brexit.its over let it go

[JonnyF]

13 hours ago, salavan said:

Still in denial because like the coward Cameron your too much of a coward to admit to the consequences of your actions. 

 

Try to keep it civil old boy. Bit early for dutch courage, what time did you start? Very easy to throw insults from behind a keyboard, I very much doubt you'd call me a coward if I was stood in front of you so best not to do it from the safety of your grotty Pattaya studio ????.

 

Now, let's be nice and get back on topic. What exactly are the consequences of Brexit (not Covid lockdowns, the war in Ukraine etc.). Apart from record low unemployment, regaining sovereignty, faster vaccine rollout etc.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Try to keep it civil old boy. Bit early for dutch courage, what time did you start? Very easy to throw insults from behind a keyboard, I very much doubt you'd call me a coward if I was stood in front of you so best not to do it from the safety of your grotty Pattaya studio ????.

 

Now, let's be nice and get back on topic. What exactly are the consequences of Brexit (not Covid lockdowns, the war in Ukraine etc.). Apart from record low unemployment, regaining sovereignty, faster vaccine rollout etc.

If nothing else tangible emerged then record low unemployment didn't either. The UK shares this statistic with many countries around the world which have nothing to do with the EU or brexit.

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

If nothing else tangible emerged then record low unemployment didn't either. The UK shares this statistic with many countries around the world which have nothing to do with the EU or brexit.

Many countries are also suffering recession and inflation as well.

 

Many unions too. Like, oh I don't know, the European Union?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-11/eu-says-recession-is-now-here-and-inflation-shock-will-linger-on

 

 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Reading speech written by somebody else from a teleprompter again, obviously. Anyway, off topic for this thread. If you want to start a thread about presidents not having a grip on reality, go for it.

Maybe he just signs things without reading them?

 

I mean it's not like he's in a position of responsibility. So that wouldn't be a concern at all. ????

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Maybe he just signs things without reading them?

 

I mean it's not like he's in a position of responsibility. So that wouldn't be a concern at all. ????

Because no president ever signs anything without thoroughly reading it , right? They never rely on aides to tell them what's in it?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies reported and removed.  Continue and face a suspension. 

 

[SenorTashi]

20 hours ago, ivor bigun said:

we voted for Brexit whether you like it or not

Did you get everything you wanted from it though? Did all the illegal immigrants stop coming from Europe, as promised? 

[ozimoron]

Just now, JonnyF said:

So he was told what was in it?

 

So why did he ask where she was?

off topic

[RayC]

9 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well in the 100 page report the Gov listed all of the changes since Brexit and it stated that the new Blue British passports are the most technically advanced and with zero carbon footprint and you ignored all info above and just concentrated on one word "Blue"

    Yes, the passport colour has changed  , should that not be mentioned in listing ALL the changes , just mention the new high security passports with zero carbon footprint without mentioning the change of colour ?

   A 100 page A4 sized report....................and you concentrate on ONE word BLUE

 

 

 

Reintroduced our iconic  blue passports.   All new British passports are now     blue, a return to their original appearance, with the colour first introduced in 1921,            and updated to be the most technologically      -advanced and secure British passports    ever, with the carbon footprint from their manufacture reduced to net zero.          

Are we meant to deduce from that that being in the EU somehow prevented the UK from introducing these state-of-the-art passports? Who'd have thought that blue pigmentation could be so powerful?

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 Countries don't care whether we're in that silly club, they just want to do business with us.

Obviously overseas companies' (outside of the EEA) want to do business in the UK if it is profitable for them, but I'd suggest that they would much prefer it if the UK was part of the bloc as they now have to potentially deal with two separate points of entry and regulatory regimes. All adds to the costs and time, especially if goods are to be re-exported into the EU (or UK).

 

In any event, EEA member states - some of whom happen to be our biggest trading partners - would almost certainly prefer us to be within the block.

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Having said that, you can have huge trade relations without trade deals anyway. The EU and the US is a good example.

Undoubtedly true. But it is also equally true that reducing barriers such as quotas, tariffs and red tape tends to increase the level of trade.

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

My source is the office for national statistics. Never heard of Macrotrends...

 

Couldn't be bothered with the other 6 points, since they were flippant comments which basically amounted to "The EU had zero control over you when you were in the EU" which is not really worthy of a reply. The only one you provided any evidence for, I debunked.

