|
Post by staffordshrew on Jan 17, 2019 23:16:28 GMT 1
So France is spending £90 Million on customs office building in case of "no deal". What are we doing? The trial last week showed we are not ready.
Seems that Theresa will not rule out "no deal", but also isn't doing much to cope if there is a "no deal" exit.
|
|
|
Post by keithb123 on Jan 18, 2019 0:16:48 GMT 1
In your opinion, it's actually been the process that has been a complete **** up
Oh come now Kieth. Dress it up however you like, but that’s exactly the same as I’m saying. Go on say it, you agree with me don’t you Nope, I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this one
|
|
|
Post by TheFoz on Jan 18, 2019 2:10:15 GMT 1
Tuned into Question Time for the first time in ages.
It wasn’t the greatest but one guest came across very well.
Anand Menon (EU expert) was really informative, no party biases etc which meant he could just be honest. Gave some great reasons as to why no-deal and a second referendum are not the best routes to go down.
I’ll try to summarise:
Second referendum - say we have a second referendum, remain wins 52-48 but they have 16 million votes, which is less than what leave got in 2016. Where does that then leave us? More divided than ever.
No deal - basically means all our EU laws to do with trade, flying etc will cease to exist. He said it’s fine to want no deal but realise the implications , “be aware of what no deal means, it means severe disruption”. No deal will hurt the EU in places like Calais, Belgium and Amsterdam. On the other hand, some member states don’t really care, as they don’t do a lot of trade with us. However, it will hurt us a lot more than it will hurt them. In short, it will be absolute chaos.
I voted remain initially but I just hope we get a deal (soon) and we can carry on with minimum disruption to our day to day lives.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 18, 2019 7:36:05 GMT 1
Talk of civil walk does seem rather silly, I think that's way over the top. It sounds like a very pleasant outcome. I could join brexiteers in a civil walk. <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 18.720000000000027px; height: 4.920000000000016px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_97223446" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 4.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 881px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_69039068" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 4.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 185px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_47866096" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 4.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 881px; top: 185px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_60896090" scrolling="no"></iframe> Only just cottoned on to that... Ramblers for Brexit!!
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jan 18, 2019 12:07:25 GMT 1
Tuned into Question Time for the first time in ages. It wasn’t the greatest but one guest came across very well. Anand Menon (EU expert) was really informative, no party biases etc which meant he could just be honest. Gave some great reasons as to why no-deal and a second referendum are not the best routes to go down. I’ll try to summarise: Second referendum - say we have a second referendum, remain wins 52-48 but they have 16 million votes, which is less than what leave got in 2016. Where does that then leave us? More divided than ever. No deal - basically means all our EU laws to do with trade, flying etc will cease to exist. He said it’s fine to want no deal but realise the implications , “be aware of what no deal means, it means severe disruption”. No deal will hurt the EU in places like Calais, Belgium and Amsterdam. On the other hand, some member states don’t really care, as they don’t do a lot of trade with us. However, it will hurt us a lot more than it will hurt them. In short, it will be absolute chaos. I voted remain initially but I just hope we get a deal (soon) and we can carry on with minimum disruption to our day to day lives. I've seen him on many TV debates and he always comes across very well. He's a very knowledgeable man and very well informed man, but one who many leave supporters will just dismiss as part of "project fear".
