Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the same Boris that managed to be 'unavailable to vote' when the Heathrow Runway was debated despite a 3 line Whip.
Foreign Office officials couldn't say where he was but it emerged he was doing something or other in Afghanistan but turned up again today.

The same Boris who was so opposed to Heathrow expansion and vowed to lie down in front of the bulldozers.

the same Boris who literally ran out of the chamber as an 'Urgent Question' on violence in Gaza was about to be asked. Leaving the Cabinet Secretary floundering and trying to answer on his behalf.


 
Lothian said:
I understand our crack team of negotiators in the simplest negotiation of all time have agreed a net figure so it does or doesn't include wine lakes but whatever. That is the final amount (or the final formula anyway).

I suspect they just looked at future liabilities both sides had already signed up to as opposed to unwinding the past* on both sides.

*One thing I notice on my EU travels is that the EU flag is often seen on the continent. All funded projects have a "funded by the EU" sign. We so rarely see that in the UK, it came as a shock when I took a detour off my usual route and spotted one near my office. It is the only one I recall ever seeing in the North East despite the fact that the European Structural Investment Fund alone sponsors projects in the areas to the tune of £73m a year. I dare say we receive other EU monies on top of that but there is so rarely a public acknowledgement. Probably contributed to the vote when people don't see the money is being spent on them.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is a requirement of receiving funding and failure to comply can result in having to pay back a % of the funding.
 
The Don said:
Foreign secretary Boris Johnson doing his usual excellent job the BBC reports:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44618154

It's not so far out of character for the Foreign Secretary to be both undiplomatic and rather disdainful towards "tradesmen".



It looks like Boris is determined to have a diamond hard Brexit and damn the consequences (despite repeatedly promising the softest of soft Brexits during the camapaign).
Click to expand...
"damn the consequences"? No he is simply acting in the way he thinks will make it more likely to be PM, he is very much aware of the consequences of undermining May.
 
Darat said:
"damn the consequences"? No he is simply acting in the way he thinks will make it more likely to be PM, he is very much aware of the consequences of undermining May.
Click to expand...

From what I have read, Johnson is so disliked by many in the Tory party that even if May fell he would probably not get the PM nod.
And is it just me or is he TRYING to look like Donald Trump?
 
ceptimus said:
When are we going to get clear of this stupid club analogy? Ex members of a golf club are not expected to pay any money to the club.
Click to expand...


It's clear that you find the club analogy frustrating. That doesn't mean that it is stupid, because it is equally clear that what frustrates you is your inability to refute it coherently.

As analogies go it is singularly apt. In fact it might be a mistake to call it an analogy to begin with. It might be more accurately referred to as a description.
 
You missed the point. So I'll use the analogy again to show why it's poor.

People use the club analogy to point out you can't expect to leave a club but continue to behave as though you haven't left. But you also don't leave a club but still have to pay into it. If you do still pay into a club then you haven't left - you've perhaps changed your membership type from 'gold' to 'silver' or similar - and then you WOULD be able to continue to use the club but with reduced benefits.

Another thing that the club analogy misses for Brexit is the trading relationship. To include that you would be a member of a golf club but also a person that sells things to it. Maybe you manufacture golf balls that are sold in the club shop, and maybe you have a contract to print club brochures when the club wants them. If you decided to leave the club as a member, then you wouldn't expect to play golf there again but you wouldn't expect to pay the club either, and you might expect to talk to the club to see if it remained interested in purchasing balls and printing services going forward.

All analogies are imperfect but the golf club/Brexit one is particularly poor and inappropriate.
 
quadraginta said:
It's clear that you find the club analogy frustrating. That doesn't mean that it is stupid, because it is equally clear that what frustrates you is your inability to refute it coherently.

As analogies go it is singularly apt. In fact it might be a mistake to call it an analogy to begin with. It might be more accurately referred to as a description.
Click to expand...

There's at least one difference: You don't ruin your life by leaving club...
 
ceptimus said:
You missed the point. So I'll use the analogy again to show why it's poor.

People use the club analogy to point out you can't expect to leave a club but continue to behave as though you haven't left. But you also don't leave a club but still have to pay into it. If you do still pay into a club then you haven't left - you've perhaps changed your membership type from 'gold' to 'silver' or similar - and then you WOULD be able to continue to use the club but with reduced benefits.

Another thing that the club analogy misses for Brexit is the trading relationship. To include that you would be a member of a golf club but also a person that sells things to it. Maybe you manufacture golf balls that are sold in the club shop, and maybe you have a contract to print club brochures when the club wants them. If you decided to leave the club as a member, then you wouldn't expect to play golf there again but you wouldn't expect to pay the club either, and you might expect to talk to the club to see if it remained interested in purchasing balls and printing services going forward.