Ok, since you don't want to handle those answers (to YOUR questions by the way), how about this one?

7. No longer propping up the economies of Poland, Greece, Hungary with vast net contributions set by Brussels. From January 2021, the estimated bill was £25bn left to pay by 2057, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), almost £18bn of which will be paid in the first five years.  https://www.bbc.com/news/51110096. Also, The UK contributes to a fund which could be used to channel emergency funding to Eurozone countries, but an EU law made in 2015 ensures that the UK would be “immediately and fully compensated” for any losses caused by a Eurozone member.  https://fullfact.org/europe/will-uk-pay-future-eurozone-bailouts/

 

Any thoughts?

 

[cdnvic]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Ok, since you don't want to handle those answers (to YOUR questions by the way), how about this one?

7. No longer propping up the economies of Poland, Greece, Hungary with vast net contributions set by Brussels. From January 2021, the estimated bill was £25bn left to pay by 2057, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), almost £18bn of which will be paid in the first five years.  https://www.bbc.com/news/51110096. Also, The UK contributes to a fund which could be used to channel emergency funding to Eurozone countries, but an EU law made in 2015 ensures that the UK would be “immediately and fully compensated” for any losses caused by a Eurozone member.  https://fullfact.org/europe/will-uk-pay-future-eurozone-bailouts/

 

Any thoughts?

 

Here are my thoughts. The UK was the second largest net contributor, helping countries like Romania, Greece and Poland get a net benefit.

 

Essentially we put in, they took out. 

 

Why should the UK taxpayer bail out other member states failing economies? Answer? We no longer have to.

 

https://www.statista.com/chart/18135/member-state-contributions-to-eu-budget/

 

[JonnyF]

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

Obviously overseas companies' (outside of the EEA) want to do business in the UK if it is profitable for them, but I'd suggest that they would much prefer it if the UK was part of the bloc as they now have to potentially deal with two separate points of entry and regulatory regimes. All adds to the costs and time, especially if goods are to be re-exported into the EU (or UK).

That's why we rolled over loads of the trade agreements. So for many countries outside the EU, they have the same regulations and tariffs as before.

 

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

In any event, EEA member states - some of whom happen to be our biggest trading partners - would almost certainly prefer us to be within the block.

They might prefer it. But that it is up the British people to decide, not European corporations.

 

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Undoubtedly true. But it is also equally true that reducing barriers such as quotas, tariffs and red tape tends to increase the level of trade.

That's true. And if it had remained a common trading area like it started out (maybe it could have been called something like the common market ????) I am sure we would have stayed. However the power hungry Euro politicians couldn't resist empire building. They over-reached massively with their federalist project, and now we are gone. I'd much rather put up with a few trade quotas than surrender sovereignty to a bunch of European technocrats, but I realize others feel that money is far more important than petty things like having true democracy and agency.

[RayC]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Here are my thoughts. The UK was the second largest net contributor, helping countries like Romania, Greece and Poland get a net benefit.

 

Essentially we put in, they took out. 

 

Why should the UK taxpayer bail out other member states failing economies? Answer? We no longer have to.

 

https://www.statista.com/chart/18135/member-state-contributions-to-eu-budget/

 

It's no different to any other form of investment e.g. regional 'aid' (poor choice of word) in the UK. Investing in the less developed areas will, hopefully, stimulate the local economy and make locals and investors wealthier.

[RayC]

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

That's why we rolled over loads of the trade agreements. So for many countries outside the EU, they have the same regulations and tariffs as before.

Wasn't part of the justification for leaving that we could depart from the EU regulatory regime? If that happens presumably we'll have to renegotiate these 70-odd roll-over agreements? (And some people on this board claim that Brexit is done and dusted)

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

They might prefer it. But that it is up the British people to decide, not European corporations.

It is. But perhaps some of the British people should have paid more attention to the voices of British industry who warned that Brexit would have negative economic effects.

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

That's true. And if it had remained a common trading area like it started out (maybe it could have been called something like the common market ????) I am sure we would have stayed.

50/60/70 years ago the world was a simpler place. The limited regulation associated with the EEC would not had been fit for purpose in 2022.

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

However the power hungry Euro politicians couldn't resist empire building. They over-reached massively with their federalist project, and now we are gone.

