UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Cyprus is selling passports and citizenships, you or wife could buy one

 

 

 

No thanks, Only went to Cyprus once, July 1974, and war broke out.

[sandyf]

33 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

Either he was terrible at lying or you weren’t paying attention.

 

 

 

Right first time round, he knew exactly what was planned, it was all laid out at the leaders meeting in Dec 1969. 

Have a look at this post. 

 

[aright]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

Have they broken any law or is it just your opinion?

 

And your opinion, like mine and everybody elses on this forum, is worthless in a court of law.

 

 

 

But Nigel Farage is NOT a member of the HoC but an MEP and is not answerable to the HoC no more than you or I are.

 

Select Committes don't investigate the Crown, MPs or the Lords.

 

Nige Faragel has already appeared before Parliaments Brexit Committee.

 

"Normally, a committee will issue an informal request to a witness to attend, and most witnesses will do so willingly. But if a witness proves unwilling, a committee can resort to using its powers and formally summon them.

In most cases such a summons will be sufficient to embarrass a potential witness into appearing. Rupert and James Murdoch finally agreed to give evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committee on phone hacking only after being formally summoned."

[billd766]

2 minutes ago, aright said:

 

Select Committes don't investigate the Crown, MPs or the Lords.

 

Nige Faragel has already appeared before Parliaments Brexit Committee.

 

"Normally, a committee will issue an informal request to a witness to attend, and most witnesses will do so willingly. But if a witness proves unwilling, a committee can resort to using its powers and formally summon them.

In most cases such a summons will be sufficient to embarrass a potential witness into appearing. Rupert and James Murdoch finally agreed to give evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committee on phone hacking only after being formally summoned."

 

I had not realised that.

 

Please accept my apology.

[My Thai Life]

Someone asked about the effect on Financial Service and the City of London. I worked in FS in the City and internationally, including EU FS centres, for about 20 years. And I know enough to know that it’s a lot more complex than one liners copied from the press about “passporting” can do justice to.

 

Various options have been proposed: subsidiaries, “equivalence”, “enhanced equivalence”, and a completely free market. They are googleable.

 

Currently I’d favour the free market approach, which would allow UK institutions continued access to the EU markets albeit with less convenience. But the gains in terms of regulatory simplification and competitiveness would more than offset that. Global business would continue using London.

 

EU business is estimated to be around 15% of the City’s business, and even in the worst case scenario, much of this business would be retained.

 

The important growth areas are outside the EU anyway.

[kwilco]

20 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Have they broken any law or is it just your opinion?

 

And your opinion, like mine and everybody elses on this forum, is worthless in a court of law.

 

 

 

But Nigel Farage is NOT a member of the HoC but an MEP and is not answerable to the HoC no more than you or I are.

He wasn't even an official member of the leave campaign.

[kwilco]

Many quiltings seem to pride themselves on some kind of "down to earth" attitude to life.....although really it would seem to others that with one's head in the sand it is more like a "below the earth" attitude.

Their price for a fallacious concept of freedom appears to be getting dearer every day.

 

Of course with one's headhead in that precarious position it is impossible to appreciate the less tangible but nevertheless crucial losses that the UK will incur....E.g. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45303280

 

 

 

[kwilco]

16 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

the gains in terms of regulatory simplification and competitiveness would more than offset that. 

You realise that is an oxymoron?

To trade with EU all products have to comply with EU regs and standards but post Brexit apart from still having to comply we will no longer have a say in what those regulations are,.

 

 

(V the Thai chicken andand shrimp industries)

Edited August 26, 2018 by kwilco

[sandyf]

36 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You realise that is an oxymoron?

To trade with EU all products have to comply with EU regs and standards but post Brexit apart from still having to comply we will no longer have a say in what those regulations are,.

 

 

(V the Thai chicken andand shrimp industries)

Regs and standards are an alien concept to many so get brushed aside, but they will have a defining effect in the years ahead.

There has been talk today of a new trade deal with China. Why would they want a trade deal with the UK and not the EU. Do they think that post brexit they can export to the UK and bypass the current regs and standards.

 

"The EU is committed to open trading relations with China. However, the EU wants to ensure that China trades fairly, respects intellectual property rights and meets its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO)."

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/china/

 

China has a huge population giving it a tremendous advantage in any negotiations, any deal can only be a "top notch" deal for China. In China you can buy Mackies potato crisps cheaper than you can in the UK. Makes you wonder if the UK consumers are subsidising the Chinese appetite for UK product.

Equally important, a flood of low cost Chinese product on to the high street could be disastrous for many UK producers. People need to be careful what they wish for.

