Guest MattP Posted 6 December 2017 Posted 6 December 2017 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: Lolz. Monday. Government agrees deal then unagrees deal on the say so of the dup. Tuesday. Brexiteer tory mps write letter to pm demanding red lines Wednesday. Remainer Tories write letter to pm demanding that Brexiteer letter is ignored. David Davis advises that the analysis he said had been thorough hadn't taken into account money and he hasn't even read it. Philip Hammond tells committee cabinet hadn't discussed final deal. An hour later number ten says they will be discussing the final deal before xmas. Philip Hammond tells committee that the UK will pay Brexit bill even if no trade deal. An hour later number ten says nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Boris says we should walk away. WRM says we should tell the EU there's no border. DUP are still running the country and says still work to do on the deal. How you can say anything about labour is bizarre. Nothing wrong with our finest backbenchers reminded the PM of what goverment policy is. I've hardly kept it a secret I think May's intention was to get a bigger majority was so she could water down Brexit, hence HQ turning down candidates like Hannan for parliament. Meanwhile, Labour still has no policy on whether we stay in the single market or not nearly EIGHTEEN months after the referendum, so yes -LOLabour.
Guest MattP Posted 6 December 2017 Posted 6 December 2017 9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Also means we haven’t taken back control of our borders, surely? Hard to see how brexiters are going to be happy with their primary aim* not being achieved *insofar as border control was the key issue for most brexiters We have had a common travel area in Ireland since the 20's. 8 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Zero tariff for any country. So, to take one example, how do you think British farmers will react to new Zealand lamb flooding the market and blocking them out? Well set whatever tariff we see fit, that's the whole idea of it and why we can drop food prices, it works both ways, why should we pay more for fruit because the EU protects Spain? This is exactly why the single market is a protectionist racket. Why not give consumers a choice? Buy British, buy New Zealand lamb cheaper, bizarre that this is something to complain about. One minute people are complaining about the cost of living and the next they are complaining because food might get cheaper.
The Doctor Posted 6 December 2017 Posted 6 December 2017 15 minutes ago, MattP said: We have had a common travel area in Ireland since the 20's. Well set whatever tariff we see fit, that's the whole idea of it and why we can drop food prices, it works both ways, why should we pay more for fruit because the EU protects Spain? This is exactly why the single market is a protectionist racket. Why not give consumers a choice? Buy British, buy New Zealand lamb cheaper, bizarre that this is something to complain about. One minute people are complaining about the cost of living and the next they are complaining because food might get cheaper. You don't set any tariff - you can't. Thats the point - you cannot give Ireland, and as a result the EU, special treatment without a deal. So, never mind causing major political damage and putting domestic industry at risk, I'm alright Jack?
Guest Posted 6 December 2017 Posted 6 December 2017 23 minutes ago, MattP said: We have had a common travel area in Ireland since the 20's. Well set whatever tariff we see fit, that's the whole idea of it and why we can drop food prices, it works both ways, why should we pay more for fruit because the EU protects Spain? This is exactly why the single market is a protectionist racket. Why not give consumers a choice? Buy British, buy New Zealand lamb cheaper, bizarre that this is something to complain about. One minute people are complaining about the cost of living and the next they are complaining because food might get cheaper. This here is the problem with Brexit. Woeful ignorance of reality.
Webbo Posted 6 December 2017 Posted 6 December 2017 12 minutes ago, The Doctor said: You don't set any tariff - you can't. Thats the point - you cannot give Ireland, and as a result the EU, special treatment without a deal. So, never mind causing major political damage and putting domestic industry at risk, I'm alright Jack? Look up comparative advantage. Protectionism is a bad idea for all.
