withhold taxes/paye as companies collect this and pay it over to hmrc. So they could hold the payment in trust for when referendum upheld and uk left eu.

Given the result, a large proportion of employers must have voted leave

However, it is irrelevant given that it would take the majority to do so, which would not happen but I wish it would, as it would save the expense of general elections and bring the politicians to their knees. I do not think that would take 2 years to happen, I guess a month or two of no tax income.

As I said, the vote has been cast, the result known and must be upheld

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 23, 2019, 12:39:45 PM

So why would we ever have a referendum on anything?

Good point. It was a stupid idea in the first place.

Does the same apply for the Scottish Devolution Referendum of 1997 and the Scottish Independence Referendum?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 23, 2019, 12:42:34 PM
Most people do pay by PAYE and can't really get out of paying the all pervading VAT ( an EU tax by the way  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax ).
In my opinion VAT is much better that the 'point of manufacture' purchase tax it replaced.  When the EU was the Common Market, it worked well.  That is what I voted to join all those years ago.

Ahhh the good old days,  if only it had remained as a common market it would have been great,  but the politicians at the time already knew ( as they launched a massive promotional campaign and project fear one at the same time ) that closer and closer political and economic integration was planned.  I did not even vote to join in 1975 as I was living overseas at the time.  Heath did not hold a referendum in 1972 as public opinion was something like 70/30% against joining, we were actually taken in illegally - something Harold Wilson realised and held a belated referendum to put the whole thing on a legal footing - ah,  the trust we have in our elected representatives - and how they let us down time and time again 'because they know better', it is easy to tell when a politician is lying, their lips are moving.

The reason why politicians from certain parties ( hint, Labour. Greens and Libdums ) keep pushing for ever lower voting age is to bring a new gullible impressionable group into the electorate that will believe their blatant lies at election time,  where older voter know that Labour will keep on spending until they run out of other peoples money, the Libdums are loonies and Greens are sniffing fairy dust.  It is said that voters get about 2% more likely to vote Conservative as they get older,  and with good reason - it is called experience.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 23, 2019, 12:45:45 PM

So why would we ever have a referendum on anything?

Good point. It was a stupid idea in the first place.

Does the same apply for the Scottish Devolution Referendum of 1997 and the Scottish Independence Referendum?

+1  Nice one !

so no more indyrefs allowed then,  great, although I think the English should be able to vote in the next one,  it would be 90% for Scotland leaving and 10% remain..

'Who will rid us of this troublesome country' - although I love the Scottish I hate their politicians ( and a lot of Scots probably do as well ).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 23, 2019, 12:54:04 PM

BTW Have you thought of any advantages to leaving the EU.


17,410,742 million people did (52% of those who bothered to vote for what was thought, at the time, to be a lost cause. That's a 4% majority which is pretty significant).

Just to refresh people's memory:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 23, 2019, 02:22:16 PM
Hi

The time for quoting any figures for/against is over. It finished when the referendum was held.

The government placed its trust and faith in the voters and the result was leave




Why should we not be allowed to change our minds ?
The referendum was based on false promises.
They told us we'd be saving £350m a week for the NHS now they're stockpiling medicines and assuring us there will be enough.
They said it would be dead easy to leave the EU and now nearly 3 years later they're scrabbling at the last minute.
Liam Fox said they would be queuing at the door to deal with us when we leave and now he says we should be celebrating when he makes a deal with the Faroe Islands (and its just the same deal we had when we were in the EU)

The result has just been made into some sort of religious icon. "The will of the people"

Would I cut my throat to spite my nose - yes under curtain circumstances and I have previously done just that - why - because I have principles and only like to deal with genuine people


The trouble is it's not just your throat. Everybody else is affected including your children and grand children.

There's a couple of good analogies in this article from the independent this morning.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-march-protest-theresa-may-no-deal-eu-put-it-to-people-a8834941.html

What kind of sandwich would you choose?

Last edit Added last sentence
What kind of sandwich would you choose?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 23, 2019, 02:29:41 PM
Why should we not be allowed to change our minds ?

But you haven't changed your mind. You didn't want to leave then and you don't want to leave now. Same as most of the Remoaners.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 23, 2019, 02:52:43 PM
Why should we not be allowed to change our minds ?

But you haven't changed your mind. You didn't want to leave then and you don't want to leave now. Same as most of the Remoaners.
No I haven't changed my mind. You haven't changed your mind.

I asked "why shouldn't we be allowed to change our minds?" (See question about sandwich in last post)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 23, 2019, 04:30:30 PM
"At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. "

Quite.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 23, 2019, 04:34:01 PM
"At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. "

Quite.
Of course it's  rentamob, Russian bots and mirrors. ::)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-march-london-put-it-to-the-people-live-updates-article-50-a8836386.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
last edit added BBC footage
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 23, 2019, 04:45:33 PM
There's still not 17.4 million people marching. And as London is full of Remoaners it is a nice day out for them. Organise a Remain march in the North East and see how many turn up.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 23, 2019, 04:57:06 PM
I have managed to vote 5 times in the Revoke Article 50 petition with no real trying (my 5 votes won't make a lot of difference). Just shows how easy it is to do. I see Margaret Georgiadou started the petition. That must be the Georgiadou's mentioned in the Doomsday book.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on March 23, 2019, 05:11:18 PM
Hi

I have not told anyone how I voted and no one is trying to change anyone’s mind. Some for many different reasons may change their minds. I am not one of them

However, changing minds is immaterial to the result

So the result has to stand and be upheld

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 23, 2019, 05:28:23 PM
No, this is a representative democracy - we elect a representative to use their best judgement to act on our behalf.

That may well be the case with everyday business,  but a referendum is special - it directs the MPs to do as they are told by the country, that is why referendums are not used very often,  and it seems when they are MPs think they can ignore the result - that is really what sticks in my craw..
Sorry you're assuming wrong there ... ALL UK referendums are advisory ONLY ... in brexit vote MPs voted to accept the result BUT they are free to vote again & change their minds -so- either a majority of MP's or a PM can strike brexit down & revoke article 50
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 23, 2019, 05:56:02 PM
I have managed to vote 5 times in the Revoke Article 50 petition with no real trying (my 5 votes won't make a lot of difference). Just shows how easy it is to do. I see Margaret Georgiadou started the petition. That must be the Georgiadou's mentioned in the Doomsday book.

No. She is a 77 year old woman.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-started-article-50-petition-162642124.html

“Who wants Brexit so much that they are prepared to kill for it?”