This is just unsubstantiated, empty rhetoric. 

 

There are federalists in Europe but there are in the minority. There will not be a federal EU in my lifetime. Any such development would require treaty change and unanimous support from member states. Where is the evidence that Berlin and Paris would support this, let alone Budapest and Warsaw?

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I'd much rather put up with a few trade quotas than surrender sovereignty to a bunch of European technocrats, but I realize others feel that money is far more important than petty things like having true democracy and agency.

Again more empty rhetoric. 

 

European technocrats do not pass EU legislation although they draft it (rather like UK civil servants). EU regulation has to be supported by elected EU parliamentarians and heads of government from the EU member states. If it isn't, it will not become law.

 

As I have repeatedly stated previously, the UK had to implement 3% of EU legislation against its' will (a similar figure to Germany who supposedly run things). In any organisation, compromise has to be present. I think 'losing' 3% of sovereignty is a price worth paying for the benefits of EU membership. Maybe you don't. Never the twain ....

 

And what is true democracy? The current UK electoral system? I don't think so. The ability to be 'Masters of our own destiny"? Well, that fallacy was laid to rest a few weeks ago.

[JonnyF]

39 minutes ago, RayC said:

It's no different to any other form of investment e.g. regional 'aid' (poor choice of word) in the UK. Investing in the less developed areas will, hopefully, stimulate the local economy and make locals and investors wealthier.

But the UK is a country. So it is expected that tax is dividing up amongst the areas of that country.

 

The EU is supposed to be a trading bloc. It is not (yet) a United States of Europe, although I am sure that is what many Euro technocrats are working towards, complete with EU Army etc. So why should richer nations within a trading bloc give aid (I actually think it's a good choice of word) to poorer nations? I want my taxes spent on my local area, not some region in Poland or shoring up the Greek economy simply because they are part of the same common trading area as us.

 

The creeping federalism of the EU was unacceptable to many, hence the vote to leave the project. 

[KhunLA]

????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

But the UK is a country. So it is expected that tax is dividing up amongst the areas of that country.

 

The EU is supposed to be a trading bloc. It is not (yet) a United States of Europe, although I am sure that is what many Euro technocrats are working towards, complete with EU Army etc. So why should richer nations within a trading bloc give aid (I actually think it's a good choice of word) to poorer nations? I want my taxes spent on my local area, not some region in Poland or shoring up the Greek economy simply because they are part of the same common trading area as us.

 

The creeping federalism of the EU was unacceptable to many, hence the vote to leave the project. 

The prospect of the he CCCTB was what caused people wedded to tax avoidance to push for Brexit,  hedgefund managers joined tgen sensing an opportunity to bet against the UK.

 

 

[Mavideol]

20 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It would have . 

The E.U had numerous rules and bureaucracy that the U.K would have needed to comply with  and rules and regulations to comply with the E.U . 

   The independent UK made the vaccine and was selling it Worldwide  and vaccinating British people , whilst the E.U still waiting and following all their rules and regulations and they didnt have a vaccine 

so now the UK has no rules and regulations look where it's going... down hill 555

[puchooay]

22 hours ago, sammieuk1 said:

Unfortunately you cant let Brexit go when you get the stark reminder of what it did to the pound every time you exchange the wrenched things my personal calculation is a about 1.5m Baht loss and increasing ???? 

Actually, the pound lost more in percentage terms in the 11 years preceding Brexit.

 

Take a look at what happened to EU membership in that time. 

 

Coincidences? Likely not.

[puchooay]

5 hours ago, SenorTashi said:

Did all the illegal immigrants stop coming from Europe, as promised? 

Not yet,  as the woke opposition keep stopping the plans. Had there already been a few planes full of immigrants sent to Rwanda, there would be far far fewer boats turning up on our shores.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

But the UK is a country. So it is expected that tax is dividing up amongst the areas of that country.

 

The EU is supposed to be a trading bloc. It is not (yet) a United States of Europe, although I am sure that is what many Euro technocrats are working towards, complete with EU Army etc. So why should richer nations within a trading bloc give aid (I actually think it's a good choice of word) to poorer nations? I want my taxes spent on my local area, not some region in Poland or shoring up the Greek economy simply because they are part of the same common trading area as us.

