Eu referendum whats your vote

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
3901

Grumpy Dad:

Buzzer:
Having read today that Donald Tusk thinks 30% chance of Brexit could be cancelled as he thinks if we had another referendum the Brexiteers will lose, I aint getting the same vibes as him that’s for sure, they sure don’t want to let us go and does he know something we do not, Buzzer.

Before I continue I voted to leave
A second referendum does not necessarily mean we have to vote wether we stay or go, everyone including the EU has accepted that we wish to leave, what they can’t decide is how we leave, and a second referendum could give us that choice, A - do we leave with a deal, B - do we leave without.
But politicians have [zb] the system to suit themselves and are hoping that a second referendum would be a stay or go choice again, with the outcome in favour of stay.

And if it was stay how fast do you think the formalities would be done, it would be as fast as Lewis Hamilton on a good day, blink and you would miss it, Buzzer

3902

Buzzer:
Having read today that Donald Tusk thinks 30% chance of Brexit could be cancelled as he thinks if we had another referendum the Brexiteers will lose, I aint getting the same vibes as him that’s for sure, they sure don’t want to let us go and does he know something we do not, Buzzer.

That Polish ■■■■ sails along with the EU Gravy train so you don’t expect anything different from him ! Cheers Dennis.

3903

@ Ramone. Trying to work out the financial pros/cons of the EU.
We pay in into EU funds more that we get out. Yep, about £250m per week.
fullfact.org/europe/350-million … ty-misuse/

When we leave we gain that £250m…almost, but we wont quibble about details and payments, lets say all of that stays here.
About £13b annually.

So whats on the other side of the equation? Because its in the future and nothing has been agreed it is speculative, nowt we can do about that. The Leave campaign is based on one possible future, so is the Remain idea. We can`t avoid being speculative.

As members of the EU we have frictionless cross border trade and free movement of people. All countries within the EU are on a leveling playing field. I dont say we are all level straight away, but we are getting nearer financially. Free movement of goods within the EU means trade is cheaper "to do" because of there being no taxes and tariffs, and no (or little) border controls. Because it is easier and cheaper and quicker (so cheaper again) to trade within the zone that is where our biggest markets are. Being geographical neighbours is a huge factor too. If we had a hard Brexit, on WTO rules there would be taxes on what the EU imports. So any goods we sell to them is dearer to them. If the price of UK widgets increases, and Spanish widgets stays the same? Maybe the French and Germans will buy Spanish in the future. If UK widgets may involve more paperwork and be delayed at borders thats even more reason to change supplier.
Can we put a number on that?
Our exports to the EU in 2017 was £274b. annually.
If we were to loose just 5% of our current trade we would be loosing out. (about £700,000 by my arithmetic) Any more lost clients and wed be very major losers. Even as MFN (most favoured Nation) status our UK produced cars would have a 10% tariff on them. Maybe we loose much more than 5% of trade? Given the trading disadvantage we would have for investors compared with other EU countries new factories would be built elsewhere: the next Japanese car plant will go where are frictionless borders with the largest market and no tariffs. EU needs no more than one car plant for each maker (maybe none) but if JPN.Co needs one plant in Europe will they build it in the UK so 90% of its goods have tariffs, or in the EU so only the 10% sold in the UK has tax on it? That seems obvious. The only way we could attract new factories would be a supply of cheap labour. What the Tory Brexiteers call being competitive! Being able to drop wages. The country as a whole may do well, and a small number of investors would do well, but only at the expanse of a big slice of the population being worse off.
And be clear investment in big factories to make widgets or cars and employ people needs multinational investment. We cant gamble on a new start coming along, and making an impact. What of new markets? What of new deals? Brexiteers promised much....almost none of those promises held water. And why would they? The EU is a huge market, and its on our doorstep. A new trade deal, with say New Zealand, would be nice, but there are over 500million people in the EU and less than 50m in NZ. Any trade in goods will be slower, cost more in transport etc, it seems plain to me that its a folly to equate the two in any way. Exports to NZ were about £520m. If we guess a 5% loss in EU trade, thats £13,000m. loss. Wed need to double (100% increase) our trade with NZ and with 26 other similar deals, just to stand still on exports! It aint gonna happen.
The figure simply don`t stack up.