She said she was unable to attend the People’s Vote march on Saturday as she was in Cyprus but wished attendees well.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 23, 2019, 07:37:05 PM
What is it with remoaners about all the lies leave is supposed to have told, it is a fixation with them.  The lies told by remain were just as far from the mark and backed up by £9million of taxpayers money and the treasury, CBI and Bank of England, so are we to believe that establishment lies are not really lies but truth?  It is the old remainer trick of trying to make leave voters seem stupid and gullible while remainers are all so clever and not at all gullible, while still obviously believing that UK economy will collapse, unemployment will rocket, and we will all die from lack of food and drugs because no one will sell them to us. If you believe project fear backed as it is by vested interests of an establishment who do not have best interests of UK at heart you are indeed gullible.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 23, 2019, 07:42:40 PM
I have managed to vote 5 times in the Revoke Article 50 petition with no real trying (my 5 votes won't make a lot of difference). Just shows how easy it is to do. I see Margaret Georgiadou started the petition. That must be the Georgiadou's mentioned in the Doomsday book.

No. She is a 77 year old woman.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-started-article-50-petition-162642124.html

“Who wants Brexit so much that they are prepared to kill for it?”

She said she was unable to attend the People’s Vote march on Saturday as she was in Cyprus but wished attendees well.

A retired lecturer , now it makes sense, as she is no longer part of the establishment and she can no longer brainwash students with her leftie / liberal ideas on a daily basis so she decided to start a petition that anyone in the world could sign. Most of these establishment people seem to hate Britain rather than loving the EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 23, 2019, 11:41:06 PM
What is it with remoaners about all the lies leave is supposed to have told, it is a fixation with them.  The lies told by remain were just as far from the mark and backed up by £9million of taxpayers money and the treasury, CBI and Bank of England, so are we to believe that establishment lies are not really lies but truth?  It is the old remainer trick of trying to make leave voters seem stupid and gullible while remainers are all so clever and not at all gullible, while still obviously believing that UK economy will collapse, unemployment will rocket, and we will all die from lack of food and drugs because no one will sell them to us. If you believe project fear backed as it is by vested interests of an establishment who do not have best interests of UK at heart you are indeed gullible.

These lies you mean?
https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/long-list-leave-lies/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 23, 2019, 11:53:13 PM
I see Margaret Georgiadou started the petition. That must be the Georgiadou's mentioned in the Doomsday book.

There are plenty of names in the Domesday book that you might regard as 'foreign'. It might be a married name. She might be more British than you are. She might even be Scottish. How do you know?

Most of us are immigrants, somewhere down the line.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 23, 2019, 11:59:14 PM
are we to believe that establishment lies are not really lies but truth?  It is the old remainer trick of trying to make leave voters seem stupid and gullible while remainers are all so clever and not at all gullible, while still obviously believing that UK economy will collapse

You think that the £170billion the Bank of England had to pump into the economy immediately after the no vote was a lie too?

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 24, 2019, 12:04:34 AM
No, this is a representative democracy - we elect a representative to use their best judgement to act on our behalf.

That may well be the case with everyday business,  but a referendum is special - it directs the MPs to do as they are told by the country, that is why referendums are not used very often,  and it seems when they are MPs think they can ignore the result - that is really what sticks in my craw..

A referendum is not special at all, in that respect. You need to read some Edmund Burke.

A referendum is only binding if it is specifically written into the enabling act, and it was not in the case of the EU Referendum. Unusually, it was in the case of the PR Referendum in 2011.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 24, 2019, 09:19:57 AM
are we to believe that establishment lies are not really lies but truth?  It is the old remainer trick of trying to make leave voters seem stupid and gullible while remainers are all so clever and not at all gullible, while still obviously believing that UK economy will collapse

You think that the £170billion the Bank of England had to pump into the economy immediately after the no vote was a lie too?

That is a fraction of the amount the EU / ECB has pumped into the European economies.. and guess what - their unemployment has gone up and they are in recession. 
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 24, 2019, 09:30:20 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/23/peoples-vote-campaigners-march-london-demanding-public-given/

Its official then,  remain campaigners can't count - they claimed 700,000+ in October March and London authority said it was closer to 250,000 and they claimed a million yesterday.  Just like the votes on their latest petition then - if they only counted the legal ones ( people who live in UK and are entitled to vote here ) I wonder how many they would have,  instead they are distributing UK postcodes to anyone in Europe and the world ( and maybe the Russians ) to put their name on the petition.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on March 24, 2019, 09:40:33 AM
Hi

Just a quick question if your correct culzean

How would you be able to check to see if your postcode has been used to sign the petition

If my postcode has been used, I would be contacting ICO to complain unless that is wrong and need to complain to another body

Clearly l do not want to sign the petition or have my postcode used on this petition

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 24, 2019, 10:19:39 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/23/peoples-vote-campaigners-march-london-demanding-public-given/

Its official then,  remain campaigners can't count - they claimed 700,000+ in October March and London authority said it was closer to 250,000 and they claimed a million yesterday.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/peoples-vote-march-does-not-represent-the-majority-nigel-farage-tells-200-people-1-5954726


if they only counted the legal ones ( people who live in UK and are entitled to vote here ) I wonder how many they would have,  instead they are distributing UK postcodes to anyone in Europe and the world ( and maybe the Russians ) to put their name on the petition.

I say again, why would Russians or Russians bots be voting to support the status quo?  ::)


If my postcode has been used, I would be contacting ICO to complain unless that is wrong and need to complain to another body

Clearly l do not want to sign the petition or have my postcode used on this petition

Are your neighbours with the same postcode not allowed to sign it either?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 24, 2019, 10:24:41 AM
You think that the £170billion the Bank of England had to pump into the economy immediately after the no vote was a lie too?

That is a fraction of the amount the EU / ECB has pumped into the European economies.. and guess what - their unemployment has gone up and they are in recession. 

What's that got to do with question I asked? Typical whataboutery.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 24, 2019, 04:14:14 PM
Hi

Just a quick question if your correct culzean

How would you be able to check to see if your postcode has been used to sign the petition

If my postcode has been used, I would be contacting ICO to complain unless that is wrong and need to complain to another body

Clearly l do not want to sign the petition or have my postcode used on this petition

Many thanks

John
My post code, because I live in flats, covers about 100 house numbers.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on March 25, 2019, 08:49:09 AM
Hi

Ah sorry I understand now thank you

So there is no qualifying means to confirm if the signed of the petition is the person who signed it or am I wrong again sorry

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 25, 2019, 08:53:11 AM
You think that the £170billion the Bank of England had to pump into the economy immediately after the no vote was a lie too?

That is a fraction of the amount the EU / ECB has pumped into the European economies.. and guess what - their unemployment has gone up and they are in recession. 

What's that got to do with question I asked? Typical whataboutery.

