Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:30 am

ClaretAndJew wrote:Ringo, are you one of those people who doesn't believe in gravity because "it's only a theory" ?

No

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:35 am

ClaretAndJew wrote:It's the same with how we know that we will die one day. Just because we haven't died doesn't mean that's not proof that we will die.

Remoaners believing, what could turn out to be short term or reversible, business decisions, is evidence that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk could be proven wrong. And what they claimed as evidence, could turn out to be just their misplaced opinion/belief.

You cannot provide EVIDENCE from an event that has not happened yet.

If you believe you can.

Post a copy of your own death certificate.

LeuvenClaret · Post by **LeuvenClaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:39 am

Now you’ve changed from evidence to proof. I provided evidance of past events to provide probability it will happen. But now u want proof it will happen, I see so yes for proof you will have to wait until it happens. But there is evidance out there to guide u on the probability.

The probability is you will die as there is evidence that people die, but you want proof u have died which of course is not possible. Yet you live in hope u will live forever.

In the simplest terms, proof is conclusive but evidence isn't. Evidence is more of a suggestion.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:50 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:A

This is the most sensible thing you have posted on this thread by a country mile.

Well done. Keep it up.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:51 am

AndrewJB wrote:The sovereignty argument around the EU always swirls around the negative - what we hand over, as though it's a giveaway of our sovereignty, and we get nothing back. Firstly we have to consider where this sovereignty goes. It's not simply given "upwards" to a level of government over which we have no control to be used as "it" wishes. The sovereignty is pooled together with sovereignty from the other member states, and this allows the EU to speak with one voice on the world stage. This is quite important, because taken individually, most EU countries are just too small to make a real impact, but collectively we are match in terms of trade and soft diplomacy for any other nation. This is the plus side.

Any real consideration or accounting of what we've actually given up, compared to what we've got out of it would have to consider the reality of the seventy-three (I think) EU laws passed in the face of Britain's resistance, out of the four-odd thousand that we've otherwise supported. That is a "failure rate" by Britain of less than two percent, and when we look at these laws in more detail, I would argue Britain's opposition to them was nothing less than small minded and petty.

If we could simply put aside the argument of sovereignty - that would really be best, because although we want to make our own laws, and govern ourselves, we largely already do. We've engaged in military activity while in the EU, and there's no higher indication of a country's independence than that. We want to strike up trade deals with other parts of the world - well, we're already doing that as part of the EU, and because we're doing it as part of a big player, we're probably getting more advantageous deals than we would doing it alone.

Pooled sovereignty - the strength in collective action.

Pooled sovereignty brings maximum vocalisation little else, we rarely experience problems with other nations the only recent 1 I can think of recently is spygate Russia last year, ironically the problems we are & have been experiencing have originated from the all EU shebang, its beneficial in the same way a goretex jacket would be to a extreme recluse living somewhere in a arid desert. Speaking on a world stage on our behalf or with our input, for love nor money I cannot understand why we can't do that for ourselves it's not as if the world has been listening to the EU. The nuts & bolts which hold the thing together the threads have been stripped away for some time now, it's loose & unstable.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:57 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:That your making a prediction based on past evidence, and, in your own words, a “belief “

You cannot provide EVIDENCE from an event, until it has actually happened.

There your words, not mine! You are squirming again and changing your position. Of course you can’t provide from an event in the future but you can, as people have been telling for the last 6 months, provide evidence for an event in the future!

All together now - Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:03 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:I know what you are saying, and I do agree with the premise, BUT we don't need to be a part of the EU in order to function.
We functioned pre EU, we'll function post Brexit. There are many countries all over the world that function without being part of the EU. It's why all the scare mongering is laughable. It might be a bumpy road, but it isn't anywhere near the end of the world. Things will be different of course, so what, we'll still function, and when the dust has settled I'm sure we'll benefit from being out.

It won’t be a bumpy road for you, though, will it? You’ve retired and paid off your mortgage.

The working poor, on the other hand....

Full disclosure - I reckon I’ll probably be alright no matter what happens too, but I worry for my fellow citizens (even Ringo)

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:08 am

Burnley Ace wrote:There your words, not mine! You are squirming again and changing your position. Of course you can’t provide from an event in the future but you can, as people have been telling for the last 6 months, provide evidence for an event in the future!