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 18, 2019 15:41:38 GMT 1
Tuned into Question Time for the first time in ages. It wasn’t the greatest but one guest came across very well. Anand Menon (EU expert) was really informative, no party biases etc which meant he could just be honest. Gave some great reasons as to why no-deal and a second referendum are not the best routes to go down. I’ll try to summarise: Second referendum - say we have a second referendum, remain wins 52-48 but they have 16 million votes, which is less than what leave got in 2016. Where does that then leave us? More divided than ever. No deal - basically means all our EU laws to do with trade, flying etc will cease to exist. He said it’s fine to want no deal but realise the implications , “be aware of what no deal means, it means severe disruption”. No deal will hurt the EU in places like Calais, Belgium and Amsterdam. On the other hand, some member states don’t really care, as they don’t do a lot of trade with us. However, it will hurt us a lot more than it will hurt them. In short, it will be absolute chaos. I voted remain initially but I just hope we get a deal (soon) and we can carry on with minimum disruption to our day to day lives. He wrote about his Question Time experience today. Made the point that "no deal" isn't the same as rejecting a simple commercial exchange because, if you reject a simple commercial deal, the situation doesn't change. His analogy is trading in an old car - if he doesn't like the offer he gets for it, it's no deal, but he still has the car. By contrast, a brexit no deal means immediate change in many areas. When whole chunks of our laws cease to apply, it will inevitably be disruptive. No deal planning is now too late and can't avoid disruption anyway - at best, it could only try to manage it, hence the plans for lorries to be parked on the motorway etc. It also requires the EU to plan for no deal as well and their plans, which are also very limited, are designed to minimise disruption within the EU, not the UK. And, as this is as much political as it is commercial, the EU knows no deal will hurt both sides but also that it will hurt the UK more and they're willing to tolerate the harm it does them. Menon says the consensus is that the UK is 1-2% worse off since the referendum than it would have been, that the short term damage to the economy of a no deal exit would probably be manageable, although business and consumer confidence would be low, and that the long run impact would be a drag on future growth. Cumulative economic growth by 2033 would be 17%, instead of the 25% it would otherwise have been, even allowing for the possibility of future trade deals with the US etc. Perhaps more concerning is that, despite the saving of net contributions to the EU, government revenue would be £80 billion less each year by 2033, so the strains on public services will only increase - there is no brexit dividend, there's a brexit cost. It's not all about economics of course, but that's easy to say when it's not your livelihood or your children's futures etc at risk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 16:00:06 GMT 1
It's not all about economics of course, but that's easy to say when it's not your livelihood or your children's futures etc at risk. yeh but its all the fault of those howible dwunken eu officials.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jan 18, 2019 16:14:22 GMT 1
It's not all about economics of course, but that's easy to say when it's not your livelihood or your children's futures etc at risk. yeh but its all the fault of those howible dwunken eu officials. You're so cringey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 18:08:02 GMT 1
yeh but its all the fault of those howible dwunken eu officials. You're so cringey. Oh I’m all cwingey wingey. Howible howible matron!!
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jan 18, 2019 18:20:15 GMT 1
Tuned into Question Time for the first time in ages. It wasn’t the greatest but one guest came across very well. Anand Menon (EU expert) was really informative, no party biases etc which meant he could just be honest. Gave some great reasons as to why no-deal and a second referendum are not the best routes to go down. I’ll try to summarise: Second referendum - say we have a second referendum, remain wins 52-48 but they have 16 million votes, which is less than what leave got in 2016. Where does that then leave us? More divided than ever. No deal - basically means all our EU laws to do with trade, flying etc will cease to exist. He said it’s fine to want no deal but realise the implications , “be aware of what no deal means, it means severe disruption”. No deal will hurt the EU in places like Calais, Belgium and Amsterdam. On the other hand, some member states don’t really care, as they don’t do a lot of trade with us. However, it will hurt us a lot more than it will hurt them. In short, it will be absolute chaos. I voted remain initially but I just hope we get a deal (soon) and we can carry on with minimum disruption to our day to day lives. He wrote about his Question Time experience today. Made the point that "no deal" isn't the same as