tiger76 wrote:Just to increase Ringo's blood pressure,Mr Bercow isn't for retiring quite yet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48441344

So a no-deal brexit is pie in the sky no matter who the PM is come the autumn.

Bercows presence will only strengthen the view that the political class and the Establishment are hell bent on denying democracy.

The self-awareness lacking, ego maniac, little cock roach, will actually be part of a process , that brings about the ridding of a large swathe of the current crop of MPS.

And he'll have the ignominy of being the first Speaker never to have a peerage.


Reasons to be cheerful

Good article on the NI border here

https://www.cer.eu/insights/northern-ir ... lternative" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brexit party not very good on economic, the law and budgeting, as well as being run by one man you can't get rid of.

But hey, "Brexit means brexit" right?

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/11 ... 2254046209" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Latest opinion poll on What UK Thinks website. 10,280 people polled over 23rd and 24th May. Bring on the 2nd referendum!.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/w ... resa%2BMay" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Completely fine with that, because it sorts this one way or the other.

[b]Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:27 am[/b]

RingoMcCartney wrote:Mystic McCartney says-


Next Tory Leader.

Penny Mordaunt.

Let's see if my crystal ball was working back in March.

RingoMcCartney wrote:[b]Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:27 am[/b]






Let's see if my crystal ball was working back in March.

Hope so. She's a fair bit of eye candy.

Murger wrote:Hope so. She's a fair bit of eye candy.

I've seen a lot worse. Abbot? Philips?!

Murger wrote:Hope so. She's a fair bit of eye candy.

You obviously set you bar just as low for attractive ladies as you do for reputable politicians

Devils_Advocate wrote:You obviously set you bar just as low for attractive ladies as you do for reputable politicians

Nay bother. We can't all have your taste in women and politicians.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Completely fine with that, because it sorts this one way or the other.

It’s already sorted. Now it just needs enacting. By someone who believes in it - we’ve tried it the other way.

By all means though agree now that in 10 years we should have another vote to check we remain happy to stay out. 10 years though. Not 10 minutes.

10 minutes?

Three years and we are all still saying the same thing.

That suggests to me that the problem and the solution are absolutely unpalatable, but something has got to give somewhere.

You want a "No Deal", then the only way you are going to get it is if the British people vote for it.

That only happens in a ref.

Your call

Lancasterclaret wrote:Good article on the NI border here

https://www.cer.eu/insights/northern-ir ... lternative" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still doesn't address the idea of why they need to know in advance that goods are being exported. They don't need to know in advance for VAT, and if they suspect someone's on the fiddle, they have ways of checking. The potential VAT fiddle is greater than the potential duty fiddle in most cases.

It's not as if there is any significant potential for mass smuggling. Smuggling between the North and the South may be a problem but (in the general scale of things) not a big problem. They can forget about any idea of keeping Northern Ireland farm diseases out of the Republic, or vice versa, for example. And if anyone is smuggling goods into the Republic and thence to England on a large scale, they can spot it on the ferries to Liverpool; and vice versa.

Checks have to be made. But how the checks are made is not specified under WTO rules. Doesn't the Good Friday agreement allow for a pragmatic approach? EU rules certainly do - there are EU borders (in St Maarten, for example) that aren't policed at all.

Found another recent poll by Survation. 2,029 people polled on 22nd May.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/w ... 2Ba%2Bdeal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Crikey, Paul Mason in Labour has lit the blue touch paper with this one

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 6710599475" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rory Stewart explaining WTO much better than anyone on here has

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/statu ... 3897515008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret wrote:Rory Stewart explaining WTO much better than anyone on here has

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/statu ... 3897515008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He starts off with the entirely stupid statement that WTO terms are the worst possible trading terms in the world. This is nonsense.

The question is, whether WTO terms are worse than paying £39bn + £10bn per year plus assorted political loss of independence. It's a question worth asking and it could be answered either way. But Stewart is saying that it wouldn't matter if the annual payment was £20bn, £40bn, £100bn, £1,000bn, or the entire GDP of Great Britain - it would still be better than WTO terms. Nonsense.

dsr wrote:He starts off with the entirely stupid statement that WTO terms are the worst possible trading terms in the world. This is nonsense.