All together now - Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Any "evidence" that supports a vested agenda is more often than not wholly unreliable at the best & quite frankly to be taken with a pinch of salt. When people are against something the last thing they would do is provide information supporting something quite the contrary as what's unfolding now.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:20 am

Jakubclaret wrote:Any "evidence" that supports a vested agenda is more often than not wholly unreliable at the best & quite frankly to be taken with a pinch of salt...

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. You should speak with Houseboy about 9/11.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:29 am

Greenmile wrote:Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. You should speak with Houseboy about 9/11.

So true, it's instinctive, eg, if I desperately needed a day off work & I'd no holidays left & you had the knowledge permission would likely be denied you'd pull a sickie, you would ultimately do & say whatever to enable that day off work even lie.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:52 am

Question time was a classic last night I wish they had filled the audience with out of work Scottish fishermen and let those cliff edge car crash remainers explain why the EU status quo is so beneficial to them..

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:53 am

Dunno about that, that is something I've never done.

But if you want to base the economic future of the county on conspiracy theories, then thats daft.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:55 am

Who got the biggest cheer of the night?

Just interested to know as this is evidence of how the majority of the country feels apparently.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:12 am

Think it was the bloke who said Brexit meant free blow jobs for all.

(But to be honest, i didn't watch it, watching Kick Ass on 5* is a far better use of my time)

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:54 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Think it was the bloke who said Brexit meant free blow jobs for all.

(But to be honest, i didn't watch it, watching Kick Ass on 5* is a far better use of my time)

I bet they didn’t even wait to see who’d be giving them either. Typical of them.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:01 am

Jakubclaret wrote:Any "evidence" that supports a vested agenda is more often than not wholly unreliable at the best & quite frankly to be taken with a pinch of salt. When people are against something the last thing they would do is provide information supporting something quite the contrary as what's unfolding now.

What evidence doesn’t support a vested interest? Isn’t that the point of evidence, you use it to support your belief. Is your argument that all evidence is unreliable?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:22 am

Some weird debates on here, guys.

Just came on to post that the woman without her clothes was interviewed on Radio 4 Today programme. I'm not sure whether she was in the same studio as the Today interviewer. Of course, as far as I'm aware, there are "no photos" accompanying a radio broadcast. I can't offer any evidence that the woman was naked.

Her argument appeared to be "I'm a woman taking control of my body, so Brexit is a bad thing...." And, she'd be happy to debate with JRM if he was similarly disrobed.

I'm not sure what that would do to Lancs' "realities."

Bertiebeehead · Post by **Bertiebeehead** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:37 am

Paul Waine wrote:Some weird debates on here, guys.

Just came on to post that the woman without her clothes was interviewed on Radio 4 Today programme. I'm not sure whether she was in the same studio as the Today interviewer. Of course, as far as I'm aware, there are "no photos" accompanying a radio broadcast. I can't offer any evidence that the woman was naked.

Her argument appeared to be "I'm a woman taking control of my body, so Brexit is a bad thing...." And, she'd be happy to debate with JRM if he was similarly disrobed.

I'm not sure what that would do to Lancs' "realities."

Could you hear the rustling of pubic hair?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:37 am

You seem to be (very politely!) dismissive of the "realities" Paul.

I take no notice of what a naked lass is saying on the radio to be honest because its a stunt. I just read the news every morning and the analysis of the political and trade commentators (stopped using the word "expert" because that automatically means its ******** if you know nothing about it and can't/won't/don't have time to understand the complexities) and its not looking good.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:38 am

Could you hear the rustling of pubic hair?

To hear that on the radio she'd have to be going at it at such speed there would be the danger of fire!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:46 am

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... union.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NY Times article on where we get hid hardest by a "No Deal" Brexit.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:53 am

Jakubclaret wrote:Pooled sovereignty brings maximum vocalisation little else, we rarely experience problems with other nations the only recent 1 I can think of recently is spygate Russia last year, ironically the problems we are & have been experiencing have originated from the all EU shebang, its beneficial in the same way a goretex jacket would be to a extreme recluse living somewhere in a arid desert. Speaking on a world stage on our behalf or with our input, for love nor money I cannot understand why we can't do that for ourselves it's not as if the world has been listening to the EU. The nuts & bolts which hold the thing together the threads have been stripped away for some time now, it's loose & unstable.