 

The creeping federalism of the EU was unacceptable to many, hence the vote to leave the project. 

I can only repeat what I already said.

 

In previous guises, the EU may have simply been a trading block. It has evolved with the times out of necessity and is now an economic and political entity. Clearly you think this a bad thing; I don't. As I said, never the twain ...

 

The amount of money available to the UK government to be invested in your local area has been reduced as a result of the decision to leave the EU. How's that a good thing?

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

I can only repeat what I already said.

 

In previous guises, the EU may have simply been a trading block. It has evolved with the times out of necessity and is now an economic and political entity. Clearly you think this a bad thing; I don't. As I said, never the twain ...

Why was it necessary to evolve from a trading block into a political, federalist project? I don't see why that was necessary.

 

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The amount of money available to the UK government to be invested in your local area has been reduced as a result of the decision to leave the EU. How's that a good thing?

Unproven. It's pretty much impossible to say where we would have been without Covid and the war in Ukraine. It's possible there was a % or 2 drop in GDP in the first couple of years but it's way too early to say what the long term effects will be over the next decade or two. It has only been 2-3 years since we left and those 2-3 years were absolutely devastated financially by Covid lockdowns and the war. It is quite possible that the EU is heading into a long, steady decline and hindsight will show we get out at just the right time. Sometimes it is prudent to play the long game when you see an undesirable direction of travel. For example, for all the talk of the pound's demise, it's at the same level vs the Euro that is was in 2010.

 

[RayC]

52 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Why was it necessary to evolve from a trading block into a political, federalist project?

The EU is not a federalist project.

 

52 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I don't see why that was necessary.

One reason is to preserve a level playing field. Ignoring the moral argument for improving animal welfare, allowing a country to ignore minimal standards would give them a (cost of production) advantage over nations with higher standards. Minimal environmental standards are another example. These all have cost implications.

 

(I accept that the introduction of such laws does not ensure a level playing field. In many areas, the UK has stricter animal welfare laws than those laid down by the EU which puts the British farmer at a disadvantage. However, that is not the fault of the EU, and it's a matter for the UK government, NFU and UK consumer to sort out).

 

52 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Unproven. It's pretty much impossible to say where we would have been without Covid and the war in Ukraine.

It's not unproven unless you do not accept the findings of the OBR. In which case, perhaps you could detail the flaws in their methodology.

 

52 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It's possible there was a % or 2 drop in GDP in the first couple of years but it's way too early to say what the long term effects will be over the next decade or two.

The longer the time horizon the less reliable the forecast. BUT where is the evidence to suggest that leaving the EU will lead to an improvement in the UK's economic performance over the next two decades? There is none 

 

52 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It has only been 2-3 years since we left and those 2-3 years were absolutely devastated financially by Covid lockdowns and the war.

So what? So were EU member states and all other nations.

 

52 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It is quite possible that the EU is heading into a long, steady decline and hindsight will show we get out at just the right time.

Pure supposition/ wishful thinking with not a sherd of evidence to support it.

 

52 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Sometimes it is prudent to play the long game when you see an undesirable direction of travel. For example, for all the talk of the pound's demise, it's at the same level vs the Euro that is was in 2010.

 

What long game are we playing? There is no plan because there is nothing to implement that will bring economic benefits.

 

The pound may have been at today's levels back in 2010 but this is the longest sustained period where it has traded at this level. Moreover, the direction of travel is clear: downwards.

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 hours ago, Mavideol said:

so now the UK has no rules and regulations look where it's going... down hill 555

Anarchy in the U.K.

[Mavideol]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Anarchy in the U.K.

that's to extreme, let's stick to the "down hill"   555

[Mac Mickmanus]

19 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

that's to extreme, let's stick to the "down hill"   555

You do realise that the U.K has its own rules and regulations that need to be adhered to ?

   I hope that you dont think that there are no rules in the U.K , just because we are not ruled by the E.U anymore

[Mavideol]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

You do realise that the U.K has its own rules and regulations that need to be adhered to ?

   I hope that you dont think that there are no rules in the U.K , just because we are not ruled by the E.U anymore

and yet still going down hill ...  EU rules and regulations much better and no down hill   555

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Mavideol said:

and yet still going down hill ...  EU rules and regulations much better and no down hill   555

no not go downhill , just little down 555555