Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
aggi
Posts: 8763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by aggi » Fri May 24, 2019 2:04 pm

dsr wrote:No. I'm one of those who reckons that the reason there is more use of food banks than there used to be is because food banks are more available and that the social stigma has gone.

The financial hit from leaving the EU will not be as bad as the doom-mongers make out. For one thing, the exchange rate has gone down - this means our exports post-Brexit will be no more expensive than they were before the vote. For another, we get the double financial boost of no payments to the EU, and duty received on imports. Import prices rise? Well, I've never been convinced that running a huge balance of payments deficit is good for the country. Nor, historically, have been most economists, for that matter, but it seems to be fashionable at the moment.
The position you describe will probably kill off a large part of our agriculture sector (we won't be able to export any meat to the EU) and screw up a significant part of our service sector exports as there are a lot of non-tariff barriers.

Just looking at the numbers as you have gives a very small piece of the picture (and you've still ignored the logistics issues where what was frictionless trade now has some hold-ups).

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5232
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Fri May 24, 2019 2:06 pm

Hopefully now May has gone we will see a major change in approach.

She was always the wrong choice for this project - too cautious, didn’t believe in it, made too many poor decisions, didn’t have strong alliances within the party (not a “member’s bar” kind of person). She then doubled down on this by making Hammond chancellor when it needed a dynamic pair of hands (witness Simon Jordan on Question Time last night to see the type of dynamic person I refer to - he was very impressive).

We have now proven that compromising with Labour cannot work.

So it leaves us one approach for the new leader:
  • State we are leaving on October 31st and that we would like a transition until a set date (e.g. March 31st 2021).
    Make it clear those two dates will not change.
    Go back to Tusk’s original speech in March 2018 where he offered a free trade deal with zero tariffs.
    Say to the EU we want something akin to that or we will be leaving with no deal (at first) if they refuse to renegotiate.
    Insist that the backstop will be replaced with whatever best mechanism is agreed and in place by March 31st 2021.
    Either a) Pass the bill based on the new deal (would pass easily) or b) Leave with no deal.
    If it is no deal, it won’t be for long, and the leader should cushion the impact with major infrastructure spending and support for those affected.
Yes I know, we’ve tried all that, but we haven’t - only May has. A new leader with a new negotiation team may make a big difference.

aggi
Posts: 8763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by aggi » Fri May 24, 2019 2:07 pm

Some early turnout figures. Only a small sample but the pattern is increased turnout, particularly in pro-remain areas. Whether that will be repeated over the UK, who knows:

Image

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Fri May 24, 2019 2:12 pm

Its still **** poor though

But it does look like where it really, really, really matters (ie high leave/high remain areas) then people have turned out.

Which does tend to reflect the idea that the Brexit Party/Green/Lib Dems do well, and Lab/Cons (the ones who actually might have to sort this) do terribly.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Fri May 24, 2019 2:12 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Hopefully now May has gone we will see a major change in approach.

She was always the wrong choice for this project - too cautious, didn’t believe in it, made too many poor decisions, didn’t have strong alliances within the party (not a “member’s bar” kind of person). She then doubled down on this by making Hammond chancellor when it needed a dynamic pair of hands (witness Simon Jordan on Question Time last night to see the type of dynamic person I refer to - he was very impressive).

We have now proven that compromising with Labour cannot work.

So it leaves us one approach for the new leader:
  • State we are leaving on October 31st and that we would like a transition until a set date (e.g. March 31st 2021).
    Make it clear those two dates will not change.
    Go back to Tusk’s original speech in March 2018 where he offered a free trade deal with zero tariffs.
    Say to the EU we want something akin to that or we will be leaving with no deal (at first) if they refuse to renegotiate.
    Insist that the backstop will be replaced with whatever best mechanism is agreed and in place by March 31st 2021.
    Either a) Pass the bill based on the new deal (would pass easily) or b) Leave with no deal.
    If it is no deal, it won’t be for long, and the leader should cushion the impact with major infrastructure spending and support for those affected.
Yes I know, we’ve tried all that, but we haven’t - only May has. A new leader with a new negotiation team may make a big difference.
Any evidence of this new technology?

