advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect... VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
wacko said:
We are not going to 'move forward' Brian. We are not going to forgive and forget. The 'complaining is never going to end'.
Until we rejoin the EU. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I’m really talking about the country moving forward with trade deals, not individuals dropping their grievances.

Hard remainers are a small minority now, I believe their numbers will further reduce and by refusing to move on, by demanding to rejoin the EU they will become a real fringe group, clinging to the past just as they accuse of leave voters now.

Time will tell.
 
Can someone explain how retaining 50% of the trade deals that we already have as an EU member is in any way a ‘Brexit positive?’

Taking the worst case Brexit scenario and Liz Truss-ing it up is not a positive.

Stephen
 
Brian said:
[...]

Hard remainers are a small minority now, I believe their numbers will further reduce and by refusing to move on, by demanding to rejoin the EU they will become a real fringe group, clinging to the past just as they accuse of leave voters now.
Click to expand...

Just like the Redwoods and Bones were, until ...
 
kabayiri said:
Ignore the "British" angle for a moment, and think about the bigger economic/geo-political position.

Imagine if you are responsible for the EU trading block, and there's this ex-member sat a few miles off your coastline, one with a military and nuclear presence (still).

Just what do you do? If you treat them as an adversary, and grind their economy into the ground, you risk staring up nationalist sentiment.

This is what happened to Germany in the 1920s. The draconian conditions placed on Germany by the Allied nations was used by Hitler to stare up nationalism.

Somehow, I think they will have to come to some kind of working relationship. The likes of China and Russia are only too happy to stir up trouble. Australia is feeling the brunt of Chinese micro aggression at the moment.

The world has certainly felt a much more unstable place in the last couple of decades.
Click to expand...

When America parted company from the British Empire after 1776 there followed a period of antagonism and war, with France, Spain and the Dutch supporting America. However, this period was terminated with the 1783 Treaty of Paris, in which the chief British negotiator Lord Shelburne conceded what are still considered to be extremely generous terms to the US, and which included all of the lands east of the Mississippi, north of Florida and south of Canada, and included in the deal the right of the US to fish the rich grounds east of Newfoundland and the Grand Banks. His reasoning was straightforward and pragmatic, for he recognised in the nascent USA a lucrative future trading partner for British merchants, and so it turned out to be.

The UK is a highly lucrative trading partner for the EU, and a strong, unencumbered UK could potentially be an even greater one. The EU might usefully consider taking a leaf out of Lord Shelburn's book, were it not for the fact that the EU isn't actually about trade, but about a blinkered and driven ideology. And as a highly protectionist ideology, it also sees the UK not as the source of continued and perhaps even greater future prosperity, but as a heretic and a competitor that must be restrained at all and at any cost to itself.
 
I think the problem with Brexit is as much about execution, as anything else.

It goes quite far back too. Cameron went to the EU, pre-referendum, seeking a bunch of concessions. He had no evidence of any mandate for change behind him, and they pretty much snubbed his efforts.

Politicians really don't understand how the public view these sort of events. It was pretty obvious that the Leave campaign were going to stir up anti-EU rhetoric, and yet Cameron+Remain had no real positive counter argument.

Mr Cameron....take note ;) If you don't have a plan to deal with 2 possible outcomes, then don't offer a binary referendum !
 
eternumviti said:
...
The UK is a highly lucrative trading partner for the EU, and a strong, unencumbered UK could potentially be an even greater one. The EU might usefully consider taking a leaf out of Lord Shelburn's book, were it not for the fact that the EU isn't actually about trade, but about a blinkered and driven ideology. And as a highly protectionist ideology, it also sees the UK not as the source of continued and perhaps even greater future prosperity, but as a heretic and a competitor that must be restrained at all and at any cost to itself.
Click to expand...

The UK didn't really fit into the longer term EU plans IMO, particularly when it comes to greater fiscal and tax integration.

I just don't think our modern UK or EU politicians measure up to some of those we had in the past.
 
Boris’ idea of an oven-ready chicken

1-E9-E1-C55-1907-4755-B45-C-196-F4-E7-C7-BC8.jpg
 
Colin L said:

No-one is insulated from it. I'm thinking of my kids, not me.
Click to expand...
I always think of my kids. Top priority for me.

In answer to your point about the current parliament. Yes, I’ve been told 40 seats makes no difference in the current parliament. How many times do I have to say I’m aware 40 seats does not swing the result? Nobody is disputing what happened in 2019.

Everyone knows it was in 2015 Scots reduced Labour seats from 41 to 1, so this was before brexit, after 5 years of tory austerity and with a referendum on EU membership in their manifesto. What did Scots think turning their back on Labour in 2015 was going to achieve other than making it more difficult to remove the tory govt? You said earlier, losing Scottish MPs ensures a tory UK govt forever. It is more accurate to say, losing Scottish Labour MPs ensures a tory govt forever. The effect of Scots turning those 41 seats to 1 seat is massive.

Colin, I have been told those 40 lost seats don’t matter and I disagree, I believe they matter because all seats count, they don’t have to swing a single GE to be important, so let’s leave it there.
 