Strokes Posted 6 December 2017 Posted 6 December 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Look up comparative advantage. Protectionism is a bad idea for all. Only when trump does it 1
ajthefox Posted 6 December 2017 Posted 6 December 2017 5 hours ago, toddybad said: As far as I can see only Britain - and more specifically leave voters - thinks things is a game to be won or lost. I'm not so sure. You seem to be perpetually revelling in negative headlines from what I can tell. 2
lifted*fox Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 it's a game to be won and we're winning babyyyyy
Guest Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 'No-deal' Brexit would be worst outcome possible for UK, Lords warn Report by cross-party committee of peers accuses government of failing to prepare and warns of legal and economic chaos Lorries wait to embark ferries at the Port of Dover. A report by the House of Lords said that walking away from talks with the EU would have catastrophic economic implications. Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images Dan Roberts Brexit policy editor Published:00:01 GMT+00:00 Thu 7 December 2017 Follow Dan Roberts It is impossible to imagine a worse outcome for Britain than failing to agree a Brexit deal, the House of Lords will warn on Thursday, in a last-ditch warning to ministers under increasing pressure to walk away from stalled talks with the EU. In a 60-page report that predicts legal and economic chaos without an exit agreement, the cross-party committee of peers cautions that a government strategy of brinkmanship with Brussels “risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy”. “‘No deal’ would mean the abrupt cessation of over 40 years of economic, political and legal partnership,” they conclude. “It is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage a worse outcome for the United Kingdom.” DUP leader finally talks to May but says border issue still needs work The government was accused of failing to prepare for the future on Wednesday after the chancellor, Philip Hammond, revealed there had been no cabinet discussion on Britain’s ultimate relationship with Europe, and the Brexit secretary, David Davis, said no assessment of the likely impact on different business sectors had been carried out. AdvertisementHide Theresa May is also facing a backlash from hardliners in the cabinet after it emerged that the only way to salvage a stricken first-phase agreement over Northern Ireland might be to extend EU regulatory alignment to the whole of the UK – a soft Brexit option many regard as the worst of all worlds. Now the Lords report warns that the alternative of walking away from the talks entirely and relying on existing WTO trade rules would have catastrophic implications, ranging from a 20% rise in food prices and grounded airline flights, to the loss of 75,000 jobs in the City and £8-10bn in tax revenues. “A complete ‘no-deal’ outcome would ... bring UK-EU cooperation on matters vital to the national interest, such as counter-terrorism, police, justice and security matters, nuclear safeguards, data exchange and aviation, to a sudden halt,” said the report, after taking evidence from more than 50 expert witnesses. What does a 'no deal' Brexit mean and how bad could it get? “It would place the status of UK nationals in the EU, and EU nationals in the UK, in jeopardy, and would necessarily lead to the imposition of controls at the Irish land border. “The short-term impact on trade in goods would also be grave,” the peers added. “The UK’s ports would be overwhelmed by the requirement for customs and other checks. There is simply not enough time to provide the necessary capacity, IT systems, human resource and expertise to deal with such an outcome.” The Lords warning came as business leaders also accused the Tory party of “gross irresponsibility” for considering a no-deal route out of the Brexit impasse. “To those politicians suggesting we walk away from the negotiating table, I have a simple message: careless talk will cost jobs,” the CBI president, Paul Drechsler, told an audience in the City on Wednesday night. “Businesses will press snooze for as long as they can – but the alarm will go off,” he added. British business leaders have long warned that failure to move on from phase one talks by next week could force them to take painful contingency measures to prepare for a no-deal Brexit, but the Lords report sets out in unprecedented detail why it fears such a scenario could come about by accident. “The key factor adding to the risk of ‘no deal’ is the lack of time,” the peers write. “While we reiterate our support for the government’s goal of securing a comprehensive agreement by October 2018, the uncertainty over the feasibility of that aim means that the overriding UK and EU interest is now to secure an orderly and legally certain transition, as early as possible.” The committee also dismissed testimony provided by David Davis in which he claimed there could still be a “bare bones” deal with the EU if the main exit negotiations broke down. The peers argued that a disorderly breakup would be more likely to lead to a widespread breakdown in trust between the two sides. Lord Jay, acting committee chairman and a former ambassador to France, said: “The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that ‘no-deal’ would be the worst possible outcome for the UK, in terms of the economy, security, the environment and citizens’ rights.” Campaigners against a hard Brexit claimed the report provided damning evidence against the theory that Britain could be prepared to walk away. “For months we have have heard bluster from Brexiteers about how no deal is better than a bad deal,” said Eloise Todd, of Best For Britain. “What this report finally tells us is that no deal is a bad deal... [it] is a brutal character assassination carried out on the whole, shambolic government.” The government argues that it has to maintain the ‘no-deal’ option to prevent Brussels from dictating all the terms of the exit. Responding to criticism of the government’s strategy during prime minister’s questions, Theresa May claimed “very good progress” had been made in the talks. “We’re leaving the European Union, we’re leaving the single market and the customs union but we will do what is right in the interests of the whole United Kingdom,” she said. “And nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Guest MattP Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, ajthefox said: I'm not so sure. You seem to be perpetually revelling in negative headlines from what I can tell. As you can see, I think Toddy wakes up in the morning and goes straight onto The Guardian to find an article telling us that Brexit is going to be a disaster. Edited 7 December 2017 by MattP
Guest MattP Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 6 hours ago, lifted*fox said: it's a game to be won and we're winning babyyyyy I thought you followed Jeremy Corbyn and his policy "to the hilt"? You do know he voted against the common market, voted against the Maastrict treaty and voted against the Lisbon treaty? He's been walking through the same lobby as all the hard-Brexiteers for years.
