pitrevie

8 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

You really need to go and inform yourself about how the Euro works. If the UK had joined the Eurozone, our economy would have been somewhere between Greece and Italy's by now, and Germany's exports would have been doing even better than they are (except to us). Of course, the subsidy Germany receives from being in the Eurozone isn't the only factor in Germany's success. There are others, not least of which is that Germany does what it does very efficiently. Like I said, find out how the Euro works before digging yourself into a big hole.

It would be much like the hole you have dug yourself into. However I see at least you have started giving Germany a bit more credit other than claiming that it was a cheap Euro that was the reason for their success.

There's are numerous reasons for Germany success since WW2 and its been accomplished despite a currency that was appreciating during that time. So clearly a cheap Euro had nothing to do with it.

Some of the points made in the video while not the whole story explain some of  the reasons for German success. I wonder what the excuse will be when the UK is out of the EU.

On 06/04/2017 at 0:59 PM, Khun Han said:

 

Because the Euro subsidises German exports. If Germany were to return to the Deutschmark, it's export prices would skyrocket and it's exports would decline.

So explain how the Germans did it when they had the DM. I seem to recall long before the Euro, the Germans were thriving when at the same time the UK, not in the EEC but trading globally, none of those pesky European regulations and laws and known as the sick man of Europe.

7 hours ago, nontabury said:

Perhaps you can persuade the Dictatorial Bureacrats in Brussels to explain how they came to concoct such  a figure of £50-60 Bn. And while your at it perhaps you can ask them, what % of any assets that the E.U might posses, belongs to the U.K. A country that is the 2nd to largest Net contributor into their bottomless pit.

Wow using the royal WE and speaking for future generations, do you know Donald Trump by any chance.

David Davis (Brexit Scretary) said nations 'not democracies' if they can't change their mind

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

Is this what you are referring to? Yes,it's disgraceful that he should be speaking up on behalf of the British people, much better if he were to stab his own country in the back, like some do. Nudge,nudge, know what I mean.

 

 

 

 

Yeah what a pity that he only attended 1 out of a possible 42 meeting of the fisheries committee to which he was appointed, not much speaking up on behalf of the British fishing industry when he had the chance.

Nigel Farage once led a flotilla of “fishermen for leave” from Southend to the Houses of Parliament.

This is particularly interesting because, Nigel spent more time showboating on the Thames than he has ever spent actually standing up for the British fishing industry at the European Parliament Fisheries Committee which it was part of his job to be on. However I daresay he claimed the expenses for not going there.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

If you read what I said I think it says pretty much the same as you. I just said the Norwegians have to pay in a lot of money - they are not in the EU but are the 5th biggest net contributor to it! The referendum question was simple - it did not include "options" like EEA membership.

Yes I know Boris was wrong but that didn't stop him pushing that story just like he was wrong about the rebate but again that made no difference. How many times have you heard the phrase "having your cake and eating it" in recent months. It was Boris as leader of the OUT campaign that was telling everyone that we could still remain members of the single market without Freedom of movement, it was one big lie but he refused to back down from it until well after the vote. All the EU leaders have been consistent in saying membership of the EU single market comes with Freedom of Movement. Boris as leader of the OUT campaign told everyone vote out and we can remain members of the single market and he was not alone in the Brexit leadership in pushing that lie.

Now the argument has shifted to we voted out and it doesn't matter what the final agreement is, nobody cares. No single market, no reduction in immigration numbers and no extra cash for anything let alone the NHS.

Boris may as well have gone on TV and told everyone vote out what happens next is none of your business.