UK imports under WTO rules need to treat all WTO members equally. If we choose not put tariffs on imported EU foodstuffs, (we don`t want dearer food) we need to treat other countries the same.
So, we have to pay more for EU food? Not good.
Or our farmers will need to compete with much cheaper foods from Africa, Mexico, and the US. A collapse of UK agriculture. Not good.

We don`t live in an isolated society. We need international trade and any extra paperwork cost us more. Tariffs and taxes mean our products cost more so we loose trade, income, and jobs. In transport we all know that time is money, and eventually the consumer pays. More border regulation means we pay more for almost everything.

Overall we are, I reckon, better off in than out. By a lot.

fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

3904

Overall we are, I reckon, better off in than out. By a lot.

Franglais,
I look at what you have said as a kind of balance sheet and assuming your figures are correct it is a just argument.
However, can I ask you a question:
How agressive, how domineering and powerful ( with a military force)
How dictitorial and self serving does the EU need to be for you to change your mind in favour of our sovereign country.
How much do you value and honour all the souls who gave there all to protect it.
Harvey

3905

HRS:
Overall we are, I reckon, better off in than out. By a lot.

Franglais,
I look at what you have said as a kind of balance sheet and assuming your figures are correct it is a just argument.
However, can I ask you a question:
How agressive, how domineering and powerful ( with a military force)
How dictitorial and self serving does the EU need to be for you to change your mind in favour of our sovereign country.
How much do you value and honour all the souls who gave there all to protect it.
Harvey

OK, Ramone asked a question about economics, and Ive tried to explain how I see things. Im no economist, but thats how I see it all. Where have the EU been aggressive? I havent seen it. What aggression do you mean?

The EU is not, that I see, dictatorial. The system is different than the UK one, but that doesn`t mean it is a dictatorship.

Our Sovereign Country can still exist within the EU. I don`t see that we will be “absorbed” or whatever inside it. The Welsh are still Welsh within the UK. Scots retain their identity after hundreds of years of being in the UK. Do you think we Brits are so weak we would loose our identity in the EU? And would any Frenchman or German try for that too? No. Of course not.
They may not be as lucky as us, who have been born English, ( :smiley: ), but they still have pride in their own identities and countries.

I respect those who gave “their all”, for us. Of course I do.
What has that to do with Brexit?
The EU is NOT about giving up national identity, or freedom, any more than I gave up my freedom to be a Hampshire Hog, because I pay taxes to London for schools and hospitals to be built all over the country.

3906

HRS:
Overall we are, I reckon, better off in than out. By a lot.

Franglais,
I look at what you have said as a kind of balance sheet and assuming your figures are correct it is a just argument.
However, can I ask you a question:
How agressive, how domineering and powerful ( with a military force)
How dictitorial and self serving does the EU need to be for you to change your mind in favour of our sovereign country.
How much do you value and honour all the souls who gave there all to protect it.
Harvey

The EU is not militarily domineering and powerful, and if it is self serving, why would you not think it should be otherwise? All countries and alliances are like that.

The point is though, while we are a member we are a part of that self serving (as you put it) organisation, and are therefore well served as a result.

As to honouring those who fought and died to bring Europe out of the darkness of Nazism, wanting to be part of the EU is not dishonouring anything, including the memory of all those French men and women also gave their lives for this end, yes, and Germans too. But we, who value the EU, all agree that Union is the best way to preserve the peace they died for.

It is a significant fact that there are many streets and roads in France named in honour of those who died resisting, but the majority in my observations are dedicated ‘shot by the Nazis’, relatively few bear the words ‘shot by the Germans’. If they can recognise the difference, why can’t you?

3907

Franglais:
@ Ramone. Trying to work out the financial pros/cons of the EU.
We pay in into EU funds more that we get out. Yep, about £250m per week.
fullfact.org/europe/350-million … ty-misuse/

When we leave we gain that £250m…almost, but we wont quibble about details and payments, lets say all of that stays here.
About £13b annually.

So whats on the other side of the equation? Because its in the future and nothing has been agreed it is speculative, nowt we can do about that. The Leave campaign is based on one possible future, so is the Remain idea. We can`t avoid being speculative.

As members of the EU we have frictionless cross border trade and free movement of people. All countries within the EU are on a leveling playing field. I dont say we are all level straight away, but we are getting nearer financially. Free movement of goods within the EU means trade is cheaper "to do" because of there being no taxes and tariffs, and no (or little) border controls. Because it is easier and cheaper and quicker (so cheaper again) to trade within the zone that is where our biggest markets are. Being geographical neighbours is a huge factor too. If we had a hard Brexit, on WTO rules there would be taxes on what the EU imports. So any goods we sell to them is dearer to them. If the price of UK widgets increases, and Spanish widgets stays the same? Maybe the French and Germans will buy Spanish in the future. If UK widgets may involve more paperwork and be delayed at borders thats even more reason to change supplier.
Can we put a number on that?
Our exports to the EU in 2017 was £274b. annually.
If we were to loose just 5% of our current trade we would be loosing out. (about £700,000 by my arithmetic) Any more lost clients and wed be very major losers. Even as MFN (most favoured Nation) status our UK produced cars would have a 10% tariff on them. Maybe we loose much more than 5% of trade? Given the trading disadvantage we would have for investors compared with other EU countries new factories would be built elsewhere: the next Japanese car plant will go where are frictionless borders with the largest market and no tariffs. EU needs no more than one car plant for each maker (maybe none) but if JPN.Co needs one plant in Europe will they build it in the UK so 90% of its goods have tariffs, or in the EU so only the 10% sold in the UK has tax on it? That seems obvious. The only way we could attract new factories would be a supply of cheap labour. What the Tory Brexiteers call being competitive! Being able to drop wages. The country as a whole may do well, and a small number of investors would do well, but only at the expanse of a big slice of the population being worse off.
And be clear investment in big factories to make widgets or cars and employ people needs multinational investment. We cant gamble on a new start coming along, and making an impact. What of new markets? What of new deals? Brexiteers promised much....almost none of those promises held water. And why would they? The EU is a huge market, and its on our doorstep. A new trade deal, with say New Zealand, would be nice, but there are over 500million people in the EU and less than 50m in NZ. Any trade in goods will be slower, cost more in transport etc, it seems plain to me that its a folly to equate the two in any way. Exports to NZ were about £520m. If we guess a 5% loss in EU trade, thats £13,000m. loss. Wed need to double (100% increase) our trade with NZ and with 26 other similar deals, just to stand still on exports! It aint gonna happen.
The figure simply don`t stack up.

UK imports under WTO rules need to treat all WTO members equally. If we choose not put tariffs on imported EU foodstuffs, (we don`t want dearer food) we need to treat other countries the same.
So, we have to pay more for EU food? Not good.
Or our farmers will need to compete with much cheaper foods from Africa, Mexico, and the US. A collapse of UK agriculture. Not good.

We don`t live in an isolated society. We need international trade and any extra paperwork cost us more. Tariffs and taxes mean our products cost more so we loose trade, income, and jobs. In transport we all know that time is money, and eventually the consumer pays. More border regulation means we pay more for almost everything.

Overall we are, I reckon, better off in than out. By a lot.

How so when all this bs ‘trade’ you’re referring to is a deficit liability to us in which we actually ‘NEED’ tariff barriers to get the figures back onto a sustainable affordable track.

