Brexit!

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If 8%, 16% & 18% are massive and huge, just imagine how humungously enormous 44% is.... 

 

Re. Source: If you assume that the European Commission (in which the UK is represented) is fiddling the figures, who would you suggest as a reliable source on EU trade?

Donald Trump? A pimple on Farage's arse? The Namibian Society of Potholing & Potsmoking Ballerinas? The Martian Trade Observation Bureau?

Repeating yourself is unnecessary, Alf.

 

(Though I think it might be the other way round.)

[danfox76]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If 8%, 16% & 18% are massive and huge, just imagine how humungously enormous 44% is.... 

 

Re. Source: If you assume that the European Commission (in which the UK is represented) is fiddling the figures, who would you suggest as a reliable source on EU trade?

Donald Trump? A pimple on Farage's arse? The Namibian Society of Potholing & Potsmoking Ballerinas? The Martian Trade Observation Bureau?

44% export meaning 56% went to others (again a bit of context needed).. and regarding source, rough estimates by a pro e.u. charity .. how can you call yourself full facts charity then give rough estimates.

plus 8%, 16% or 18% of the entire e.u. exports will amount to way more than 44% of the u.k. exports.

[Wolfox]

Oh dear Boris…

[Jon the Hat]

32 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I thought the whole point of trading was basically  "you buy this of me and i'll buy that of you", if all of a sudden you decide to slap a tariff on my goods, well i'm not going to buy your goods and i'll get them from somewhere else.

Even if they are still cheaper than they were before due to the lower GBP / Euro exchange rate?  Seems a bit daft.

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, danfox76 said:

44% export meaning 56% went to others (again a bit of context needed).. and regarding source, rough estimates by a pro e.u. charity .. how can you call yourself full facts charity then give rough estimates.

plus 8%, 16% or 18% of the entire e.u. exports will amount to way more than 44% of the u.k. exports.

 

56% of UK exports didn't go to the EU......likewise 92% of EU exports didn't go to the UK, taking the 8% figure.

Who looks in the stronger negotiating position there? Would be better for everyone to agree a deal, of course & No Deal is lose-lose.

 

When you complained about the source, I assumed you meant the declared source: i.e. the European Commission.

Now, you seem to be bothered about the publisher (Full Fact), not the statistical source. Here's info on Full Fact for anyone interested. Set up by a Tory Party donor, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fact

 

If a "disreputable" charity had been fabricating EU trade stats, you'd think the EU would have been onto them, wouldn't you?

You'd also think they wouldn't be working with the Govt Statistical Service, BBC, ITV, Sky and the Leveson Inquiry....

 

Almost all economic stats are estimates, especially on trade. I'd be more dubious if they were claiming to have precise data.

 

Sorry, must do some work now. Fun debate, though, on a great day for democracy! 

[danfox76]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

56% of UK exports didn't go to the EU......likewise 92% of EU exports didn't go to the UK, taking the 8% figure.

Who looks in the stronger negotiating position there? Would be better for everyone to agree a deal, of course & No Deal is lose-lose.

 

When you complained about the source, I assumed you meant the declared source: i.e. the European Commission.

Now, you seem to be bothered about the publisher (Full Fact), not the statistical source. Here's info on Full Fact for anyone interested. Set up by a Tory Party donor, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fact

 

If a "disreputable" charity had been fabricating EU trade stats, you'd think the EU would have been onto them, wouldn't you?

You'd also think they wouldn't be working with the Govt Statistical Service, BBC, ITV, Sky and the Leveson Inquiry....

 

Almost all economic stats are estimates, especially on trade. I'd be more dubious if they were claiming to have precise data.

 

Sorry, must do some work now. Fun debate, though, on a great day for democracy! 

again its all about context.. like i said 8% of the entire eu exports will be a lot more than our 44%..example that 8% could be worth trillions where as our 44% might only amount to a billion... stats with no context are worthless

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, danfox76 said:

again its all about context.. like i said 8% of the entire eu exports will be a lot more than our 44%..example that 8% could be worth trillions where as our 44% might only amount to a billion... facts with no context are worthless

 

No. It's only slightly more: £289bn v. £345bn according to the UK Parliament (another biased source, I presume?)......https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851

 

So, 1 country (UK) relies on £289bn of exports to 27 countries, equivalent to 44% of its exports.....while 27 countries between them rely on £345bn of exports to 1 country (UK), equivalent to 8% of their exports.