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by AndrewJB » Fri May 24, 2019 2:33 pm

dsr wrote:Your "compromise" would keep us under EU control and keep paying the money to the EU but abdicating from the decision making process. All we would be giving up would be the Euro MPs, and the name. To use the EU golf club analogy, it would be like paying the same annual subs but being denied the right to attend the AGM. That's no compromise.
That's a conversation we should have had before the referendum, but as we didn't, we have to have it now. The referendum was only about leaving the EU, and not about how.
These 2 users liked this post: nil_desperandum Lancasterclaret

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri May 24, 2019 4:07 pm

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:May was undone by the factions in her party, the next leader will also suffer the same fate, especially one who tries to tout the impossible no-deal scenario.

It'll end up being a general election on which Labour will campaign for a Brexit deal with a customs union and a people's vote with an option to remain.

They'll win, remain will win the people's vote and Brexit will be scrapped, as it was always going to be.

The intelligent, fixing the mistakes of the stupid. Now and forever.

Or alternatively we will get to Halloween and Macron will veto an extension and they will kick us out without a deal. Parliament might be powerless to prevent that. Unless they really threw themselves under a bus and revoked Article 50.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Fri May 24, 2019 4:15 pm

Not sure we will get kicked out.

And if we do, its because we've insisted on something we know we can't get to try to get us kicked out.

Course, the level of debate about this suggests that even if that is very obvious what we do, the EU will still get blamed.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by nil_desperandum » Fri May 24, 2019 4:40 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote: Unless they really threw themselves under a bus and revoked Article 50.
I would say that that's increasingly becoming the most likely - inevitable - outcome, unless the new PM puts forward a deal that gets enough support from across the house. He /she will never get anything passed by their own (Tory) party, but if (e.g.) May, (as her farewell "gift", to the nation,) offered a deal with Customs Union, Single Market and confirmatory vote to say "yea" or "nay", it would almost certainly pass trough the commons quite comfortably.
(I base that on almost 100% support from all the opposition parties, and a relatively small but significant minority of Tories who would vote for it.)

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by dsr » Fri May 24, 2019 4:45 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I would say that that's increasingly becoming the most likely - inevitable - outcome, unless the new PM puts forward a deal that gets enough support from across the house. He /she will never get anything passed by their own (Tory) party, but if (e.g.) May, (as her farewell "gift", to the nation,) offered a deal with Customs Union, Single Market and confirmatory vote to say "yea" or "nay", it would almost certainly pass trough the commons quite comfortably.
(I base that on almost 100% support from all the opposition parties, and a relatively small but significant minority of Tories who would vote for it.)
That would basically to be acting as "leader of the opposition" to her replacement. Even she wouldn't do that - unless she wants to change her reputation in the party from "hard working but as incompetent as any PM we have ever had" to "traitor".

Are you thinking of a confirmatory vote for this not-really-a-Brexit vs. leaving with no deal, or this not-really-a-Brexit vs. remaining? They never seem to be quite clear what we're supposed to be confirming.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by nil_desperandum » Fri May 24, 2019 5:26 pm

dsr wrote:
Are you thinking of a confirmatory vote for this not-really-a-Brexit vs. leaving with no deal, or this not-really-a-Brexit vs. remaining? They never seem to be quite clear what we're supposed to be confirming.
All 3 options ought to be on the paper, but we've had this discussion before.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5232
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Fri May 24, 2019 10:37 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Any evidence of this new technology?
This technology issue is going to be discussed in a century with a mystical set of stories about how it didnt exist. Some like Steve Baker, are adamant it already does. Who to believe?

Well, it is our country it affects 50% and Ireland 50%. If our government are adamant it exists, that is good enough for me. Let’s see who wins the race to be Tory leader and if there is a change in tone. I suspect they will boldly state the technology is there, and try to get the EU to agree to using it. If they know there is no chance of blackmailing us into a CU, they may do.

