5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Wow. I am so proud that you have found this out.

 

Now naturally you have the proof, links etc and you will publicly take it up with bothe the EU and all the relevant department of the UK government.

 

If not and you have no proof I call your post BS.

a-hem 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44856992

 

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

*The comments were not mine, I merely referenced what Michel Barnier had said in a discussion where he was trying to explain to people like you that you cannot have diseased livestock wandering about from one set of regulations to another.

Of course you are perfectly free to disagree with his point of view.

All discussion on the Irish border has hinged on regulatory alignment. From day one the EU has said that NI should remain in the SM and all the UK has done is try and water that down.

Please refresh your memory of what you actually wrote, quoted below: nothing whatsoever to do with regulatory alignment or diseased cattle wandering about. I'll tell you for the fifth time - Ireland and the UK have been in the Common Travel Area since 1922, and Ireland is not in Schengen. So the scenario that you play below for Brexit-related people trafficking is completely unfounded. There are already spot checks for VAT fraud and smuggling, as I've already mentioned, and it has been proposed that these will simply be increased. By the way, the EU has no authority whatsoever to make any pronouncements about whether NI should remain in the SM. An open border is not the same as an invisible border. We already have an invisible Irish border, but it is nevertheless a border (think VAT, currency, sovereignty, prices, taxation etc). Enhancing this for the comparatively low volume and high homogeneity of Irish cross-border trade is not difficult, and  numerous proposals have been made, several of which I have quoted in past weeks. But the EU is determined to play politics with it. "Final" proposals on the border "issue" are expected in the next week (as I've already told you), but I guarantee they will not affect the freedom of movement which you seem to be so concerned about in your original post below.

 

"Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't one of the big issues for leaving was to close the UK borders, but there is now some desperation to keep the EU/UK border in Ireland open. Every possibility it will become a major route for trafficking and they will end up with checks anyway. The EU have already expressed concern over fraudulent goods.

A few years back a friend of mine was stopped leaving the RoI and his Thai wife was declared illegal immigrant, received a lifetime ban from entering the RoI.

The reality is that an open border can only successfully exist when the regulations on each side of the border are the same."

2 hours ago, tebee said:

It's all going so swimmingly well

The Times article that you link to is about "Mandarins (are) considering extreme contingency scenarios".

 

So, let's follow your logic - if the powers that be don't make contingency plans they're short-sighted, and if they do they get misrepresented by you on Thai Visa forum. 

 

Somebody on the remain side needs to uphold a bit of integrity in this debate. Hitherto you have been the most likely candidate. Please don't let us down now !

Talking about things going swimmingly...

 

The EU's lack of skills and understanding of complex financial markets is astounding:

 

“The Bank of England has issued its strongest warning yet to the EU that its lack of adequate planning for Brexit has created growing risks for almost £70tn of complex financial contracts.”

 

This is a “corner of the [UK] finance industry worth more than three times the overall value of the EU economy”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/09/bank-of-england-warns-eu-brexit-risk-financial-stability-derivatives

17 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Talking about things going swimmingly...

 

The EU's lack of skills and understanding of complex financial markets is astounding:

 

“The Bank of England has issued its strongest warning yet to the EU that its lack of adequate planning for Brexit has created growing risks for almost £70tn of complex financial contracts.”

 

This is a “corner of the [UK] finance industry worth more than three times the overall value of the EU economy”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/09/bank-of-england-warns-eu-brexit-risk-financial-stability-derivatives

 

this post *above( receives  daftest comment of today prize / 1 Belhaven

 

22 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Talking about things going swimmingly...

 

The EU's lack of skills and understanding of complex financial markets is astounding:

 

“The Bank of England has issued its strongest warning yet to the EU that its lack of adequate planning for Brexit has created growing risks for almost £70tn of complex financial contracts.”

 

This is a “corner of the [UK] finance industry worth more than three times the overall value of the EU economy”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/09/bank-of-england-warns-eu-brexit-risk-financial-stability-derivatives

OK, as the UK is still part of the EU, how can one part of it's economy be worth more than three times the overall value of the EU economy?

10 minutes ago, tebee said:

OK, as the UK is still part of the EU, how can one part of it's economy be worth more than three times the overall value of the EU economy?

Well I was quoting from The Guardian, so perhaps you should complain to the Editor of The Guardian, rather than me.

 

But as I've worked in all the European finance centres, it is an area that I have some personal expertise in, so I'll enlighten you - derivatives contracts.

 

So either you (and Melvin and Ruam) haven't read the article, or you (collectively) have read the article but don't know what derivatives are. Nothing to be ashamed about in the latter though, some things do require expert knowledge. The former is mere laziness.