Not whataboutery at all,  you were no doubt implying that the UK economy suffered more than EU ( and the rest of the world) but pretty much every country has stimulated their economy in the last few years ( certainly after the 2008 crash ),  the ECB ( and UK have money in there) only stopped / cut back its massive Eurozone stimulus last December and even before that but especially since the Eurozone economy has been shrinking and sliding into recession,  Greece seems to be the one transient bright spot but it may well be the last upward twitch before their economy also resumes its downward spiral. Looking at EU in general and Eurozone in particular UK is doing very well, unemployment at a 44 year low and wages rising - whats not to like ?

At the time of the 2008 crash the EU and USA economies were about the same size,  but since then EU economy has shrunk and US economy has grown and is now 30 to 40% larger.. EU is strangling itself with its common currency and closer political union.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 25, 2019, 09:01:08 AM
Hi

Ah sorry I understand now thank you

So there is no qualifying means to confirm if the signed of the petition is the person who signed it or am I wrong again sorry

Many thanks

John

The average UK postcode in suburban areas covers about 10 homes,  as Jocko says that rises in areas with denser houses.  It is a brilliant system,  much better than in other countries we have lived and traveled where their postcodes cover square miles,  By just knowing a postcode in UK your satnav will get you normally within 50 metres,  if you know the house number it will get you to top of their driveway.  I think there is a match between postcode and email address that if it is repeated will result in a 'double signing attempt' email back from the petition site, otherwise once one person in a postcode area had signed everyone else in that area would be blocked.  But I think it also means that if you have multiple email addresses you can sign more than once,  I don't think IP address is involved,  but may be wrong.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 25, 2019, 09:27:21 AM
A second use of an email address is not permitted, irrespective of what post code you use, but multiple uses of a Post Code, with different emails is permitted. You could have 19 houses to a post code, as in my mother-in-law's scheme of semi-detached houses, but they could all be houses of multiple occupation, such as near a university, so they could easily accommodate 60 - 100 email addresses.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on March 25, 2019, 01:33:23 PM
Since I own a domain name, I have an infinite number of email addresses I can use. And given I am skilled in software robotics, it would be really easy for me to program a bot to pick a valid UK postcode, generate a random email address to go in front of my domain, and then place a vote. Another bot would then watch my Inbox for the confirmation emails, and then respond to 'verify' the vote. Really not hard at all.

However, I think there is a bit more to it than that. They have mentioned there are a range of other checks that are made to spot 'gaming' of the system, such as pattern matching, artificial intelligence and whatnot. AI is really easy to deploy these days and we are seeing an escalating war between malicious software and security software.

The real question to ask here is what would be gained by anyone spending the time and effort to artificially boost the voter numbers. The government could never act on this petition and retain the shred of credibility it might currently have.

The better petition to have in my mind would be along the lines of 'Let's sort this all out with a general election' or some other question which would gain remain and brexit support.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 25, 2019, 03:49:00 PM
Not whataboutery at all,  you were no doubt implying that the UK economy suffered more than EU

I'm not implying that at all.

What I am saying is nothing so complicated. Brexiters constantly assert that "project fear" was all a lie, and that the mere threat of brexit didn't cause the economy to collapse as predicted, and indeed nothing really happened. But something did happen, after the 'no vote' in 2016, the Bank of England had to immediately inject £170billion of liquidity and FTSE debt purchase in order to prop up the economy and stock market. If this response had not taken place, the situation may have been very different.

In any case, I would dispute that nothing happened, and indeed so would the employees of companies that have subsequently decided to move their operations from the UK, and could continue to do so over the next 20-30 years.

I don't really understand your point regarding the amount of EU stimulus, you seem to be saying that the EU injected more stimulus and got worse results, surely you are not implying a direct causality? The EU has very different pressures to their economy, and in any case, the amount of fiscal stimulus that has gone into the UK economy since 2008 has been almost double that in the EU, when taken as a proportion of GDP, which is the only sensible measure. The EU economy is 8 times the size of the UK, and incidentally has a better credit rating than the UK across all agencies.

Think about that £170 billion that was used prop up the UK economy after the 'no' vote. That's equivalent to nearly 9% of the total UK GDP at the time - far from insignificant.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 25, 2019, 03:58:38 PM
The average UK postcode in suburban areas covers about 10 homes,  as Jocko says that rises in areas with denser houses.  It is a brilliant system,  much better than in other countries we have lived and traveled where their postcodes cover square miles,  By just knowing a postcode in UK your satnav will get you normally within 50 metres,  if you know the house number it will get you to top of their driveway.  I think there is a match between postcode and email address that if it is repeated will result in a 'double signing attempt' email back from the petition site, otherwise once one person in a postcode area had signed everyone else in that area would be blocked.  But I think it also means that if you have multiple email addresses you can sign more than once,  I don't think IP address is involved,  but may be wrong.

As you say, the postcode system here is indeed excellent. I post stuff all over the world, and it's right up there with the very best. Some countries, including Ireland, have no system at all, and it means extra work verifying that a given address is exactly correct.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the .gov petition site examines a number of criteria to verify that each signing is legitimate, and chunks of votes are regularly disallowed and subsequently removed from the totals.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 25, 2019, 04:12:29 PM
Not whataboutery at all,  you were no doubt implying that the UK economy suffered more than EU

I'm not implying that at all.

What I am saying is nothing so complicated. Brexiters constantly assert that "project fear" was all a lie, and that the mere threat of brexit didn't cause the economy to collapse as predicted, and indeed nothing really happened. But something did happen, after the 'no vote' in 2016, the Bank of England had to immediately inject £170billion of liquidity and FTSE debt purchase in order to prop up the economy and stock market. If this response had not taken place, the situation may have been very different.

In any case, I would dispute that nothing happened, and indeed so would the employees of companies that have subsequently decided to move their operations from the UK, and could continue to do so over the next 20-30 years.

I don't really understand your point regarding the amount of EU stimulus, you seem to be saying that the EU injected more stimulus and got worse results, surely you are not implying a direct causality? The EU has very different pressures to their economy, and in any case, the amount of fiscal stimulus that has gone into the UK economy since 2008 has been almost double that in the EU, when taken as a proportion of GDP, which is the only sensible measure. The EU economy is 8 times the size of the UK, and incidentally has a better credit rating than the UK across all agencies.

Think about that £170 billion that was used prop up the UK economy after the 'no' vote. That's equivalent to nearly 9% of the total UK GDP at the time - far from insignificant.

Companies are doing what they have to to set up a ' presence' on EU soil, I have no doubt at all they will move back to UK as soon as things settle down. 

