Brexit stuff in one place [MERGED]

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
383

Mazzer2:

Franglais:

Mazzer2:

Franglais:

adam277:
I do agree that a lot of companies are using as an excuse for their failing businesses.
I remember before covid. I think it was ToysRus and an entire host of other companies blamed ‘brexit difficulties’ as the reason they went into administration.
Maplin CEO blamed brexit for its failure.

The truth is the market is very volatile at the moment. Those who are not willing to adapt and change their businesses will fail.
Many local hauliers have been running the same contracts for decades and have no interest in growth or diversifying their clientele. They just want to maintain a status quo. The problem is when the market changes and say DPD dont want their trucks anymore then they are completely stuffed.
But a volatile market doesnt have to mean failure as change brings lots of opportunity for new ideas.

Yep. As already mentioned some are seeking to gain lots of new trade post Brexit.
independent.co.uk/business/ … 06765.html
Brussels are taking advantage of the Johnson deal as much as they can.

Read the same story in a more neutral paper and you’ll see that the methods being used by the EU are bordering on illegal. odd that an organisation that continually preaches about standards can turn a blind eye when it suits.

And what is your point?
The EU is a trading group doing what it can for it’s members.
“Borderline illegal”? What’s that? In my book that is legal.

My point being that it is not all as it seems depending on where you get your information and if someone outside the EU was aggressively pursuing EU business they would not be so relaxed about it.
Yes the EU is a trading group but if it was such an ideal trading environment it wouldn’t need to pursue trade it would come to it due to it being such a friendly trading environment. The movement of financial services to European trading centres will increase the costs of those services to EU citizens, if these financial centres are so good why did the companies choose London over them? If the EU has nothing to fear from London why does it not give London equivalence in the same way it does to the USA, Singapore, Canada and Australia.

Good points there.
Why don’t we have equivalence?
Looks like we should have it, so why don’t we? Looks like we have got a really crappy deal so far, I agree.
When London was part of the EU and recognised all the EU standards and courts, they didn’t need to worry too much about moving. Now they do.
Seems clear they are revising their view and are seeking to maximize new opportunities. Why wouldn’t Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris, and New York too, try for more business?

384

And further if as you say some things will cost the EU more, haven’t there been many posts about how pro Brexit posters ate prepared to take a financial hit to support their political views? Why assume the EU is different?

385

Franglais:
And further if as you say some things will cost the EU more, haven’t there been many posts about how pro Brexit posters ate prepared to take a financial hit to support their political views? Why assume the EU is different?

Except the people of Europe didn’t vote for Brexit so they didn’t vote to accept higher costs as part of Brexit, and with the financial trading, costs will rise for the European consumer, but if you look at where the trades are actually taking place the European countries will not be getting the benefits from that trade, the majority of share trading that has gone to Holland is being conducted on a platform owned by the FTSE and Chicago stock exchange and the physical trade is not being conducted in Holland but on this platform with the tax take being split between the FTSE and Chicago.

386

Read this today, sums Brexit up in one sentence:

"When we were in the EU it was all their fault.
Now we are out of the EU it is still all their fault but there is nothing we can do about it".

387

Mazzer2:

Franglais:
And further if as you say some things will cost the EU more, haven’t there been many posts about how pro Brexit posters ate prepared to take a financial hit to support their political views? Why assume the EU is different?

Except the people of Europe didn’t vote for Brexit so they didn’t vote to accept higher costs as part of Brexit, and with the financial trading, costs will rise for the European consumer, but if you look at where the trades are actually taking place the European countries will not be getting the benefits from that trade, the majority of share trading that has gone to Holland is being conducted on a platform owned by the FTSE and Chicago stock exchange and the physical trade is not being conducted in Holland but on this platform with the tax take being split between the FTSE and Chicago.

Brexit is increasing trading costs for the UK and the EU, although as you say the EU citizens never had a vote on it.
I don’t recall the extra cost to UK citizens being a written on the side of a bus anywhere, so maybe not a big plus point for voters?

Anyway this CNN piece seems balanced to me.
cnn.com/2021/02/25/investin … index.html
.
Not good news for London. Not the end of the world, but losses now, but whether it’s the start of a roll is unknown.
They point out the weakness of the Johnson deal.

388

whisperingsmith:
Read this today, sums Brexit up in one sentence:

"When we were in the EU it was all their fault.
Now we are out of the EU it is still all their fault but there is nothing we can do about it".

We could always take legal action if it all goes wrong couldn’t we?
The European Cou…

389

Franglais:

whisperingsmith:
Read this today, sums Brexit up in one sentence:

"When we were in the EU it was all their fault.
Now we are out of the EU it is still all their fault but there is nothing we can do about it".

We could always take legal action if it all goes wrong couldn’t we?
The European Cou…

What’s your point?
That when we were dissatisfied members at least we could access the European Court?

The one that adjudicated that immigration MUST inform a suspected terrorist of the reason why he has been refused entry?

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

390

Monkey241:

Franglais:

whisperingsmith:
Read this today, sums Brexit up in one sentence:

"When we were in the EU it was all their fault.
Now we are out of the EU it is still all their fault but there is nothing we can do about it".

We could always take legal action if it all goes wrong couldn’t we?
The European Cou…

What’s your point?
That when we were dissatisfied members at least we could access the European Court?

The one that adjudicated that immigration MUST inform a suspected terrorist of the reason why he has been refused entry?

