May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[billd766]

3 hours ago, mommysboy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/01/poll-european-eu-rights-brexit

 

Poll finds that 60% of Britons want to keep their EU citizenship.  Well, you know, am I missing something here?  Do we still want out or not?

 

I wish these pollsters would ask one very simple question : Do you still want to leave the EU?

 

 

 

You are quite possibly correct, except that it was a poll of only about 2,000 people which in the context of some 32,xxx,xxx who voted both for and against Brexit doesn't mean very much at all.

 

I am quite sure that if another poll was conducted using different questions and a different group of respondent the answers would be completely different.

 

This is the main reason why I take little notice of opinion polls any more.

 

I certainly have no faith in them as generally the poll organisers know the answer to what they want and tailor the questions to get it before they ever start the poll.

 

 

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It was a referendum, not a questionnaire. You lot includes anyone that can't accept just that. 

How would you lot go about it then?  What's your lot's plan?  What sort of lot will the rest of us lot be in once the numpties have achieved Brexit at all costs.  We'll just be a lot of job lots. 

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

You are quite possibly correct, except that it was a poll of only about 2,000 people which in the context of some 32,xxx,xxx who voted both for and against Brexit doesn't mean very much at all.

 

I am quite sure that if another poll was conducted using different questions and a different group of respondent the answers would be completely different.

 

This is the main reason why I take little notice of opinion polls any more.

 

I certainly have no faith in them as generally the poll organisers know the answer to what they want and tailor the questions to get it before they ever start the poll.

 

 

I wonder too. I doubt if people in Wakefield are that bothered about European job prospects.

 

Nowt so funny as folk, even phd qualified ones.

 

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by mommysboy

[SheungWan]

12 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

You are quite possibly correct, except that it was a poll of only about 2,000 people which in the context of some 32,xxx,xxx who voted both for and against Brexit doesn't mean very much at all.

 

I am quite sure that if another poll was conducted using different questions and a different group of respondent the answers would be completely different.

 

This is the main reason why I take little notice of opinion polls any more.

 

I certainly have no faith in them as generally the poll organisers know the answer to what they want and tailor the questions to get it before they ever start the poll.

 

 

Most know-nothings haven't the faintest clue as to (or interest in for that matter) valid sampling numbers or methodology. Just throw out what they feel  is right or wrong or not.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Care to cite some sources to back up your claim?

The EU accounts have a long history of not fully passing audit. Ask Paul van Buitenen and Marta Andreason and see: 

 

http://www.richardmilton.net/have-the-eu-accounts-been-signed-off-or-not/

 

After these two blew the whistle they were fired. From 2002 the EU accounts as a whole have not been signed off because the budget since then has one part called “opinion on the underlying payments which have been negative or adverse” and this never gets cleared. 

[nauseus]

35 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

How would you lot go about it then?  What's your lot's plan?  What sort of lot will the rest of us lot be in once the numpties have achieved Brexit at all costs.  We'll just be a lot of job lots. 

Well, the basic plan has already been outlined in the white paper - The United Kingdom’s exit from, and new partnership with, the European Union.

 

How fine our lot will be eventually, will really depend on the other lot!

[Flustered]

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

You can spin it any way you want, you obviously believe that Donald is going to give Maggie May the best deal possible in the next few weeks.

Keep digging.

 

I do not make up Fake News and then try to talk my way out of it.

 

 

[Srikcir]

10 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Keep digging.

 

I do not make up Fake News and then try to talk my way out of it.

 

 

It took Trump 11 times to hear the explanation that the US cannot make a separate trade deal with an EU member country. UK is currently a member country of the EU.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-eu-2017-4

As with the EU's sole competency above that means that Britain cannot in fact sign a trade deal with anyone, not even the US, before March 2019.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/23/trump-now-puts-britain-behind-eu-in-queue-for-trade-deal-not-that-it-matters/#4abc81f53a77

Perhaps you can understand with only three tries?

[Flustered]

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

It took Trump 11 times to hear the explanation that the US cannot make a separate trade deal with an EU member country. UK is currently a member country of the EU.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-eu-2017-4

As with the EU's sole competency above that means that Britain cannot in fact sign a trade deal with anyone, not even the US, before March 2019.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/23/trump-now-puts-britain-behind-eu-in-queue-for-trade-deal-not-that-it-matters/#4abc81f53a77

Perhaps you can understand with only three tries?

Perhaps you should read the posts before jumping in with irrelevant comments.