When you say we rarely experience problems with other nations are you meaning ever or recently?

taio · Post by **taio** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:55 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You seem to be (very politely!) dismissive of the "realities" Paul.

I take no notice of what a naked lass is saying on the radio to be honest because its a stunt. I just read the news every morning and the analysis of the political and trade commentators (stopped using the word "expert" because that automatically means its ******** if you know nothing about it and can't/won't/don't have time to understand the complexities) and its not looking good.

Do you ever look back over the last two or three years and think why have I spent such an inorindate amount of time on the subject? I mean you must have written an unbelievable amount on here alone. Never mind the time you spend researching every day. Yet you've still managed to suggest, for example, that it was stupid to say Article 50 may be extended and a deal is likely to include the freedom of movement i.e. Norway +. This was always going to be a hugely complex political process and negotiation which needs to be judged once an agreement is reached with the EU and parliament or no deal is confirmed.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:01 am

RingoMcCartney wrote: You cannot produce evidence from an event that has not happened.

I'll try again, even thouugh it's doomed to failure, to explain what the word evidence means. Like lots of words it can have subtley different meanings in different context. But like a true Brexiteer everything is black and white for Wrongo, so there is only one definition of the word evidence (albeit one of the correct ones) and it's the definition he's sticking to. Here's the definition from the online Cambridge dictionary, along with some examples of use (I'm sure I've posted this before and Wrongo has ignored it, but god loves a tryer!)

evidence
noun [ U ] uk /ˈev.ɪ.dəns/ us /ˈev.ə.dəns/

one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true:

The police have found no evidence of a terrorist link with the murder.
[ + to infinitive ] There is no scientific evidence to suggest that underwater births are dangerous.
[ + that ] Is there any scientific evidence that a person's character is reflected in their handwriting?
Several experts are to give evidence on the subject.
There is only circumstantial evidence against her, so she is unlikely to be convicted.
Campaigners now have compelling documentary evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years.
Fresh evidence suggests that the statement had been fabricated.
The traces of petrol found on his clothing provided the forensic evidence proving that he had started the fire deliberately.
All the evidence points to a substantial rise in traffic over the next few years.
There is growing/mounting/increasing evidence that people whose diets are rich in vitamins are less likely to develop some types of cancer.

Please note in particular the second last example where evidence is being used to forecast traffic volumes. Now of course Wrongo is immediately going to say 'but that's a prediction based on assunmptions, etc, etc', and he'd be right, but perhaps he can now stop harping on about not being able to produce evidence in the context of Brexit.

Yes Wrongo, we all know they are predictions, but they are based on a number of different possible scenarios plugged into financial and econimic models developed over years. The vast majority of those forecasts, some of them using very optimistic post Brexit scenarios, are saying this is going to be varying degrees of bad. If that doesn't worry you then you've either got your head in the sand or your faith (and I'm calling it faith rather than a belief as belief implies some sort of supporting evidence whuch you adnit you don't have) is so great that you just refuse to contemplate the chance you might be wrong.

So, just to close this offf, you can use the fact (evidence) that the sun rose this morning and every previous morning to predict with almost 100% accuracy that, not only that it will rise tomorrow morning, but at what time and the exact point on the horizon. Why, because we understand the way the earth moves round the sun and how the earth rotates. This doesn't vary, it's a fixed model, so the only variable we have to plug into it is tomorrow's date. The only reason the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow is if something we haven't predicted that might impact the model happens and the chances of that are infitessimally small.

Now no one is claiming that economic models are that accurate of course, there's far more variables and a higher chance that something might happen that hasn't been modelled, and the forecasts come with margins of error for that very reason. But they do carry weight and when so many different forecats are giving the same bad news then surely it's time to sit up and listen!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:05 am

I'd rather be informed and wrong occasionally than wrong because I'm not informed.

It interests me, and if you are interested in something its not a chore.

I can't remember when I said article 50 would be silly if we extended it, but I'm guessing it was some time ago when it looked it would be stupid and we had time to sort this out. And the Norway option is still on the table, and looks like it might form the basis of a compromise.

I have said repeatedly that I won't let unsubstantiated ******** pass without comment, because that is the only way to fight the vast amounts of disinformation out there.

And I give less than two ***** what people think about me on here to be honest.

taio · Post by **taio** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:09 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'd rather be informed and wrong occasionally than wrong because I'm not informed.

It interests me, and if you are interested in something its not a chore.

I can't remember when I said article 50 would be silly if we extended it, but I'm guessing it was some time ago when it looked it would be stupid and we had time to sort this out. And the Norway option is still on the table, and looks like it might form the basis of a compromise.

I have said repeatedly that I won't let unsubstantiated ******** pass without comment, because that is the only way to fight the vast amounts of disinformation out there.

And I give less than two ***** what people think about me on here to be honest.

Re Article 50, it was just a few weeks ago over the Christmas period.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:13 am

Right, so I've got one wrong.

It definitely needs extending now, but hey I keep forgetting that you are no longer allowed to change your mind.............

taio · Post by **taio** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:24 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Right, so I've got one wrong.

It definitely needs extending now, but hey I keep forgetting that you are no longer allowed to change your mind.............

Of course people can change their mind - as I say it's hugely complex and impossible to be sure how things will play out. I suppose the point I'm making is because of that, it's best not to dismiss people's view in a superior fashion along the way and wasting too much time in advance of an agreement or not. "Where do you get this stuff from" was the response I got to my comparatively rare contribution to a Brexit thread when I said there was a good chance Article 50 would be extended.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:26 am

aggi wrote:When you say we rarely experience problems with other nations are you meaning ever or recently?

Just in general, apart from the EU but hey ho everything is dandy really

before I'm corrected I know the EU isn't a nation but a compilation of member states before I'm pedantically corrected.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:30 am

Which is still a fair question Taio.

You've dismissed Norway as an option (going from memory here) because "the British people voted to end FOM". Might well be true, but the Lab amendment yesterday makes no mention of stopping FOM, and the Boles amendment is quiet on it as well.

I take your point, but all I want Brexiteers (and the remainers as well) is to say stuff and back it up with evidence or at least some supporting theories (nod to Ringo there with the evidence v probability).

I listen to the ones DSR and Crosspool come out with, but I'm short with the ones that appear to consist of "it will be fine because it will be".

Its certainly a massively complicated topic, and these arguments are all about the withdrawal agreement! Imagine what it gets like when we actually start talking about the reality of the UK outside the EU!

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:40 am

Could I simply Brexit by saying that FOM is a fantastic thing and no brit was ever out of a job at the expense of an EU member ( we’re flooded with jobs ) it’s the “ darkies” the leavers don’t want and Brexit means didddly squat to non eu folk . If we could have got a veto restricting the likes of Romania and Bulgaria all would be fine

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:44 am

It is theoretically possible to stay in THE customs union (or A customs union) and still end freedom of movement (have an independent immigration policy).

Imo Parliament should be exploring this option as a possible way out of the impasse.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:50 am

Mala591 wrote:It is theoretically possible to stay in THE customs union (or A customs union) and still end freedom of movement (have an independent immigration policy).

Imo Parliament should be exploring this option as a possible way out of the impasse.

Isn’t that the ultimate EU red line ? “ you don’t get the trade benefits if you don’t let our people work /live here”

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:58 am

AlargeClaret wrote:Isn’t that the ultimate EU red line ? “ you don’t get the trade benefits if you don’t let our people work /live here”

No. Turkey are in the customs union but not in the single market. We would probably have to pay into the EU for a seat at the 'customs union table'. Complicated, yes, but it's a definate possibility imo.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:01 am

It's regulatory divergence the ERG care most for. They care less for immigration than I and I'm a remainer. Were such politics mainstream enough to command power (and I don't think we're completely there yet, but it's a slow-boiling frog situation) we'd be looking at wholesale deregulation and visa expedition as soon as business needs cheap labour. More commonwealth immigration seems inevitable to make up the shortfall borne of the political need to demonstrate reduced EU immigration; Modi wants visa leniency as part of a trade deal with India, for instance.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:19 am

Mala591 wrote:No. Turkey are in the customs union but not in the single market. We would probably have to pay into the EU for a seat at the 'customs union table'. Complicated, yes, but it's a definate possibility imo.