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

My point was that as members we had recourse to a mutually recognised court.
.
Whether or not we, or other members, liked the judgements, is of course a separate discussion.

391

Our great Leaders also said “They Held All The Cards”

Turns out they’ve been pretty ■■■■■ players

392

Franglais:

Monkey241:

Franglais:

whisperingsmith:
Read this today, sums Brexit up in one sentence:

"When we were in the EU it was all their fault.
Now we are out of the EU it is still all their fault but there is nothing we can do about it".

We could always take legal action if it all goes wrong couldn’t we?
The European Cou…

What’s your point?
That when we were dissatisfied members at least we could access the European Court?

The one that adjudicated that immigration MUST inform a suspected terrorist of the reason why he has been refused entry?

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

My point was that as members we had recourse to a mutually recognised court.
.
Whether or not we, or other members, liked the judgements, is of course a separate discussion.

A source of deep regret that we have no recourse to a court well known for Pythonesque judgements

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

393

Monkey241:

Franglais:

Monkey241:

Franglais:

whisperingsmith:
Read this today, sums Brexit up in one sentence:

"When we were in the EU it was all their fault.
Now we are out of the EU it is still all their fault but there is nothing we can do about it".

We could always take legal action if it all goes wrong couldn’t we?
The European Cou…

What’s your point?
That when we were dissatisfied members at least we could access the European Court?

The one that adjudicated that immigration MUST inform a suspected terrorist of the reason why he has been refused entry?

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

My point was that as members we had recourse to a mutually recognised court.
.
Whether or not we, or other members, liked the judgements, is of course a separate discussion.

A source of deep regret that we have no recourse to a court well known for Pythonesque judgements

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Ah!
But we do!

394

What are you banging on about?

You said we don’t…but now we do?

I know you struggle with logic, but this is inconsistent even by your standards

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

395

Here’s the general secretary of the actors union Equity, supported Leave and now complaining that actors will struggle to get work abroad :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

396

Monkey241:
What are you banging on about?

You said we don’t…but now we do?

I know you struggle with logic, but this is inconsistent even by your standards

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

The ECJ isn’t the only source of judicial farce. Our own UK courts can give those foreigner courts a run for their money you know.

397

chrisdalott:
Here’s the general secretary of the actors union Equity, supported Leave and now complaining that actors will struggle to get work abroad :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Out of work actoors can always get a job in our revitalised fishing industry.

398

Even more supreme logic from Franglais!

The ECJ is a farce …but so are UK courtss (supposedly!)

And that’s a logical argument for exposing ourselves to the ECJ - how, exactly?

I realise this is a topic that excites passions…but please please please attempt some rationalisation [emoji1787]

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

399

Monkey241:
Even more supreme logic from Franglais!

The ECJ is a farce …but so are UK courtss (supposedly!)

And that’s a logical argument for exposing ourselves to the ECJ - how, exactly?

I realise this is a topic that excites passions…but please please please attempt some rationalisation [emoji1787]

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Yes, like asking Gove and the toffee appled hair piece where the £350 million a week for the NGS is. I mean, they proclaimed it in writing. Cant get more rational than that.

400

Monkey241:
Even more supreme logic from Franglais!

The ECJ is a farce …but so are UK courtss (supposedly!)

And that’s a logical argument for exposing ourselves to the ECJ - how, exactly?

I realise this is a topic that excites passions…but please please please attempt some rationalisation [emoji1787]

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

My turn to ask:

Monkey241:
What are you banging on about?

No where have I said that :

Monkey241:
The ECJ is a farce …but so are UK courtss (supposedly!)

I did say:

Franglais:
The ECJ isn’t the only source of judicial farce. Our own UK courts can give those foreigner courts a run for their money you know.

Many people or institutions may make farcical decisions occasionally without being deserving of being called a farce themselves.

And what makes a decision “Pythonesque” or “farcical” may well be subjective, rather than rational, mighten it?
After all a court makes a “judgment” rather than a calculation of the evidence presented?

Monkey241:
And that’s a logical argument for exposing ourselves to the ECJ - how, exactly?

Chip on your shoulder? An implicit assumption we are the accused?
You could ask: “Why not take advantage of the ECJ to seek justice against those who have wronged us?”

From Dec 2017, instituteforgovernment.org.uk/
“The UK rarely ends up in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and when it does it wins its cases more often than most European Union (EU) member states, a new report finds.
Who’s afraid of the ECJ?, published today by the independent Institute for Government (IfG), charts the UK’s experience at the ECJ compared to the 14 other longest standing members of the EU.
The UK won around a quarter of all the cases against it in the last 14 years: the highest success rate of any country”

401

the nodding donkey:

Monkey241:
Even more supreme logic from Franglais!

The ECJ is a farce …but so are UK courtss (supposedly!)

And that’s a logical argument for exposing ourselves to the ECJ - how, exactly?

I realise this is a topic that excites passions…but please please please attempt some rationalisation [emoji1787]

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Yes, like asking Gove and the toffee appled hair piece where the £350 million a week for the NGS is. I mean, they proclaimed it in writing. Cant get more rational than that.

More rational than that?

I guess your language skills are as wanting as your logic.

What does ‘let’s’ mean?

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

402

A court makes a judgement BASED on the calculation of evidence involved.

I think you fail to grasp how judgements are arrived at.

As for your defence of comments on farce: it reads like poor justification of what you actually said.

Victims of the ECJ? Chip on shoulder?
Just a keen observer of their less than inspirational performance

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk