Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Lancasterclaret]

Anyone?

[martin_p]

So you want the UK to keep quiet about China's behaviour to safeguard trade. Because the exact opposite argument is made about Saudi Arabia and their misbehaviour is mostly internal and a not a threat to UK interests. Which is it?

I want us not to throw away the trade deals we’re already part of. It makes things like this much more significant.

[martin_p]

Provisions & future amendments, adjustments post leaving date will still be ongoing for this simple pure reason, there's too much trade exchanged between the UK & the EU in the event of any deal forthcoming, people are creating false urgency in order to rush things which is not beneficial in any shape or form for both parties, after the 29th without the official A50 even coming into play, most of the agreement would have been completed, negating the A50 for all intent & purposes.

So you want article 50 delayed then?

[thatdberight]

I want us not to throw away the trade deals we’re already part of. It makes things like this much more significant.

So that wasn't an answer, then. You just opportunistically want to criticise the downside regardless of which downside or which decision is taken. Fair enough.

Criticise the effects of Brexit if you wish, but don't make contradictory arguments in doing so.

[Lancasterclaret]

You should really be criticising both Ringo and Jakub for that mate if you want to be fair.

[martin_p]

So that wasn't an answer, then. You just opportunistically want to criticise the downside regardless of which downside or which decision is taken. Fair enough.

Criticise the effects of Brexit if you wish, but don't make contradictory arguments in doing so.

I’m not contradicting anything. We were told one of the magnificent effects of Brexit would be our ability to make fantastic trade deals with the likes of China. None of the Brexit supporters wanted to point out the problems with China when those claims were being made. Do you think for one moment that the government doesn’t want a trade deal with China and had deliberately sent out Gavin Williamson to scupper it?

I didn’t express a view on a trade deal with China, I merely pointed out the incompetence of a government that would love one.

[Jakubclaret]

So you want article 50 delayed then?

Well if it's a bad deal & no party can agree yes, I did initially want us to leave immediately but the more I think about it it makes sense for a extension to improve terms, its not my ideal choice but preferred to a alternative unsatisfactory deal, the other 27 need to agree anyway, the A50 can be avoided after by some minor tweaks anyway, it's there to be used if no major progress can be made.

[Lancasterclaret]

A trade deal with China would require some thinking.

They could destroy our manufacturing base even more than it has been already if its ****** up.

And if Dr Fox is doing it, then its unlikely to end up well.

[martin_p]

Well if it's a bad deal & no party can agree yes, I did initially want us to leave immediately but the more I think about it it makes sense for a extension to improve terms, its not my ideal choice but preferred to a alternative unsatisfactory deal, the other 27 need to agree anyway, the A50 can be avoided after by some minor tweaks anyway, it's there to be used if no major progress can be made.

What do you mean article 50 can be avoided? It’s the way we leave the EU. Avoid article 50 and there’s no Brexit!

[Jakubclaret]

What do you mean article 50 can be avoided? It’s the way we leave the EU. Avoid article 50 and there’s no Brexit!

Not necessarily we could refuse to go through the withdrawal process & it would likely cause conflict in the short term but in the long term it would make our nation great again.

[martin_p]

Not necessarily we could refuse to go through the withdrawal process & it would likely cause conflict in the short term but in the long term it would make our nation great again.

Right..... so you don’t want us to leave the EU then.

[Lancasterclaret]

Its actually a massive positive that a couple of poster are realising that we need to delay this.

Lots of Brexiteer newspapers are saying the same thing as well.

[Jakubclaret]

There need the divorce bill money like a smackhead needs a syringe full of heroin, it's about time we realised this & also the prospect of losing out on future trade, people will just boycott EU products if there become to expensive, other more lucrative trade deals are available without the EU & all the hassle which comes with it. In response to Martin p, sorry should have quoted.

[LeuvenClaret]

A trade deal with China would require some thinking.

They could destroy our manufacturing base even more than it has been already if its ****** up.

And if Dr Fox is doing it, then its unlikely to end up well.

The other concideration LC is that the EU are not going to be on friendly terms either when we are gone and will see companies wanting to move out of the UK as ripe for the pickng.They are known for sponsoring comapnies to bring jobs in to the EU block, which we of course are leaving.

[martin_p]

There need the divorce bill money like a smackhead needs a syringe full of heroin, it's about time we realised this & also the prospect of losing out on future trade, people will just boycott EU products if there become to expensive, other more lucrative trade deals are available without the EU & all the hassle which comes with it. In response to Martin p, sorry should have quoted.