3908

HRS:
Franglais,
I look at what you have said as a kind of balance sheet and assuming your figures are correct it is a just argument.
However, can I ask you a question:
How agressive, how domineering and powerful ( with a military force)
How dictitorial and self serving does the EU need to be for you to change your mind in favour of our sovereign country.
How much do you value and honour all the souls who gave there all to protect it.
Harvey

It’s clear that being an obvious Federalist who’s allegiance is to the EU he would actually support the EU inevitably becoming more domineering to the point of using Federal Forces to put down any secessionist moves.On that note the Federalist mindset is a very specific one which spans history,so far,in Europe,having usually been defeated by the noble forces of Nationalism and self Determination.The smashing of the former Yugoslav Federation being the most recent example.The difference in this case being that we have a too powerful Quisling EU faction within obviously including at Head of State level and thereby also the forces ( unlike the Slovene militia and its leadership ).It’s my guess we are on a slippery slope that’s now to steep to get off of and this won’t end well and it will probably end along the lines of a USA/USSR type hybrid taking over Europe.Bearing in mind that history shows that there is a point where the wish for self determination can be defeated by a strong enough Federal force ( US war of Federal Aggression ).In this case with the added complication of a Missouri type situation in that war,applying here.Basically the country was toast from the point when Heath signed it over with the help of HM.

3909

Franglais:
@ Ramone. Trying to work out the financial pros/cons of the EU.
We pay in into EU funds more that we get out. Yep, about £250m per week.
fullfact.org/europe/350-million … ty-misuse/

When we leave we gain that £250m…almost, but we wont quibble about details and payments, lets say all of that stays here.
About £13b annually.

So whats on the other side of the equation? Because its in the future and nothing has been agreed it is speculative, nowt we can do about that. The Leave campaign is based on one possible future, so is the Remain idea. We can`t avoid being speculative.

As members of the EU we have frictionless cross border trade and free movement of people. All countries within the EU are on a leveling playing field. I dont say we are all level straight away, but we are getting nearer financially. Free movement of goods within the EU means trade is cheaper "to do" because of there being no taxes and tariffs, and no (or little) border controls. Because it is easier and cheaper and quicker (so cheaper again) to trade within the zone that is where our biggest markets are. Being geographical neighbours is a huge factor too. If we had a hard Brexit, on WTO rules there would be taxes on what the EU imports. So any goods we sell to them is dearer to them. If the price of UK widgets increases, and Spanish widgets stays the same? Maybe the French and Germans will buy Spanish in the future. If UK widgets may involve more paperwork and be delayed at borders thats even more reason to change supplier.
Can we put a number on that?
Our exports to the EU in 2017 was £274b. annually.
If we were to loose just 5% of our current trade we would be loosing out. (about £700,000 by my arithmetic) Any more lost clients and wed be very major losers. Even as MFN (most favoured Nation) status our UK produced cars would have a 10% tariff on them. Maybe we loose much more than 5% of trade? Given the trading disadvantage we would have for investors compared with other EU countries new factories would be built elsewhere: the next Japanese car plant will go where are frictionless borders with the largest market and no tariffs. EU needs no more than one car plant for each maker (maybe none) but if JPN.Co needs one plant in Europe will they build it in the UK so 90% of its goods have tariffs, or in the EU so only the 10% sold in the UK has tax on it? That seems obvious. The only way we could attract new factories would be a supply of cheap labour. What the Tory Brexiteers call being competitive! Being able to drop wages. The country as a whole may do well, and a small number of investors would do well, but only at the expanse of a big slice of the population being worse off.
And be clear investment in big factories to make widgets or cars and employ people needs multinational investment. We cant gamble on a new start coming along, and making an impact. What of new markets? What of new deals? Brexiteers promised much....almost none of those promises held water. And why would they? The EU is a huge market, and its on our doorstep. A new trade deal, with say New Zealand, would be nice, but there are over 500million people in the EU and less than 50m in NZ. Any trade in goods will be slower, cost more in transport etc, it seems plain to me that its a folly to equate the two in any way. Exports to NZ were about £520m. If we guess a 5% loss in EU trade, thats £13,000m. loss. Wed need to double (100% increase) our trade with NZ and with 26 other similar deals, just to stand still on exports! It aint gonna happen.
The figure simply don`t stack up.

UK imports under WTO rules need to treat all WTO members equally. If we choose not put tariffs on imported EU foodstuffs, (we don`t want dearer food) we need to treat other countries the same.
So, we have to pay more for EU food? Not good.
Or our farmers will need to compete with much cheaper foods from Africa, Mexico, and the US. A collapse of UK agriculture. Not good.