rejecting a simple commercial exchange because, if you reject a simple commercial deal, the situation doesn't change. His analogy is trading in an old car - if he doesn't like the offer he gets for it, it's no deal, but he still has the car. By contrast, a brexit no deal means immediate change in many areas. When whole chunks of our laws cease to apply, it will inevitably be disruptive. No deal planning is now too late and can't avoid disruption anyway - at best, it could only try to manage it, hence the plans for lorries to be parked on the motorway etc. It also requires the EU to plan for no deal as well and their plans, which are also very limited, are designed to minimise disruption within the EU, not the UK. And, as this is as much political as it is commercial, the EU knows no deal will hurt both sides but also that it will hurt the UK more and they're willing to tolerate the harm it does them. Menon says the consensus is that the UK is 1-2% worse off since the referendum than it would have been, that the short term damage to the economy of a no deal exit would probably be manageable, although business and consumer confidence would be low, and that the long run impact would be a drag on future growth. Cumulative economic growth by 2033 would be 17%, instead of the 25% it would otherwise have been, even allowing for the possibility of future trade deals with the US etc. Perhaps more concerning is that, despite the saving of net contributions to the EU, government revenue would be £80 billion less each year by 2033, so the strains on public services will only increase - there is no brexit dividend, there's a brexit cost. It's not all about economics of course, but that's easy to say when it's not your livelihood or your children's futures etc at risk. Yet May refuses to rule out no deal? Somebody should ask her pertinent questions about how she would handle no deal.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 18, 2019 19:34:25 GMT 1
He wrote about his Question Time experience today. Made the point that "no deal" isn't the same as rejecting a simple commercial exchange because, if you reject a simple commercial deal, the situation doesn't change. His analogy is trading in an old car - if he doesn't like the offer he gets for it, it's no deal, but he still has the car. By contrast, a brexit no deal means immediate change in many areas. When whole chunks of our laws cease to apply, it will inevitably be disruptive. No deal planning is now too late and can't avoid disruption anyway - at best, it could only try to manage it, hence the plans for lorries to be parked on the motorway etc. It also requires the EU to plan for no deal as well and their plans, which are also very limited, are designed to minimise disruption within the EU, not the UK. And, as this is as much political as it is commercial, the EU knows no deal will hurt both sides but also that it will hurt the UK more and they're willing to tolerate the harm it does them. Menon says the consensus is that the UK is 1-2% worse off since the referendum than it would have been, that the short term damage to the economy of a no deal exit would probably be manageable, although business and consumer confidence would be low, and that the long run impact would be a drag on future growth. Cumulative economic growth by 2033 would be 17%, instead of the 25% it would otherwise have been, even allowing for the possibility of future trade deals with the US etc. Perhaps more concerning is that, despite the saving of net contributions to the EU, government revenue would be £80 billion less each year by 2033, so the strains on public services will only increase - there is no brexit dividend, there's a brexit cost. It's not all about economics of course, but that's easy to say when it's not your livelihood or your children's futures etc at risk. Yet May refuses to rule out no deal? Somebody should ask her pertinent questions about how she would handle no deal. I think it's clear that May doesn't want no deal to happen, she will do all she can to avoid that. But as far as I can see the only way you could take no deal off the table would be to say that the last resort is to rescind Article 50. She clearly does not wish to do that because it would mean that the result of the referendum would be ignored. But more to the point, could she get get through Parliament and would the EU agree to such a move (and more importantly, unconditionally). As far as I can see, she can not guarantee that can she? I'm just not sure why people are asking this of her when I don't think she is in a position to do so, she is right to keep pressing the need to get a deal in place (which is the best way to avoid a no deal). But as no deal is the default position, she can't take it off the table.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jan 18, 2019 19:43:59 GMT 1
Can't help but think we should have had a "leaver" doing the negotiations, starting from a no deal stance and then setting up deal agreements as each and every problem with no deal came up. Trouble is,nobody else wants the job, only a failed Home Secretary. Britain needed a leader,a Churchill, Thatcher or Blair, but so far there is no sign of one.