 

 

[mommysboy]

"Which brings us back to his successor but three, Philip Hammond. Hammond frequently states that the British people (or some of them) voted to leave the EU but not to become poorer. There is a logical problem here: leaving the EU means the nation becomes poorer. Even my eccentric old Brexiter friend Lord Lawson apparently conceded this point recently to a private gathering (I am not betraying a confidence; this was reported in the Evening Standard.)"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/02/hard-brexit-confounded-harder-realities

[mommysboy]

I wonder what golden vision emblazoned the soul of the little Englanders as they donned their blue suits, adjusted the portrait of Maggie Thatcher hanging in the hallway of their little Englander castle, and strolled confidently towards the polling booth to strike one last blow against the evil Germanics for Boris, King, and country.  I imagine in their hubris they paid scant regard to history, nostalgia being their preferred tipple of the past.  Yet, history comes replete with lessons on that most unpredictable of laws: the one of unintended consequences- think Henry V111; the Brexiteers didn't and it could cost them their pile.

 

Think not of that golden vision, but instead of a Britain languishing in recession, house prices tumbling, and a labour government- the first truly socialist one in British history- handed the keys of government for three decades or more as the once great Tory party reenacts civil wars of yesteryear.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

"Which brings us back to his successor but three, Philip Hammond. Hammond frequently states that the British people (or some of them) voted to leave the EU but not to become poorer. There is a logical problem here: leaving the EU means the nation becomes poorer. Even my eccentric old Brexiter friend Lord Lawson apparently conceded this point recently to a private gathering (I am not betraying a confidence; this was reported in the Evening Standard.)"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/02/hard-brexit-confounded-harder-realities

That, is a first class piece.

 

Correct and unarguably so!

 

Thanks for posting it!

[pitrevie]

14 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I wonder what golden vision emblazoned the soul of the little Englanders as they donned their blue suits, adjusted the portrait of Maggie Thatcher hanging in the hallway of their little Englander castle, and strolled confidently towards the polling booth to strike one last blow against the evil Germanics for Boris, King, and country.  I imagine in their hubris they paid scant regard to history, nostalgia being their preferred tipple of the past.  Yet, history comes replete with lessons on that most unpredictable of laws: the one of unintended consequences- think Henry V111; the Brexiteers didn't and it could cost them their pile.

 

Think not of that golden vision, but instead of a Britain languishing in recession, house prices tumbling, and a labour government- the first truly socialist one in British history- handed the keys of government for three decades or more as the once great Tory party reenacts civil wars of yesteryear.

 

It was summed up so well many years ago by John Harvey-Jones chairman of ICI who believed that the combination of Thatcher's free market zealotry and Fortress Britain mentality were killing the country's industrial core. In his 1986 Dimbleby lecture, he remarked: "If we imagine the UK can get by with a bunch of people in smocks showing tourists around medieval castles, we are quite frankly out of our tiny minds."

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

"Which brings us back to his successor but three, Philip Hammond. Hammond frequently states that the British people (or some of them) voted to leave the EU but not to become poorer. There is a logical problem here: leaving the EU means the nation becomes poorer. Even my eccentric old Brexiter friend Lord Lawson apparently conceded this point recently to a private gathering (I am not betraying a confidence; this was reported in the Evening Standard.)"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/02/hard-brexit-confounded-harder-realities

 

21 minutes ago, Grouse said:

That, is a first class piece.

 

Correct and unarguably so!

 

Thanks for posting it!

There is a saying: 'You break it, you own it.'  And there are two contradictory opinions which are not resolved (well actually they are). The first is that the UK wants to stay in the Single Market and the second is that the UK is not prepared to comply with the free movement of labour requirement. Cannot have both. And the Labour Party have now capitulated on the second. So what does the desire not to become poorer mean in practice moving forwards?

Edited July 2, 2017 by SheungWan

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

That, is a first class piece.

 

Correct and unarguably so!

 

Thanks for posting it!

 

I don't think that a totally biased opinion could be described as correct!  There is no real evidence, as described at the column header. 

 

Of course people don't want to be poorer. But as usual the non-economic questions are ignored!

 

But I'm sure that you  enjoyed it anyway, Grouse.

 

 

[rockingrobin]

29 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

There is a saying: 'You break it, you own it.'  And there are two contradictory opinions which are not resolved (well actually they are). The first is that the UK wants to stay in the Single Market and the second is that the UK is not prepared to comply with the free movement of labour requirement. Cannot have both. And the Labour Party have now capitulated on the second. So what does the desire not to become poorer mean in practice moving forwards?

The Single Market cannot be an option if you rule out ECJ , as T.May did suring the Cons conference.

The SM simply would not function if there are differing rules/regulation in each of the member states. 

[mommysboy]

42 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

There is a saying: 'You break it, you own it.'  And there are two contradictory opinions which are not resolved (well actually they are). The first is that the UK wants to stay in the Single Market and the second is that the UK is not prepared to comply with the free movement of labour requirement. Cannot have both. And the Labour Party have now capitulated on the second. So what does the desire not to become poorer mean in practice moving forwards?