I think you may be confusing article 50 with the withdrawal agreement. Article 50 is just the mechanism for leaving the EU, it doesn’t attract any divorce bill or anything else. But you only get two years to leave once you’ve told the EU you want to, which is why if nothing is sorted by 29th March we leave with no deal.

[Lancasterclaret]

The other concideration LC is that the EU are not going to be on friendly terms either when we are gone and will see companies wanting to move out of the UK as ripe for the pickng.They are known for sponsoring comapnies to bring jobs in to the EU block, which we of course are leaving.

Yeah, read a report last week that suggested that the EU will gradually tighten the rules after we leave, making it harder and harder for companies in the UK to compete unless they have a base within the EU.

It does make me very annoyed that people bang on about fish, but as 80% of our economy is service based and that isn't even covered by anything I've read so far is bloody worrying.

[Jakubclaret]

I think you may be confusing article 50 with the withdrawal agreement. Article 50 is just the mechanism for leaving the EU, it doesn’t attract any divorce bill or anything else. But you only get two years to leave once you’ve told the EU you want to, which is why if nothing is sorted by 29th March we leave with no deal.

Whatever way we leave, we have to pay the EU for leaving & we also stop contributing, whichever way you look at it, it's a money pit, as I've already said you seem to have too much faith in official legislation, trust me whatever happens after the 29th, money will still be exchanging hands as a member or non member, the way things are going it's a soft Brexit from what people initially voted for hence the hardliners voting mays proposals down in parliament.

[martin_p]

Whatever way we leave, we have to pay the EU for leaving & we also stop contributing, whichever way you look at it, it's a money pit, as I've already said you seem to have too much faith in official legislation, trust me whatever happens after the 29th, money will still be exchanging hands as a member or non member, the way things are going it's a soft Brexit from what people initially voted for hence the hardliners voting mays proposals down in parliament.

Well yes, we have to pay our bills. Why wouldn’t we? And if we didn’t we can kiss goodbye to trade negotiations with the EU. And why would no deal be a soft brexit?

[Jakubclaret]

Well yes, we have to pay our bills. Why wouldn’t we? And if we didn’t we can kiss goodbye to trade negotiations with the EU.

Yes I'm all for paying the bills when you are receiving something justified back in return, kissing goodbye to trade with the EU wouldn't bother me personally.

[martin_p]

Yes I'm all for paying the bills when you are receiving something justified back in return, kissing goodbye to trade with the EU wouldn't bother me personally.

Ok.... well that’ll work. Glad you’ve got it all worked out.

[Jakubclaret]

Ok.... well that’ll work. Glad you’ve got it all worked out.

I'll leave you to answer that 1 on the 30th.

[Lancasterclaret]

I think it would bother the UK economy quite a lot though!

[martin_p]

I'll leave you to answer that 1 on the 30th.

Didn’t ask a question.

[Jakubclaret]

Didn’t ask a question.

You didn't have to

[martin_p]

You didn't have to

I’ll leave you to answer that one.

[Jakubclaret]

I’ll leave you to answer that one.

[Lancasterclaret]

https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1 ... 2653546501" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Britains richest man (and you won't believe this, but he's a Brexiteer!) is (and you also won't believe this!) leaving the country to avoid paying billions in tax.

Amazing isn't it? All this sovereignty and us all pulling together and he takes his billions to pay a lot less tax somewhere else.

[Imploding Turtle]

https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1 ... 2653546501

Britains richest man (and you won't believe this, but he's a Brexiteer!) is (and you also won't believe this!) leaving the country to avoid paying billions in tax.

Amazing isn't it? All this sovereignty and us all pulling together and he takes his billions to pay a lot less tax somewhere else.

Damned remainers forced him into it by not believing in Britain enough.

[CrosspoolClarets]

An excellent article by Dan Hannan in the Telegraph today which dismantles another central pillar of Remain argument - that people never vote to be poorer, and that Leave never said we could be poorer during the campaign. I’ll add a link to an article confirming that Boris said the economic impact may be like a Nike swoosh (so we should stop claiming people were hoodwinked and bring the debate back to an adult discussion, MPs included): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... out-is-out