The question is, whether WTO terms are worse than paying £39bn + £10bn per year plus assorted political loss of independence. It's a question worth asking and it could be answered either way. But Stewart is saying that it wouldn't matter if the annual payment was £20bn, £40bn, £100bn, £1,000bn, or the entire GDP of Great Britain - it would still be better than WTO terms. Nonsense.

Why are we even talking about no deal and trading on WTO terms? That wasn't even mentioned in the referendum. It was all about how the EU need us more than we need them, and how they'll be bending over backwards for us.

Are we just forgetting all that and pretending that 52% of the voters voted to leave with no deal? Because that's nonsense.

JohnMcGreal wrote:Why are we even talking about no deal and trading on WTO terms? That wasn't even mentioned in the referendum. It was all about how the EU need us more than we need them, and how they'll be bending over backwards for us.

Are we just forgetting all that and pretending that 52% of the voters voted to leave with no deal? Because that's nonsense.

It was mentioned a lot. Just google "Referendum WTO rules" for the period February to June 2016, you'll see it was mentioned plenty.

Here's a BBC article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36401578" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And what the 52% voted for was to leave the EU. There were caveats on the voting paper.

dsr wrote:He starts off with the entirely stupid statement that WTO terms are the worst possible trading terms in the world. This is nonsense.

The question is, whether WTO terms are worse than paying £39bn + £10bn per year plus assorted political loss of independence. It's a question worth asking and it could be answered either way. But Stewart is saying that it wouldn't matter if the annual payment was £20bn, £40bn, £100bn, £1,000bn, or the entire GDP of Great Britain - it would still be better than WTO terms. Nonsense.

Its not nonsense though.

If you want to argue on here that WTO terms are not the worst possible then knock yourself out. It just reinforces that nothing matters more than Brexit to you. As long as Brexit happens, you don't care what damage it does, as long as you get Brexit.

Now that is a nonsense position to take.

dsr wrote:It was mentioned a lot. Just google "Referendum WTO rules" for the period February to June 2016, you'll see it was mentioned plenty.

Here's a BBC article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36401578" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And what the 52% voted for was to leave the EU. There were caveats on the voting paper.

Whenever anyone spoke of the UK having to trade on WTO rules, like Peter Sutherland, it was always dismissed by the Leave campaigns as ‘scaremongering’ and ‘project fear’. Just like whenever anyone said anything negative about the consequences of leaving the EU.

The Leave campaigns repeatedly drove home the message that it would never come to that, because the EU needed us to buy their Audi’s and Prosecco. They’ll be bending over backwards to do a deal with us, they said.

Over the last 3 years we’ve seen that argument, and many others, be exposed as complete and utter BS.

Nobody from the Leave campaigns campaigned to leave the EU with no deal, and they didn't do that for a very simple reason: because they knew they wouldn't win from that position.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its not nonsense though.

If you want to argue on here that WTO terms are not the worst possible then knock yourself out. It just reinforces that nothing matters more than Brexit to you. As long as Brexit happens, you don't care what damage it does, as long as you get Brexit.

Now that is a nonsense position to take.

Do you genuinely, and honestly, believe that there is literally no price that isn't worth paying to get free trade with the EU? You would happily bay £1,000 billion per year and it still wouldn't be worse than WTO? Theresa May agreed a deal whereby we can pay through the nose to get tariff-free trade. Free trade, in this case, doesn't come cheap.

Free trade is better than WTO. But it's not infinitely better; as the price you have to pay to get it rises, then eventually there must come a time when the price isn't worth paying. You clearly think the May price is worth paying; that's fine. I don't. But even for you, there must be a theoretical limit where the price will not be worth paying.

JohnMcGreal wrote:Nobody from the Leave campaigns campaigned to leave the EU with no deal, and they didn't do that for a very simple reason: because they knew they wouldn't win from that position.