Interesting that since I posted Boris has already ticked off the first couple of points on my list. Very clever, by getting in early it means Raab cannot claim that bullish approach first.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5232
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Fri May 24, 2019 10:40 pm

My above comment could be moot though if Tory MPs stab the leader in the back on a vote of no confidence so he or she cannot then become PM because they cannot command a majority. Gusto Bebb has already hinted he may do just that.

It won’t just put Corbyn into No 10, it will ensure Farage follows him. Could be a tumultuous decade ahead which could have all been avoided with the free trade deal that both sides were initially talking about.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Fri May 24, 2019 10:57 pm

Farage will never be PM

He has to win a seat first, and that's so far proved way beyond him

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by dsr » Sat May 25, 2019 1:43 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:My above comment could be moot though if Tory MPs stab the leader in the back on a vote of no confidence so he or she cannot then become PM because they cannot command a majority. Gusto Bebb has already hinted he may do just that.
I find it very hard to believe that any Tory would vote down the government on a vote of no confidence to stop the newly elected Tory leader becoming PM. At least, they would do it in the certain knowledge that they would not be able to stand as a Tory at the general election, and in the almost equally certain knowledge that the Tories would lose hundreds of seats and Corbyn would be PM. Quite possibly in a coalition with the SNP.

If the Tories failed to get the new PM in place as a follow up to the utter shambles to date and the possible single-digit percentage of the vote yesterday, then they will surely have their worst ever general election result - and they know that. Tory MPs will surely be desperate to carry on and hope that things get better.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Burnley Ace » Sat May 25, 2019 8:28 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote: So it leaves us one approach for the new leader:
  • State we are leaving on October 31st and that we would like a transition until a set date (e.g. March 31st 2021).
    Make it clear those two dates will not change.
    Go back to Tusk’s original speech in March 2018 where he offered a free trade deal with zero tariffs.
    Say to the EU we want something akin to that or we will be leaving with no deal (at first) if they refuse to renegotiate.
    Insist that the backstop will be replaced with whatever best mechanism is agreed and in place by March 31st 2021.
    Either a) Pass the bill based on the new deal (would pass easily) or b) Leave with no deal.
    If it is no deal, it won’t be for long, and the leader should cushion the impact with major infrastructure spending and support for those affected.
.
You seem to be of the opinion that we are in a position to dictate terms?
We are leaving on 31st Oct unless the EU grants us more time
Any transition period is again allowed by the EU
Why should they renegotiate and what fundamental EU rules should they break?
We cannot insist on anything, what is this "best mechanism"?
Where is the money for this major infrastructure spending and support going to come from?

As for Tusk in 2008 - it wasn't an offer, he was setting out, like Mays Chequers speech, what he would like to see, they were his proposals.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/pres ... th-the-uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These 2 users liked this post: Greenmile longsidepies

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Sat May 25, 2019 8:46 am

So no evidence for this new technology, which simultaneously keeps the border as it is, while placing control of our own borders at the level demanded by the people who voted for this shitshow and avoiding any evidence of infrastructure at said border and keeping the idea that the same border controls are the same for the UK as they are in NI?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by nil_desperandum » Sat May 25, 2019 10:32 am

dsr wrote:I find it very hard to believe that any Tory would vote down the government on a vote of no confidence to stop the newly elected Tory leader becoming PM. .
There are simply dozens of Tory MPs who would put country before party if it came down to a choice of "no deal" under Boris or any other alternative.
Anyway, I'm interested to see what Johnson will canvas as. He's a total chameleon, and as you will recall he wrote 2 letters, one pro-EU and one anti, before deciding that the latter served his personal interests / ambitions better.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if he suddenly became a sort of "compromise / brexit lite" candidate if he thinks it will get him the top job. He did after all vote for May's deal, and if he thinks that "no deal" is impossible, then he'll simply "forget" he ever supported it.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by tiger76 » Sat May 25, 2019 11:13 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Farage will never be PM

He has to win a seat first, and that's so far proved way beyond him
True he hasn't won a seat but he's been close,namely in South Thanet,given the current febrile atmosphere if he can't win a seat in the next GE,whenever it's held,i can't ever see him entering the HOC.