People vote to be poorer all the time – as Europhiles should understand
‘No one voted to be poorer”. It has become a Europhile mantra, a slogan rattled off almost unthinkingly by Remainer MPs, especially Labour moderates. If we’re talking specifically about Brexit, it may or may not be true. Personally speaking, I expect Brexit to make me poorer (I am an MEP) but, over time, to make Britain richer. How much richer depends, obviously, on the choices we make as a country.
As a general proposition, though, the idea that no one ever votes to be poorer is utter tosh. We vote to be poorer all the time, knowingly or unknowingly. We vote to be poorer whenever we vote for stricter rules on where houses can be built. We vote to be poorer when we turn away able-bodied economic migrants.
We vote to be poorer when we back schemes to preserve the habitats of rare species. We vote to be poorer when we subsidise orchestras or art galleries. We vote to be poorer when we privilege particular industries with tariffs or grants.
My point is not that these choices are right or wrong, simply that GDP is not our sole concern as voters, any more than money is not our sole concern as individuals.
To take an extreme example (see the column above) the decision to go to war with Hitler plainly could not be justified on economic grounds, yet it was backed by an overwhelming majority in the country.
Likewise the decision to retake the Falkland Islands.
It is bizarre to hear such blockheaded materialism from middle-class Labour MPs who are normally the first to boast about their readiness to “pay a little more tax to help the less privileged” (though they rarely actually do so, despite HMRC offering a provision for individuals to volunteer additional contributions).
If wealth were our chief measure, we would scrap almost all lifestyle taxes, most environmental regulations and a fair number of welfare payments.
Returning to Brexit, the act of leaving the EU will not, on its own, add a farthing to our national wealth. What it will do is to remove constraints, allowing us to make different choices. Freedom, by definition, includes the freedom to fail. As a fully sovereign country, we might become a free-trading Singapore or a Corbynite Venezuela. It will be our decision.
My guess is that Brexit will involve transitional costs and long-term gains – what Boris Johnson, during the referendum campaign, called the “Nike swoosh”. Most of us understand deferred gratification. We practise it in our own lives all the time. A computer programmer might, for example, experience a loss of income while learning a new and more profitable form of coding.
We could make a hash of Brexit, of course. If we end up remaining in the EU’s customs union, and giving Brussels permanent control over our trade with third countries, we will lose the benefits of staying without gaining the benefits of leaving. But I’d rather live in a democracy, and sometimes be on the losing side, than have my choices delineated by unelected officials.
People have every right to vote to be poorer. Indeed, a vote for Labour is in general a vote to be poorer: every Labour government, without exception, has put up unemployment. That, though, is hardly an argument for cancelling elections. MPs, of all people, should understand as much.

[Lancasterclaret]

That is the Dan Hannan who said "No one is talking about leaving the Single Market?" before the referendum?

That one?

The one who denies every saying that now he's got your vote?

Wonderful. I'm now 100% completely reassured about where we are heading post-Brexit.

[Imploding Turtle]

An excellent article by Dan Hannan in the Telegraph today which dismantles another central pillar of Remain argument - that people never vote to be poorer, and that Leave never said we could be poorer during the campaign. I’ll add a link to an article confirming that Boris said the economic impact may be like a Nike swoosh (so we should stop claiming people were hoodwinked and bring the debate back to an adult discussion, MPs included): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... out-is-out

Holy ******* **** guys. No longer are they arguing that leaving the EU will make is richer. Now they're saying that it will make us poorer and that that's exactly what we voted for.


I remember, back in the day, when one side of a debate were saying "the EU makes us richer and leaving it would make us poorer" and the other side were saying "OMFG look at Mr Project Fear over here predicting doom and gloom". Does anyone else remember that, or was it just me?

ps: Tiao, is this too much intolerance for you?

[Lancasterclaret]

Careful IT, Crosspool will accuse you of "hysteria" and "name calling" for pointing out facts that don't fit his vision.

[Winstonswhite]

Brilliant Crosspool. Absolutely brilliant. You go round all the Leave voters and ask if that’s what they voted for! FML classic post that.

[TVC15]

Is this the same Boris Johnson who said we were going to be £350m a week richer ?

[Right_winger]

Is this the same Boris Johnson who said we were going to be £350m a week richer ?

We are by not paying into the EU pot.

[Greenmile]

We are by not paying into the EU pot.

Wow! You still believe the bus lie.

I’ll remember this post next time a Brexiter tells me “obviously nobody actually believed the bus lie”.

[Lancasterclaret]

If the economy loses £350 million a week because we've lost our biggest market, is that £350 million a week still there?

[Imploding Turtle]

We are by not paying into the EU pot.

If i hold a different opinion to yours will you want someone to put a bullet in my head? I'm asking because i hold a different opinion to yours and in the past you've expressed such thoughts regarding people you disagree with. And also because i don't want Tiao to call me intolerant.

[Right_winger]

If the economy loses £350 million a week because we've lost our biggest market, is that £350 million a week still there?

The economy isn’t going to loose £350m a week though is it.

