• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

glorygloryeze said:
I would still go for no deal. We would love some car manufacturers but not all - they came to be here in the first place for several reasons, one of which was access to the EU markets, but our infraastructure, workforce etc will still be around after Brexit even in the event of a no-deal. Similar with Finance; the finance expertise will not disappear overnight even though it likely will reduce for a time. Again, the infrastructure we have will remain (ha!) and The City Of London won't crumble and will be around long afterwards.

Customs Mayhem: well we would have to put in place some form of infrastructure to cope with that for sure, but that's why government exists to solve those issues.
The fall in pound: we'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, but again that's what the Bank of England are for: to manage the economy accordingly.
Then there are the things that we buy from the EU: agricultural products, cars etc: we will still wnat to buy them, will they really not want to sell them to us or make those sales totally prohibitive?

If say, 100M worth of Spanish mangoes aren't bought by us, do they have a ready-made buyer to sell those quantities to instead? Or will they just allow them to rot in the fields?

The way i see it no-deal is not a total disaster but sadly May and our government have acted apologetically like it is.

:(
Click to expand...
The level of trade related exposure to Brexit in the EU is relatively small, 1-2% of their GDP. It will sting but impact is manageable. The effects to the UK economy of dropping out ot some 700+ treaties overnight will be disasterous in the short and medium term. There are no arguments around this.
 
Last edited:
glorygloryeze said:
I would still go for no deal. We would love some car manufacturers but not all - they came to be here in the first place for several reasons, one of which was access to the EU markets, but our infraastructure, workforce etc will still be around after Brexit even in the event of a no-deal. Similar with Finance; the finance expertise will not disappear overnight even though it likely will reduce for a time. Again, the infrastructure we have will remain (ha!) and The City Of London won't crumble and will be around long afterwards.

Customs Mayhem: well we would have to put in place some form of infrastructure to cope with that for sure, but that's why government exists to solve those issues.
The fall in pound: we'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, but again that's what the Bank of England are for: to manage the economy accordingly.
Then there are the things that we buy from the EU: agricultural products, cars etc: we will still wnat to buy them, will they really not want to sell them to us or make those sales totally prohibitive?

If say, 100M worth of Spanish mangoes aren't bought by us, do they have a ready-made buyer to sell those quantities to instead? Or will they just allow them to rot in the fields?

The way i see it no-deal is not a total disaster but sadly May and our government have acted apologetically like it is.

:(
Click to expand...

I agree finance and the city won’t all go at once, but Paris will steadily take over as the finance hub for Europe imo. That slow process has started already. The French are rubbing their hands together. It’s an industry that must bring in 10s of billions to the Exchequer. Even if you lose just 2 billion in Exchequer revenue, where would you suggest cutting UK government servoces to pay for that? Same with manufacturing jobs, easy to say fuk em but then we all pay. Redundant workers don’t pay income tax, companies that have moved out don’t pay corporation tax and instead we pay benefits to out of work people who used to have a job.

You think it’s all pie in the sky? Scaremongering. PF. Look at the UK pre-EU, we had 3 day weeks, our economy was far worse than France and Germany, and in the EU we caught them up and surpased France. Like you say the decline won’t happen overnight but a no deal exit would impact trade with our closest trading partners and cause the UK to go stadily backwards. I can’t understand why anyone would want that, especially when there are no upsides to Brexit. What do you get back in return!?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
Revoking article 50 would require MPs to go against the result of the referendum - there will not be a majority for that, there never has been.

That means, in order to get such a majority we would need an election. That would require a vote of no confidence. There are not enough MPs who would vote for that, because the default result of it would be Corbyn.
Click to expand...

MPs don't need to vote to revoke article 50, but they can now vote for a 2nd referendum with Remain on the ballot, knowing we can remain with existing terms. Grieve's amendment (which has already been voted through) facilitates Benn's amendment (or another like it) which then facilitates a 2nd referendum. That's the point. That's why (imo) May's language has changed to include "no Brexit at all" as an option if her deal is voted down.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Good posts [emoji106]

Number one: the EU at heart is a customs union allowing free trade. We like that. Almost no one wants to stop open trade. It’s what makes us wealthy and able to spend on the NHS etc
Click to expand...

If the EU had simply stayed as a customs union that encouraged free trade between neighbours, Brexit wouldn't have happened. Of course we've had ECJ, EU Parliament now budding EU army so things have evolved beyond 'just trade' as you know..

SpurMeUp said:
Number two: the EU doesn’t run the UK. We have a sovereign government, we see it and talk about it everyday because it’s dealing with all the core laws. We don’t talk about EU government because it does very little - things mainly around trade. Food safety laws for example. You would t know it from reading the press over the last 20 years but the EUs work is generally good but boring- pollution laws, trade disputes etc. The papers found a way to make it more interesting and appeal to the xenophobe in all of us - take the tinkle out of the Eu and Jonny foreigner telling us what to do. The reality is quite different.
Click to expand...