Strokes Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 4 minutes ago, MattP said: I thought you followed Jeremy Corbyn and his policy "to the hilt"? You do know he voted against the common market, voted against the Maastrict treaty and voted against the Lisbon treaty? He's been walking through the same lobby as all the hard-Brexiteers for years. Yeah but he is just the leader he will compromise his politics for the good of party and country, he will sell that side no doubt. The man is the only guy to stand up to the bankers and big businesses though, he is principled and will never sell out his politics, he has been fighting for social justice almost as long as fighting the EU/EEC
Guest MattP Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 7 minutes ago, Strokes said: Yeah but he is just the leader he will compromise his politics for the good of party and country, he will sell that side no doubt. The man is the only guy to stand up to the bankers and big businesses though, he is principled and will never sell out his politics, he has been fighting for social justice almost as long as fighting the EU/EEC If the EU didn't have previous for writing member states budgets and imposing austerity on countries that tries radical economic reforms I have no doubt him and McDonnell would already have sold out their principles on this as well - hence why they vanish like a fart in the wind whenever Brexit discussion is in the news.
The Doctor Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 10 hours ago, Webbo said: Look up comparative advantage. Protectionism is a bad idea for all. Definitely not - for one it protects local industry. Besides that, even free trade unions like the EU have some form of protectionism, even if it's just regulatory equivalence - so I couldn't deliberately manufacture low quality on the cheap and flood the market with sub-par products. But back to the point, you cannot just ignore the Irish border and think that solves it.
Webbo Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 6 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Definitely not - for one it protects local industry. Besides that, even free trade unions like the EU have some form of protectionism, even if it's just regulatory equivalence - so I couldn't deliberately manufacture low quality on the cheap and flood the market with sub-par products. But back to the point, you cannot just ignore the Irish border and think that solves it. It protects a few jobs at the cost of our consumers. The money saved would boost the economy enough to make up any loss of jobs. The Irish border is a made up problem, we already have different VAT,excise duties and corporation tax rates with Ireland and operate quite nicely without a border.
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 Bloody hell Grayling. Beat up on BBC Breakfast.
Guest Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 1 hour ago, MattP said: As you can see, I think Toddy wakes up in the morning and goes straight onto The Guardian to find an article telling us that Brexit is going to be a disaster. Pretty hard to find any evidence to the contrary.
lifted*fox Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 1 hour ago, MattP said: I thought you followed Jeremy Corbyn and his policy "to the hilt"? You do know he voted against the common market, voted against the Maastrict treaty and voted against the Lisbon treaty? He's been walking through the same lobby as all the hard-Brexiteers for years. I mostly just follow whatever winds you up the most.
The Doctor Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 3 hours ago, Webbo said: It protects a few jobs at the cost of our consumers. The money saved would boost the economy enough to make up any loss of jobs. The Irish border is a made up problem, we already have different VAT,excise duties and corporation tax rates with Ireland and operate quite nicely without a border. That assumes that all that matters for consumers is price and not safety... Like how we operate without a border with France, because we're in a customs union with them...
Buce Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 Britain's sluggish economy is down to all those useless disabled people in the workforce, according to Hammond. So, they've spent the last seven years telling sick people that they are fit for work, now it's their fault that Britain's economy is crap because they're not up to the job. Do any of them have a clue about anything?
Guest MattP Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 One good thing about our vote to leave, European politicians are now being far more honest about their intentions. The German election must have pickled the brain of Schultz.
Guest Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 21 minutes ago, MattP said: One good thing about our vote to leave, European politicians are now being far more honest about their intentions. The German election must have pickled the brain of Schultz. I always thought that would be a good idea. Certainly better than the current halfway house. A full political and economic union. I like europe, it would have been good.
Rogstanley Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 28 minutes ago, MattP said: One good thing about our vote to leave, European politicians are now being far more honest about their intentions. The German election must have pickled the brain of Schultz. Schulz has been saying things like that for years. Nothing to do with brexit whatsoever. What a load of nonsense.
Webbo Posted 7 December 2017 Posted 7 December 2017 2 hours ago, The Doctor said: That assumes that all that matters for consumers is price and not safety... Like how we operate without a border with France, because we're in a customs union with them... We don't have to buy anything that's unsafe, your original point was about saving jobs.
Recommended Posts