 

A statement from China’s commerce ministry said that the two countries agreed to “actively explore the possibility of discussing a top-notch free trade agreement between the two sides after Brexit”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-deal-latest-china-britain-top-notch-free-trade-european-union-a8508006.html

[kwilco]

21 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Someone asked about the effect on Financial Service and the City of London. I worked in FS in the City and internationally, including EU FS centres, for about 20 years. And I know enough to know that it’s a lot more complex than one liners copied from the press about “passporting” can do justice to.

 

Various options have been proposed: subsidiaries, “equivalence”, “enhanced equivalence”, and a completely free market. They are googleable.

 

Currently I’d favour the free market approach, which would allow UK institutions continued access to the EU markets albeit with less convenience. But the gains in terms of regulatory simplification and competitiveness would more than offset that. Global business would continue using London.

 

EU business is estimated to be around 15% of the City’s business, and even in the worst case scenario, much of this business would be retained.

 

The important growth areas are outside the EU anyway.

You might think that, but then you don't work there anymore and now everyone's getting out Of London at least to some extent.

Suggests you're out of touch, doesn't it?

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

You realise that is an oxymoron?

To trade with EU all products have to comply with EU regs and standards but post Brexit apart from still having to comply we will no longer have a say in what those regulations are,.

 

 

(V the Thai chicken andand shrimp industries)

 

dont think I agree with the oxymoron bit

 

else ok

 

but, the have a say bit will depend/vary on/with UKs future relationship with EU

[kwilco]

The vote should be on 

"Does UK need a super-majority to leave the EU?"

[kwilco]

5 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

dont think I agree with the oxymoron bit

 

else ok

 

but, the have a say bit will depend/vary on/with Ufuture relationship with EU

Yes...If they are members they have a say but, if not they don't.

Edited August 26, 2018 by kwilco

[melvinmelvin]

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Yes...If they are members they have a say but, if not they don't.

wrong

 

 

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

but, the have a say bit will depend/vary on/with UKs future relationship with EU

Not true, the statement was

"To trade with EU all products have to comply with EU regs and standards but post Brexit apart from still having to comply we will no longer have a say in what those regulations are,."

 

That statement still stands irrespective of any future relationship with the EU. The UK has no regs or standards of its own so must continue to use those laid down by the EU. Even the last part would still apply as the only way the UK can have any say is by way of membership, not relationship.

 

[My Thai Life]

On 8/25/2018 at 9:07 AM, bristolboy said:

Any country or trade bloc can be cherry-picked for unfair and counter-productive economic practices. 

"Cherry picked" with regard to the CAP farce is an interesting and I'm sure unintentional pun. The EU's origins  as a protectionist cartel to assist German industry and French farming are disputed by no-one who knows anything about the history of the EU. But I'm surprised you don't know a bit more about the butter mountain, milk lake, and wine lake. It was big news around the time you told us you were having a holiday with a mining family during the miners' strike. It's been going on for 50 years, so it's a pretty big cherry!

 

The link in question that I made was about EU agricultural product dumping in Africa. I've been waiting for someone to read it and join the dots. 

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-milk-scramble-for-africa/

 

By this dumping policy the EU is putting African farmers out of business when there is already refugee pressure from Africa. At the same time Merkel (who in many respects I admire) invites refugees to Europe. She made this pronouncement unilaterally as a sort of self-appointed EU President - of course she has no such remit. By doing so she brought enormous pressure on EU Mediterranean countries, and EU countries bordering Turkey. Without any EU policy on refugees.

 

So to recap, the EU were making refugees, inviting them to the EU in the absence of an EU policy on refugees, and then paying Turkey to take care of the problem. 

 

I'd sum this up by saying the EU is an immoral protectionist cartel dumping its problems on weak neighbours and thereby increasing its own problems. No joined-up thinking.

 

Anyone interested in this issue could follow it up in many places, including the IATP – Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy:

 

“The EU's Common Agriculture Policy is enormously expensive and enormously damaging. The CAP undermines the livelihoods of millions of farmers in developing countries by dumping cheap produce in their markets and denying them export opportunities.”

 

https://www.iatp.org/documents/dumping-on-the-poor-the-common-agricultural-policy-the-wto-and-international-development-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Not true, the statement was

"To trade with EU all products have to comply with EU regs and standards but post Brexit apart from still having to comply we will no longer have a say in what those regulations are,."

 

That statement still stands irrespective of any future relationship with the EU. The UK has no regs or standards of its own so must continue to use those laid down by the EU. Even the last part would still apply as the only way the UK can have any say is by way of membership, not relationship.