It's a lot of effort for still following the rules but less influence though (unless you really want to stop immigrants from Europe).

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:25 am

aggi wrote:It's a lot of effort for still following the rules but less influence though (unless you really want to stop immigrants from Europe).

Especially when we can control immigration from the EU much more than we do now, while still in the EU!

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:34 am

aggi wrote:It's a lot of effort for still following the rules but less influence though (unless you really want to stop immigrants from Europe).

NET immigration is still in the region of 300,000 per year (EU and non EU combined) which is equivalent to FOUR towns the size of Burnley EVERY YEAR.

Obviously not sustainable and the UK must be able to control the numbers with a strong but fair system which is essential for planning national transport, health, education etc. policies.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:38 am

Mala591 wrote:NET immigration is still in the region of 300,000 per year (EU and non EU combined) which is equivalent to FOUR towns the size of Burnley EVERY YEAR.

Obviously not sustainable and the UK must be able to control the numbers with a strong but fair system which is essential for planning national transport, health, education etc. policies.

It can, it just chooses not to.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:46 am

If Immigration doesn't go down to a level which is unsustainable for us, then I'd hazard a guess that a lot of Brexiteers are going to be disappointed.

We need immigration, and the big business will make sure we still get it. It will just be a bit darker in hue.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:53 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Which is still a fair question Taio.

You've dismissed Norway as an option (going from memory here) because "the British people voted to end FOM". Might well be true, but the Lab amendment yesterday makes no mention of stopping FOM, and the Boles amendment is quiet on it as well.

I take your point, but all I want Brexiteers (and the remainers as well) is to say stuff and back it up with evidence or at least some supporting theories (nod to Ringo there with the evidence v probability).

I listen to the ones DSR and Crosspool come out with, but I'm short with the ones that appear to consist of "it will be fine because it will be".

Its certainly a massively complicated topic, and these arguments are all about the withdrawal agreement! Imagine what it gets like when we actually start talking about the reality of the UK outside the EU!

It's not that mate when you exceed our patience threshold it's just easier to let you carry on in your bubble, futile engaging further.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:00 pm

Mala591 wrote:No. Turkey are in the customs union but not in the single market. We would probably have to pay into the EU for a seat at the 'customs union table'. Complicated, yes, but it's a definate possibility imo.

You may have that the wrong way round- it’s access to the Single Market that is tied into FOM and we would have to pay a contribution. A Customs Union would impact on our ability to agree new independent trade deals as we would most probably have to accept existing and new EU deals with no guarantee that we would have any input

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:19 pm

Greenmile wrote:It won’t be a bumpy road for you, though, will it? You’ve retired and paid off your mortgage.

The working poor, on the other hand....

Full disclosure - I reckon I’ll probably be alright no matter what happens too, but I worry for my fellow citizens (even Ringo)

I haven't retired. I'm still working. 58 hours a week most weeks. I'm not forced to work those hours, but now I am saving for retirement. You get out of life what you put into it. If people put their effort into making Brexit a success then it will be. Theres no point crying in your comfort blankets.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:20 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:If Immigration doesn't go down to a level which is unsustainable for us, then I'd hazard a guess that a lot of Brexiteers are going to be disappointed.

We need immigration, and the big business will make sure we still get it. It will just be a bit darker in hue.

Good god man you mean northern businessess may have to recruit south of Manchester ? Never ! Well never while the queen is still empress of all India !

Ps can’t they just sign Mays “ chequers with a few bells on “ and let the country move on ?

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:24 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:The majority of MPs seem to think they have. The general consensus in the past week or so is that if - following Brady's amendment, May could do something about the Irish backstop then her "deal" may well pass through the Commons, with support from all parties.