Not just the free movement of labour: UK (well the Brexiteers) are not prepared to cede jurisdiction.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The Single Market cannot be an option if you rule out ECJ , as T.May did suring the Cons conference.

The SM simply would not function if there are differing rules/regulation in each of the member states. 

 

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Not just the free movement of labour: UK (well the Brexiteers) are not prepared to cede jurisdiction.

IMHO although single market and free labour mobility are incompatible in principle as far as EU rules are concerned, de jure can be modified into de facto to some extent eg transitional arrangements which are in the process of being negotiated as part of the divorce.  I believe the UK government is for example in the process of getting passed a whole range of EU laws wholesale into English law? Not at all what the forum conspiracy theory/hard brexiteers have in mind. They want there to be zero negotiations and a walk away from the table right now.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, pitrevie said:

 

It was summed up so well many years ago by John Harvey-Jones chairman of ICI who believed that the combination of Thatcher's free market zealotry and Fortress Britain mentality were killing the country's industrial core. In his 1986 Dimbleby lecture, he remarked: "If we imagine the UK can get by with a bunch of people in smocks showing tourists around medieval castles, we are quite frankly out of our tiny minds."

Sir John Harvey Jones is a hero of mine! Why don't we have so many great British Men these days?

[SheungWan]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sir John Harvey Jones is a hero of mine! Why don't we have so many great British Men these days?

Whatever happened to ICI? Gone. Harvey Nichols still around though.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

There is a saying: 'You break it, you own it.'  And there are two contradictory opinions which are not resolved (well actually they are). The first is that the UK wants to stay in the Single Market and the second is that the UK is not prepared to comply with the free movement of labour requirement. Cannot have both. And the Labour Party have now capitulated on the second. So what does the desire not to become poorer mean in practice moving forwards?

There is a glaringly obvious way to square the circle. I think the whole EU wants to ADJUST the regulations on free movement. I could write suitable clauses in an hour. Then have our Micky Mouse,  Brexiteer government APPLY the damn rules properly.

 

This is ALL completely unnecessary.

 

Doesnt it strike you as odd that all the diehard Brexiteers have something in common? I am not going to tell you what the common denominator is though ?

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I don't think that a totally biased opinion could be described as correct!  There is no real evidence, as described at the column header. 

 

Of course people don't want to be poorer. But as usual the non-economic questions are ignored!

 

But I'm sure that you  enjoyed it anyway, Grouse.

 

 

I loved it!

 

I'm increasingly optimistic that reason and common sense will prevail.

 

We need a side meeting with Macron and Merkel in a pub somewhere; I'll do it!

 

The way forward is OBVIOUS!

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The Single Market cannot be an option if you rule out ECJ , as T.May did suring the Cons conference.

The SM simply would not function if there are differing rules/regulation in each of the member states. 

So get rid of the miserable old bird. She has no idea what she's doing or where she's going. All she wants is to hang to what she's got

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Not just the free movement of labour: UK (well the Brexiteers) are not prepared to cede jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of what exactly?

 

Do people REALLY understand do you think?

 

I don't think the Brexity types understand very much when you get down to detail....

[Grouse]

23 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Whatever happened to ICI? Gone. Harvey Nichols still around though.

God, ICI!

 

Mond Division! Nobel Division! Paints! pharmaceuticals! Agrochemicals! Plastics! 

 

Gone!!! Why????

 

Short termism a la USA. Blind pursuit of shareholder value, monetarism etc etc

 

What about ICL? Sold to Fujitsu

 

Plessey? Mullards? GEC? 

 

Where are our good people???

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

That, is a first class piece.

 

Correct and unarguably so!

 

Thanks for posting it!

And now this from The Economist

 

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21724395-country-has-not-cut-such-pathetic-figure-global-stage-suez-britains-decline

 

So, so true...

[Flustered]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

And now this from The Economist

 

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21724395-country-has-not-cut-such-pathetic-figure-global-stage-suez-britains-decline

 

So, so true...

If you think life is so bad, have you ever considered the Midnight Express?

[Grouse]

16 minutes ago, Flustered said:

If you think life is so bad, have you ever considered the Midnight Express?

Well I am drinking Patron Margaritas so it may be prescient!

[pegman]

11 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Hows that, the link is blocked. 

An esteemed economist with the LSE predicts a 40% drop in property prices. There will be thousands of job loses once the E.U. financial industry leaves London which will get the ball rolling.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Jurisdiction of what exactly?

 

Do people REALLY understand do you think?

 

I don't think the Brexity types understand very much when you get down to detail....

I think he means any influence of the ECJ and EU law.

 

Thanks for the compliment.