13 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Well I was quoting from The Guardian, so perhaps you should complain to the Editor of The Guardian, rather than me.

 

But as I've worked in all the European finance centres, it is an area that I have some personal expertise in, so I'll enlighten you - derivatives contracts.

 

So either you (and Melvin and Ruam) haven't read the article, or you (collectively) have read the article but don't know what derivatives are. Nothing to be ashamed about in the latter though, some things do require expert knowledge. The former is mere laziness.

I  am not inclined to hand out another Belhaven for yet another daft comment.

 

On 10/9/2018 at 9:00 AM, 7by7 said:

What about Wales?

 

Wales voted Remain as well; by a, slightly, larger margin than England.

 

On 10/9/2018 at 9:05 AM, vinny41 said:

Wales voted to leave

854,572 (52.5%) voters in Wales chose to leave the EU, compared with 772,347 (47.5%) supporting Remain.

 

Many apologies, I meant, ofcourse, that Wales voted 'Leave' as well as England.

 

Apololgies for the stupid mistake.

7 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Well I was quoting from The Guardian, so perhaps you should complain to the Editor of The Guardian, rather than me.

 

But as I've worked in all the European finance centres, it is an area that I have some personal expertise in, so I'll enlighten you - derivatives contracts.

 

So either you (and Melvin and Ruam) haven't read the article, or you (collectively) have read the article but don't know what derivatives are. Nothing to be ashamed about in the latter though, some things do require expert knowledge. The former is mere laziness.

So I assume the metric you are using for value is the volume of derivatives traded, rather than the profit on this which is miniscule?

 

10 hours ago, Stupooey said:

 

I wondered about the reason for that myself, and came to the conclusion that the Welsh vote was skewed by the comparatively high number of English-born residents (22% of the population). Many of these are retirees, who would be expected to have mainly voted Leave.

See my apology above; Wales voted Leave.

8 minutes ago, tebee said:

So I assume the metric you are using for value is the volume of derivatives traded, rather than the profit on this which is miniscule?

 

Tebee you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the Bank of England and The Guardian (I am not using any metric of my own - derivatives trading is not controlled or regulated by me). But I'll let you know that both of your suggestions are incorrect.

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

Many apologies, I meant, ofcourse, that Wales voted 'Leave' as well as England.

 

Apololgies for the stupid mistake.

 

ta, good thing you corrected your previous post

without this correction, the whole Brexit effort could easily have gone down the drain

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I am not trying to misrepresent everything you say but what you gave  as usual.was completely one sided.

 

I offered you a different set of figures that you don't like but cannot argue with.

 

OK, another referendum option then.

 

The Scottish Independence referendum in 2014 about Scotland becoming Independent.

 

Those who voted NO got  2,001,926 votes

Those who voted YES got 1,617,989 votes.

 

They came second as did the Remainers in the Brexit vote.

 

Strangely enough the losers in BOTH referendums are shouting for another.

 

 

Good point!

The losers in both referendums said vote was too close to be actionable.

Presumably in a new referendum they will agree to an at least 65:35 split to validate the wishes of the electorate.

a deal will be done by oct 17 so says news reports ..so no more votes

13 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

a deal will be done by oct 17 so says news reports ..so no more votes

 

But it will likely be voted down in Parliament.  The opposition seem to be gunning for a very close alliance.

The Neo-Liberal blue chickens appear to have come home to roost:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-public-finances-worse-than-gambia-uganda-kenya-imf-report-a8577671.html

 

The IMF’s report takes particular aim at the privatisation of public assets, the benefits of which it says are often merely an “illusion”.

53 minutes ago, aright said:

Good point!

The losers in both referendums said vote was too close to be actionable.

Presumably in a new referendum they will agree to an at least 65:35 split to validate the wishes of the electorate.

It will have to be a 65:35 split because Nigel said before the referendum that a 60:40 vote to remain would be "unfinished business".

1 hour ago, 3NUMBAS said:

a deal will be done by oct 17 so says news reports ..so no more votes

I think its been done for some time. The problem will be how many minutes the egg will be boiled for.

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

See my apology above; Wales voted Leave.

My reply was based on Wales voting leave, I misread your mistake - the brain overruling the eyes, I expect!

UK expects to lose 5,000 City jobs through Brexit

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45811006

Following on from my post of yesterday from The Guardian concerning the EU’s potentially disastrous lack of planning for derivatives contracts post Brexit, I was double whammyed this morning when I read this commentary in The Telegraph on the IMF’s Financial Stability Report October 2018. Forgive the length of the quote, but it’s behind a paywall, and I wanted to make sure that everyone got a good gander:

 

 

“Jacques Delors’ think tank ‘Notre Europe’, among others, has warned that the eurozone will not survive another global recession as currently designed. Without fiscal union the prospects are hopeless. Public debt ratios are much closer to the danger line than at the outset of the last downturn.