And for the same reason, nobody from the Remain campaign campaigned on the basis that the economy would carry on as before with no economic hit, because they knew they wouldn't win from that position either.

The Leave campaign was too optimistic. The Remain campaign was too pessimistic. Or put another way, both sides were too willing to promote the scenario they wanted to believe. This is how elections work.

dsr wrote:Do you genuinely, and honestly, believe that there is literally no price that isn't worth paying to get free trade with the EU? You would happily bay £1,000 billion per year and it still wouldn't be worse than WTO? Theresa May agreed a deal whereby we can pay through the nose to get tariff-free trade. Free trade, in this case, doesn't come cheap.

Free trade is better than WTO. But it's not infinitely better; as the price you have to pay to get it rises, then eventually there must come a time when the price isn't worth paying. You clearly think the May price is worth paying; that's fine. I don't. But even for you, there must be a theoretical limit where the price will not be worth paying.

Are WTO rules the worst possible terms for the UK?

(apologies to Ringo for nicking his idea btw)

Yes or No

Lancasterclaret wrote:Are WTO rules the worst possible terms for the UK?

(apologies to Ringo for nicking his idea btw)

Yes or No

No. The deal negotiated by Theresa May is worse.

dsr wrote:And for the same reason, nobody from the Remain campaign campaigned on the basis that the economy would carry on as before with no economic hit, because they knew they wouldn't win from that position either.

The Leave campaign was too optimistic. The Remain campaign was too pessimistic. Or put another way, both sides were too willing to promote the scenario they wanted to believe. This is how elections work.

Leave didn't campaign for any particular kind of leave. I don't think they could have coalesced around any one particular brexit, given the diversity of the leave camp. Because of that we have to have the conversation of what kind of brexit we go for now.

The fact we have a lot of politicians attempting to hijack the leave vote to mean no deal brexit, should concern everyone. Why are they doing this? In my opinion (considering the things many of these people have said in the past) they are well aware of the turmoil that will come as a result of a no deal outcome, and they want to take advantage of this turmoil to advance a political agenda that they very well know they would never be able to advance through ordinary political means. Look at who is advocating a no deal brexit, and compare that to the author and contributors of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Unchained" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then consider their central message. It's not a future I would want for Britain.

dsr wrote:No. The deal negotiated by Theresa May is worse.

Sigh

Are WTO rules the worst possible trading terms for the UK?

Going on about Mays deal which gives us two years of what we have now is really silly as an example of worse.

Look, ,you know you lot lost the economic argument months ago, and the only thing you've got is a result from three years ago and lots of people telling me to "believe in Britain"

You know WTO rules are terrible, there is evidence galore that they would be terrible but none of you can say it.

Which means (to me at anyrate) that you'll say anything, agree to anything, believe anything that gives you your own personal bespoke Brexit. And thats why I don't trust the people who are telling me that that is a good idea.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Sigh

Are WTO rules the worst possible trading terms for the UK?

Going on about Mays deal which gives us two years of what we have now is really silly as an example of worse.

Look, ,you know you lot lost the economic argument months ago, and the only thing you've got is a result from three years ago and lots of people telling me to "believe in Britain"

You know WTO rules are terrible, there is evidence galore that they would be terrible but none of you can say it.

Which means (to me at anyrate) that you'll say anything, agree to anything, believe anything that gives you your own personal bespoke Brexit. And thats why I don't trust the people who are telling me that that is a good idea.

Hardly a silly example. The EU has repeatedly said it's the only deal on the table.

We have three choices:

1. Leave with no deal
2. Leave with May's deal
3. Don't leave.

The referendum voted for Leave, so 3 is out. May's deal is abysmal, so 2 is out. What does that leave?

You lost the political argument three years ago. I won't agree that an economic loss, which will be smaller than you believe, is enough cause to disregard a democratic ballot.

dsr wrote:No. The deal negotiated by Theresa May is worse.

Personally I'd say that it's much better.

dsr wrote:Hardly a silly example. The EU has repeatedly said it's the only deal on the table.

