Another Brexit thread, have a look anyway.

[tebee]

26 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Define "possible". I'd have thought it eminently "possible" because no such border currently exists. It's entirely "possible" for the UK government to determine that goods coming into or leaving Britain at any land port of entry need not be inspected or be subject to customs inspection. It would then be up to the Irish or the French to determine what they will do to British goods leaving the UK and arriving in their country. I recall reading an article in a reputable business journal quite recently stating that very point (and no, I can't remember where)

it's possible at the moment only because the same rules and tax regimes exist on either side of the border.

 

As soon as you start varing rules - such as the additives that are allowed in food stuffs or change taxes you need border checks, otherwise you will get massive smuggling.

 

So you either keep the same rules either side and remain in a customs union - what TM's deal was doing - or you need border checks - a hard border.

[Thingamabob]

Currently suffering as are all expats getting paid in sterling, however still very much in favour of Leave. I could have persevered with the EEC, but no way with the EU which I regard as an abomination with which the UK should never have agreed to to be associated.

[oldhippy]

1 hour ago, ThaiBunny said:

Define "possible". I'd have thought it eminently "possible" because no such border currently exists. It's entirely "possible" for the UK government to determine that goods coming into or leaving Britain at any land port of entry need not be inspected or be subject to customs inspection. It would then be up to the Irish or the French to determine what they will do to British goods leaving the UK and arriving in their country. I recall reading an article in a reputable business journal quite recently stating that very point (and no, I can't remember where)

A misunderstanding?

I was talking about British goods / British imports that crossed freely from N Ireland into Ireland.

Once they are in Ireland, they are in the EU with it's free movement of goods.

Capiche?

 

[oldhippy]

4 hours ago, vogie said:

If vogie or CGSBlue want to answer I am sure we will, without prompting from you.

You brexiteers seem to have problems with the concept of a discussion forum.

 

I suggest that for starters you study one of the works of a famous British philosopher, named John Cleese, search for "the 5 minute argument".

 

After that, google "net etiquette".

 

And please please please don't nuke Ireland (as one of the brexiteers suggested).

 

[Stupooey]

2 hours ago, jesimps said:

Correct. The people have voted to leave; parliament have rejected the May/EU deal three times; EU refuses to negotiate further, therefore the PM has no choice but to leave without a deal. If he doesn't, expect a Corbyn govt at the next GE. I'd rather take a further hit on the exchange rate than risk Corbyn turning the country into another Venezuela.

I personally think that the main cause of the falling pound is the uncertainty caused by the remainers continually delaying the process. If we just get on with it with the whole country behind us, the grossly undervalued pound will find its proper level.

Which people have voted to leave? A million of them are no longer alive, and nobody under the age of 21 has been given the opportunity to help determine the long-term future of a country in which the age of majority is supposedly 18. A very warped view of democracy as it exists in 2019.

 

As for the pound, it lost 20% of its value immediately after the Referendum, how could that be the fault of remainers? Since then, every time there is an increased threat of a hard/no deal Brexit, which now appears to be the preferred option of leavers, the pound falls again. Little doubt that if we did leave there would be yet another drop. Hardly down to remainers.

 

Don't worry about Corbyn, though. Any sign that he was turning us into another Venezuela would soon fall foul of the Maastricht Treaty. As long as we were still in the EU, that is. Otherwise, with 100% Sovereignty, he could do what he liked.

[ThaiBunny]

59 minutes ago, tebee said:

it's possible at the moment only because the same rules and tax regimes exist on either side of the border.

 

As soon as you start varing rules - such as the additives that are allowed in food stuffs or change taxes you need border checks, otherwise you will get massive smuggling.

 

So you either keep the same rules either side and remain in a customs union - what TM's deal was doing - or you need border checks - a hard border.