It certainly looks like EU, especially Eurozone economies are on a downward track from which there is no recovery anytime soon , if ever.  The EU is mired in bigger problems than Brexit, the Euro is one but over-regulation and uncompetitiveness is another, as I have said before the EU is a 1950's ideology trying desperately to survive in the 21st century, a bit like a high street shop trying to compete with internet. It is a good analogy that lifeboats should try to get clear of the sinking ship before they get sucked down with it, Brexit is a lifeboat for UK.

I see threat of no deal has sharpened the pencils in Germany and RofI, to name just two of the countries saying back stop not really needed  :o :o

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/03/paul-bew-merkel-has-let-alternatives-to-the-backstop-out-of-a-bottle-so-theres-no-putting-them-back-in.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 25, 2019, 05:28:23 PM
It certainly looks like EU, especially Eurozone economies are on a downward track from which there is no recovery anytime soon , if ever.  The EU is mired in bigger problems than Brexit, the Euro is one but over-regulation and uncompetitiveness is another, as I have said before the EU is a 1950's ideology trying desperately to survive in the 21st century

I don't disagree with some of that, there are significant problems within the EU. Where we differ is that I think the EU will do what it has to do to survive, even if it has to reinvent itself, which it may eventually be forced to do.

As things stand, the credit agencies seem to believe that the EU economy as a whole is more fundamentally sound than the UK, and there seems to be a reasonable concensus that not only will the UK need a further fiscal stimulus package in the event of a no-deal brexit, credit ratings for the UK will also be adversely affected.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 25, 2019, 05:39:20 PM
I think the EU will do what it has to do to survive
Yes. Preventing, at all costs, stopping the UK from leaving.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 25, 2019, 05:44:10 PM
I think the EU will do what it has to do to survive
Yes. Preventing, at all costs, stopping the UK from leaving.

If the UK insists on leaving, I can't see how they can prevent it.

I never expected that they would facilitate it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 25, 2019, 08:01:41 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/23/peoples-vote-campaigners-march-london-demanding-public-given/


From the last sentence in the article:

"The day's activities were kicked off by the unfurling of a large banner on Westminster Bridge that read "Love socialism, hate Brexit".

I am sure Momentum were not too happy with that one. How on earth can they expect to nationalise the railways, the utilities and Royal Mail while/ if we are in EU?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 25, 2019, 08:41:51 PM
I case you missed this gem!  :o

"Speaking in the House of Commons on Monday [today], Theresa May said she had wanted to deliver Brexit on 29 March.

"But, I'm conscious of my duties as prime minister to all parts of our United Kingdom and of the damage to that union leaving without a deal could do, when one part of it is without devolved government and unable therefore to prepare properly," she said.

The prime minister said it:

 "would not have been appropriate" for no-deal to go ahead on 29 March because "the Northern Ireland civil service do not have the powers to take necessary decisions in the event of no deal".

Mrs May told MPs a no-deal Brexit would require some "direct application of powers" from Westminster to Northern Ireland.

"If there is no Stormont government, if powers are needed and ministerial direction is needed which is not available to the civil servants currently, it would require some form of direct application of powers here from Westminster," she said."

I think that this is, to say the least, disingenuous or stupid.

No doubt they will have the powers by 12 April? Or not? Or what? Did they just forget?

Surely someone should be sacked for such an oversight!  >:(
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 25, 2019, 09:04:07 PM
How on earth can they expect to nationalise the railways, the utilities and Royal Mail while/ if we are in EU?

Why not? In many EU countries, most of those sectors are state owned and run, and indeed many other sectors too.

EU laws do not forbid nationalisation. There are, however, rules in some sectors that require members states to allow competition in some sectors, such as railways and postal, but not in others, such as water. However, even in sectors where competition is allowed, member states do have wide powers to regulate, for example to make sure a universal postal service remains viable.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 25, 2019, 10:07:56 PM
Fair point.  :-[

http://theconversation.com/renationalising-britains-railways-eu-law-not-a-barrier-96759
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 26, 2019, 06:32:54 AM
Well, that's Brexit lost. MP's have sold us out. I am taking no more interest. Nothing to do now but wait on the call to arms. Won't end up in civil war but certainly civil unrest. Bring it on.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 26, 2019, 07:45:45 AM
From Sir John Curtice:

Political scientist Sir John Curtice says the latest research suggests "we are not keen on compromising on Brexit".

Speaking about those who voted to leave the EU, the Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University tells BBC Breakfast: “The trouble is that many of the 52% do not believe the deal implements their wishes effectively.”

“Public opinion is deeply polarised and Leavers and Remainers dislike Mrs May's withdrawal deal for different reasons," he says

“The single most popular option among those who voted Leave is to leave without a deal."

Meanwhile, the most popular option among Remainers is a second referendum, he says.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 28, 2019, 07:11:02 AM
This morning I was watching BBC world News (just after 06:30), and Sally Bundock was interviewing Tim Martin, Founder and CEO of J D Wetherspoon. Now Tim is an ardent Leaver and was obviously asked on the show because of his stance. Sally would ask him a question, then immediately he started to answer she would shout him down, because she was not getting the answer she wanted. It showed total ignorance on her part. Tim actually said to her, on a number of occasions, "do you want to interview me or not?" Sally Bundock is obviously a hard line Remoaner. She must be in line for the job of Director General of the BBC, the way she tows the BBC line, so vehemently.
Mind you, it is not just Brexit she goes on about. Most mornings she is on, she talks over the answers given by those invited on the programme for their view. She is just very fond of her own voice. An ignoramus.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 28, 2019, 08:26:44 AM
So Shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey has told BBC Radio 4 that her party has a "problem" with the Backstop as it "leaves Northern Ireland differently situation from the rest of the UK”. She said "I think there are question marks over the backstop because we know that will not be able to function in perpetuity and it puts the UK in a different economic position to Northern Ireland."
So Labour are jumping ship on their reasons for rejecting the deal now that their flagship policy was pretty well trounced in the indicative voting, yesterday.
And that's the party that may well be in power come the summer. F"@k me. Time I applied for my Irish passport!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 28, 2019, 08:43:41 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/27/bmw-interested-in-taking-over-hondas-swindon-site

BMW are keen to take over Honda Swindon plant and Toyota / Suzuki building new Hybrid models at Burnaston, seems Brexit not so bad after all and companies do business in UK because it is the best place,  not because we are part of the EU mother ship LOL

BMW chief also says that they can deal with no-deal scenario,  this must be bad news for remainers and their project fear,  one of their main weapons was that BMW would leave if we voted to leave, and later BMW would leave if we did not get a deal - gotta love remainers and their optimistic view of life, pass the Prozac I just had some bad news, BMW is staying ( and expanding ).....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 28, 2019, 08:48:44 AM
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-barnier/good-friday-agreement-will-apply-in-all-brexit-scenarios-eus-barnier-idUSKCN1R80YE