We have three choices:

1. Leave with no deal
2. Leave with May's deal
3. Don't leave.

The referendum voted for Leave, so 3 is out. May's deal is abysmal, so 2 is out. What does that leave?

You lost the political argument three years ago. I won't agree that an economic loss, which will be smaller than you believe, is enough cause to disregard a democratic ballot.

We have more choices than that. If we retain free movement and stay in the single market (and customs union) we'd solve at one stroke the issue of a free trade deal, and also not inflame issues around the Irish border. The EU have said they would reopen negotiations if the government moves in this direction. It also honours the referendum result. This is the most pragmatic way forward.

dsr wrote:Hardly a silly example. The EU has repeatedly said it's the only deal on the table.

We have three choices:

1. Leave with no deal
2. Leave with May's deal
3. Don't leave.

The referendum voted for Leave, so 3 is out. May's deal is abysmal, so 2 is out. What does that leave?

You lost the political argument three years ago. I won't agree that an economic loss, which will be smaller than you believe, is enough cause to disregard a democratic ballot.

You've admitted that its going to be an economic loss.

None of you said that pre-referendum. It was all "Project Fear"

So you think 17.4 million voted to make themselves poorer.

No chance, you know it, I know it, the whole world knows it.

We've been sold a whopper, and we are all suffering because of it.

AndrewJB wrote:We have more choices than that. If we retain free movement and stay in the single market (and customs union) we'd solve at one stroke the issue of a free trade deal, and also not inflame issues around the Irish border. The EU have said they would reopen negotiations if the government moves in this direction. It also honours the referendum result. This is the most pragmatic way forward.

I don't believe freedom of movement can be retained without another referendum. It was clearly such a significant reason why people made the decision to vote to leave the EU. For that reason I believe doing so would be totally undemocratic in my view, despite me wanting us to remain in the EU.

I agree with taio I think

Its not about the economy, its not about sovereignty, its about stopping more people living here, and we are finally getting to that stage of the debate where its being admitted.

But I have to also agree with Andrew, accepting it opens up a whole raft of much better deals than WTO, so it has to be considered.

And as long as we leave the EU, then its result enacted.

AndrewJB wrote:We have more choices than that. If we retain free movement and stay in the single market (and customs union) we'd solve at one stroke the issue of a free trade deal, and also not inflame issues around the Irish border. The EU have said they would reopen negotiations if the government moves in this direction. It also honours the referendum result. This is the most pragmatic way forward.

This honours the referendum result:

Independent trade policy
Freedom to decide how to spend our own money
Independent immigration policy
Independent legal system (freedom from ECJ)
Independent agricultural policy
Independent fisheries policy

May's withdrawal agreement is the first step to potentially achieving ALL of the above.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I agree with taio I think

Its not about the economy, its not about sovereignty, its about stopping more people living here, and we are finally getting to that stage of the debate where its being admitted.
But I have to also agree with Andrew, accepting it opens up a whole raft of much better deals than WTO, so it has to be considered.

And as long as we leave the EU, then its result enacted.

Agree - felt before the referendum it by and large came down to economy versus immigration choice. Possibly far too simplistic a view but still feel the same today. I felt the economy was most important and actually think immigration issues are exaggerated and in some cases distorted e.g. immigration harming the NHS. Fair enough that people thought the opposite and voted to leave. There will be some brexiteers who also think our economy will be better in the long term once we are out. Fair play to them also - it's their democratic right. And no-one knows how it will eventually play out when we leave.

taio wrote:Agree - felt before the referendum it by and large came down to economy versus immigration choice. Possibly far too simplistic a view but still feel the same today. I felt the economy was most important and actually think immigration issues are exaggerated and in some cases distorted e.g. immigration harming the NHS. Fair enough that people thought the opposite and voted to leave. There will be some brexiteers who also think our economy will be better in the long term once we are out. Fair play to them also - it's their democratic right. And no-one knows how it will eventually play out when we leave.