How many times have Brussels mouthpieces said, there is no other offer. No renegotiation. I'm prepared to believe them.
If May comes back with some more then we can look at that when we know what it is, but it's pointless predicting anything, when the rhetoric is so negative.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:25 pm

It's not that mate when you exceed our patience threshold it's just easier to let you carry on in your bubble, futile engaging further.

I'd argue that the bubble you have surrounded yourself is considerably more opaque than mine.

I'm desperately waiting for facts that prove what I believe wrong, and I'm pretty sure you don't care if you are wrong or not.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:34 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:You seem to be (very politely!) dismissive of the "realities" Paul.

I take no notice of what a naked lass is saying on the radio to be honest because its a stunt. I just read the news every morning and the analysis of the political and trade commentators (stopped using the word "expert" because that automatically means its ******** if you know nothing about it and can't/won't/don't have time to understand the complexities) and its not looking good.

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... union.html

NY Times article on where we get hid hardest by a "No Deal" Brexit.

Hi Lancs, there's some interesting data in the NYT article. I'd not seen the cash returns to home countries before. I'm a big supporter of the ability to migrate to work in other countries - I've done it myself and have got a number of "friends and family" who've also had spells working abroad - in my case both EU (before Maastricht and freedom of movement) and elsewhere. Most of my career has been spent in companies with multiple nationalities - one of them counted over 35 different languages amongst the staff - and, these days that's pretty normal in London (and, we are all better for it). If cash returned home is to support the family that have remained at home I'd have placed my bet on Poland being a higher cash flow than both Germany and France - but the data shows it the other way round. Maybe I need to better understand what the figures are telling us/how they've been calculated. I wonder, also what the data would show if it was looking at cash flows into the UK from UK citizens working in the EU27? - and, similarly, when working in non-EU countries?

There's no doubt that "no deal" is a bad situation for the UK - and would also be "tough" for some parts of EU. (Southern Italy, btw, doesn't have much of an trading economy, hence not greatly impacted, either way). That's why I've argued that the Lisbon Treaty should have set out the withdrawal terms - for whichever member state chose to withdraw from EU - and also set out the relationship between the departing member state and the rEU if and when Article 50 was triggered. That would have resolved all the "debate" over the past 3 years (pre-referendum campaign, post-23rd June and all the way through to today).

Why do I say "debate" - in inverted commas? So much of the politics has been at the "I'm right, you are wrong" level and, which I feel is even more regrettable, "I'm educated, you aren't" and "I'm young, it's my life....not yours." None of these "debates" are worth a penny, or a euro cent, if you prefer.

I've asked myself how can I make the debate better? So, I'd like to take the advice of Queen Elizabeth and show respect for the opinions of others.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:40 pm

Fair enough.

Its very hard to show respect when people stick to points that have been disproved.

Its the Steve Bannon/Trump style of debating, in which you just keep shouting the same information and refuse to accept it is based on false information.

There is a quite a lot going on every Brexit thread sadly.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:54 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:You may have that the wrong way round- it’s access to the Single Market that is tied into FOM and we would have to pay a contribution. A Customs Union would impact on our ability to agree new independent trade deals as we would most probably have to accept existing and new EU deals with no guarantee that we would have any input

Turkey is in the EU customs union but has an independent immigration policy so it is possible. I agree that we wouldn't be able to negotiate our own international trade deals and would be 'tied into' the EU trade deals but imo that would be a price worth paying.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:59 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Fair enough.

Its very hard to show respect when people stick to points that have been disproved.

Its the Steve Bannon/Trump style of debating, in which you just keep shouting the same information and refuse to accept it is based on false information.

There is a quite a lot going on every Brexit thread sadly.

I posted on the "transfer window who's to blame?" thread, something along the lines of looking for blame doesn't get us anywhere. The question we should be asking ourselves is "how can I make things better?" and, in this context, "how can I improve the level of debate?" It's all based on a simple idea: we can only change ourselves....not the other person.

I'm not Steve Bannon or Donald Trump.(I'm a little bit "up-lifted" to be able to post that). So, I'm not looking to win arguments to try to prove someone else wrong, or "stick my fingers in my ears." Just respect and a curiosity for real facts and real opinions.