Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[jeremyp]

"just said" ? That was over a year ago.

He still said it though (whilst moving a lot of investments out of the UK). It doesn't matter if he said it yesterday, last year or July 2016.

It might have been helpful to know that's what he believed in early June 2016 though. Strange he didn't mention it then...

 

[Vixen]

People are always asked by the media to explain why they're making people redundant, and at the moment, of course, Brexit is one of the main things they can blame. Brexit uncertainty probably really is having an effect, and even if it isn't the people claiming that it is might honestly believe that to be the case. If the referendum losers had accepted the result then that uncertainty would have been eliminated, so they must carry a lot of the blame for dragging out the uncertainty to the present and beyond.

If Brexit wasn't happening then there would be something else to blame: the downturn in the global car market, Trump's policies on tariffs, Climate change, or whatever.

You are in denial. But carry on. Yesterday I was able to transfer a load of Euros at a rate of €0.92/£1.

I can remember when the pound was worth something.

 

[Vixen]

No. If the losers had accepted the result, Brexit would be done by now. The problem is that we have a remain parliament, a remain civil service, and until very recently, a remain government headed by a remain PM.

Isn't 'losers' the language of the playground? You'll be referring to 'haters' next.

 

[Vixen]

I had to laugh at the media spin on this. Fearful of creating panic amongst the hoi-polloi, the BBC et al have referred to the recent spending on no-deal Brexit as a 'boost' instead of a 'cost' or a 'waste of money'.

 

[ceptimus]

I had to laugh at the media spin on this. Fearful of creating panic amongst the hoi-polloi, the BBC et al have referred to the recent spending on no-deal Brexit as a 'boost' instead of a 'cost' or a 'waste of money'.

The extra 2 billion over the next 90 days (if they manage to spend it) is still less than our net contribution to subsidize the EU during the same period.

 

[The Don]

The extra 2 billion over the next 90 days (if they manage to spend it) is still less than our net contribution to subsidize the EU during the same period.

For 90 days it's almost exactly the same. Of course the newly announced no deal spending is on top of the existing spending preparing for Brexit so in pure financial outlay it's more expensive, never mind when the rest of the costs to the economy are taken into account.

 

[ceptimus]

Yes, but we've not already been paying it out for years, and we won't have to continue paying it out forever more like we would have to if we remain EU members. The people making a fuss about the 'huge cost' are just scaremongering as usual. Compared to our EU contributions, the amount is peanuts.

 

[jeremyp]

Yes, but we've not already been paying it out for years, and we won't have to continue paying it out forever more like we would have to if we remain EU members. The people making a fuss about the 'huge cost' are just scaremongering as usual. Compared to our EU contributions, the amount is peanuts.

This two billion is just money pissed away to satisfy the egos of a few politicians. The money sent to the EU paid for our membership of the World's largest free trade zone and the right to have a say in how that free trade zone was run.

The reason the UK was a net contributor was because we were relatively rich compared to the EU average (that's probably going to change a bit now). That money was mostly used as grants to support the poorer areas, some of which are in the UK. It's not a zero sum game though. If you make poor areas richer, you can do more trade with them.

Once we've left the EU, our economy will slow down and we'll probably end up paying all the money saved to poor areas of the UK (e.g. parts of Wales and Cornwall). And according to a leading light of the Brexiteers, it will take 50 years to get out of the hole we have dug. It depresses me that I'll be dead before all the damage caused by the Brexiteers has been repaired.

 

[Blue Bubble]

Here's a very interesting idea from Fintan O'Toole in today's The Irish Times.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...an-stop-a-no-deal-brexit-here-s-how-1.3972121

Ireland, North and South, is facing a political and economic crisis. But the key to preventing it lies in Irish hands. One Irish political party has the power to change the balance of power at Westminster and to alter the dynamics of British politics, prevent a no-deal Brexit, avoid a hard UK-Ireland border and save the economy of Northern Ireland from catastrophe. It can do this without compromising its principles. All it needs is boldness, imagination and patriotism.

Read the article for more.



Thoughts ?

 

[jimbob]

Here's a very interesting idea from Fintan O'Toole in today's The Irish Times.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...an-stop-a-no-deal-brexit-here-s-how-1.3972121



Read the article for more.



Thoughts ?

It depends on a lot. Sin Fein might prefer for the Union of Scotland and England to break up so that it can go for Northern Ireland to leave the Union too.

Of course, there is the question as to whether Ireland would want the poisoned chalice that the Unionists would be.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Thoughts ?

* 'Fintan O'Toole' is a hilarious name. It sounds like something Spike Milligan would come up with when lampooning an Irishman.

* I can't see his idea ever happening, but it sounds awesome. The coming together of anti-Brexit politics is exactly what we need right now, and it showed some signs of becoming reality in the last by-election. I can't see Sinn Fein being flexible enough, though.

* Why does Sinn Fein get £100,000 in expenses from Westminster when none of its seven MPs has taken up their seats?

 

[Olmstead]

What's the thinking behind the UK getting great trade deals after BREXIT. Presumably they would be in dire need of those deals, hence they would be more likely to accept deals that are more advantageous to their trade partners and less advantageous to the UK. What's the rationale of the leave side?