I think it was a major element of why some people voted to leave. Such a shame nobody told them that EU citizens coming here had to have a job or an income, along with comprehensive health insurance for up to five years after they arrive. And of course freedom of movement allowed Britons to move to other EU countries (though from conversations I've had with older leavers, some believe we'll retain this right somehow after we leave).

Lancasterclaret wrote:You've admitted that its going to be an economic loss.

None of you said that pre-referendum. It was all "Project Fear"

So you think 17.4 million voted to make themselves poorer.

No chance, you know it, I know it, the whole world knows it.

We've been sold a whopper, and we are all suffering because of it.

Yes, well this is the one aspect where I have (repeatedly) admitted that you were right and I was wrong. I didn't realise just to what extent the EU would be willing to harm itself as long as they harmed us more. I thought they were better than that; you realised in advance what a spiteful, unpleasant organisation it is.

If we go to WTO rules, we are just giving up free trade with the EU. They are giving up free trade with the UK, plus £39bn exit fee, plus £10bn per year subs. And I know that per head, they suffer less than us by that, but they still suffer.

So should we crawl back to the bully boys and say "might is right, we will pay your Danegeld"? Not for me. We will do better, long term, out than in. The Sainsbury's approach to business - drive out the little shops by loss leaders and drive down supplier prices by threatening to cut them off from trade - is fine with you on a macro scale (though I suspect you are less keen on it when it is actually Sainsbury doing it on a micro scale); but it doesn't sit well with me.

dsr wrote:Yes, well this is the one aspect where I have (repeatedly) admitted that you were right and I was wrong. I didn't realise just to what extent the EU would be willing to harm itself as long as they harmed us more. I thought they were better than that; you realised in advance what a spiteful, unpleasant organisation it is.

If we go to WTO rules, we are just giving up free trade with the EU. They are giving up free trade with the UK, plus £39bn exit fee, plus £10bn per year subs. And I know that per head, they suffer less than us by that, but they still suffer.

So should we crawl back to the bully boys and say "might is right, we will pay your Danegeld"? Not for me. We will do better, long term, out than in. The Sainsbury's approach to business - drive out the little shops by loss leaders and drive down supplier prices by threatening to cut them off from trade - is fine with you on a macro scale (though I suspect you are less keen on it when it is actually Sainsbury doing it on a micro scale); but it doesn't sit well with me.

Right, so we agree that WTO rules would be absolutely mental for an advanced economy like ours?

Good

Then it shouldn't be an option, and we should all realise that and move on.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Right, so we agree that WTO rules would be absolutely mental for an advanced economy like ours?

Good

Then it shouldn't be an option, and we should all realise that and move on.

43% of our exports are already under WTO rules, to countries outside the EU and with no trade agreement with the EU. Bearing in mind that virtually every penny of those exports goes to countries further away than the EU, which necessarily adds to the expense and inconvenience, it hardly suggests that trading under WTO rules is impossible or even difficult.

dsr wrote:43% of our exports are already under WTO rules, to countries outside the EU and with no trade agreement with the EU. Bearing in mind that virtually every penny of those exports goes to countries further away than the EU, which necessarily adds to the expense and inconvenience, it hardly suggests that trading under WTO rules is impossible or even difficult.

That's not strictly true though is it? We have side deals with all of those countries, we're not solely trading under WTO rules.

aggi wrote:That's not strictly true though is it? We have side deals with all of those countries, we're not solely trading under WTO rules.

According to fullfact.org, 43% of our exports go to countries where we don't have any sort of trade agreement and are fully under WTO rules. (The USA is the biggest of these.)

https://fullfact.org/europe/does-most-u ... greements/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

44% goes to the EU, and 13% to non-EU countries that we have an EU trade agreement with.

dsr wrote:According to fullfact.org, 43% of our exports go to countries where we don't have any sort of trade agreement and are fully under WTO rules. (The USA is the biggest of these.)

https://fullfact.org/europe/does-most-u ... greements/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

44% goes to the EU, and 13% to non-EU countries that we have an EU trade agreement with.

It's a narrow distinction, and I don't really know why it's the case, but side deals aren't classed as trade agreements, even though they impact on trade.