In hindsight he might well regret not contesting the Peterborough by-election as the BP are heavily favoured to gain the seat.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sat May 25, 2019 2:19 pm

If it be your will wrote:I've been having a read around to check I've not got this all wrong, and found this from a prospective Labour candidate with experience in EU competition law (via skwawkbox twitter).

https://twitter.com/laurendingsdale/sta ... 4122125312" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'll notice she (hesitantly) takes your view. I don't doubt the Tories wouldn't rescue British Steel even if it could be done as an EU member, because it would cut against the grain. She's also suggested some approaches to get around EU rules. But it is somewhat guarded:



I’m not saying these are easy arguments to run - but it is worth a shot - given the jobs at stake and the strategic importance of the steel which underpins our country’s defence, our automotive sector, our aerospace industry and our construction industry. 8/10

Personally, having read about other EU judgments in similar cases, I'd be amazed if these approaches would be successful, but perhaps there's slightly more chance of success than I've made out on here.

(Edit - Hmm. Since she wrote that, Clarke has released the legal advice he was given here: https://twitter.com/SimonClarkeMP/statu ... 1516826626" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It doesn't look like a rescue would be easy.
Thanks for including the tweet that reveals the legal advice the government received when they've been considering helping save British Steel.

It's quite revealing and backs up 100% my argument.

This is what I originally had said-

"2008- Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions. 

The EU says , " that's fine."

2019- The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions. 

The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Like the old Real Labour MPs always said, "the EU is a bankers club."

I'm now quoting directly from the actual letter sent to the government from its legal advisors.

"We cannot demonstrate the necessary commerciality required by State Aid Law to provide such support"

In other words , perhaps "simplistic", The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"There is no evidence that any earlier funding options involving government would have been lawful either"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"It would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"We do not believe there is currently any level of investment government could make ( above the State Aid de minis of €200000 that could be deemed commercial and so legal"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

It was not possible to fund a traditional loan financing that would be deemed to be successfully commercial to meet the State Aid commerciality threshold"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Your analogy with the axe and the neighbour is irrelevant if you simply look at what I'd said. Which simply saying the EU will not allow it. To use your analogy. You could if you wanted, axe your neighbour in the head. But by your own admission, and, mixing analogies, run the risk of all your other neighbours coming to you a axing you. Nevertheless, you're still forbidden, even if you go ahead and pay the consequences after. The EU is still saying, " No can do, UK"

Thanks for posting the tweet-

https://mobile.twitter.com/SimonClarkeM ... 1516826626" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It proves my "simplistic" point to be accurate and correct and concurs with what Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, said when she was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March.

"Do EU rules prevent state aid to save British Steel?

"Unfortunately, yes. The fact that all the economic factors go against the UK steel industry is not relevant, nor is the potentially devastating impact on the wider local economy were it to close. The EU has already ruled on this: in January 2016 the competition commissioner ruled that the Belgian government had illegally provided €211m to steel companies in one of its depressed regions, and ordered that the money be repaid. She also announced an investigation into €2bn of similar aid given by the Italian government to support its steel industry."

"The EU takes the view that State aid cannot be used if it distorts competition, and that EU regional funding is available to help with the social consequences of closing down industries that are uncompetitive."
Last edited by RingoMcCartney on Sat May 25, 2019 3:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sat May 25, 2019 2:27 pm

martin_p wrote:I gave a straight answer to the question you asked but you’ve changed the question again! No the EU did not block it because the bail out was structured to meet EU law.

I’m genuinely confused over what point you’re actually trying to make.
This is you agreeing to the first part of what I said.

Which was-

"2008- Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions. 

The EU says , " that's fine."

2019- The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions. 

The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Like the old Real Labour MPs always said, "the EU is a bankers club."

Bailing out British Steel does not comply with EU law. In other words, as I said, "the EU says - " No can do"

I'm now quoting directly from the actual letter sent to the government from its legal advisors.