We don`t live in an isolated society. We need international trade and any extra paperwork cost us more. Tariffs and taxes mean our products cost more so we loose trade, income, and jobs. In transport we all know that time is money, and eventually the consumer pays. More border regulation means we pay more for almost everything.

Overall we are, I reckon, better off in than out. By a lot.

fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

Nice try Franglais, but no mention of England winning two World Wars and a World Cup before joining the EU. That’s the sort of facts that make impressions on here;

3910

Carryfast:
It’s clear that being an obvious Federalist who’s allegiance is to the EU he would actually support the EU inevitably becoming more domineering to the point of using Federal Forces to put down any secessionist moves.On that note the Federalist mindset is a very specific one which spans history,so far,in Europe,having usually been defeated by the noble forces of Nationalism and self Determination.The smashing of the former Yugoslav Federation being the most recent example.The difference in this case being that we have a too powerful Quisling EU faction within obviously including at Head of State level and thereby also the forces ( unlike the Slovene militia and its leadership ).It’s my guess we are on a slippery slope that’s now to steep to get off of and this won’t end well and it will probably end along the lines of a USA/USSR type hybrid taking over Europe.Bearing in mind that history shows that there is a point where the wish for self determination can be defeated by a strong enough Federal force ( US war of Federal Aggression ).In this case with the added complication of a Missouri type situation in that war,applying here.Basically the country was toast from the point when Heath signed it over with the help of HM.

So, to sum up, The Fourth Reich is a federal force from Missouri reinforced by Slovenian militia, battling against the noble forces of, em, Heath’s undead zombie army, who are themselves backed up by our gracious Queen with USA/USSR support?
Have I got that right?

3911

dexxy57:

Carryfast:
It’s clear that being an obvious Federalist who’s allegiance is to the EU he would actually support the EU inevitably becoming more domineering to the point of using Federal Forces to put down any secessionist moves.On that note the Federalist mindset is a very specific one which spans history,so far,in Europe,having usually been defeated by the noble forces of Nationalism and self Determination.The smashing of the former Yugoslav Federation being the most recent example.The difference in this case being that we have a too powerful Quisling EU faction within obviously including at Head of State level and thereby also the forces ( unlike the Slovene militia and its leadership ).It’s my guess we are on a slippery slope that’s now to steep to get off of and this won’t end well and it will probably end along the lines of a USA/USSR type hybrid taking over Europe.Bearing in mind that history shows that there is a point where the wish for self determination can be defeated by a strong enough Federal force ( US war of Federal Aggression ).In this case with the added complication of a Missouri type situation in that war,applying here.Basically the country was toast from the point when Heath signed it over with the help of HM.

So, to sum up, The Fourth Reich is a federal force from Missouri reinforced by Slovenian militia, battling against the noble forces of, em, Heath’s undead zombie army, who are themselves backed up by our gracious Queen with USA/USSR support?
Have I got that right?

No.
The EU is just another in a long line of European takeovers by despotic Federal regimes.Bearing in mind the German input into and leadership and investment in this one the term 4th Reich is as good as any to describe it.With it being obvious that its next move will be the setting up of a Federal army with the main mission of quelling any secessionist action within the ‘Union’.

The situation of Missouri,as it stood during the US war of Federal aggression,is a good comparison with the similar divisions which apply here and now,between supporters of EU Federalism v those who support UK secession from the EU.Although admittedly not applying so much at government level nor among the forces.

The EU being a hybrid of both US and Soviet style Federalism is also a fair description.

Heath having signed us up to the Treaty of Rome with HM’s assent is an unarguable fact.

3912

Carryfast:

Franglais:
@ Ramone. Trying to work out the financial pros/cons of the EU.
We pay in into EU funds more that we get out. Yep, about £250m per week.
fullfact.org/europe/350-million … ty-misuse/

When we leave we gain that £250m…almost, but we wont quibble about details and payments, lets say all of that stays here.
About £13b annually.

So whats on the other side of the equation? Because its in the future and nothing has been agreed it is speculative, nowt we can do about that. The Leave campaign is based on one possible future, so is the Remain idea. We can`t avoid being speculative.