Regardless the figure of what we will
save by not paying into the EUs budget is appx £350m a week. That’s what the famous bus slogan was demonstrating. It cannot be argued because it’s not a lie.

[Greenmile]

I honestly never thought we’d still have someone who believes the bus lie in February 2019.

[Winstonswhite]

I thought I’d never jump in with the spelling police, but seriously what is it with the word lose that is so hard to spell? It even sounds different to loose.

[Imploding Turtle]

The economy isn’t going to loose £350m a week though is it.

Regardless the figure of what we will
save by not paying into the EUs budget is appx £350m a week. That’s what the famous bus slogan was demonstrating. It cannot be argued because it’s not a lie.

I really hope that you're not the person who manages the finances in your household.

[Jakubclaret]

The economy isn’t going to loose £350m a week though is it.

Regardless the figure of what we will
save by not paying into the EUs budget is appx £350m a week. That’s what the famous bus slogan was demonstrating. It cannot be argued because it’s not a lie.

It wasn't technically a lie taking into account what we pay the EU, the remain side interpreted it differently & ever since have used it as a weapon against the leave side.

[Right_winger]

I honestly never thought we’d still have someone who believes the bus lie in February 2019.

It’s not a lie thought is it. We will save that appx
Amount of money by not contributing to the EUs budget.

Our economy will collapse or suffer badly a view being pushed out by those with their fingers in the EUs pie is just that an opinion and at best is a guesstimate. Some would say deliberately misleading.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I can’t see IT’s reply because like Greenmile I block them, but in general, can anyone dispute that this list of things is true (it would have saved a lot of back and forth over recent times if these were accepted):

• 1. That Leave accepted during the campaign there could be an economic dip, before a longer term surge
  2. That people do regularly vote to make themselves poorer by voting for non economic things too
  3. That Dan Hannan has consistently proposed staying in the Single Market, but NOT a Customs Union (Norway not Norway Plus)

It strikes me that all things help the Remain (or softer Brexit) argument yet Remainers still dismiss them as being untrue, inconsistent or exaggerated. All very odd. I simply thought it was a good article.

(Lancs, my hysteria comment followed you, not for the first time, calling me a liar, something I haven’t done since primary school. Paul was absolutely right and if you open your mind you may learn something - I have learned plenty on these threads which is why I sometimes post on them, on Friday I accepted to Paul that I had never heard of the New Zealand difficulties caused by us joing the EEC for example. I don’t expect to convince you that Leave is right, but you have started to play the man rather than debate the argument, even when the argument is a solid one. My above post is a case in point which appears to have triggered another bout of Remainer hysteria).

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't accept 1

I don't accept 2

I accept that Dan Hannan has been consistent in 2016 and 2018, but he wasn't immediately after the referendum. I don't mind him as much as other Brexiteers to be honest because he at least has a plan, but he still went on the tv the day after the referendum and basically denied saying anything that he's said the week before.

[Imploding Turtle]

I can’t see IT’s reply because like Greenmile I block them,...

Greenmile, you bitch!!! I want a divorce! I'm submitting ForumPost 50. You have 2 hours to negotiate my withdrawal. You need me more than I need you. Hurr durr.

Now i can finally trade with Tanzania.

[TVC15]

Despite the fact that even the likes of Johnson, Farage, Gove and many others admitted it was a lie it’s great that we have people on this board who still stand by the validity of the £350m saving.

But eh it’s just a different way of “interpreting” it. Bit like this airline that’s just gone bust - you could interpret that as them doing really well. Just ignore all those parentheses on the financial statements and draw little smiley faces....job done.

[Imploding Turtle]

It’s not a lie thought is it. We will save that appx
Amount of money by not contributing to the EUs budget.

Our economy will collapse or suffer badly a view being pushed out by those with their fingers in the EUs pie is just that an opinion and at best is a guesstimate. Some would say deliberately misleading.

Hey, genius. If you spend £350/month on rent and then decide to go homeless to save that £350/month, which then causes you to lose your job because you're constantly late for work and smelly, how much have you saved?

Maybe that's what you should do. Think about how much money you could save on rent or mortgage simply by choosing to live on the street instead.

[Greenmile]

It’s not a lie thought is it. We will save that appx
Amount of money by not contributing to the EUs budget.

Our economy will collapse or suffer badly a view being pushed out by those with their fingers in the EUs pie is just that an opinion and at best is a guesstimate. Some would say deliberately misleading.

I appreciate it may be a bit late now, but I suggest you do a bit of research on how much we contribute to the EU budget.

You can start by googling “uk eu rebate”.