"We cannot demonstrate the necessary commerciality required by State Aid Law to provide such support"

In other words , perhaps "simplistic", The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"There is no evidence that any earlier funding options involving government would have been lawful either"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"It would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"We do not believe there is currently any level of investment government could make ( above the State Aid de minis of €200000 that could be deemed commercial and so legal"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

It was not possible to fund a traditional loan financing that would be deemed to be successfully commercial to meet the State Aid commerciality threshold"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"



https://mobile.twitter.com/SimonClarkeM ... 1516826626" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It proves my "simplistic" point to be accurate and correct and concurs with what Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, said when she was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March.

"Do EU rules prevent state aid to save British Steel?

"Unfortunately, yes."

And it proves you to be once again.



Wrong.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sat May 25, 2019 2:37 pm

aggi wrote:Each of those multiple chances involved you asking a different question though. You didn't like the first answer so you asked something different in the hope I wouldn't notice the terms of reference had changed. It's one of your transparent "Ringo is never wrong" tactics that everyone is aware of. I just wonder whether you do it unconsciously and really do believe that you're right or this is all a facade.
Despite your predictable wriggling and swerving of answering a straight forward question. The following quotes prove I was right and you were , yet again, wrong.

Goal posts? A clear thrashing for aggi!

This is what I said.


b]"2008[/b]- Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions. 

The EU says , " that's fine."

2019- The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions. 

The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Like the old Real Labour MPs always said, "the EU is a bankers club."

I'm now quoting directly from the actual letter sent to the government from its legal advisors.

"We cannot demonstrate the necessary commerciality required by State Aid Law to provide such support"

In other words , perhaps "simplistic", The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"There is no evidence that any earlier funding options involving government would have been lawful either"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"It would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"We do not believe there is currently any level of investment government could make ( above the State Aid de minis of €200000 that could be deemed commercial and so legal"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

It was not possible to fund a traditional loan financing that would be deemed to be successfully commercial to meet the State Aid commerciality threshold"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"



https://mobile.twitter.com/SimonClarkeM ... 1516826626" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It proves my "simplistic" point to be accurate and correct and concurs with what Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, said when she was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March.

"Do EU rules prevent state aid to save British Steel?

"Unfortunately, yes."

"OUTRIGHT LIE" YOU SAID!

UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO ARGUE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN LEGAL TEAM. I'D CALL IT AN "OUTRIGHT VICTORY" FOR ME AGGI
Last edited by RingoMcCartney on Sat May 25, 2019 2:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Juxtaposition
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 20, 2019 2:33 pm
Been Liked: 19 times
Has Liked: 6 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Juxtaposition » Sat May 25, 2019 2:37 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote: *misinformation and bullshit*

It would not be illegal to provide a loan. That's why the government and British Steel were discussing one. The reason a loan wasn't agreed is because the two parties didn't agree to terms.

Why do you persist to blame the EU for something you previously said wouldn't be their fault?

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sat May 25, 2019 2:43 pm

Juxtaposition wrote:It would not be illegal to provide a loan. That's why the government and British Steel were discussing one. The reason a loan wasn't agreed is because the two parties didn't agree to terms.

Why do you persist to blame the EU for something you previously said wouldn't be their fault?
I'm busy just pointing out I was correct Turtle.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sat May 25, 2019 2:45 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I didn't think you could keep up your hot streak of "not making things up"
Are the government's legal advisors "making it up" too Lancaster Claret!!!!?

I said.

"2008- Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions. 

The EU says , " that's fine."

2019- The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions. 

The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Like the old Real Labour MPs always said, "the EU is a bankers club."

I'm now quoting directly from the actual letter sent to the government from its legal advisors.

