Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Buce

What's in the news?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

When your 'opponent' knows that you only have 2 trillion, that they have 16 trillion, that you need them for 40% of your wealth, that they need you for significantly less,

Sorry but that is just complete nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, davieG said:

Because we never showed in any way that we were serious about a no deal and they could see that as well.

Probs because it's madness. We'd need a mad person to suggest that. And with 45% of our exports and 53% of our imports at stake they'd want us to try it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Foxxed said:

Selling stuff. Not wealth.

Not even that, selling some stuff that you sell overseas.  And again, your numbers are nonsense.  We buy more in absolute $ from EU countries than they do from us.  Third biggest economy in the EU.

You would do well to realise the EU also know they are going to be ****ed in the next few years without our money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She made a point of stating that the agreed deal comprises 2 parts (withdrawal agreement & declaration on future relations).

 

I presume she intends to go to Brussels to get them to make a few changes to the (non-binding, political, not legal) declaration on future relations.

 

Cannot imagine that shifting many votes her way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

she's getting embarrassed now. 

 

everyone standing up asking for the vote / people's vote and she's just repeating the same lines.

 

this vote needs to happen tomorrow and her deal will get voted down and she should resign. 

 

i find it alarming how she has completely ignored scotland and ireland in these negotiations - incredible.

 

Edited by lifted*fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

She made a point of stating that the agreed deal comprises 2 parts (withdrawal agreement & declaration on future relations).

 

I presume she intends to go to Brussels to get them to make a few changes to the (non-binding, political, not legal) declaration on future relations.

 

Cannot imagine that shifting many votes her way.

Certainly nowhere near the number she would need to win the vote.

 

Some serious nonsense being spoken in the house today, one MP now has just stood up and claimed she's being held hostage by the ERG - if that's case what the fcuk happened to the deal.

 

Frightens me that we have elected MP's that seem to know almost absolutely nothing about politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Sorry who said we are changing tariffs?  We can unilaterally not apply any tarries on imports from the EU and maintain all other tariffs as they are for as long as we choose.  This is the thing about managing your own trade policy - you get to set your own rules.  

 

All of the models assume we do bloody insane things, rather than the blindingly obvious simple and most practical routes, which is to leave the EU and maintain unilaterally all zero and existing rate tariffs as they are.

We can also while we are at it continue to honur existing payment schedules to farmers so they are not out of pocket.  Etc.  Really not that difficult.

 

Then after things settle down, we can build some capability, and lo if they EU has decided to impose tariffs on imports for the UK, we could for example add them at a time of our choosing to say Cars.  Good hey?  Meanwhile, unlike Theresa's deal we can actually make trade deals with the rest of the world - which unlike now - will only have to suit us, not 27 other states with varying industrial and political interests.

So this was in part my understanding of "falling back on WTO rules" you are right it doesn't mean we will automatically impose import tariffs but it is certainly not as simple as you make out and it really is at the whim of the EU and other trading countries if import tariffs are imposed on our goods or not. There is every chance we get into a tit for tat trade war with someone. This is part of the problem though, a No deal is a fall back option but there is still no clear idea of what a no deal means and what impact it will have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Blatantly refused to answer Justine Greening's simple question: when will the postponed vote take place?

 

Contemptuous and contemptible.

Maybe it never will - she knows this deal isn't going to get accepted so basically dead women walking in her job?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Blatantly refused to answer Justine Greening's simple question: when will the postponed vote take place?

 

Contemptuous and contemptible.

She doesn't even know does she?

 

Honestly wouldn't surprise me if she tried to call the vote on Christmas Day at this point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Super_horns said:

Maybe it never will - she knows this deal isn't going to get accepted so basically dead women walking in her job?

 

 

 

Maybe she will lose her job. But she has to assume responsibility until that happens.

 

She's under a parliamentary obligation to provide a meaningful vote, which she's just postponed without (so far) giving any indication of when that vote will happen.

 

I can understand if there's no precise date as she cannot predict how long any further discussions with the EU will take. But Greening asked for an assurance that it would happen in "days, not weeks".

She simply did not respond to that, which is a contemptuous attitude towards our democratically-elected parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...