All analogies are imperfect but the golf club/Brexit one is particularly poor and inappropriate.
Click to expand...
The payment is for commitments and benefits recieved. As mentioned before. If you take out a years membership of a golf club and resign in a fit of pique because there are more coloured people appearing on the course than you would like (happy to repost the vote leave poster if your memory is slipping) you must still pay the monthly subs in your contract until you have paid the full amount you promised. You should also pay for the tour to Scotland that you signed up for later in the year. You can not expect to go on that trip for free because you have left he club.
That is what the brexit payment is. The fees we signed up to and agreed to pay at the start of the year (up to 2020 in the case of brexit) and the benifits we will receive after that date (pensions etc).

Your selling analogy is a good one. You might expect a golf club to favour one of its members in seeking suppliers, they would know the club, it's needs and would have its best interests at heart. If that member then leaves in a huff the business relationship may well be affected.
 
Last edited:
The golf analogy remains good. If you leave a club you can still play there but only when the members are not using it and you will pay more than members for the round. Same with brexit. We can not expect the same deal we have now, or even a better deal, which brexit promised. The leave campaign said we could get all the current membership benifits for less money.
Similarly many golf clubs as well membership fees have an joining fee. We are leaving our club to be able to join lots of other clubs instead. Other countries are in a strong position. They know how desperate we are to play. They will get a nice joining fee out of us before we get membership of their trade club.
 
ceptimus said:
You missed the point. So I'll use the analogy again to show why it's poor.

People use the club analogy to point out you can't expect to leave a club but continue to behave as though you haven't left. But you also don't leave a club but still have to pay into it. If you do still pay into a club then you haven't left - you've perhaps changed your membership type from 'gold' to 'silver' or similar - and then you WOULD be able to continue to use the club but with reduced benefits.

Another thing that the club analogy misses for Brexit is the trading relationship. To include that you would be a member of a golf club but also a person that sells things to it. Maybe you manufacture golf balls that are sold in the club shop, and maybe you have a contract to print club brochures when the club wants them. If you decided to leave the club as a member, then you wouldn't expect to play golf there again but you wouldn't expect to pay the club either, and you might expect to talk to the club to see if it remained interested in purchasing balls and printing services going forward.

All analogies are imperfect but the golf club/Brexit one is particularly poor and inappropriate.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confused, and mixing up the divorce settlement with a potential new trade deal. The trade relationship can only be concluded after we leave.

The club analogy that refers to the first stage, our leaving deal, is perfectly valid.
 
Explorer said:
You seem to be confused, and mixing up the divorce settlement with a potential new trade deal. The trade relationship can only be concluded after we leave.

The club analogy that refers to the first stage, our leaving deal, is perfectly valid.
Click to expand...
The club analogy for the new trade deal would be the ex member turning round and saying something like "of course I'll still want to play on the golf course, so you'll do me a good deal on green fees and a discount in the shop etc won't you?". No, you'll pay the full non-member prices, and you'll still have to obey the club rules though you will no longer have any say in what they are.
 
Explorer said:
You seem to be confused, and mixing up the divorce settlement with a potential new trade deal. The trade relationship can only be concluded after we leave.

The club analogy that refers to the first stage, our leaving deal, is perfectly valid.
Click to expand...
Trade deals are easy, I expect we've signed loads since last we broached the subject on here.

Loads
 
Siemens UK (15,000 employees) boss has also recently said:-
However, in the latest sign of frustration felt by leading businesses over the lack of progress in Brexit negotiations, the chief executive of Siemens UK called the intervention “incredibly unhelpful” and joined calls for a deal that would not hit the flow of trade between the UK and mainland Europe.

Jürgen Maier said the aim should be “minimum friction” in any future trade deal and chastised the government for presiding over “two years of not having achieved what we were promised, which is that this was all going to be easy”.
Click to expand...
from here.
 
Filippo Lippi said:
Trade deals are easy, I expect we've signed loads since last we broached the subject on here.

Loads
Click to expand...

Well to be serious for a moment, as I understand it the UK is prevented from signing new trade deals until we have left the EU on 29 March 2019 so it's not unreasonable that none have been signed.

Dr Liam Fox assured us all that there are however 40 deals ready to sign on the 30 March 2019 and doubtless they will be signed on that date and be far better than the shabby deals we had with those countries when we were labouring under the yoke of EU oppression. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom