EU must change its negotiating terms for Brexit, says Britain's Barclay

[7by7]

18 hours ago, kingdong said:

suppose its likely all the eu citizens  you see massing in diy superstore carparks waiting for a days work in the building trade are all registered for national insurance commitments and paying tax too?

 I have seen these people on my travels, and spoken to many. Their appearance and accents lead me to conclude that most of them are not legal EU migrants, but illegal ones. People who have entered the country illegally and so, of course, cannot claim any state benefits as that would bring them to the attention of the authorities, or are legally here as asylum seekers which means they cannot legally work.

 

But whatever they are from, one thing is certain; their employers are usually small companies, often one man businesses, owned by British citizens!

 

Taken as a whole, EU migrants, especially those who arrived since 2000, contribute in taxes than they take out in benefits and other state aid.

 

Do EU immigrants contribute £1.34 for every £1 received from the UK?

[welovesundaysatspace]

5 hours ago, superal said:

1/   Continued trade with untied hands not only to the EU 27 member states but also the 36 global countries that have free trade agreements with the EU and have indicated that they will continue to trade with the UK after Brexit .  

Again, I am wondering what the achievement here is. Everyone is trading. 

 

5 hours ago, superal said:

 

2/ Calculations , why ? nothing will change , same as before .

If everything is “same as before”,  what’s the point of Free Trade Agreements? Apparently those agreements must contain empty pages if everything is “same as before”. 

 

5 hours ago, superal said:

Billions loss for the UK ? twas the case whilst an EU member but a saving of 10 billion per year after leaving ( 2017 figures ) . 

You admitted yourself that: (i) you didn’t do calculations; (ii) you don’t understand what free trade agreements mean; and (iii) figures are “irrelevant”. You’re very obviously not qualified to talk about savings. 

 

5 hours ago, superal said:

BJ unwilling to talk to anyone ? I do not believe that for a second 

You don’t need to believe anything. You can just stick to his statements. 

 

5 hours ago, superal said:

 

3/ You just dont get it ,  do you think that on November the 1st all of a sudden the EU & UK will cease trading ?

I never said that. Your problem is that you don’t understand free trade agreements. 

 

5 hours ago, superal said:

your figures are irrelevant .

If the percentages a country exports to a trading partner is “irrelevant” for you, you’re obviously not qualified to discuss trade issues. 

 

5 hours ago, superal said:

The EU team are livid and hurting as one of their big players has escaped , simile , the caged bird that finds the cage door open and flies to freedom .

We’ve heard all this propaganda before. It’s nothing more than what the spoonies who don’t have a clue about economics need to get horny before they realize that they’re getting even poorer. 

 

[7by7]

 

19 hours ago, billd766 said:

Back in 1972 how would anybody have managed to get to see a copy of Hansard? Common oiks like the majority of the public would probably never heard of Hansard and would have little idea of what was going on in parliament. So it would be quite easy for any government to pass legislation on anything and get it on the statute books.

 

You really think that the general public, however they voted in 2016, regularly read Hansard?

 

Of course they don't. They get their information in the same way that they did in 1972 and 1974. from the mass media; newspapers, TV, radio. Some of which supports the government of the day, some of which doesn't and some of which is neutral. People tend to read, and believe, the media which most conforms with their own political views.

 

The only difference between then and now is that they can also get information from the internet; some of it from reputable, regardless of their politics, sources, some from conspiracy sites.

 

Of course, some ignore the facts and believe the conspiracy sites, as many posts here prove.

[superal]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Again, I am wondering what the achievement here is. Everyone is trading. 

 

If everything is “same as before”,  what’s the point of Free Trade Agreements? Apparently those agreements must contain empty pages if everything is “same as before”. 

 

You admitted yourself that: (i) you didn’t do calculations; (ii) you don’t understand what free trade agreements mean; and (iii) figures are “irrelevant”. You’re very obviously not qualified to talk about savings. 

 

You don’t need to believe anything. You can just stick to his statements. 

 

I never said that. Your problem is that you don’t understand free trade agreements. 

 

If the percentages a country exports to a trading partner is “irrelevant” for you, you’re obviously not qualified to discuss trade issues. 

 

We’ve heard all this propaganda before. It’s nothing more than what the spoonies who don’t have a clue about economics need to get horny before they realize that they’re getting even poorer. 

 

What a load of codswallop . Nothing constructive written in your reply , just derogatory remarks to me personally . I stand by my original post which you poorly criticised .   I suppose you would have voted for the T. May deal by the sounds of it .  I welcome constructive criticism but yours is unfounded , unqualified and rude . 

[evadgib]

5 hours ago, superal said:

What a load of codswallop . Nothing constructive written in your reply , just derogatory remarks to me personally . I stand by my original post which you poorly criticised .   I suppose you would have voted for the T. May deal by the sounds of it .  I welcome constructive criticism but yours is unfounded , unqualified and rude . 

Attacking the poster is part of the course providing whoever is on the receiving end is deemed to be supporting UKs decision to leave the EU. Anyone joining in in the other direction find their posts vanishing quicker than a locust in a Terrarium...

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Scott

[Loiner]

On 8/8/2019 at 11:14 AM, superal said:

What a load of codswallop . Nothing constructive written in your reply , just derogatory remarks to me personally . I stand by my original post which you poorly criticised .   I suppose you would have voted for the T. May deal by the sounds of it .  I welcome constructive criticism but yours is unfounded , unqualified and rude . 

Constant codswallop from that part of the EU I'm afraid. This poster wasn't even eligible for the referendum, so wouldn't have been able to vote for T. May anyway. This is a typical example from some of our trading 'partners' - no wonder we need to Leave.  

[superal]

10 hours ago, Loiner said:

Constant codswallop from that part of the EU I'm afraid. This poster wasn't even eligible for the referendum, so wouldn't have been able to vote for T. May anyway. This is a typical example from some of our trading 'partners' - no wonder we need to Leave.  

Thanks Loiner ,

                      I think you will agree with me when I say that although we are singing from the same hymn book most of the " Remainers " also contribute to the discussion with sound arguments that make for a decent debate . We can all come up with pros and cons but only history will show if the right decision is made by the UK government . I do not believe that the UK will regret a "Brexit " as it goes solo and returns to self governance . The main concern will be the reaction from the EU which may turn nasty as that of a woman scorned analogy , however the world is watching and any unfair negativity will be frowned on .

 

Now if Labour table a vote of " no confidence " in the Tory government there will be a general election but could that take place before October 31st ?   Plus if there was a Labour government JC has promised another referendum .   Are we at the final hurdle yet ?