I have a philosophy that's stood me in good stead all my life, especially at senior management level. I call it "creative inertia". In many more circumstances than most people imagine, it's possible to do absolutely nothing and let events take their course, with very little downside. I suspect that that's what Boris & Co will do in the short term - it's certainly my recommendation

[Stupooey]

In the 2016 Referendum we know what 48% of those who were able to vote on a particular Thursday in June voted for - the status quo. We do not know exactly what the other 52% wanted. There was much prior discussion amongst leavers (not least Farage) about the Norway, Switzerland or Canada options, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that many people voted leave on the basis of this. It would only take 4% - i in 25 - of leave voters to have been in favour of staying in the Single Market and/or the Customs Union to have made these the 'will of the people' in Brexiteer parlance.

 

Who knows, perhaps the WA, or even BRINO, is what the people really voted for.

[Jip99]

24 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

In the 2016 Referendum we know what 48% of those who were able to vote on a particular Thursday in June voted for - the status quo. We do not know exactly what the other 52% wanted. There was much prior discussion amongst leavers (not least Farage) about the Norway, Switzerland or Canada options, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that many people voted leave on the basis of this. It would only take 4% - i in 25 - of leave voters to have been in favour of staying in the Single Market and/or the Customs Union to have made these the 'will of the people' in Brexiteer parlance.

 

Who knows, perhaps the WA, or even BRINO, is what the people really voted for.

 

 

There would never have been 'status quo'..

 

 

The other 52% voted to leave.

 

 

How that happened, and what terms, was down to the government of the day - hand in hand with the EU - and there lies the problem.

[CG1 Blue]

7 hours ago, vogie said:

Here is Michel Barnier saying that the NI issue is an invention in order to create great leverage for the EU in the next stage of trade negotiations.

Caught red handed! The EU have been using the Irish border as a bargaining chip all along, and sadly the majority of the public still don't realise this. 

If/when we leave with no deal on 31/10, just see how quickly the EU and Ireland come up with a solution to the border issue. 

[oldhippy]

3 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

There would never have been 'status quo'..

 

 

The other 52% voted to leave.

 

 

How that happened, and what terms, was down to the government of the day - hand in hand with the EU - and there lies the problem.

The brexiteers have only themselves to blame for not knowing/agreeing what kind of exit they wanted.

Or are you saying that the EU should have come up with alternative exits for the government and opposition and MP's to choose between?

 

[oldhippy]

3 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Caught red handed! The EU have been using the Irish border as a bargaining chip all along, and sadly the majority of the public still don't realise this. 

If/when we leave with no deal on 31/10, just see how quickly the EU and Ireland come up with a solution to the border issue. 

Ah there you are.

I asked you: Can you reasonably expect the EU to give up all their rules & regulations to make trade between Britain (incl N Ireland) and Ireland (and therefore the EU) possible?

PS: You seem to have a lot of trust in the EU to solve YOUR problems!

 

[Jip99]

9 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

The brexiteers have only themselves to blame for not knowing/agreeing what kind of exit they wanted.

Or are you saying that the EU should have come up with alternative exits for the government and opposition and MP's to choose between?

 

 

 

Don't be stupid  -  You can't have knowledge about something that has not been agreed.

[CG1 Blue]

6 hours ago, oldhippy said:

I think that Brexiteers do not understand this border issue.

 

As you always complain about EU rules & regulations, you should be aware that those regulations are a cornerstone of EU policy, whether you approve of them or not.

Example:

If the UK allows hormone meat imports from the US into Britain / N Ireland, the hormone meat can go to Ireland and from there to the EU consumers.

 

Are you really expecting the EU to give up their regulations?

The EU CAN NOT give up their regulations, but that would be the exact result of having open borders between Ireland and N Ireland.

 

Is Bojo so stupid that he does not understand this? Or, much more likely, this is part of his hidden agenda.

 

 

My point is, the EU by refusing to alter the backstop arrangements will end up with the same 'dilemma' when we leave with no deal. The backstop is supposedly to prevent any need for a hard border. But by refusing to alter it they will end up with a hard border anyway. 

In reality the EU will come up with a solution to the border after no deal. But it is illogical to refuse to alter the backstop on the basis that it is to protect the border arrangements, when refusing to alter the backstop will result in the same thing! 

[oldhippy]

1 minute ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Don't be stupid  -  You can't have knowledge about something that has not been agreed.

So you admit that the people who voted for exit did not know what exactly they were voting for, not even approximately.

While remain = remain, and therefore the majority in the referendum.

[puipuitom]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 3:19 PM, vogie said:

I've got an even better idea, let's stick to realities. Please answer this simple question, if the EU won't talk to us, what is Boris supposed to do, baring in mind we are leaving, it seems to me we have very little choice.

The EU talked for MANY YEARS with the British, latest with Cameron, who got more as the EU wanted to give, but.,. it was NOT ENOUGH. 

So, May tried it again, with the "fear" of a no deal Brexit = economic suicide for the UK. As the EU does NOT want to betray the running budget 2013-2020 as all - incl UK- agreed and signed for, are NOT going to betray the N + S Irish seen the Good Friday Agreement and are NOT able to betray their EU memberstate Eure = seen their veto right, they concluded the maximum in the "May deal". If not enough, leave, and accept the consequenses, but do NOT blame the EU. It's the UK who wants to leave, not the EU who kicked them out.

Did the UK already come with ONE possibility, which would get an agreement in the HoC ? Till now the EU only know no, no, no, no, no

Edited August 8, 2019 by puipuitom

[puipuitom]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 3:26 PM, BritManToo said:

I can see them surviving the loss of 30% of their funding.

They can't afford to let the UK leave.

Look at the import duty which will be levied from 1 Nov on all UK products into the EU.. That GBP 39 Bn is back in one year. 

[oldhippy]

7 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

My point is, the EU by refusing to alter the backstop arrangements will end up with the same 'dilemma' when we leave with no deal. The backstop is supposedly to prevent any need for a hard border. But by refusing to alter it they will end up with a hard border anyway. 

In reality the EU will come up with a solution to the border after no deal. But it is illogical to refuse to alter the backstop on the basis that it is to protect the border arrangements, when refusing to alter the backstop will result in the same thing! 

QUOTE: In reality the EU will come up with a solution to the border after no deal.

 

Again, you put a lot of trust in the EU.

Not to mention the fact that the civil war (the troubles as you would call it) was a British problem, and had nothing to do with the EU.

 

[CG1 Blue]

4 hours ago, abrahamzvi said:

The EU has made compromises when negotiating the deal with ex PM May. Why renegotiate again?

Why renegotiate? Because if they don't the UK will leave the EU without a deal, and both parties will lose out. The Irish economy will be crippled, and other economies will also be hurt at a time when the Eurozone is teetering on the brink of recession. 

This is without the (alleged) implications for the Irish border if there is no deal. 

 

Are these not reasons to renegotiate? 

[CG1 Blue]

3 hours ago, hugh2121 said:

No deal= dramatic fall in the £ possibly to $1. Exports plummet and the economy goes into recession. Many jobs are lost as companies pull out of UK or go bust.

 

A good deal = £ recovers a lot of it's lost ground. Exports resume and the economy recovers most of it's lost ground. Jobs are safe.

 

Remain = £ recovers most, if not all it's lost value. Exports continue as before and economy has potential to expand.

Brexiteers are either too stupid to realise this or have loads of dosh offshore in foreign currencies so stand to make a killing as the £ drops further.

This IS the fault of the EU. The reason I say this is because in the early days of negotiation, UK wanted to discuss a trade deal alongside the financial negotiation. The EU refused, stating that they would only talk about trade AFTER UK had agreed to part with billions of £s. If a trade deal had been agreed at that time, subject to satisfactory financial arrangements there would now be no need for an Irish backstop and the deal already negotiated would have been passed. Job done.

"dramatic fall in the £ possibly to $1. Exports plummet"

 

A dramatic fall in the pound would actually help exports. Just saying...

[puipuitom]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 3:28 PM, BritManToo said:

A better analogy would be the dealer saying

You're buying this car for $39 billion, even though you don't want it, and I'm not letting you leave the showroom until you've paid.

Why a Brexiteer NEVER wants to get information?