More evidence ( if you needed it ) that EU has not been negotiating in good faith and has been using the Irish border as a stick to beat UK with.  They now concede that checks away from the border will work after all ( I saw an EU paper over a year ago that agreed that electronic checks would work,  but Barnier et al obviously either did not read it or made a decision to try and hush it up ).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 28, 2019, 08:50:21 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/27/bmw-interested-in-taking-over-hondas-swindon-site

BMW are keen to take over Honda Swindon plant and Toyota / Suzuki building new Hybrid models at Burnaston, seems Brexit not so bad after all and companies do business in UK because it is the best place,  not because we are part of the EU mother ship LOL

BMW chief also says that they can deal with no-deal scenario,  this must be bad news for remainers and their project fear,  one of their main weapons was that BMW would leave if we voted to leave, and later BMW would leave if we did not get a deal - gotta love remainers and their optimistic view of life, pass the Prozac I just had some bad news, BMW is staying ( and expanding ).....

A German invasion!!  :o ??

and think of all those BMW s on the roads.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 28, 2019, 09:27:20 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/27/bmw-interested-in-taking-over-hondas-swindon-site

BMW are keen to take over Honda Swindon plant and Toyota / Suzuki building new Hybrid models at Burnaston, seems Brexit not so bad after all and companies do business in UK because it is the best place,  not because we are part of the EU mother ship LOL

BMW chief also says that they can deal with no-deal scenario,  this must be bad news for remainers and their project fear,  one of their main weapons was that BMW would leave if we voted to leave, and later BMW would leave if we did not get a deal - gotta love remainers and their optimistic view of life, pass the Prozac I just had some bad news, BMW is staying ( and expanding ).....

A German invasion!!  :o ??

and think of all those BMW s on the roads.

The latest hazard on our roads is women in Minis, ( cars not skirts unfortunately ) - the BMW effect is definitely there.  A company i used to work for made parts for Mini plant in Cowley and the plant was running at the very edge of its capacity ( with a £250,000 per hour penalty clause on suppliers if they did not supply parts in time and stopped the production line ) - I guess BMW just want to relieve bottlenecks at Cowley rather than make a new model.  This country already buys a not insignificant portion of German car output,  we are their biggest trading partner in the world and do more business with them than USA, no wonder the Germans are forcing EU negotiators to change their attitude,  they have a huge amount to lose and as paymasters for the EU they call all the shots...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 28, 2019, 10:18:58 AM
Some sensible words from out next Prime Minister.

Former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab says it is still possible to get some concessions from the EU over Theresa May's Brexit deal.

He said: "One thing I would like to see is us to go back to the EU again – keep the arm of friendship open – explain that there’s still time for an exchange of letters providing a legally binding exit from the backstop.

"A lot of people say the EU just won’t move – that’s been treated as a fixture of these negotiations rather than being tested."


I would be happy to have him controlling the next stage of negotiations.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 28, 2019, 10:44:29 AM
Some sensible words from out next Prime Minister.

Former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab says it is still possible to get some concessions from the EU over Theresa May's Brexit deal.

He said: "One thing I would like to see is us to go back to the EU again – keep the arm of friendship open – explain that there’s still time for an exchange of letters providing a legally binding exit from the backstop.

"A lot of people say the EU just won’t move – that’s been treated as a fixture of these negotiations rather than being tested."


I would be happy to have him controlling the next stage of negotiations.

Has he not already had a shot? ::)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 28, 2019, 11:07:16 AM
Has he not already had a shot? ::)
Not that I am aware of, but he is the current front runner among Tory MPs.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: RichardA on March 28, 2019, 11:12:10 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/27/bmw-interested-in-taking-over-hondas-swindon-site

BMW are keen to take over Honda Swindon plant and Toyota / Suzuki building new Hybrid models at Burnaston, seems Brexit not so bad after all and companies do business in UK because it is the best place,  not because we are part of the EU mother ship LOL

BMW chief also says that they can deal with no-deal scenario,  this must be bad news for remainers and their project fear,  one of their main weapons was that BMW would leave if we voted to leave, and later BMW would leave if we did not get a deal - gotta love remainers and their optimistic view of life, pass the Prozac I just had some bad news, BMW is staying ( and expanding ).....
That article reinforces my opinion that Swindon's closure was not due to Brexit, but down to us not buying enough Civics.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 28, 2019, 11:26:30 AM
Today's news is all "No Deal" now most likely option. There is no chance. The EU will give us extension after extension, as long or short as we want, as long as it keeps us in the EU and increases our chances of staying in the EU. If they turn round and refuse an extension after 12th April I'll eat my first born (sorry Jacqui).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 28, 2019, 11:58:36 AM
Has he not already had a shot? ::)
Not that I am aware of, but he is the current front runner among Tory MPs.

Negotiating I mean.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 28, 2019, 12:08:09 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-barnier/good-friday-agreement-will-apply-in-all-brexit-scenarios-eus-barnier-idUSKCN1R80YE

More evidence ( if you needed it ) that EU has not been negotiating in good faith and has been using the Irish border as a stick to beat UK with.  They now concede that checks away from the border will work after all ( I saw an EU paper over a year ago that agreed that electronic checks would work,  but Barnier et al obviously either did not read it or made a decision to try and hush it up ).

Your link just says that the Good Friday Agreement will continue to apply and that the UK must guarantee to uphold it.

"BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The Good Friday agreement to bring peace to Northern Ireland will continue to apply in all Brexit scenarios, the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said on Wednesday.

Respecting the Good Friday agreement meant preventing the return of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, he told the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

“In all scenarios, the Good Friday agreement will continue to apply. The United Kingdom will remain a core guarantor of that agreement and is expected to uphold it in spirit and in letter,” he said.

“The Commission is ready to make additional resources available to Ireland, technical and financial to address any additional challenges,” he continued. "
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 28, 2019, 01:20:18 PM
Negotiating I mean.
The only people that have done any negotiating are Olly Robbins and May herself. Bernard Jenkins was talking about it on "Daily Politics", today, and he said that even David Davis was only able to do what he was instructed. That was the reason the Withdrawal Deal had to be negotiated before the Future Deal. May and Robbins wanted it that way.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 28, 2019, 04:07:01 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-barnier/good-friday-agreement-will-apply-in-all-brexit-scenarios-eus-barnier-idUSKCN1R80YE

More evidence ( if you needed it ) that EU has not been negotiating in good faith and has been using the Irish border as a stick to beat UK with.  They now concede that checks away from the border will work after all ( I saw an EU paper over a year ago that agreed that electronic checks would work,  but Barnier et al obviously either did not read it or made a decision to try and hush it up ).