Your claim: "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  

obviously not the leader of the OUT campaign and the present Foreign secretary.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Now its bluster I have said repeatedly that in the event Cameron lost the vote several politicians had said that he was toast among them the Pro Remain Clarke and the Pro Brexit Farage so what is really relevant here? In fact you can find quotes from Cameron where he states he intended to stay on in the event he lost the vote. That was of course unrealistic as he realised within hours of the vote result. He didn't even wait for the men in grey suit to arrive on his doorstep he went. He had already decided what he would do if the referendum was lost. He was just in shock for a few hours and had to get someone to write his speech! He was also realistic enough to announce in the Commons that the new government should be responsible for formulating a Brexit strategy Realistic? He had no plan so dumped the responsibility on his successor hoping that no one would notice!. Of course he didn't organise any plan whose arguing with that you are stating the obvious but I think he was being realistic as he knew anything he formulated would likely be ditched as soon as the new leadership took over - no excuse - a plan could have been formulated by the cabinet, which would likely also contain any successor, which it did.

What is relevant is that Cameron having lost the vote was never going to have a hand in formulating Brexit policy despite his promise to stay on as PM. As Clarke said if he lost the vote he would be out in 30 seconds. And before anyone jumps in I doubt that Clarke meant that literally but he knew as an experienced politician Cameron would not survive and I have no doubt once he got over the shock he also came to the same conclusion and decided to go sooner than later.

Yeah right Cameron could have formulated a plan which he could have handed over to his successor who would promptly binned it. She even binned his senior ministers.

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

For the very last time. Non members of the EU cannot be part of the single market. Boris was wrong. I don't quote people. You do.

The Norwegian example means being a member of a different association (EEA) but this includes similarly hefty payments into the EU and acceptance of some ECJ regulation plus freedom of movement of people, which is one the main reasons people voted out of the EU in any case.

The end.  

 

And I give you a list of quotes from very senior experienced politicians that stated that we could be members of the single market while being outside the EU which you have chosen to ignore.

To all intents and purposes Norway and Switzerland are members of the single market without being part of the EU and that was a course that even Farage seemed to be in favour of until he realised that also meant accepting freedom of movement. In Norway's case it has full access to the single market and accepts freedom of movement, that was the option being mooted even by Farage who told us many times how the Norwegians were happy and rich and then did his backpedalling and never mentioned the happy and rich Norwegians again.

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No you didn't, so why quote the bets laid by Clarke & Co that did. 

Any Brexit Plan was Cameron's responsibility as Prime Minister.  

He did not expect to lose, did not expect to quit and did not organize any plan.

He blew it.

The end. 

Now its bluster I have said repeatedly that in the event Cameron lost the vote several politicians had said that he was toast among them the Pro Remain Clarke and the Pro Brexit Farage. In fact you can find quotes from Cameron where he states he intended to stay on in the event he lost the vote. That was of course unrealistic as he realised within hours of the vote result. He didn't even wait for the men in grey suit to arrive on his doorstep he went. He was also realistic enough to announce in the Commons that the new government should be responsible for formulating a Brexit strategy. Of course he didn't organise any plan whose arguing with that you are stating the obvious but I think he was being realistic as he knew anything he formulated would likely be ditched as soon as the new leadership took over.

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Just my reply to your latest irrelevant comment. Nothing else to explain.

In other words your statement was wrong as I have shown just by quoting Boris Johnson's position. Johnson maintained for quite a long time that leaving the EU did not meaning leaving the single market.

Your statement.

"anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market." 

Just now, nauseus said:

Another irrelevant non-observation. Cameron did not declare that he would quit if the vote was out, prior to the referendum. In any case, any pre-referendum Brexit Plan was Cameron's responsibility as Prime Minister. Bets by people like Ken Clarke have no relevance.  

I never claimed that Cameron said he would quit if he lost the vote in fact I have stated quite the opposite and that Cameron stated he would not quit so you talk about irrelevant observations and then you produce that nonsense.

What I have said repeatedly is that others, among them experience politicians said that he would have to quit if he lost the vote. You really need to read a post before you try a straw-man like that. 

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Well against the topic it is an irrelevant rant! The only thing that you do well!  

Yep usual reply no content just what you do best and that is avoid replying. 

"anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  excluding several very experienced politicians among which was the leader of the OUT campaign and the present Foreign Secretary.

8 hours ago, jimmybkk said:

"I haven't ignored your post, anyone with a basic understanding of UK politics knew that Cameron was going if he lost that vote but you now attempt to dismiss it as a rant."

 

Here are a few quotes from recent posts you've made regarding Cameron's departure: "...knew that Cameron was going..." ,"Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote",  "But everyone knew that in the event of an OUT vote Cameron was also out...", "... they knew Cameron was out in the event he lost the vote.", "...he knew that Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote and as it turns out he was right Cameron was out only hours after the vote was annouced", "... in the event of losing the vote Cameron was out..."

 

The subtle nuances of your posts are not lost on me. Why are you diligently avoiding the word "resign" in any of these posts? Because try as you may to avoid making mention of the fact, anyone with a basic understanding of the way things went after the results of the Brexit vote were announced is aware that Cameron and Osborne both resigned. They weren't pushed, they weren't outed, and they didn't fail to survive. You're refraining from using the word "resign" in favour of words and phrases that suggest Cameron's departure was anything other than of his own doing and his own choosing, when in fact it wasn't. He could've stayed, just as he had publicly promised the people of Britain that he would stay:"And they can either choose to stay in a reformed European Union, or to leave a European Union. And, come what may, I will continue to lead the government in the way I have.”  (Source:)

 

There were no back-benchers plotting to overthrow Cameron if the Brexit vote went the wrong way, so I suspect what you may be alluding to is that Cameron had already pledged his loyalty to the EU in return for a place amongst the 10,000+ EU employees earning more than Cameron earned during his time as British PM, and due to this commitment to the EU and the promise of lucrative future employment, to remain as PM (as he had promised the people he would do) was likely to jeopardize his future employment prospects with the EU and so he decided to step down.

Well apparently I have someone saying my post is a rant and now I am being accused of being subtle which I never intended. You are quite right Cameron did resign he wasn't pushed because it was only hours after the vote and he made his mind up very quickly. Cameron did say before the vote that if he lost it he would still stay on as leader but there were those like the Pro Remain Clarke who said at the time if Cameron lost the vote he was finished and thus it proved. Farage also said the same thing but then he would, wouldn't he. Had Cameron tried to remain PM it would have been as damaged goods especially given the campaign that he and Osborne ran and then he would have either resigned later or been pushed as you put it. I think its to his credit that he did go and as he told the Commons it would be up to his successor to formulate an exit strategy, he was enough of a realist to realise that any exit strategy he formulated wasn't going to survive 5 minutes into the next administration.

My only regret is that the man who led the OUT campaign wasn't the one who got his job and had to clear up the mess. As it is we now have people saying that everything Boris said as leader of the OUT campaign now counts for nothing as they back pedal on all the main points that were pushed during their campaign.

I was told that soft and hard Brexit were never words we heard during the campaign which is largely true. In fact it was Boris pushing the myth of belonging to the single market while not accepting the free movement of Labour that pushed it the hardest. Following the vote the EU leaders told us there was no soft or hard Brexit we were either in or out. Which is why Boris has been accused of trying to have his cake and eat it,

Also one of those who very early on pushed the soft Brexit was Farage, he was very fond of turning up in TV studios and telling people how happy and rich Norway and Switzerland were while not being in the EU. The Norway option was also pushed by Brexiters who thought they could have their cake and eat it. Farage very quickly backpedalled on that one and we heard no more mentions of how happy and rich the Norwegians and Swiss were when he realised that they were in the single market in all but name and had to accept the free movement of Labour.

Just now, nauseus said:

I was referring to your ranting. I don't have to justify anything because non EU members are not members of the single market. Norway gets around that by choosing to be part of the EEA but has to abide by the free movement of people rule, while still having to pay a lot of money.  