As members of the EU we have frictionless cross border trade and free movement of people. All countries within the EU are on a leveling playing field. I dont say we are all level straight away, but we are getting nearer financially. Free movement of goods within the EU means trade is cheaper "to do" because of there being no taxes and tariffs, and no (or little) border controls. Because it is easier and cheaper and quicker (so cheaper again) to trade within the zone that is where our biggest markets are. Being geographical neighbours is a huge factor too. If we had a hard Brexit, on WTO rules there would be taxes on what the EU imports. So any goods we sell to them is dearer to them. If the price of UK widgets increases, and Spanish widgets stays the same? Maybe the French and Germans will buy Spanish in the future. If UK widgets may involve more paperwork and be delayed at borders thats even more reason to change supplier.
Can we put a number on that?
Our exports to the EU in 2017 was £274b. annually.
If we were to loose just 5% of our current trade we would be loosing out. (about £700,000 by my arithmetic) Any more lost clients and wed be very major losers. Even as MFN (most favoured Nation) status our UK produced cars would have a 10% tariff on them. Maybe we loose much more than 5% of trade? Given the trading disadvantage we would have for investors compared with other EU countries new factories would be built elsewhere: the next Japanese car plant will go where are frictionless borders with the largest market and no tariffs. EU needs no more than one car plant for each maker (maybe none) but if JPN.Co needs one plant in Europe will they build it in the UK so 90% of its goods have tariffs, or in the EU so only the 10% sold in the UK has tax on it? That seems obvious. The only way we could attract new factories would be a supply of cheap labour. What the Tory Brexiteers call being competitive! Being able to drop wages. The country as a whole may do well, and a small number of investors would do well, but only at the expanse of a big slice of the population being worse off.
And be clear investment in big factories to make widgets or cars and employ people needs multinational investment. We cant gamble on a new start coming along, and making an impact. What of new markets? What of new deals? Brexiteers promised much....almost none of those promises held water. And why would they? The EU is a huge market, and its on our doorstep. A new trade deal, with say New Zealand, would be nice, but there are over 500million people in the EU and less than 50m in NZ. Any trade in goods will be slower, cost more in transport etc, it seems plain to me that its a folly to equate the two in any way. Exports to NZ were about £520m. If we guess a 5% loss in EU trade, thats £13,000m. loss. Wed need to double (100% increase) our trade with NZ and with 26 other similar deals, just to stand still on exports! It aint gonna happen.
The figure simply don`t stack up.

UK imports under WTO rules need to treat all WTO members equally. If we choose not put tariffs on imported EU foodstuffs, (we don`t want dearer food) we need to treat other countries the same.
So, we have to pay more for EU food? Not good.
Or our farmers will need to compete with much cheaper foods from Africa, Mexico, and the US. A collapse of UK agriculture. Not good.

We don`t live in an isolated society. We need international trade and any extra paperwork cost us more. Tariffs and taxes mean our products cost more so we loose trade, income, and jobs. In transport we all know that time is money, and eventually the consumer pays. More border regulation means we pay more for almost everything.

Overall we are, I reckon, better off in than out. By a lot.

How so when all this bs ‘trade’ you’re referring to is a deficit liability to us in which we actually ‘NEED’ tariff barriers to get the figures back onto a sustainable affordable track.

“For every complex problem there is a simple fix…
That doesn’t work”
Trade barriers are a simple, crude fix to a difficult situation.
I thought it quite plain that making our exports dearer would make manufacturers leave in droves. Having dearer imports will hurt the less well off hardest.
Barriers will do more harm than good.
But dropping barriers even further in a Free Trade Brexit with open trade borders with the whole world, as the Tories want, is crazy.
.
.

The EU is not perfect, but it is the least worse option.
.
The only problem is, that wasn’t much of a selling point, or too good a campaign promise.
Voting for some more of the same, ups’n’downs, didn’t appeal as much as voting for £350m a week and brand new trade deals with a queue of new customers.
.
Even if trade barriers were a good idea, and I’m convinced they’re not, then this Gov aren’t about to deliver them. They are all for ripping up what we have and “winging it”.
If we crash out as some want, it would be a free for all. Nothing like a protected economy thst C.F. wants.

Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk

3913

dexxy57:
So, to sum up, The Fourth Reich is a federal force from Missouri reinforced by Slovenian militia, battling against the noble forces of, em, Heath’s undead zombie army, who are themselves backed up by our gracious Queen with USA/USSR support?
Have I got that right?

Glad to see you`re paying attention. :smiley:
Doubtless any errors will be corrected later.

3914

Sunday thoughts after church and checking my cattle on this fine morning my entry on page 131, personally I think this whole Brexit thing could have been avoided if at the beginning the EU were a bit more flexible with us, for instance if they had given us back control on our terms on immigration which IMHO was the catalyst to the leave vote winning the referendum, plus giving us back control of making our own laws, these two things alone would have pacified a lot of British citizens, having said that most in the EU want to carry on trading freely with one another without any barriers or further paperwork.
On the issue of the hard border in Ireland what I would like to know is who is going to man it should it happen and also who is going to pay for it, for sure it wont be the UK as we do not want a border of any type so the EU I suppose would have to pick up the tab for that.
We are just ambling along and not much in the news on Brexit this week either, both main parties Labour & Conservatives are in disarray mainly on the subject of TM in cohorts with JC neither in my opinion are fit to hold the posts they do, we need change and PDQ. Where all this will end up god only knows but for sure the general public are fed up to the back teeth with our politicians who even have a job deciding if they want sugar in there tea, what a mess we are in.
It is evident that contributors to this thread have different opinions, strong opinions and some times it becomes a bit of a slagging match and that includes me but like most on here you always think your own views are the correct ones so there will always be differences on who is right and who is wrong but at the end of the day discussion is good.
A lot of figures have been quoted by me and others, not all correct for sure something I have been pulled up on and at the end of the day these figures don’t really count for much and getting on with life & trade is so much more important. We all seem to be embroiled in one way or another, some still in the working environment and some like me retired and to be honest I think we all want it resolved so we can gel on, so here ends my lesson for today, Buzzer.

60361820_881714442203836_2791350901242068992_o.jpg

3915

Buzzer:
It is evident that contributors to this thread have different opinions, strong opinions and some times it becomes a bit of a slagging match and that includes me but like most on here you always think your own views are the correct ones so there will always be differences on who is right and who is wrong but at the end of the day discussion is good.

Amen.
We all say what we think, and although I know I`m right, I respect your right to be wrong.

:smiley:
JOKE!

3916

Franglais:
“For every complex problem there is a simple fix…
That doesn’t work”
Trade barriers are a simple, crude fix to a difficult situation.
I thought it quite plain that making our exports dearer would make manufacturers leave in droves. Having dearer imports will hurt the less well off hardest.
Barriers will do more harm than good.
But dropping barriers even further in a Free Trade Brexit with open trade borders with the whole world, as the Tories want, is crazy.
.
.

The EU is not perfect, but it is the least worse option.
.
The only problem is, that wasn’t much of a selling point, or too good a campaign promise.
Voting for some more of the same, ups’n’downs, didn’t appeal as much as voting for £350m a week and brand new trade deals with a queue of new customers.
.
Even if trade barriers were a good idea, and I’m convinced they’re not, then this Gov aren’t about to deliver them. They are all for ripping up what we have and “winging it”.
If we crash out as some want, it would be a free for all. Nothing like a protected economy thst C.F. wants.

However no surprise you were quite happy with the situation in which the EU imposes tariffs and quotas on US imports on the bs grounds that it helps trade balance figures when we already enjoy a trade surplus with the US.But that all conveniently changes in the case of us actually needing to protect our economy from being over run with EU imports to the point where our economy is trashed under the crippling weight of the resulting black hole in our balance of payments.

So we impose tariffs on German manufacturing imports which can then be replaced by domestic production.How is that bad for the domestic consumer,domestic industry,jobs,and our balance of payments ?.On that note yes a ‘free for all’ in which if we vote Labour we get Labour.