Your link just says that the Good Friday Agreement will continue to apply and that the UK must guarantee to uphold it.

"BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The Good Friday agreement to bring peace to Northern Ireland will continue to apply in all Brexit scenarios, the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said on Wednesday.

Respecting the Good Friday agreement meant preventing the return of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, he told the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

“In all scenarios, the Good Friday agreement will continue to apply. The United Kingdom will remain a core guarantor of that agreement and is expected to uphold it in spirit and in letter,” he said.

“The Commission is ready to make additional resources available to Ireland, technical and financial to address any additional challenges,” he continued. "

Yes but up to now the EU had said a hard border must be in place and checks at the border itself as they had said that electronic checks away from the border and trusted trader scheme would not be good enough....it is the first time EU has blinked in the ' negotiations ' ( aka punishment beating ) when they were faced with UK crashing out and WTO..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 28, 2019, 04:23:34 PM
EU 'blinked' ?? Don't think so, it's UK that's done that ever since EU vote

Any punishment is by UK on UK
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 28, 2019, 04:33:36 PM
EU 'blinked' ?? Don't think so, it's UK that's done that ever since EU vote

Any punishment is by UK on UK

Leavers certainly have not blinked, but the sore-loser remainers have kicked up enough fuss and dummy spitting tantrums to embolden the EU and give them no reason to come up with a good deal, but it seems that after last night's 'parliament taking control' fiasco the utter stupidity of the remainers case in parliament has been exposed, even with the poison dwarf Bercow on their side....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 28, 2019, 08:47:57 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/27/bmw-interested-in-taking-over-hondas-swindon-site

BMW are keen to take over Honda Swindon plant and Toyota / Suzuki building new Hybrid models at Burnaston, seems Brexit not so bad after all and companies do business in UK because it is the best place,  not because we are part of the EU mother ship LOL

BMW chief also says that they can deal with no-deal scenario,  this must be bad news for remainers and their project fear,  one of their main weapons was that BMW would leave if we voted to leave, and later BMW would leave if we did not get a deal - gotta love remainers and their optimistic view of life, pass the Prozac I just had some bad news, BMW is staying ( and expanding ).....
That article reinforces my opinion that Swindon's closure was not due to Brexit, but down to us not buying enough Civics.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

I wouldn't be so sure.
Businesses have to plan ahead.  A lot of damage has already been done and it's not just cars.

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-damaged-city-of-london-2018-11?r=US&IR=T

https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1061554026284834817
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 28, 2019, 09:06:54 PM
I watched an interview, this morning, with the Head of the British Chamber of Commerce and the CEO of Legal and General Asset Management. The BCC was all doom and gloom and the guy from Legal and General, when asked how Brexit was affecting them said "Not at all". The BCC said it was affecting industry and Financial Services and the CEO said, "Not Financial Services". The interviewer then asked the CEO what about overseas investments and he said it had made no difference. He did admit that a No Deal Brexit would require some adjustment but it was no big deal. I was gobsmacked, as was the BBC interviewer.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 28, 2019, 09:26:27 PM
I noticed there was a "Screw the EU" banner, clearly displayed behind the newsreader during the BBC lunchtime coverage from outside parliament. Take it the producer was a leaver! He never tried to move the camera angle.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on March 28, 2019, 09:45:01 PM
I watched an interview, this morning, with the Head of the British Chamber of Commerce and the CEO of Legal and General Asset Management. The BCC was all doom and gloom and the guy from Legal and General, when asked how Brexit was affecting them said "Not at all". The BCC said it was affecting industry and Financial Services and the CEO said, "Not Financial Services". The interviewer then asked the CEO what about overseas investments and he said it had made no difference. He did admit that a No Deal Brexit would require some adjustment but it was no big deal. I was gobsmacked, as was the BBC interviewer.

Which only goes to show that a bit of reality is just too much for the remainer luvvies. It's all too rough for the poor little things. I can see this is just going to run and run. As things stand, it looks like they are beginning to shape up for the next general election with Bojo coming to heal and, sad to say, Jacob Rees-Mogg donning his political pragmatist party loyalty cap and stepping back from the brink. Truth is, most of the MP's are scared to death of making a decision let alone the right one. They would much rather debate lowering the age of consent to 16 for a few more brainwashed votes. How the hell did we ever get to this?!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on March 28, 2019, 10:30:31 PM
sore-loser remainers have kicked up enough fuss and dummy spitting tantrums

remainer luvvies.

Remoaners, etc. etc.

You know I have been following this thread for 52 pages and I don’t remember a Remainer ever insulting or belittling a Brexiteer. Do you think we can call a stop to the name calling?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on March 28, 2019, 10:37:21 PM
sore-loser remainers have kicked up enough fuss and dummy spitting tantrums

remainer luvvies.

Remoaners, etc. etc.

You know I have been following this thread for 52 pages and I don’t remember a Remainer ever insulting or belittling a Brexiteer. Do you think we can call a stop to the name calling?

For clarity, to be specific, there are remainers and there are remainer luvvies. In this context, I am referring to the BBC reporter, most of whom are luvvies of one persuasion or another.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 29, 2019, 06:43:04 AM
I don’t remember a Remainer ever insulting or belittling a Brexiteer.
Obviously you are not reading all the posts from Remainers then.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 29, 2019, 06:47:56 AM
I don’t remember a Remainer ever insulting or belittling a Brexiteer.
Obviously you are not reading all the posts from Remainers then.

I have been accused of living in a "parallel universe". Is that not belittling?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on March 29, 2019, 08:08:33 AM
I don’t remember a Remainer ever insulting or belittling a Brexiteer.
Obviously you are not reading all the posts from Remainers then.

I have been accused of living in a "parallel universe". Is that not belittling?


Possibly but I think the poster just means they have a completely different take on things, if you look through the posts the childish name calling is almost entirely used by leavers, I've thought several times it's like being in a school playground.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 29, 2019, 08:56:30 AM
I don't think I have referred to any of the members here as Remoaners, or in derogatory terms. I save that for the Media, those who air their voice in the media and the MPs. If I have offended anyone on the forum I sincerely apologise. I certainly have not done so deliberately.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on March 29, 2019, 09:23:36 AM
I've thought several times it's like being in a school playground.
+1

One only has to scan through the thread to see who the offenders are.  And no Jocko, you are not one.