Is there someone who will ride in like the cavalry when May's failure is complete (and take all the credit for any success)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 20:10:14 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jan 21, 2019 16:47:39 GMT 1
Can't help but think we should have had a "leaver" doing the negotiations, starting from a no deal stance and then setting up deal agreements as each and every problem with no deal came up. Trouble is,nobody else wants the job, only a failed Home Secretary. Britain needed a leader,a Churchill, Thatcher or Blair, but so far there is no sign of one. Is there someone who will ride in like the cavalry when May's failure is complete (and take all the credit for any success)?
Blair. Murdering sycophant. Iraq, WMDs, PFIs in the NHS and London Underground, started the sell off of school fields.
If it's all the same to you I'll pass on those three. Give me Attlee and particularly Bevan over any of them.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jan 21, 2019 16:53:40 GMT 1
So, after several days of posturing and inflexibility from May it appears that the square root of bugger all has changed since the government's historic defeat last week.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jan 21, 2019 17:01:40 GMT 1
Can't help but think we should have had a "leaver" doing the negotiations, starting from a no deal stance and then setting up deal agreements as each and every problem with no deal came up. Trouble is,nobody else wants the job, only a failed Home Secretary. Britain needed a leader,a Churchill, Thatcher or Blair, but so far there is no sign of one. Is there someone who will ride in like the cavalry when May's failure is complete (and take all the credit for any success)?
Blair. Murdering sycophant. Iraq, WMDs, PFIs in the NHS and London Underground, started the sell off of school fields.
If it's all the same to you I'll pass on those three. Give me Attlee and particularly Bevan over any of them.
You forgot Blair introduced Uni fees too. But they all got things done.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jan 21, 2019 17:32:22 GMT 1
Blair. Murdering sycophant. Iraq, WMDs, PFIs in the NHS and London Underground, started the sell off of school fields.
If it's all the same to you I'll pass on those three. Give me Attlee and particularly Bevan over any of them.
You forgot Blair introduced Uni fees too. But they all got things done. Getting things done from the deaths of people they perceive to be below them. Nah, I'll still pass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 21:25:45 GMT 1
So, Dyson moves his company HQ to Singapore. A country that signed a trade agreement with the EU.
Ranks right up there with Rees-Mogg's investment funds in the RoI and Redwood telling investors not to bother putting money in the UK.
Nice one.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jan 28, 2019 12:38:11 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 12:52:09 GMT 1
Can't help but think we should have had a "leaver" doing the negotiations, starting from a no deal stance and then setting up deal agreements as each and every problem with no deal came up. Trouble is,nobody else wants the job, only a failed Home Secretary. Britain needed a leader,a Churchill, Thatcher or Blair, but so far there is no sign of one. Is there someone who will ride in like the cavalry when May's failure is complete (and take all the credit for any success)?
Blair. Murdering sycophant. Iraq, WMDs, PFIs in the NHS and London Underground, started the sell off of school fields.
If it's all the same to you I'll pass on those three. Give me Attlee and particularly Bevan over any of them.
Now hang on there! They were selling off school fields when I was at bloody school so you can hang that one round his neck! And you forgot to mention sure start and minimum wage!
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Jan 28, 2019 13:23:47 GMT 1
I think gammon was on the menu.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jan 29, 2019 10:26:42 GMT 1
Watching Tim Martin makes me think that we should require a minimum IQ to vote.
|
|
|
Post by keithb123 on Jan 29, 2019 11:06:08 GMT 1
Watching Tim Martin makes me think that we should require a minimum IQ to vote. He hasn't done too bad to be worth £443 million has he?
Plenty of people with low IQ's (wonder what yours is) who are very successful
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jan 29, 2019 11:41:01 GMT 1
Watching Tim Martin makes me think that we should require a minimum IQ to vote. He hasn't done too bad to be worth £443 million has he?