They don't change the tariffs, they more deal with facilitating trade. I've said all along that in general I wouldn't be that concerned about the impact of the extra tariffs (other than some areas like agriculture which have 40%+ tariffs) but the impact that losing regulatory alignment, equivalence of qualifications, data protection regulations, etc will have.

Yep I believe as part of the EU we have over 100 sector-level agreements that go well beyond WTO terms with the US which we would lose by going it alone

dsr wrote:According to fullfact.org, 43% of our exports go to countries where we don't have any sort of trade agreement and are fully under WTO rules. (The USA is the biggest of these.)

https://fullfact.org/europe/does-most-u ... greements/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

44% goes to the EU, and 13% to non-EU countries that we have an EU trade agreement with.

57% to the EU on more favourable terms to both parties, you fool. How much of that 57% do you think will remain part of our exports to them when they can just get a better deal trading within the EU?

******* hell, how can you people be so obtuse?

The 43% isn't the problem. That's not going to change. Our prices are not going to be less competitive to those countries when we leave the EU. It's the 57% that is where ******* problem is. 57% of our exported goods are about to become much less attractive to our most important trading partner which has absolutely no reason to keep buying ANY of their imports from us if they can get them for 1 penny less elsewhere.

This isn't a difficult thing to understand, not even for you, which makes me think you're deliberately misleading people as to what the real problem is with leaving on WTO terms.

Imploding Turtle wrote:57% to the EU on more favourable terms to both parties, you fool. How much of that 57% do you think will remain part of our exports to them when they can just get a better deal trading within the EU?

******* hell, how can you people be so obtuse?

The 43% isn't the problem. That's not going to change. Our prices are not going to be less competitive to those countries when we leave the EU. It's the 57% that is where ******* problem is. 57% of our exported goods are about to become much less attractive to our most important trading partner which has absolutely no reason to keep buying ANY of their imports from us if they can get them for 1 penny less elsewhere.

This isn't a difficult thing to understand, not even for you, which makes me think you're deliberately misleading people as to what the real problem is with leaving on WTO terms.

I take it your latest ban ended at midnight?

Do variable exchange rates have any impact on our exports? If Sterling increases in value by 10%, how much do exports change by? What if Sterling loses 10% of its value? That's the best practical guide to how much exports will alter under WTO, because exchange rates in some way mirror part of the issue.

dsr wrote:I take it your latest ban ended at midnight?

Do variable exchange rates have any impact on our exports? If Sterling increases in value by 10%, how much do exports change by? What if Sterling loses 10% of its value? That's the best practical guide to how much exports will alter under WTO, because exchange rates in some way mirror part of the issue.

So you're counting on the value of the pound crashing in order to keep our exports competitive?

dsr wrote:I take it your latest ban ended at midnight?

Are you trying to make a thread about me again, so that people can complain about me and get me banned again?
It'll work.

dsr wrote:According to fullfact.org, 43% of our exports go to countries where we don't have any sort of trade agreement and are fully under WTO rules. (The USA is the biggest of these.)

https://fullfact.org/europe/does-most-u ... greements/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

44% goes to the EU, and 13% to non-EU countries that we have an EU trade agreement with.

Anyone saying that we trade with the US solely under WTO rules doesn't know enough about it to be telling us all that its the best option for the UK.

Looks like a trade deal with the US isn't worth **** if a lunatic president can just ignore the rules when he wants

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48469408" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keep talking Dsr, I think you are making great posts for remaining in the CU and SM.

CBI chief: Industry sectors face Brexit extinction!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44462829" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another tory "Bright Idea" or Fiasco.


What a legacy.

Latest polling for the next election shows an entertaining situation

Westminster voting intention:

LDem: 24% (+6)
Brex: 22% (+4)
Con: 19% (-5)
Lab: 19% (-5)
Grn: 8% (+2)

via @YouGov
Chgs. w/ 17 May

(Obviously this is going to change massively by the time a vote actually comes round but it seems it's the first time since polling started that the top two parties have been outside the top spots.)