My English teacher maintained that if you swear it shows a lack of command of the English language and more pertinent to this subject was that if you deride others and name call in debate then it demonstrates that your arguments are not sound.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 29, 2019, 09:57:57 AM
I've thought several times it's like being in a school playground.
+1

One only has to scan through the thread to see who the offenders are.  And no Jocko, you are not one.

My English teacher maintained that if you swear it shows a lack of command of the English language and more pertinent to this subject was that if you deride others and name call in debate then it demonstrates that your arguments are not sound.

Well leave voters are called everything from thick, uneducated, too stupid to have the vote, did not have the brains to realise what they were voting for and surely Brexiteer is pretty much on a level with remainer / remoaner.  Remain voters are often called Europhiles but may as well be called Britaphobes because I am convinced that many of them hate the UK more than they love the EU.  Personally I have lived and worked all over the world, I would not call myself a racist but I get very upset when I travel through certain areas of the UK and feel as if I am in a totally alien foreign country - but I would call myself an anglophile and Eurosceptic as I hate the effect being in the EU has had on this country.  I did not mind the common market but what has happened to it since makes me very angry mainly because we were so misled by our politicians - they knew very well from the start how the EU was going to develop and lied to us at every turn.   As for name calling I don't mind it at all, it shows a certain inventive tendency to expand the vocabulary that certain left leaning stuffy teachers of English would certainly frown upon.

I could call remain voters who refuse to accept the result democraphobes - it seems that a turnout of 400,000 in London ( the beating heart of remain) is taken as a signal that we should not leave, but a majority of 1.3 million in referendum can be ignored.  Laws are passed every day Parliament that affect all our lives and can be passed with a majority of 1 vote out of 650,  democracy is democracy until certain people say 'the majority was not convincing enough'  try telling that to a rugby / cricket team that just won a match by 1 point - do they have to have a second match to decide ? actually they would need two extra matches and have best of 3.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 29, 2019, 10:06:17 AM
Obviously you are not reading all the posts from Remainers then.

I have been accused of living in a "parallel universe". Is that not belittling?

It doesn't sound at all belittling to me, it sounds like a flowery way to say "I don't agree with you". The poster that said this was also careful to direct this at "you guys", i.e. leave voters, and not at you personally. It's certainly nothing like the constant drip drip drip of disrespectful comments aimed at remain voters. This was brought up before, and it did get more sensible for a while, but I see it's soon crept back in.

I can see the brexit point of view, and I agree with parts of it. I just so happens I don't agree with the premise that we will be better off out. That doesn't mean that I'm 'brainwashed' or a 'remoaner' Jocko, or even that my point of view is any less valid.

If the term 'brexshitter' were employed with the same level of gay abandon that 'remoaner' is, you might think it all a bit juvenile.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 29, 2019, 10:27:13 AM
Truth is, most of the MP's are scared to death of making a decision let alone the right one. They would much rather debate lowering the age of consent to 16 for a few more brainwashed votes. How the hell did we ever get to this?!

We got to this because there are very few conviction politicians any more and all the parties are fighting for the centre ground and employing advisors ( spin doctors ) and taking notice of voxpops - they basically change their views every day like the wind changes. Tony B Liar was actually to the right of Tory party and that was the end of the Labour party being the party of the working man, although it has taken some voters a long time to realise that.  There is a true saying that Labour will continue to spend ( buy voters ) until they run out of other peoples money,  and also a statistic that voters become about 2% per year more Conservative ( Tory ) as they get older - it is called experience.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 29, 2019, 10:30:25 AM
Well leave voters are called everything from thick, uneducated, too stupid to have the vote, did not have the brains to realise what they were voting for and surely Brexiteer is pretty much on a level with remainer / remoaner.

The matter at hand here is what's been said on this thread, not what's happening on Facebook and Twitter. You show me where anyone has called you thick, uneducated or stupid here on this thread.

The equivalent of 'brexiteer' is 'remainer', not 'remoaner', I personally am not over keen on the term 'brexiteer', but it is a label some brexit campaigners use to describe themselves!


Remain voters are often called Europhiles but may as well be called Britaphobes because I am convinced that many of them hate the UK more than they love the EU.

I'm a britaphobe as well, am I? I'm glad that's just you stating your opinion of us remain voters.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 29, 2019, 10:50:40 AM
There is a true saying that Labour will continue to spend ( buy voters ) until they run out of other peoples money

...and Conservatives will continue to hand out tax cuts for the rich until they run out of state assets to sell off.

How exactly did bailing out the banking sector buy votes?

...and also a statistic that voters become about 2% per year more Conservative ( Tory ) as they get older - it is called experience.

It's called wealthier pensioners having, on average, a longer life expectancy.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on March 29, 2019, 11:47:19 AM
I don't think I have referred to any of the members here as Remoaners, or in derogatory terms. I save that for the Media, those who air their voice in the media and the MPs. If I have offended anyone on the forum I sincerely apologise. I certainly have not done so deliberately.

I was not referring to you Jocko.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 29, 2019, 12:50:31 PM
I do not object to people voting remain, after all that is democracy. What I do take issue with is the way certain remain voters / establishment have behaved since,  driving a stake through the heart of democracy as we understand it ( rule by majority vote ) by their antics.  People like Keir Starmer who want another vote because the last result did not suit them,  but they haven't the honesty to come out and say they want to reverse the vote,  oh no they just keep saying 'things have changed', 'people did not vote to leave with no deal', 'people did not vote to leave customs union' (well it stated on the leaflet that came through my door that 'we will leave the single market and customs union' ) it also stated that the government would implement the result of the referendum voters and it was a once in a lifetime vote ( but then Alex Salmond said the same about indyref 1 ).

I still say that if country had voted to remain there would have been non of this argy-bargy, no people saying 'they did not know what they were voting for' and claiming what people really wanted was to leave and there should be another vote.  The establishment reminds me of Manchester United playing Bournemouth and losing the match and then claiming they need a replay because the other teams goals were not real goals and Bournemouth did not know what they were doing when they scored them.  Lets face it the UK politicians and establishment only voted to hold a referendum and promised all those things because they were overconfident of an easy win, especially with project fear on their side,  but as soon as the 'wrong result' happened they tried to backtrack.  Does not help that the family vehicle of the speaker of the house of commons has a '80ll0ck5 to Brexit' sticker on it .. he should have retired last year but decided to see brexit through ( that was his excuse, what he really meant was 'I will stay on because I will be in a prime position to give remain MPs all the help I can to stop brexit, even if this means driving a 40 ton lorry through parliamentary precedent and rules and being the most obviously biased speaker the house has ever had ).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 29, 2019, 01:25:23 PM
It is disappointing that people say that the result of the referendum was very close - it was not.