The contagion from a global crisis would push the eurozone into recession and shift the calculus on debt sustainability. The ECB would have no monetary ammunition left to combat the shock since interest rates are currently minus 0.4pc and its QE balance sheet is already 43pc of GDP.

Only a massive fiscal response could rescue Europe but this is expressly prohibited by the ‘Ordoliberal’ Stability Pact, and would in any case be impossible for the Club Med bloc without an EU fiscal guarantee.

If it reached this point, the eurozone would crash into deflation, leading to a string of sovereign bankruptcies and the devastation of Europe’s banks and financial system. Monetary union would shatter. Radical national movements of the Salvini stripe would sweep into power. It would the end of the post-War European order as we have known it.”

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/10/imf-knows-world-economy-dangerously-stretched-today-2008/

 

 

Following on from my post of yesterday from The Guardian concerning the EU’s potentially disastrous lack of planning for derivatives contracts post Brexit, I was double whammyed this morning when I read this commentary in The Telegraph on the IMF’s Financial Stability Report October 2018. Forgive the length of the quote, but it’s behind a paywall, and I wanted to make sure that everyone got a good gander:
 
 
“Jacques Delors’ think tank ‘Notre Europe’, among others, has warned that the eurozone will not survive another global recession as currently designed. Without fiscal union the prospects are hopeless. Public debt ratios are much closer to the danger line than at the outset of the last downturn.

The contagion from a global crisis would push the eurozone into recession and shift the calculus on debt sustainability. The ECB would have no monetary ammunition left to combat the shock since interest rates are currently minus 0.4pc and its QE balance sheet is already 43pc of GDP.

Only a massive fiscal response could rescue Europe but this is expressly prohibited by the ‘Ordoliberal’ Stability Pact, and would in any case be impossible for the Club Med bloc without an EU fiscal guarantee.

If it reached this point, the eurozone would crash into deflation, leading to a string of sovereign bankruptcies and the devastation of Europe’s banks and financial system. Monetary union would shatter. Radical national movements of the Salvini stripe would sweep into power. It would the end of the post-War European order as we have known it.”

 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/10/imf-knows-world-economy-dangerously-stretched-today-2008/
 
 

I can’t access this behind the paywall but would be interested if it mentions the U.K. position in respect to the IMF report as, apparently, the only EU country in a worse position in regard to assets and liabilities is Portugal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-public-finances-worse-than-gambia-uganda-kenya-imf-report-a8577671.html



Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

20 hours ago, Stupooey said:

 

Any comment about the Leave vote being the largest ever UK vote is rather put into perspective when you realise that the Remain vote was the second largest. 

Regarding the Single Market and the Customs Union, the Government leaflet didn't reject membership per se, it just pointed out the downside of taking advantage of them from outside the EU. I actually believe the leaflet did more harm than good to the Remain cause, as it ensured which way the anti-Government vote would go.

Anyone who thinks a referendum is "democracy" needs to seriously rethink their ideas.

A simple majority vote never is nor was an example of democracy.

Democracy is government of the people y the people for the people - there is no citation of "majority" there.

 

Democratic countries that wish to make major constitutional changes usually require a "supermajority" to make any change

Referendums are the tools of despots and dictators who wish to claim "democratic" credentials for their undemocratic aims.

 

by going down this road the UK government (thanks to Cameron) has de-democratised themselves.

 

What is needed and traditional in the UK for this kind of thing is an election - that's how they have done things for centuries.

 

As I saw before, the majority on the Brexit referendum is a joke.

 

 

11 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Anyone who thinks a referendum is "democracy" needs to seriously rethink their ideas.

A simple majority vote never is nor was an example of democracy.

Democracy is government of the people y the people for the people - there is no citation of "majority" there.

 

Democratic countries that wish to make major constitutional changes usually require a "supermajority" to make any change

Referendums are the tools of despots and dictators who wish to claim "democratic" credentials for their undemocratic aims.

 

by going down this road the UK government (thanks to Cameron) has de-democratised themselves.

 

What is needed and traditional in the UK for this kind of thing is an election - that's how they have done things for centuries.

 

As I saw before, the majority on the Brexit referendum is a joke.

 

 

Fake news!  The picture is of the same bowl, turned 90 degrees.  Great example of the lazy lazy attempts by Remainers to paint a false picture.