 

[Amazer]

What's the thinking behind the UK getting great trade deals after BREXIT. Presumably they would be in dire need of those deals, hence they would be more likely to accept deals that are more advantageous to their trade partners and less advantageous to the UK. What's the rationale of the leave side?

From what I've understood... the UK will get great trade deals since it's the 5th largest economy in the world so other countries are falling over themselves to sign these deals. Further, the EU trade deals aren't as good (for the UK) as they could be since the interests of the other EU27 must be taken into account too (orange growers in Spain for example while the UK doesn't grow oranges). Once the UK is out it can negotiate trade deals that better suit the UK's needs.

Sent from my SM-M305F using Tapatalk

 

[The Don]

What's the thinking behind the UK getting great trade deals after BREXIT. Presumably they would be in dire need of those deals, hence they would be more likely to accept deals that are more advantageous to their trade partners and less advantageous to the UK. What's the rationale of the leave side?

It's always been a complete mystery why there is this assumption that the UK will get better trade deals than the EU. The claim is that certain countries (and it's always "other" countries, the Spanish and their bananas, the Italians and their tomatoes) have certain red lines which means that the EU deal is less advantageous than a deal that the far more reasonable UK would cut. Then again:

• In their dealings with the EU both before and after the Brexit vote, the UK harldy seems complaint and easy to deal with
• The UK has at least as many vested interests as the EU which would need to be accommodated in a trade deal
• The EU is a much bigger market. The UK getting a better deal is as reasonable as me expecting to get the same price for heating oil as if I bought through the local consortium

Ultimately it seems to come down to foreigners suddenly recognising the UK's innate superiority and granting the UK a fabulous trade deal because of it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What's the thinking behind the UK getting great trade deals after BREXIT. Presumably they would be in dire need of those deals, hence they would be more likely to accept deals that are more advantageous to their trade partners and less advantageous to the UK. What's the rationale of the leave side?

Jam tomorrow.

Don't worry, voters, we're going to agree the terms of a new deal before starting any legal process to leave. Thanks for your votes, 52%. Oops, it turns out there's no process to allow that negotiation to happen. Never mind, jam tomorrow.

We're going to get a great deal, the easiest deal in history, before our 2 years are up. We hold all the cards. They need us more than we need them. Oops, maybe not. Still, jam tomorrow.

We're going to leave on time, come what may, because that's super-important because reasons. And as soon as we're out we can negotiate great deals. The best deals. It'll be fine. It's all going to turn around tomorrow, because we have jam tomorrow.

It would be hilarious if these ******** were only hurting themselves and weren't going to damage the country's economy for probably the whole of my children's working lives.

 

[catsmate]

Here's a very interesting idea from Fintan O'Toole in today's The Irish Times.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...an-stop-a-no-deal-brexit-here-s-how-1.3972121



Read the article for more.



Thoughts ?

Amusing but impossible. Mary Lou would't think of it.

 

[catsmate]

* 'Fintan O'Toole' is a hilarious name. It sounds like something Spike Milligan would come up with when lampooning an Irishman.

* Why does Sinn Fein get £100,000 in expenses from Westminster when none of its seven MPs has taken up their seats?

Constituency expenses.

 

[catsmate]

The extra 2 billion over the next 90 days (if they manage to spend it) is still less than our net contribution to subsidize the EU during the same period.

No.

Yes, but we've not already been paying it out for years, and we won't have to continue paying it out forever more like we would have to if we remain EU members.

Ah, the back peddling when your lies are revealed.

The people making a fuss about the 'huge cost' are just scaremongering as usual.

You mean pointing out unpleasant realities Brexiteers don't want to admit to.

Compared to our EU contributions, the amount is peanuts.

Again, untrue.

 

[Mojo]

What's the thinking behind the UK getting great trade deals after BREXIT. Presumably they would be in dire need of those deals, hence they would be more likely to accept deals that are more advantageous to their trade partners and less advantageous to the UK. What's the rationale of the leave side?

“WAAAH! BLUE PASSPORTS! £375 MILLION A WEEK! BENDY BANANAS!! FOREIGNERS!!! DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT!!!! GLORIOUS DAYS OF EMPIRE!!!! MILLIONS OF TURKS!!!! WAAAAH!!!!”

 

[Olmstead]

From what I've understood... the UK will get great trade deals since it's the 5th largest economy in the world so other countries are falling over themselves to sign these deals. Further, the EU trade deals aren't as good (for the UK) as they could be since the interests of the other EU27 must be taken into account too (orange growers in Spain for example while the UK doesn't grow oranges). Once the UK is out it can negotiate trade deals that better suit the UK's needs.

Sent from my SM-M305F using Tapatalk

Hmm ... I assume the Leave camp provided a comprehensive list of EU trade interests that negatively affected UK trade along with some compelling commentary ... Right?

Honestly though, I think such a thing would make for an interesting read, but after a perfunctory search, the best I could find were some vague statements about India. Anyone know of something more detailed?