The EU is seeking and has sought to poke it's nose into more than just trading standards; look at how they have worried about Corbyn giving 'state aid' to industries or the ruling a few weeks back (smothered by other Brexit news) whereby they rules against the Government regarding backup enegry subsidies: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sidies-illegal-european-court-capacity-market
This should be on NO BUSINESS of the EU! If i want a communist government to come in and socialise industry i should be able to vote for that, similarly if i want a right-wing government who wants to privatise everything and do away with all social welfare i should be able to vote for that.[/quote]

SpurMeUp said:
If you can tell me an EU law that negatively affects you day to day I would have more time for Leave.
Click to expand...

See the ruling above. Not the EU's business!

SpurMeUp said:
We manage our economy now, we don’t ‘outsource’ any core things to the EU. The EU won’t go anywhere it will still dominate political influence on our continent - a means to coordinate 27 countries - it’s just that we won’t be able to influence anymore. Trade standards, political responses to the US, Russia, China are stronger via the EU. The UK doesn’t actually matter by itself, far better to work with allies, and talk with authority on the world stage.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

Indeed we SHOULD manage our economy and so it's not a 'cliff-edge' if we leave the EU club. We do outsource all the things that are done centrally like EU-wide trading standards, legislation and all the 'boring things' you often refer to that the EU does for the good of the bloc. I'm not bothered about whether the EU goes anywhere or not but i believe the UK can continue to have a good relationship with it outside the bloc.
We often have UK responses to Russia, China etc as an individual country and last time i checked it had an individual seat and veto at the UN.
Life can exist outside the EU.
 
SpurMeUp said:
I agree finance and the city won’t all go at once, but Paris will steadily take over as the finance hub for Europe imo. That slow process has started already. The French are rubbing their hands together. It’s an industry that must bring in 10s of billions to the Exchequer. Even if you lose just 2 billion in lost Exchequer revenue, where would you suggest cutting to pay for that? Same with manufacturing jobs, easy to say fuk em but then we all pay. Redundant workers don’t pay income tax, companies don’t pay corporation tax and instead we pay benefits to out of work people who used to have a job.

You think it’s all pie in the sky? Scaremongering. PF. Look at the UK pre-EU, we had 4 day weeks, our economy was far worse than France and Germany. Like you say it won’t happen overnight but a no deal exit would impact trade with our closest trading partners and cause the UK to go backwards. I can’t understand why anyone would want that, especially when there are no upsides to Brexit. What do you get back in return!?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

Can i ask: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece - have their economies got better or worse since joining the EU?
 
Rorschach said:
The level of trade related exposure to Brexit in the EU is relatively small, 1-2% of their GDP. It will sting but impact is manageable. The effects to the UK economy of dropping out ot some 700+ treaties overnight will be disasterous in the short and medium term. There are no arguments around this.
Click to expand...

Disaster from dropping out of treaties is what happens when a no-deal Brexit happens AND there is no infrastructure or plan to exist in a world outside of the EU.
It will be a hit, but not the biggest disaster that it it painted to be imo, certainly when given the choice of remain in a 'one-size-fits-all' club that long-term is not workable across 29-odd diverse countries.

Staying in simply because "we will have no treaties" is a short-term fix
 
the dza said:
MPs don't need to vote to revoke article 50, but they can now vote for a 2nd referendum with Remain on the ballot, knowing we can remain with existing terms. Grieve's amendment (which has already been voted through) facilitates Benn's amendment (or another like it) which then facilitates a 2nd referendum. That's the point. That's why (imo) May's language has changed to include "no Brexit at all" as an option if her deal is voted down.
Click to expand...
From what I've read, a second referendum (especially one involving a "Remain" option) is still not favoured amongst either MPs or the public. In fact, I saw a poll recently that suggested that a second referendum was not even popular amongst Remainers who'd voted remain - the suggestion being that democracy is more important than winning.

A lot of MPs would be on very dodgy ground come the next election if another referendum were to happen.
 
Prime Minister Theresa May begins her statement.

She says that after three days of debate on the withdrawal agreement in the Commons and much discussion outside Parliament, it is clear that there is "broad support" for many of the key aspects to the deal.

However, there remains widespread concern about the backstop.

This would result in defeat for the deal, she says, were MPs to vote on it.

Therefore, she says the government has made the decision to defer the vot
 
glorygloryeze said:
If the EU had simply stayed as a customs union that encouraged free trade between neighbours, Brexit wouldn't have happened. Of course we've had ECJ, EU Parliament now budding EU army so things have evolved beyond 'just trade' as you know..