"We cannot demonstrate the necessary commerciality required by State Aid Law to provide such support"

In other words , perhaps "simplistic", The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"There is no evidence that any earlier funding options involving government would have been lawful either"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"It would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"We do not believe there is currently any level of investment government could make ( above the State Aid de minis of €200000 that could be deemed commercial and so legal"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

It was not possible to fund a traditional loan financing that would be deemed to be successfully commercial to meet the State Aid commerciality threshold"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"



https://mobile.twitter.com/SimonClarkeM ... 1516826626" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It proves my "simplistic" point to be accurate and correct and concurs with what Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, said when she was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March.

"Do EU rules prevent state aid to save British Steel?

"Unfortunately, yes."

And it proves you to be once again.



Wrong.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by If it be your will » Sat May 25, 2019 6:21 pm

.
Last edited by If it be your will on Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by If it be your will » Sat May 25, 2019 6:50 pm

.
Last edited by If it be your will on Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Sat May 25, 2019 7:03 pm

See Ringo is still ignoring what I said

I repeat mate, you probably need some help.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by dsr » Sun May 26, 2019 12:03 am

nil_desperandum wrote:There are simply dozens of Tory MPs who would put country before party if it came down to a choice of "no deal" under Boris or any other alternative.
Anyway, I'm interested to see what Johnson will canvas as. He's a total chameleon, and as you will recall he wrote 2 letters, one pro-EU and one anti, before deciding that the latter served his personal interests / ambitions better.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if he suddenly became a sort of "compromise / brexit lite" candidate if he thinks it will get him the top job. He did after all vote for May's deal, and if he thinks that "no deal" is impossible, then he'll simply "forget" he ever supported it.
Where is the link for these letters?

I don't think there are "dozens" of Tory MPs who would either vote with Corbyn to bring down the new PM, or who would vote to ignore the referendum result. How many Tory MPs voted with Labour on any of their amendments or alternate proposals to May's farrago? And those were for votes which wouldn't bring down the government.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by nil_desperandum » Sun May 26, 2019 12:13 am

dsr wrote:Where is the link for these letters?
.
Find it yourself. It's always been in the public domain - and not been denied by Johnson that he wrote 2 articles for his Telegraph Column in 2016, (immediately before the referendum) - one pro-remain and one pro- leave, and settled on the latter. So essentially he was undecided but decided it would suit his ambitions better to lead the "leave" campaign.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun May 26, 2019 9:52 am

If it be your will wrote:Obviously, I'm going to sidestep all Ringo's posts because I can't make head nor tail of what he's on about. Even when I thought I was fundamentally agreeing with him he flew of the handle with me for 3 pages anyhow.

But is what you say here definitely right? All I could find were reports, from reasonably reliable sources, including the government's own published legal advice, that the emergency 30m loan that was lined up would have very likely broken EU state-aid rules had it gone ahead. Is this not the case?
You do come across as somehow not wanting to , how you see it, as lowering yourself to exchanging views with me. I may be wrong but that's how you come across.

Anyway, you've already agreed with me on the issue of the EU allowing the banks to be bailed out in 2008. As I summarised in a one-liner:

"The EU says , " that's fine."

The legal advice that the government has received , which can be seen in the tweet that you posted. Clearly shows the government is unable to give financial support to British Steel as it breaches EU State Aid Law. As I summarised in the second one-liner:

"The EU says, "No can do , UK"

They may be "simplistic" summaries, as some have claimed, in order to avoid saying I was right. But nevertheless, if, as you're now saying, you agree with me, I'm happy you can say that.

Others can't, or won't, so fair play to you.

Tall Paul
Posts: 7171
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2561 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Tall Paul » Sun May 26, 2019 9:57 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:I may be wrong
Who are you and what have you done with the real Ringo?
This user liked this post: Greenmile

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Sun May 26, 2019 10:06 am

Excellent Labour voices video out (bit O/T) but it does suggest that they have worked out that they have to attack the ******** spread by Farage head on.

https://twitter.com/VoicesLabour/status ... 7763733504" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun May 26, 2019 10:21 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:See Ringo is still ignoring what I said

I repeat mate, you probably need some help.
This is what you said Lancaster claret.
Lancasterclaret wrote:I didn't think you could keep up your hot streak of "not making things up"
After I'd said :

"2008- Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions. 