Plenty of people with low IQ's (wonder what yours is) who are very successful
As long as they understand that polling station is where you vote and can spell "x" then they can vote, some of them even become Tory MPs. Maybe confusing IQ with not thinking the same as I do? Anyway, it's diversity. Having the nous to spot when you are being lied to is more important, for example dopey Danny is currently saying delaying Brexit is a breach of democracy. I would have thought not fudging things up at this late stage by accepting some half-cock solution was more important. Delaying, if we need to, and getting Brexit right is surely better for the future of this Country? Then there was the no deal car selling analogy the other week that Tory MP's kept telling us about . But if you had a no deal when selling the car then you would still have the car whereas in Brexit it would seem that no deal still is a deal as we still leave, just that we hand over the keys in the car selling analogy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 11:53:36 GMT 1
Watching Tim Martin makes me think that we should require a minimum IQ to vote. He hasn't done too bad to be worth £443 million has he?
Plenty of people with low IQ's (wonder what yours is) who are very successful
Too right. Underpaying your staff that built your wealth and adding to the national in work poverty stats and in work benefit bill ought to be applauded. Not to mention the independent local establishments put to the sword by dim tim's race to the bottom. Bravo.
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Jan 29, 2019 11:58:28 GMT 1
[/quote]As long as they understand that polling station is where you vote and can spell "x" then they can vote, some of them even become Tory MPs. [/quote]
Diane Abbott.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jan 29, 2019 12:10:51 GMT 1
As long as they understand that polling station is where you vote and can spell "x" then they can vote, some of them even become Tory MPs. [/quote] Diane Abbott. [/quote] And your point is? She is ok, intelligent enough, but, to my mind, sometimes doesn't know when to think more and talk less.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jan 29, 2019 12:14:17 GMT 1
Watching Tim Martin makes me think that we should require a minimum IQ to vote. He hasn't done too bad to be worth £443 million has he?
Plenty of people with low IQ's (wonder what yours is) who are very successful
You don't need to be bright to make money. I work with quite a number of 7 figure salary earners who are good at what they do, but are one-trick ponies and you would not trust to make sensible decisions outside of what they do. We have heard a lot of debate about Brexit and most of it is playing to prejudices (on both sides of the argument). IQ is related to taking on board inputs and determining the correct / most appropriate course of action - being adaptable and actually listening to differing views / facts are really important; there is precious little of that in evidence. This is the point I make. However, to inflame the point and bow to your prejudices. My IQ was last tested when I changed employers a couple of years ago - it was then, as it has been each time since I was first tested as a kid, above 150 which is in the top .1%. An IQ of 150 seems a reasonable cut off point to me because that gives me a vote and deprives 99.9% of the population. Of course I say this because we are drifting towards a monumentally stupid decision to leave the EU.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Jan 29, 2019 12:41:51 GMT 1
He hasn't done too bad to be worth £443 million has he?
Plenty of people with low IQ's (wonder what yours is) who are very successful
You don't need to be bright to make money. I work with quite a number of 7 figure salary earners who are good at what they do, but are one-trick ponies and you would not trust to make sensible decisions outside of what they do. We have heard a lot of debate about Brexit and most of it is playing to prejudices (on both sides of the argument). IQ is related to taking on board inputs and determining the correct / most appropriate course of action - being adaptable and actually listening to differing views / facts are really important; there is precious little of that in evidence. This is the point I make. However, to inflame the point and bow to your prejudices. My IQ was last tested when I changed employers a couple of years ago - it was then, as it has been each time since I was first tested as a kid, above 150 which is in the top .1%. An IQ of 150 seems a reasonable cut off point to me because that gives me a vote and deprives 99.9% of the population. Of course I say this because we are drifting towards a monumentally stupid decision to leave the EU.
And the Arrogant of the Year Award goes to.....Percy.
For your info Tim Martin qualified as a Barrister before he went into the pub business.
But he has Cornish accent and is Brexiteer.
What were you saying about playing to prejudices again?
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Jan 29, 2019 12:48:48 GMT 1
How Actual Smart People Talk About Themselves Hint: not by discussing IQ
|
|