That "divorse" bill is nothing else as:

- the budget all EU member states, incl the UK - committed themselves from 2013 - 2020

+ the costs of mutial things like RASFF, EFSA, Eur Med Ag, etc etc etc

+ costs of salaries  pensions of British working for the EU

+ a lot of other well understanding costs, see MANY publications of that, even in the library of the House of Commons, see Nr CPB 7886 of 24 June 2019

[puipuitom]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 3:44 PM, dode57k said:

Another possible downside to leaving is how much of the 39 billion will be spent on replacing the billions Europe give in funding to many parts of the UK? I'd suggest nowhere near.

Library HoC nr CBP 7881 of 24 June 2019, page 3

Edited August 8, 2019 by puipuitom

[oldhippy]

5 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Why renegotiate? Because if they don't the UK will leave the EU without a deal, and both parties will lose out. The Irish economy will be crippled, and other economies will also be hurt at a time when the Eurozone is teetering on the brink of recession. 

This is without the (alleged) implications for the Irish border if there is no deal. 

 

Are these not reasons to renegotiate? 

Renegotiate a compromise at the request of 1 side - that represents less than half the Britisch population?

 

[oldhippy]

6 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

"dramatic fall in the £ possibly to $1. Exports plummet"

 

A dramatic fall in the pound would actually help exports. Just saying...

Great thinking! Back to the 1930's.

Ever heard of John Maynard Keynes?

Bretton Woods rings a bell?

 

[puipuitom]

23 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

"The EU insists on the backstop because it wants to keep the peace."

 

Ok, so tell me this. If we have no deal by 31st October and the UK leaves the EU, what will happen on the Irish border on 1st November? 

 

If you tell me nothing will change, then why do the EU insist on a backstop anyway? 

If you tell me the EU / Ireland will work out a solution to prevent a hard border, then why have they not made this solution public? 

 

I'm curious as to why nobody is asking the EU what they're going to do about the border on 1st November if there is no deal. 

 

You had already 3 years to find a solution for the border custom check. Till now..N O T H I N G !

[CG1 Blue]

1 minute ago, oldhippy said:

Great thinking! Back to the 1930's.

Ever heard of John Maynard Keynes?

Bretton Woods rings a bell?

 

I was simply pointing out a school boy economics error made by somebody who was insinuating Brexiteers are the stupid ones. 

You do have a knack of steering arguments away from the point that's being made! 

[puipuitom]

23 hours ago, ivor bigun said:

Its not just the 39 billion,its the fact that once we leave Germany and France will have to prop up the rest with their countrys money, for years and years ,and without our money .39 billion is just the start of their problems

Do not worry: the levied import duty on British goods for the EU will close that gap in less as a year.

[puipuitom]

21 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

You're not answering my question. If they don't roll over to Bojo and there is NO DEAL, what will the EU / Ireland do from 1st November about the border? 

Simple: just as every outer border for the EU: custom check, import duty, no free traffic. Same at Gibraltar, and the Channel islands.

[david555]

12 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

Why a Brexiteer NEVER wants to get information?

That "divorse" bill is nothing else as:

- the budget all EU member states, incl the UK - committed themselves from 2013 - 2020

+ the costs of mutial things like RASFF, EFSA, Eur Med Ag, etc etc etc

+ costs of salaries  pensions of British working for the EU

+ a lot of other well understanding costs, see MANY publications of that, even in the library of the House of Commons, see Nr CPB 7886 of 24 June 2019

PPT Give up that explaining to them , …. they don't want to understand  …..same as  close up their letterbox for the mail man ,so no bills can come in   (they think ….!????) lol  

[oldhippy]

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I was simply pointing out a school boy economics error made by somebody who was insinuating Brexiteers are the stupid ones. 

You do have a knack of steering arguments away from the point that's being made! 

Sorry, I don't understand.

Were you or were you not suggesting that a weak pound would be good for exports?

And what is this school boy doing in your reply?

 

[puipuitom]

21 hours ago, UKresonant said:

If only the clock could be turned back and the EU had indicated some possibility of reform, like very very easy access, rather than free access, and so on..  perhaps the referendum would not have been needed. At least David Cameron set up a democratic vote on the subject, which the MPs agreed to have. 

See in which the EU already came over half-way to the demands of Cameron.

My idea: weven when the EU would have surrendered unconditionally to th UK, it would not have been enough.