 

UK has plenty standards on her own, but those doesn't count visavis EU

the last part:

fundamentally disagree with what you say

the degree of "say" is determined by the relationship (no not membership or not)

 

 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

Not true, the statement was

"To trade with EU all products have to comply with EU regs and standards but post Brexit apart from still having to comply we will no longer have a say in what those regulations are,."

 

That statement still stands irrespective of any future relationship with the EU. The UK has no regs or standards of its own so must continue to use those laid down by the EU. Even the last part would still apply as the only way the UK can have any say is by way of membership, not relationship.

 

 

I can agree with you up to a point but if we are already producing to the standards now, why would we want to change to a different standard and lose the market.

 

I am quite sure that some companies will change to a different standard but I would number them as stupid.

[mommysboy]

6 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I can agree with you up to a point but if we are already producing to the standards now, why would we want to change to a different standard and lose the market.

 

I am quite sure that some companies will change to a different standard but I would number them as stupid.

'I am quite sure that some companies will change to a different standard but I would number them as stupid.'

 

In this respect they are a perfect match with Brexit.

[3NUMBAS]

leave means leave crowd are raising a 5 million war chest to fight George soros who is bankrolling a remain campaign

 

why does soros want a remain so badly you ask?

 

 

[The manic]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/26/britons-seem-relatively-relaxed-in-the-face-of-brexit-apocalypse

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

UK has plenty standards on her own, but those doesn't count visavis EU

the last part:

fundamentally disagree with what you say

the degree of "say" is determined by the relationship (no not membership or not)

 

 

Any "say" in the EU must be ratified by the European Parliament, your point could only be valid if non members had a vote in the EU parliament.

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I can agree with you up to a point but if we are already producing to the standards now, why would we want to change to a different standard and lose the market.

 

I am quite sure that some companies will change to a different standard but I would number them as stupid.

The point was in relation to trading with the EU. Current standards are the result of EU directives being written into UK law and where compliance has to be identified by physical marking, that can only be done through an EU agency.

There is every chance that many companies could be faced with having a domestic and an export version of their product.

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Any "say" in the EU must be ratified by the European Parliament, your point could only be valid if non members had a vote in the EU parliament.

incorrect

what you and this kwilco guy is saying is not correct

 

you have a fairly narrow view of what say is, I have a fairly broad view

you are talking about the final stage where a directive fly or is ditched or returned by parl.

(for certain classes of directives the comm. not the parl. has the upper hand

 - those directives are becoming fewer and farther apart as time flies though)

 

now, the fly/ditch/return stage is for members only - but in my view it is also the least interesting stage at which to have a say

now, assume the parl. says fly, then journal then enter into force

 

however, after parl. says fly - efta states can still say formally no to implementation

- that is having a say in my view - but still not very interesting

 

------

 

important directives, and other acquis for that matter,  are normally developed by comm and frequently presented to and massaged

in working groups/committees, being discussed in detail, ad nauseam, comm takes it back and massages again

these entities are open to members, efta/eea and CH.

this, in my view, is the important stage at which to have a say - when the stuff is drafted

you have a yes say, you don't have a no say, but you can participate in the development of the text and argue all you like at an early stage

 

in this respect I find EU exemplary open

Edited August 27, 2018 by melvinmelvin

[billd766]

10 hours ago, mommysboy said:

'I am quite sure that some companies will change to a different standard but I would number them as stupid.'

 

In this respect they are a perfect match with Brexit.

 

Not necessarily. If you had read my post most companies will NOT changed their standards and IMO will keep up to date with EU standard changes.

 

Those that don't will lose EU contracts. Those are the stupid ones.

 

As for your comment, "In this respect they are a perfect match with Brexit.", that is your opinion. mine differs from yours completely.

 

Neither of us or anybody else for that matter KNOWS what post Brexit will look like but the sensible ones take a longer term view possibly as far as 5 or 10 years ahead.

 

The not so smart ones take a (very) short term view in days or weeks.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

Not necessarily. If you had read my post most companies will NOT changed their standards and IMO will keep up to date with EU standard changes.

 

Those that don't will lose EU contracts. Those are the stupid ones.

 

As for your comment, "In this respect they are a perfect match with Brexit.", that is your opinion. mine differs from yours completely.

 

Neither of us or anybody else for that matter KNOWS what post Brexit will look like but the sensible ones take a longer term view possibly as far as 5 or 10 years ahead.

 

The not so smart ones take a (very) short term view in days or weeks.

'Neither of us or anybody else for that matter KNOWS what post Brexit will look like but the sensible ones take a longer term view possibly as far as 5 or 10 years ahead.

'The not so smart ones take a (very) short term view in days or weeks.'