Does anyone remember when Theresa May delayed the triggering of A50, so that we could get our "ducks in a row"? lol

I never realized "ducks in a row" was an euphemism for 4+ years of arseing around and then making up plans on the hoof at the last minute.

The *real* way to Brexit was pretty obvious :-
a) join the Euro
b) vote in Corbyn/lefty Labour
c) let Corbyn go on his massive spending spree, scaring the crap out of Brussels
d) persuade Brussels/EU to pay us to leave ;)
 
Colin Barron said:
It would be unfair for the Brits to blight the EU with their presence.
Click to expand...
Some of them. They must look at Farage and the “all lives matter” far right in your part of the U.K. and think yes we’re better shot of that. The next closest thing they have is Orban and the lot running Poland into the ethnically cleansed ground. It’s no coincidence these birds of a feather fly together.
 
eternumviti said:
We should have simply left 4 years ago. Even I said at the time that 'the establishment', which includes the EU, was never going let us out of the net. We were worth too much to it, and the vested interests were too entrenched.
Click to expand...

Bang on. If we’d left on the Monday morning after the ref, yes there would have been short term frustrations but we’d be in a hell of a lot better place now. The result shocked the bureaucrats and VI’s and time has given them opportunity to frustrate. Hell, they gave it their best shot to reverse the decision. The EU’s key objective now is to make Brexit as unpleasant as possible. They can’t risk another net cash contributor country leaving (not that there are many). If France went, It would leave Germany footing the whole bill. The rest are economic basket cases.
 
But you didn't, you cant turn back the clock, remainers told you it would happen. You went ahead anyway dismissing it as Project Fear.

Own it, suffer for it. Project Fear turned out to be Project "you were warned".

Focus on the now, not the could have been.
 
Brian said:
I always think of my kids. Top priority for me.

In answer to your point about the current parliament. Yes, I’ve been told 40 seats makes no difference in the current parliament. How many times do I have to say I’m aware 40 seats does not swing the result? Nobody is disputing what happened in 2019.

Everyone knows it was in 2015 Scots reduced Labour seats from 41 to 1, so this was before brexit, after 5 years of tory austerity and with a referendum on EU membership in their manifesto. What did Scots think turning their back on Labour in 2015 was going to achieve other than making it more difficult to remove the tory govt? You said earlier, losing Scottish MPs ensures a tory UK govt forever. It is more accurate to say, losing Scottish Labour MPs ensures a tory govt forever. The effect of Scots turning those 41 seats to 1 seat is massive.

Colin, I have been told those 40 lost seats don’t matter and I disagree, I believe they matter because all seats count, they don’t have to swing a single GE to be important, so let’s leave it there.
Click to expand...
We’ve actually got something better. A parliamentary party that didn’t vote reflexively to trigger A50, or flip flop on EU membership, that doesn’t have MPs that take money off Tory Prime Ministers in return for votes in Parliament. That doesn’t take the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in illegal wars and doesn’t have voters that run to vote Tory in nearly fifty constituencies, putting a clown like Boris Johnson in power. It’s really not that complicated. Even you can get it Brian.
 
Ponty said:
Bang on. If we’d left on the Monday morning after the ref, yes there would have been short term frustrations but we’d be in a hell of a lot better place now. The result shocked the bureaucrats and VI’s and time has given them opportunity to frustrate. Hell, they gave it their best shot to reverse the decision. The EU’s key objective now is to make Brexit as unpleasant as possible. They can’t risk another net cash contributor country leaving (not that there are many). If France went, It would leave Germany footing the whole bill. The rest are economic basket cases.
Click to expand...
The comparative performance of the two currencies tells you something. I thought you were a business expert and share tipster? Everyone knows where responsibility for this lies. It’s English right wing nationalism and you’re picking up the bill now.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
And bozo's just made some statement about "strong possibility there will be no deal".

brexit... the disaster that keeps on taking.
Click to expand...

Eaton poker after being stuffed with turbot. Ursula looks too eagle eyed to me. All that running in the park makes her far too sharp for Bonzo.
We mustn't worry and sure just keep focusing on those 40 seats in Scotland and all those Brexity deals still in the oven.

6 months of no deal pain badly needed then send Redwood, Cash, Berkhead, Mogg, Farage and Blowjo on a UK tour to whip up the troops.
 
timH said:
The European Union's GDP was estimated to be $18.8 trillion (nominal) in 2018,[25] representing about 22% of the global economy.

UK GDP $2.638 trillion (nominal; 2020 3.3% of world GDP.[38]
Click to expand...

You can’t fact leave voters.

Ponty said:
Bang on. If we’d left on the Monday morning after the ref, yes there would have been short term frustrations but we’d be in a hell of a lot better place now. The result shocked the bureaucrats and VI’s and time has given them opportunity to frustrate. Hell, they gave it their best shot to reverse the decision. The EU’s key objective now is to make Brexit as unpleasant as possible. They can’t risk another net cash contributor country leaving (not that there are many). If France went, It would leave Germany footing the whole bill. The rest are economic basket cases.
Click to expand...

So Corbyn was right then?

Stephen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top