 

What Farage was talking about was nothing to do with the rules. The point of my post had nothing to do with Cameron going but about his overall responsibility for the referendum and all that entailed. 

 

"anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  Apparently not.

"in the event of the UK leaving the EU as a result of the referendum) was David Cameron, who was responsible for the referendum itself. He. of course, was also responsible for formulating any exit plan". 

But everyone knew that in the event of an OUT vote Cameron was also out so how can anyone say that he should have formulated an exit plan. The next day he said that should be left to whoever took over. What credibility would he have had with any exit plan any more than an Osborne post Brexit plan. 

Just to add it was another 6 months before May told us what sort of break it was going to be so any hopes for something like a Norway or Switzerland arrangement then went out the window.

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

 

So you're convinced that Clarke was the 'oracle' as he said Cameron was 'toast' if there was a brexit result - whilst ignoring everything else - but clinging on to the belief that those who voted 'leave' would now vote 'remain', if I understand correctly.

 

Way too pissed to continue this discussion , as anyone relying on Clarke as the arbiter of 'truth' isn't worth the effort at the moment!

Nope but like any politician and he wasn't the only one they knew Cameron was out in the event he lost the vote. Even Farage said the same. However that is followed by a smear attempt. 

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Cameron was the PM, so he was responsible for it all! As usual you ignore the post content (where I say promises were made by both sides) and continue to ramble down your own dead-end street. Same old rant. 

 

PS it's BRITONS not Britains, Pet!

Same old rant what that means is that you cannot justify what you said "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  Even Farage was talking about the Norway and Switzerland situations and both are in the single market. However it wasn't long afterwards that Farage dropped any mention of them. Daniel Hannan an experienced MEP and ardent Brexiter said the same so did Johnson

I haven't ignored your post, anyone with a basic understanding of UK politics knew that Cameron was going if he lost that vote but you now attempt to dismiss it as a rant.

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And yet again you're quoting politicians 'truths' as gospel .

 

Can we agree that politicians only come out with opinions that suit their own personal interests 99% of the time?

 

Can we also agree that those who voted leave expected the possibility of just leaving - even though they'd prefer the possibility of the UK/EU agreeing free trade agreements as per the original '75 'agreement' put to the electorate?

Well Clarke got it dead right and yet you say he has an agenda, He stated the bald fact in the event of losing the vote Cameron was out and Clarke was dead right.

As I have pointed out several times most people who have been polled whether for or against have said they wanted the UK to remain part of the single market.

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Those politicians promoting 'leave' were in no position to promise anything as they didn't have all the facts and figures provided by civil servants.  A joke in itself.

 

Clarke may well have said Cameron was 'toast' within 30 seconds of a 'leave' vote - but he was yet another biased politician with an agenda.  Cameron would have been even less credible than May (another leave campaigner - albeit less vociferous and obvious), but Clarke was just 'stirring the shit' and pointing out that Cameron should have come out with even more lies.....

 

None of us know whether or not those who voted leave have changed their minds, in the same way as we have no idea whether some of those who voted remain have changed their minds.

 

The sooner we stop posting biased reactions as facts - the better .

 "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market." 

Now try reading the link and see how many top politicians thought otherwise. Or perhaps some of the posters on TV think they know better.

Even Farage thought we could be like Norway or Sweden including Arron Banks and both those countries are in the single market. Farage started backtracking on that later. 

Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market
Daniel Hannan MEP
Only a madman would actually leave the Market
Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer

The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive.

Clarke's so called agenda was REMAIN but as an experienced politician he knew that Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote and as it turns out he was right Cameron was out only hours after the vote was annouced

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

This is a repost of my number 237, so try and understand, just for once:

 

The referendum voters had a simple choice of in or out. There were a fair amount of prophesies of doom and promises made by both campaigning sides but anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market.