The EU says , " that's fine."

2019- The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions. 

The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Now I've presented the opinion of Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March,

Who said, when asked, is state aid allowed? She answered, "sadly no"

And I've also shown the legal advice the government received when they've been considering helping save British Steel. It clearly shows on numerous occasions that doing so would breech EU state aid law.

And it clearly shows they aren't allowed to.

What was I "making up" Lancasterclaret?
Last edited by RingoMcCartney on Sun May 26, 2019 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun May 26, 2019 10:25 am

Tall Paul wrote:Who are you and what have you done with the real Ringo?
The real Ringo has , once again, proved the usual gaggle of message board Remoaners to be wrong.

And predictably, they just cannot bring themselves round to admitting I was right after claiming I was "making things up" or telling " outright lies"

Pathetic......

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by If it be your will » Sun May 26, 2019 10:29 am

.
Last edited by If it be your will on Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This user liked this post: nil_desperandum

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun May 26, 2019 10:34 am

If it be your will wrote: Even when I thought I was fundamentally agreeing with him

Do you or don't you agree with what I said?

The EU allowed bailing out the banks.

The EU stopped saving British Steel.

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1081 times
Has Liked: 4242 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Greenmile » Sun May 26, 2019 10:36 am

IIBYW 1 - Ringo 0
This user liked this post: Bordeauxclaret

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun May 26, 2019 10:45 am

I see nil_desperandum is lurking in the shadows!

Last time we spoke you refused to answer a straight forward question. You claimed " I'm off out now,"

So I'll ask you once again.

Has there been the promised "Brexodus" following the referendum ?

Given - "Around 3.7 million people living in the UK are citizens of another EU country. That’s about 6% of the UK population, according to the latest figures covering the year to June 2018.

That compares to 3.4 million in the year before the EU referendum. Overall, the EU citizen population in the UK has gone up by an estimated 35,000 in the last 12 months, an increase of 1%. Between 2016 and 2017, the number increased by 240,000, an increase of 7%.

In any case, there’s little evidence yet that EU citizen population growth has changed trend since the referendum vote in 2016."

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-citizens-brexodus/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you go "off out " again, please answer my question.

Has there been a "Brexodus" we were promised?

Yes



Or




No?

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun May 26, 2019 10:47 am

Greenmile wrote:IIBYW 1 - Ringo 0
Facts, truth, legal advice and legal opinion 1.- Deluded Remoaners 0.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun May 26, 2019 11:06 am

If it be your will wrote:Let's play a game: your challenge is to spend your precious time thinking of all sorts of ingenious ways of totally misrepresenting what I've said, with the aim of getting me to respond. Every time I respond - you win. Every time I fail to respond - I win. Right, now we've agreed upon the rules of engagement, let the game begin.

I'll let you keep score.
"Totally misrepresenting"

Really?
If it be your will wrote: Even when I thought I was fundamentally agreeing with him


Do you or don't you agree with what I said?

The EU allowed bailing out the banks.

The EU stopped saving British Steel.

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1081 times
Has Liked: 4242 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Greenmile » Sun May 26, 2019 11:08 am

IIBYW 2 - Ringo 0
These 2 users liked this post: Bordeauxclaret If it be your will

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Colburn_Claret » Sun May 26, 2019 11:13 am

AndrewJB wrote:That's a conversation we should have had before the referendum, but as we didn't, we have to have it now. The referendum was only about leaving the EU, and not about how.
Spoken like a true Remainer

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Colburn_Claret » Sun May 26, 2019 11:17 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Not sure we will get kicked out.

And if we do, its because we've insisted on something we know we can't get to try to get us kicked out.

Course, the level of debate about this suggests that even if that is very obvious what we do, the EU will still get blamed.
There's no blame, the EU are entitled to hold their ground, we are entitled to say that's not good enough.
It seems patently obvious that no compromise is going to happen until after we've left with No Deal.
Bring it on.