The EU is seeking and has sought to poke it's nose into more than just trading standards; look at how they have worried about Corbyn giving 'state aid' to industries or the ruling a few weeks back (smothered by other Brexit news) whereby they rules against the Government regarding backup enegry subsidies: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sidies-illegal-european-court-capacity-market
This should be on NO BUSINESS of the EU! If i want a communist government to come in and socialise industry i should be able to vote for that, similarly if i want a right-wing government who wants to privatise everything and do away with all social welfare i should be able to vote for that.
Click to expand...



See the ruling above. Not the EU's business!



Indeed we SHOULD manage our economy and so it's not a 'cliff-edge' if we leave the EU club. We do outsource all the things that are done centrally like EU-wide trading standards, legislation and all the 'boring things' you often refer to that the EU does for the good of the bloc. I'm not bothered about whether the EU goes anywhere or not but i believe the UK can continue to have a good relationship with it outside the bloc.
We often have UK responses to Russia, China etc as an individual country and last time i checked it had an individual seat and veto at the UN.
Life can exist outside the EU.[/QUOTE]

That EU ruling negatively effected you? That was the best you could find? A. The uk government will tell the commission it wants to keep state aid and subside dirty fuel if it wishes to B. This kind of practice is the sort of thing we should be flagged up on. It’s costly to the uk tax payer and creates pollution. C. The challenge was made from the UK, by a UK citizen and UK company! Not an external force at all.

Truth be told, this EU ruling didn’t really effect you. Or me. Or anyone on this board. The real project fear is making the EU out to be something it ain’t. Here’s some of the article with more detail:


Tom Glover, UK country chair of RWE, which owns the biggest fleet of gas power plants in the UK, said he was “deeply disappointed” and his company was facing a “significant negative hit” to its earnings.

Bernstein Research said the suspension of payments would hit earnings at British Gas owner Centrica, plus RWE, Uniper and SSE.

Sara Bell, founder and CEO of Tempus Energy, which started the challenge in 2014, said: “This ruling should ultimately force the UK government to design an energy system that reduces bills by incentivising and empowering customers to use electricity in the most cost-effective way – while maximising the use of climate-friendly renewables.”

The company believes that the capacity market favours fossil fuel generation at the expense of alternative ways of securing electricity supplies, such as “demand side reduction”, where companies reduce electricity demand at times of need.

The winter of 2017/18 was the first year the capacity market was in effect, with companies due to receive £990m for 2018/19.

The scheme works by energy companies bidding years in advance for billpayer-funded subsidies to provide backup power at crunch times during winter.

Labour said the ruling meant that the government would have to rethink the market.

Alan Whitehead, shadow energy minister, said: “This judgment effectively annuls previous state aid permission to provide subsidies for existing fossil fuel power plants. I have long criticised this bizarre arrangement, which simply throws money at old dirty power stations.”

Richard Black, director of the ECIU thinktank, said the ruling should be seen as an opportunity for the government to reshape the market away from fossil fuels and towards battery storage and cleaner technologies.

Clark said the government was already in contact with the European commission and seeking state aid approval, so the capacity market could be reinstated. The business secretary used his speech to celebrate the rise of renewables. “Cheap power is now green power,” he said.



Don’t let complex truth get in the way of simple lies.



Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
From what I've read, a second referendum (especially one involving a "Remain" option) is still not favoured amongst either MPs or the public. In fact, I saw a poll recently that suggested that a second referendum was not even popular amongst Remainers who'd voted remain - the suggestion being that democracy is more important than winning.

A lot of MPs would be on very dodgy ground come the next election if another referendum were to happen.
Click to expand...

Agree with that. But if no-deal isn't an option for Parliament (and it's by far the most unpopular choice amongst MPs) then one sh1t sandwich might be more palatable to MPs and the public than another. The only deal that the majority of the house seem interested in is one along the lines of Norway. The only things that break the impasse is another General Election (and even then, the makeup of Parliament might not change significantly enough) or putting the options to a 2nd public vote. I'd prefer they just went for a Norway-esque arrangement and then get on with governing the country, I don't particularly want another referendum though I can appreciate the case for one.
 
Theresa May says the backstop is a necessary guarentee to the people of Northern Ireland and there is no deal available that does not include the backstop.

She says there are inescapable facts: that Northern Ireland has a border with another sovereign state, that hard-won peace has been built in Northern Ireland over the last two decades over a seamless border, and that after Brexit, the Northern Ireland/Ireland border will be the external frontier of the EU's single market and customs union.

"These challenge posed must be met not with rhetoric, but with real and workable solutions," she says.

The prime minister says: "The people do not want a return to a hard border, and if this House cares about preserving our union, they must listen to these people, because our union will only continue with their consent."

Theresa May says she hopes the changes made will ensure people that the UK will never be trapped in the backstop arrangement permanently, and that the EU won't want it to come into use or persist for long.

Article share tools
 
May's statement just sounds to me like she's doubling down on her deal. There must be a backstop she says. This is the best deal she says.

IMO, she's trying to say to the Brexiters "this is all you are going to get, so you might as well vote for it." I don't think that will work, but we will see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back