Without EU interference or being able to stop us with its free markets rules.Let alone Federal government system which cancels out any National democratic mandate with a European one.Which in reality is all about protecting the interests of the German banker class elites and furthering the interests of German Federalism.Helped by its indoctrinated Federalist quislings which the country is infested with and which need to be stopped.Least worst you’re avin a larf.

3917

Buzzer:
Sunday thoughts after church and checking my cattle on this fine morning my entry on page 131, personally I think this whole Brexit thing could have been avoided if at the beginning the EU were a bit more flexible with us, for instance if they had given us back control on our terms on immigration which IMHO was the catalyst to the leave vote winning the referendum, plus giving us back control of making our own laws, these two things alone would have pacified a lot of British citizens, having said that most in the EU want to carry on trading freely with one another without any barriers or further paperwork.
On the issue of the hard border in Ireland what I would like to know is who is going to man it should it happen and also who is going to pay for it, for sure it wont be the UK as we do not want a border of any type so the EU I suppose would have to pick up the tab for that.
We are we are just ambling along and not much in the news on Brexit this week either, both main parties Labour & Conservatives are in disarray mainly on the subject of TM in cohorts with JC neither in my opinion are fit to hold the posts they do, we need change and PDQ. Where all this will end up god only knows but for sure the general public are fed up to the back teeth with our politicians who even have a job deciding if they want sugar in there tea, what a mess we are in.
It is evident that contributors to this thread have different opinions, strong opinions and some times it becomes a bit of a slagging match and that includes me but like most on here you always think your own views are the correct ones so there will always be differences on who is right and who is wrong but at the end of the day discussion is good.
A lot of figures have been quoted by me and others, not all correct for sure something I have been pulled up on and at the end of the day these figures don’t really count for much and getting on with life & trade is so much more important. We all seem to be embroiled in one way or another, some still in the working environment and some like me retired and to be honest I think we all want it resolved so we can gel on, so here ends my lesson for today, Buzzer.

I agree basically with almost all you say, but it could not possibly happen that way for one important reason. The EU rests on 4 basic principles, freedoms, all equally important, but the most important with regard to the ref vote is, freedom of movement. They will never give that up. Goods, services, capital, people. Four pillars on which it stands, set in stone by the Treaty of Rome, take one away and it falls. Now I know many on the Brexit side of the arguement want that to happen, but it simply will not.

And rightly so imho. :wink:

3918

Buzzer:
It is evident that contributors to this thread have different opinions, strong opinions and some times it becomes a bit of a slagging match and that includes me but like most on here you always think your own views are the correct ones so there will always be differences on who is right and who is wrong but at the end of the day discussion is good.
A lot of figures have been quoted by me and others, not all correct for sure something I have been pulled up on and at the end of the day these figures don’t really count for much and getting on with life & trade is so much more important. We all seem to be embroiled in one way or another, some still in the working environment and some like me retired and to be honest I think we all want it resolved so we can gel on, so here ends my lesson for today, Buzzer.

A calm and reflective Reverend Buzzer. Never saw that coming. Well said mate.

3919

Spardo:
I agree basically with almost all you say, but it could not possibly happen that way for one important reason. The EU rests on 4 basic principles, freedoms, all equally important, but the most important with regard to the ref vote is, freedom of movement. They will never give that up. Goods, services, capital, people. Four pillars on which it stands, set in stone by the Treaty of Rome, take one away and it falls. Now I know many on the Brexit side of the arguement want that to happen, but it simply will not.

And rightly so imho. :wink:

You’re right, it’s not as if it won’t happen, it’s simply that it CAN’T happen. It would go against everything they stand for.
Hindsight’s great . . . if only they granted the UK exemption from freedom of movement, it might not have led to Brexit. That was never going to happen.

3920

dexxy57:
You’re right, it’s not as if it won’t happen, it’s simply that it CAN’T happen. It would go against everything they stand for.
Hindsight’s great . . . if only they granted the UK exemption from freedom of movement, it might not have led to Brexit. That was never going to happen.

Hindsight?
Ill bet Blair is kicking himself for precipitously allowing the EE countries free movement in 2004. But, maybe he "doesnt do regret"?