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2207
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by JohnMcGreal » Sun May 26, 2019 11:31 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:There's no blame, the EU are entitled to hold their ground, we are entitled to say that's not good enough.
It seems patently obvious that no compromise is going to happen until after we've left with No Deal.
Bring it on.
And a couple of weeks after that, with the dire situation getting worse by the day, we'll be back at the negotiating table desperate for assistance from the EU.

They will demand, before anything else is discussed, a resolution to the Irish border, the financial settlement and citizens rights. The three things we think we can just make disappear by leaving with no deal will still need to be resolved before any talks on the future trading relationship commence.

Mala591
Posts: 1887
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:02 pm
Been Liked: 681 times
Has Liked: 428 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Mala591 » Sun May 26, 2019 11:47 am

The only 'democratic' way out of this INTRACTABLE parliamentary situation is for the public to choose between:

1. Leave the EU with the negotiated withdrawal agreement
2. Leave the EU without an agreement on WTO terms

I suspect that the withdrawal agreement 'deal' option would win and we could then move forward to negotiate a tariff free trade deal.

If the public decided to leave without a deal then WE will have made that decision and WE would have to make it work.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Colburn_Claret » Sun May 26, 2019 12:50 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:And a couple of weeks after that, with the dire situation getting worse by the day, we'll be back at the negotiating table desperate for assistance from the EU.

They will demand, before anything else is discussed, a resolution to the Irish border, the financial settlement and citizens rights. The three things we think we can just make disappear by leaving with no deal will still need to be resolved before any talks on the future trading relationship commence.
In your opinion, I'd love to know where all you remainers get your crystal balls from. Maybe we should all have one.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Colburn_Claret » Sun May 26, 2019 12:52 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:And a couple of weeks after that, with the dire situation getting worse by the day, we'll be back at the negotiating table desperate for assistance from the EU.

They will demand, before anything else is discussed, a resolution to the Irish border, the financial settlement and citizens rights. The three things we think we can just make disappear by leaving with no deal will still need to be resolved before any talks on the future trading relationship commence.
That last post is frustration.
So please tell me, what dire situation, that is getting worse by the day, am I not seeing.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by nil_desperandum » Sun May 26, 2019 1:13 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I see nil_desperandum is lurking in the shadows!

Last time we spoke you refused to answer a straight forward question. You claimed " I'm off out now,"

So I'll ask you once again.

Has there been the promised "Brexodus" following the referendum ?

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-citizens-brexodus/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you go "off out " again, please answer my question.

Has there been a "Brexodus" we were promised?
I did go out. I have a life to live, an elderly father to look after, and grandchildren to pick up from school etc. etc. - and I also still work a couple of days a week despite being retired.
When I've time I "lurk around on here".
I didn't make any claims about a Brexodous. I responded to one of your posts - which of course is always a mistake - as others have learnt. If you want people to engage with you then you need to learn to debate sensibly otherwise posters ultimately stop replying to you.
Anyhow;
On May 15th you claimed that MIGRATION was in hundreds of thousands.
(As Aggi pointed out but you typically didn't grasp, you didn't really mean MIGRATION)
But if we're talking about NET IMMIGRATION then it was down last year to 60,000, so not the hundreds of thousands you claimed.
Furthermore the charts and stats in the actual link that you posted demonstrate a steady trend since the referendum of net EU immigration reducing, (now well below May's target of 100,000), and correspondingly non - EU immigration compensating for this.
It doesn't matter that you've dragged us back to a post 11 days ago, the answer remains the same, and your link doesn't disprove it.

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2207
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by JohnMcGreal » Sun May 26, 2019 3:57 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:That last post is frustration.
So please tell me, what dire situation, that is getting worse by the day, am I not seeing.
I was replying to your post where you were championing a no deal scenario, and I'm referring to the days immediately after we've left the EU with no deal.

That will be the dire situation that will get worse by the day. That's when we will be absolutely desperate and in need of support, and that's when the EU will hold our feet to the fire over the Irish border, the financial settlement and citizens rights.

These issues don't disappear in a no deal scenario.

Locked