 

The only person that was in a position to promise an attempt at a unique deal for the UK to remain in the single market through post Article 50 negotiation (in the event of the UK leaving the EU as a result of the referendum) was David Cameron, who was responsible for the referendum itself. He. of course, was also responsible for formulating any exit plan, which many stay voters now complain is missing. How could anyone else promise any exit arrangement without being in power?? 

 

Hard Brexit! Soft Brexit! I don't remember these beauties being quoted until after the referendum result was known. Sounds like we are dealing with a boiled egg! Well if this goes on for 2 years I suppose it won't be very runny, unlike the noses of the in crowd!  

Anyone who read anything about the Brexit campaign knew that in the event of a OUT vote Cameron was toast I read and heard so many people make that statement I have lost count so how you think he was the only one in any position to deliver a post Brexit deal is just plain wrong. I don't think any serious politician believed that Cameron would survive any Brexit vote.

"David Cameron would be overthrown as prime minister within 30 seconds of a vote to leave the EU in the June referendum, Kenneth Clarke has said."

However as usual we get the bit about the promises made by the REMAIN campaign, its a bit like listening to Trump supporters. Nobody gives a fig what any REMAIN politician promised even if it was a gold Rolex watch and a big red Ferrari, they are all history.

What matters is what those who won that debate promised.

Hard Brexit or soft Brexit, only in this past week the Chancellor mentioned that we cant have our cake and eat it, taken by political commentators to be  a swipe at Johnson.

In poll after poll even Britains who voted for Brexit were in favour of remaining in the single market. 

So despite all the promises of the OUT leaders and what appears to be the wishes of the British people we are going for hard Brexit.

However your statement "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market." Well obviously the leader of the OUT campaign didn't know that.  Look at this link http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce then come back and make that statement again with a straight face.

Just now, evadgib said:

I readily admit to applying ridicule from time to time but strictly by invitation. Where we differ is in my not putting words into the mouths of others & nor do I resort to 'You' this and 'You' that which inevitably precedes a person attack. I purged my Iggy list in Dec and have no desire to start a new one. You're welcome to put me on yours.

 

And for the record I was disenfranchised at the 11th hour (15 year rule) from voting in the referendum and was among the 100k overseas voters denied a vote in the general election when HMG deliberately withheld their ballot papers...

 

I don't bother with ignore lists although I know I am on Khun Hans for the crime of banning him from a twitter account I have never had, not being some guy who he has a bee in his bonnet about and for writing books about kings. Don't ask me to make sense of any of that. Also for asking him to provide evidence for another of his ludicrous assertions. That I was told was being facetious and using debating tricks.

Where we differ is I do try to make a case for what I am saying. 

Where we differ is I don't go whinging about topics that I have no interest in but continue to post on those topics.

Some of us are interested in the topics on which we post. The decision for Brexit has been taken but what matters now is the next steps and how they accord with what we were promised by the people who succeeded in taking us out of the EU.

There were three main themes that Johnson and his cohorts made the centre piece of their campaign.

Immigration promising to reduce it but since abandoned.

The promise of extra money for the NHS based on a big red bus that almost all the lead politicians on the Brexit side posed in front of but again ditched. 

That we would remain members of the single market, also since ditched.

However it seems you are just content to put an X in a box and then criticise others who want to hold those politicians to account.

3 hours ago, evadgib said:

Ah the man who is not in the least interested in this topic returns once again to show us another picture. Look forward to your next posting on this topic that you are no longer interested in. Would you like count how many times you have posted something regarding Brexit, a topic you infer has no further interest for you since your vote almost 12 months ago.

56 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Too many posts by certain remainers read like the overly-aggressive rantings of an alpha male who just has to win any and every little debate/argument in which they get involved.

You just don't like being challenged on your ridiculous assertions. recall when I asked you to provide evidence for one such assertion and you responded that I being facetious and was engaging in debating tricks. 

5 minutes ago, evadgib said:

I fully expected the remainers to have won last June. Had they done so my disappointment would have lasted no longer than if I'd backed the wrong horse in a general election.  