9 hours ago, adammike said:

It will have to be a 65:35 split because Nigel said before the referendum that a 60:40 vote to remain would be "unfinished business".

 

I think you will find that he described a 52:48 Remain vote as "unfinished business by a long way". He did refer to this scenario as a "small defeat" though; strange how this morphs into a decisive victory when the figures are reversed.

11 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Anyone who thinks a referendum is "democracy" needs to seriously rethink their ideas.

A simple majority vote never is nor was an example of democracy.

Democracy is government of the people y the people for the people - there is no citation of "majority" there.

 

Democratic countries that wish to make major constitutional changes usually require a "supermajority" to make any change

Referendums are the tools of despots and dictators who wish to claim "democratic" credentials for their undemocratic aims.

 

by going down this road the UK government (thanks to Cameron) has de-democratised themselves.

 

What is needed and traditional in the UK for this kind of thing is an election - that's how they have done things for centuries.

 

As I saw before, the majority on the Brexit referendum is a joke.

 

 

 

How about the super majority for the major constitutional change that was joining the EEC in the first place? The European Communities Bill only passed through the Commons after a third reading by 301-284, on 17th February 1972. That's 51.4% of the 585 ayes and noes (there were a notable 45 abstentions or non votes).

 

Bet you can't spot the difference in the rice bowls though.

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

Following on from my post of yesterday from The Guardian concerning the EU’s potentially disastrous lack of planning for derivatives contracts post Brexit, I was double whammyed this morning when I read this commentary in The Telegraph on the IMF’s Financial Stability Report October 2018. Forgive the length of the quote, but it’s behind a paywall, and I wanted to make sure that everyone got a good gander:

 

 

“Jacques Delors’ think tank ‘Notre Europe’, among others, has warned that the eurozone will not survive another global recession as currently designed. Without fiscal union the prospects are hopeless. Public debt ratios are much closer to the danger line than at the outset of the last downturn.

The contagion from a global crisis would push the eurozone into recession and shift the calculus on debt sustainability. The ECB would have no monetary ammunition left to combat the shock since interest rates are currently minus 0.4pc and its QE balance sheet is already 43pc of GDP.

Only a massive fiscal response could rescue Europe but this is expressly prohibited by the ‘Ordoliberal’ Stability Pact, and would in any case be impossible for the Club Med bloc without an EU fiscal guarantee.

If it reached this point, the eurozone would crash into deflation, leading to a string of sovereign bankruptcies and the devastation of Europe’s banks and financial system. Monetary union would shatter. Radical national movements of the Salvini stripe would sweep into power. It would the end of the post-War European order as we have known it.”

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/10/imf-knows-world-economy-dangerously-stretched-today-2008/

 

 

 

Delors is in good company. A number of economists have aired similar views lately,

except the bit about end of post-war European order as we have known it.

 

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

How about the super majority for the major constitutional change that was joining the EEC in the first place? The European Communities Bill only passed through the Commons after a third reading by 301-284, on 17th February 1972. That's 51.4% of the 585 ayes and noes (there were a notable 45 abstentions or non votes).

 

Bet you can't spot the difference in the rice bowls though.

Heath surprisingly won the 1970 Election on the back of a firm commitment to join the EEC. Labour were also in favour of joining but less committed. The narrow vote in Parliament was all about the terms of entry (as opposed to entry itself), which of course were later re-negotiated by Wilson and put to the Country in the form of a referendum to appease his left wing. The result was 67-33 in favour. The methodology can be criticised, but it led to the right result at the time.

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I am not trying to misrepresent everything you say but what you gave  as usual.was completely one sided.

 

I offered you a different set of figures that you don't like but cannot argue with.

 

OK, another referendum option then.

 

The Scottish Independence referendum in 2014 about Scotland becoming Independent.

 

Those who voted NO got  2,001,926 votes

Those who voted YES got 1,617,989 votes.

 

They came second as did the Remainers in the Brexit vote.

 

Strangely enough the losers in BOTH referendums are shouting for another.

 

 

 

You're still misinterpreting or misrepresenting my posts. In the one you replied to, another poster was (yet again) making a big deal of the fact that the Leave vote was the highest ever achieved in any UK election/referendum. I was merely placing this in context, pointing out it was not such a big deal bearing in mind that the Remain vote was the second highest ever achieved. How you manage to interpret this as me thinking that Remain won is completely beyond me. Your implication that I don't know that 2 is greater than 1 is quite frankly insulting.

Apologies though for (in your opinion) only giving one side of the argument, but in my defense I think you will find that about 99% of the posters to this thread have been partisan one way or the other. Even one poster who claims to be neutral only ever gives one side of the argument, but that is just trolling.