 

You say none of us knows what the future Brexit looks like, but it's fair to say you envisage minimal disruption and a rosy long term outlook- even suggesting those that don't are not so smart.

 

Whilst it is true that smart people do take a longer term view in life, it does not mean the longer term in Brexit is a positive thing. The truly smart person knows which horse to back, surely?

 

My assessment is a no deal Brexit will cost 5-10% of GDP growth, but there may be long term gains; the former is more certain than the latter.  But the main issue would be the restructuring of the UK economy- Brexit is daft imo.

 

Nevertheless, it is what people want or believe and that is that.  If Parliament decide to veto a deal/no deal then that is also a democratic decision based on feasibility.

 

 

[Grouse]

I believe that a "people's Vote" will now take place. It is a face saving way out for cowardly MPs who damn well the Brexit is idiotic but dare not say so for fear of alienating some less well informed voters 

 

Corbyn will agree to Labour supporting this (partly due to momentum) on condition that no leadership change is threatened (much the same as labour supporting our nuclear deterrent).

 

This is why money is pouring in to support both sides

 

Extend the deadline to enable this. At least the country will be brighter after 31 March 2019 as BST will begin again.

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Grouse

[brewsterbudgen]

24 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I believe that a "people's Vote" will now take place. It is a face saving way out for cowardly MPs who damn well the Brexit is idiotic but dare not say so for fear of alienating some less well informed voters 

 

Corbyn will agree to Labour supporting this (partly due to momentum) on condition that no leadership change is threatened (much the same as labour supporting our nuclear deterrent).

 

This is why money is pouring in to support both sides

 

Extend the deadline to enable this. At least the country will be brighter after 31 March 2019 as BST will begin again.

 

Yes, I'd say it's inevitable.  The politicians can't decide, so let the people.

[billd766]

57 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

'Neither of us or anybody else for that matter KNOWS what post Brexit will look like but the sensible ones take a longer term view possibly as far as 5 or 10 years ahead.

'The not so smart ones take a (very) short term view in days or weeks.'

 

You say none of us knows what the future Brexit looks like, but it's fair to say you envisage minimal disruption and a rosy long term outlook- even suggesting those that don't are not so smart.

 

Whilst it is true that smart people do take a longer term view in life, it does not mean the longer term in Brexit is a positive thing. The truly smart person knows which horse to back, surely?

 

My assessment is a no deal Brexit will cost 5-10% of GDP growth, but there may be long term gains; the former is more certain than the latter.  But the main issue would be the restructuring of the UK economy- Brexit is daft imo.

 

Nevertheless, it is what people want or believe and that is that.  If Parliament decide to veto a deal/no deal then that is also a democratic decision based on feasibility.

 

 

 

It is wonderful how people seem to know what I want and how I thing more than I do.

 

You manage to twist my words from saying that some companies who change their standards are not so smart to saying that some people are not so smart.

 

Who decides who is the truly smart person? You, me or somebody else?

 

I am quite happy that in your quote "assessment is a no deal Brexit will cost 5-10% of GDP growth, but there may be long term gains; the former is more certain than the latter." but I don't agree with the last part.

 

Another quote "

Nevertheless, it is what people want or believe and that is that.  If Parliament decide to veto a deal/no deal then that is also a democratic decision based on feasibility."

 

The people, as you call them, have no input to what they want. They can rant and rave but it is not in their power to change things. There is a possibility that if enough people badger their MP, perhaps or not the MP will listen and try to do something. However there is little the average MP can do unless they can get on to PM question time or get a private bill going.

 

It is down to the PM, the cabinet and Ministers to get the UK through Brexit and unless Theresa May calls a snap election (unlikely after the last shambles) this government will be responsible for the success or failure of Brexit.

 

The result of the next election also depends on the success or failure of Brexit.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

'Neither of us or anybody else for that matter KNOWS what post Brexit will look like but the sensible ones take a longer term view possibly as far as 5 or 10 years ahead.

'The not so smart ones take a (very) short term view in days or weeks.'

 

You say none of us knows what the future Brexit looks like, but it's fair to say you envisage minimal disruption and a rosy long term outlook- even suggesting those that don't are not so smart.

 

Whilst it is true that smart people do take a longer term view in life, it does not mean the longer term in Brexit is a positive thing. The truly smart person knows which horse to back, surely?

 

My assessment is a no deal Brexit will cost 5-10% of GDP growth, but there may be long term gains; the former is more certain than the latter.  But the main issue would be the restructuring of the UK economy- Brexit is daft imo.

 

Nevertheless, it is what people want or believe and that is that.  If Parliament decide to veto a deal/no deal then that is also a democratic decision based on feasibility.

 

 

So what are the long term gains?