 

Serial whinging a year later as seen on these boards is frankly quite worrying...

 

 

You can see the topic title so why bother. I am amazed at some of the topics on here that drag on forever I have no interest in them in the least just whinging on and on about something which they cannot affect I just see that their page count goes up and up. The last thing I would do is repeatedly go on the topic to complain about it. I look forward to the many further replies from you.

3 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Oh, you forgot the House of Lords. Give me another laugh, the EU appointments are about as democratic in its choosing of Commissioners etc as the UK does with the HoL. 

It wasn't long ago though, if you look it up, the EU didn't even qualify to join the EU under its own rules. What has changed is a bit of

jiggery-pokery, as usual by the French and Germans.

The EU is riddled with lobbyists from multi national companies with BIG brown envelopes and expense accounts.

Indeed you are entitled to your opinion, as is Farage, Clarke, Farron, and all the anti EU posters on TV.

The trouble is, the Remoaners have little you can defend with facts.

The UK is leaving, and the EU is pi$$ed off they will lose the 2nd biggest pocket to pick...

 

Once again you state that EU appointments are undemocratic but then ignore the way the appointments are made in the UK. The PM isn't elected she is appointed. The entire government isn't elected it is appointed by one person. What would you have the EU do, have every executive position subject to a vote throughout the EU. 

The EU is riddled with lobbyists, wow that must be a really new development in any political system I guess all those companies that donate to political causes  in the UK do it out of the goodness of their hearts. For some reason many of them are then given titles following the huge donations their companies make to a political party. Do you even bother to read what you write let alone responding to what anyone else writes.

"The trouble is, the Remoaners have little you can defend with facts." Thus far you fail to respond when you are presented with facts other than just bluster. You don't accept the ECJ and when I pointed out that Brexiters wouldn't accept our own supreme court but in fact issued death threats where was your response, you did the usual ignore and bluster.

So answer the question when it is put do you accept decisions made by our own judicial system since you do not accept the ECJ. What is you view of those who issued death threats not only to judges but those involved in the recent court case. Is that what the UK has become where the rule of law is met with death threats.

Perhaps you can show me statements from 1975 where those who voted for Brexit where subject to death threats, yeah show me your facts.

Perhaps you can show me from 1975 where people who voted against the overwhelming majority were told that they either accept it or they should go and live in North Korea.

Perhaps you can show me where an MP is assassinated because they supported Brexit.

51 minutes ago, shanesox said:

Actually the majority of what ever side lost in the ref have or would have accepted the result! You and your Europhile blinkers are clearly not in that majority along with Heseltine Clarke Clegg etc


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Yes its only been very tolerant ever since. Who would have thought that in a political campaign in the UK an MP would have been assassinated.

Who would have thought that people involved in a legal case including senior judges would receive death threats and one of the countries most senior judges would need to speak about it before announcing his verdict.

Who would have thought that race hate crimes would soar by over 40% following the referendum.

Then you have the reaction here when criticism of Brexit is followed by, why dont you go to North Korea if you don't like it or similar slur. One guy even associated a TV poster with a man who was executed for war time treason  I lived through the 75 referendum and at no time do I recall hearing such remarks addressed towards those who voted for the opposite side or witnessing similar actions.

Is that what you call Europhile blinkers?

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

ONE remainer is not a THEY! Just as well it's nearly beer o'clock!

Well if you bothered to read you would find that I have named others that represent quite large chunks of the Brexit movement. 

It isn't Remain supporters that issue death threats against those involved in a legal case.

It wasn't a Remain supporter that assassinated a sitting MP.

It isn't remain supporters that tell people they should go and live in North Korea if they cant accept that result.

No for that sort of intolerance look no further than Brexit and yet we are being told if the vote had been the other way there would be no whinging but wide spread acceptance of the result.

As Clarke put it in the Commons hell would freeze over before Bill Cash would turn up and accept the result.