In percentage terms, it is equivalent to a majority of 25 in the House of Commons which most people would reasonably say was a comfortable majority.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on March 29, 2019, 02:51:36 PM
I do not object to people voting remain, after all that is democracy. What I do take issue with is the way certain remain voters / establishment have behaved since,  driving a stake through the heart of democracy as we understand it ( rule by majority vote ) by their antics.

I don't think any of that is justification for the name calling on here. I fail to see why I should be unable to put my point of view without being labelled a 'remoaner'.


I still say that if country had voted to remain there would have been non of this argy-bargy

I would respectfully refer you back to Nigel Farage's words in an interview in May 2016,

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

Farage was absolutely right. If the vote had gone the other way, I would have never expected brexit voters to give up. We live in a democracy, and people have freedom of idea and speech - you should not expect remainers to shut up and go away either.

I personally think that the use of a referendum in a partiamentary democracy to settle policy is seriously flawed. However, if we must go down that road, any change should have to come about from a clear mandate, one way or the other, especially if that change is irrevocable and has long lasting implications. Anything within a few percent is a long way from a clear mandate.

However, that's just my personal belief, and we are where we are.


It is disappointing that people say that the result of the referendum was very close - it was not.

From the quote above, I would make the same point. Even NF thought that 52-48 is too close too call a victory.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 29, 2019, 03:04:58 PM
I would have never expected brexit voters to give up.
I'll be perfectly honest, if had gone the other way that would have been it for me. I didn't expect a Leave vote.
I know there are many others who are not of that opinion.

Now that the Withdrawal Agreement has been voted down for the third time I think we need a General Election. Let the MPs from Leave constituencies face their voters.
Personally, I am looking forward to the European Elections. The Brexit Party say they will have a candidate in every constituency. That is where my vote will go.
Then it is out with the balaclava and stab proof vest!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 29, 2019, 03:20:04 PM
If you want a close result look at the 1997 Welsh devolution referendum with a 50.3% in favour, about 6000 votes.  Did anyone query the legitimacy of that vote and demand another vote ?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on March 29, 2019, 03:21:19 PM
I don’t remember a Remainer ever insulting or belittling a Brexiteer.
Obviously you are not reading all the posts from Remainers then.

I have been accused of living in a "parallel universe". Is that not belittling?
Sorry if my parallel universe comment caused such offence. There was none intended.
I've been out all day and so unable to answer.


Personally, I am looking forward to the European Elections. The Brexit Party say they will have a candidate in every constituency. That is where my vote will go.
Then it is out with the balaclava and stab proof vest!

However I still can't understand your reasoning.


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on March 29, 2019, 03:27:41 PM
We must disagree. I can only repeat what I say.

It is disappointing that people say that the result of the referendum was very close - it was not.

In percentage terms, it is equivalent to a majority of 25 in the House of Commons which most people would reasonably say was a comfortable majority.

It is a matter of judgement of whether a majority of 4% is significant or not. 

It certainly is not close compared with the Welsh Referendum result (majority 0.6%) or as big as the Scottish Referendum (majority 10.6%). But it is pretty much in between.

My emphasis is on a reasonable view .
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on March 29, 2019, 03:42:24 PM
However I still can't understand your reasoning.
I just want to send a message to "the Man".
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on March 29, 2019, 04:05:10 PM
EU 'blinked' ?? Don't think so, it's UK that's done that ever since EU vote

Any punishment is by UK on UK

Leavers certainly have not blinked, but the sore-loser remainers have kicked up enough fuss and dummy spitting tantrums to embolden the EU and give them no reason to come up with a good deal, but it seems that after last night's 'parliament taking control' fiasco the utter stupidity of the remainers case in parliament has been exposed, even with the poison dwarf Bercow on their side....
A good EU exit deal was never possible, a fact I've been aware of for a long time after chatting to MPs, MSPs & MEP back in 2016
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on March 29, 2019, 04:31:34 PM
I would have never expected brexit voters to give up.
Personally that is exactly what I would have done.  I was given the opportunity to voice my opinion which was that we should leave.  I liked the Common Market but then it evolved into the EU which is far from the democracy I wish to live in.  I didn't realise just how divisive MEPs and MPs could be until this whole fiasco started playing out.

I do realise, however, that it is easier to except the Status Quo than a change and to some extent sympathise with those who voted to remain in the EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 29, 2019, 04:49:47 PM
EU 'blinked' ?? Don't think so, it's UK that's done that ever since EU vote

Any punishment is by UK on UK

Leavers certainly have not blinked, but the sore-loser remainers have kicked up enough fuss and dummy spitting tantrums to embolden the EU and give them no reason to come up with a good deal, but it seems that after last night's 'parliament taking control' fiasco the utter stupidity of the remainers case in parliament has been exposed, even with the poison dwarf Bercow on their side....
A good EU exit deal was never possible, a fact I've been aware of for a long time after chatting to MPs, MSPs & MEP back in 2016

Well leave voters also understood that a good deal was never in the minds of the EU politburo, they are in a quandary, they don't particularly like UK being a member ( we are too democratic for them ) but they need our money to pay for their grandiose plans. The big problem is that the EU has for a long time now been putting politics before business, which is why they are rapidly slipping backwards in the world.

P.S. they also need our fish.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on March 29, 2019, 04:55:24 PM
I would have never expected brexit voters to give up.
Personally that is exactly what I would have done.  I was given the opportunity to voice my opinion which was that we should leave.  I liked the Common Market but then it evolved into the EU which is far from the democracy I wish to live in.  I didn't realise just how divisive MEPs and MPs could be until this whole fiasco started playing out.

I do realise, however, that it is easier to except the Status Quo than a change and to some extent sympathise with those who voted to remain in the EU.

The best analogy I can think of for the status quo is that if you put a frog in cool water and gradually heat it up the frog will quite happily remain in the water until it kills them, now I have to say I am not calling remain voters frogs and also that no frogs were injured in the making of this analogy..... and am not saying the EU would kill them either unless they were conscripted into the EU army.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on March 29, 2019, 04:58:57 PM
I would have never expected brexit voters to give up.
Personally that is exactly what I would have done.  I was given the opportunity to voice my opinion which was that we should leave.  I liked the Common Market but then it evolved into the EU which is far from the democracy I wish to live in.  I didn't realise just how divisive MEPs and MPs could be until this whole fiasco started playing out.

I do realise, however, that it is easier to except the Status Quo than a change and to some extent sympathise with those who voted to remain in the EU.

The best analogy I can think of for the status quo is that if you put a frog in cool water and gradually heat it up the frog will quite happily remain in the water until it kills them, now I have to say I am not calling remain voters frogs and also that no frogs were injured in the making of this