 

Through No Deal, we risk massively disrupting 44% of our exports & 53% of our imports. The EU risks massively disrupting 8% of its exports and about 7% (?) of its imports.

 

Tell Lord Palmerston to send the gunboats to reinforce our strong negotiating position! 

 

[Strokes]

42 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

56% of UK exports didn't go to the EU......likewise 92% of EU exports didn't go to the UK, taking the 8% figure.

Who looks in the stronger negotiating position there? Would be better for everyone to agree a deal, of course & No Deal is lose-lose.

 

When you complained about the source, I assumed you meant the declared source: i.e. the European Commission.

Now, you seem to be bothered about the publisher (Full Fact), not the statistical source. Here's info on Full Fact for anyone interested. Set up by a Tory Party donor, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fact

 

If a "disreputable" charity had been fabricating EU trade stats, you'd think the EU would have been onto them, wouldn't you?

You'd also think they wouldn't be working with the Govt Statistical Service, BBC, ITV, Sky and the Leveson Inquiry....

 

Almost all economic stats are estimates, especially on trade. I'd be more dubious if they were claiming to have precise data.

 

Sorry, must do some work now. Fun debate, though, on a great day for democracy! 

I can’t seem to find the figures at the moment but aren’t the UK the fourth biggest importer in the world? 

[yorkie1999]

If we left the EU, are we free to negotiate trade deals with Germany etc?

[Ric Flair]

3 hours ago, bovril said:

Yes, really. 
Most people undoubtedly understand the workings of the EU, the process of leaving and the trade-offs that requires more than they did in 2016, myself included. 

I'm not confident we are being told the truth though as each side has a vested interest in the outcome they want and paint the picture accordingly. It's the pits

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I can’t seem to find the figures at the moment but aren’t the UK the fourth biggest importer in the world? 

 

DK, but sounds credible. UK is about the 5th or 6th biggest global economy, isn't it? Also a major trading nation with a trade deficit, so wouldn't surprise me.

Ours is certainly one of the biggest domestic markets in the EU - but doesn't compare to the EU27 as a whole (65m population v. 445m, for a start)

 

Which countries would import more? Certainly the USA & probably China given its size? Germany & Japan, possibly, as they have bigger economies - but Germany is a net exporter & Japan not a big importer traditionally?

French economy is about same size as UK but they import less, I think....

 

Anyway, really must work. Far too much gassing by me today....

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

If we left the EU, are we free to negotiate trade deals with Germany etc?

 

No. Germany or other individual EU countries wouldn't be allowed to negotiate on their own. We'd only be able to negotiate a trade deal with the EU as a whole.

 

Of course, individual firms could negotiate trade deals with individual German firms, but would have to comply with EU regulations, tariffs etc. Likewise, German firms would have to comply with UK regulations/tariffs....

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 hours ago, Donk said:

If the leave side could demonstrate lots of evidence as to why the remain side was constantly lying, identifying all the positive benefits to brexit we would be missing out on by remaining im sure momentum would gather for the 2nd referendum if remain had won.

 

But they wouldnt, because there arent any benefits, that the reasons for leaving have been more or less exposed as twaddle, they only have emotive rhetoric, and everything a brexiteer says usually falls apart within about 2 mins until youre left with an angry person yelling we voted to leeeeeeeeeeeave

Both sides have lied and evidence has been put into Brexit threads on here for over 3 years.

 

For some reason some people seem to think only one side has lied, which is confusing.

[yorkie1999]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

No. Germany or other individual EU countries wouldn't be allowed to negotiate on their own. We'd only be able to negotiate a trade deal with the EU as a whole.

 

Of course, individual firms could negotiate trade deals with individual German firms, but would have to comply with EU regulations, tariffs etc. Likewise, German firms would have to comply with UK regulations/tariffs....

Cheers. So if i'm reading that correctly then, at the moment, being a EU member, we are not free to negotiate trade deals with countries outside the EU.

[The Guvnor]

What is a credible deal Jezzer, oh one that keeps us in the Customs Union and Single Market, so effectively BRINO, and give 17.4 million leave voters a terrific choice, BRINO or remain. 

What a twat.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Cheers. So if i'm reading that correctly then, at the moment, being a EU member, we are not free to negotiate trade deals with countries outside the EU.

 

True (unless there are exceptions I'm unaware of).

 

We benefit from global trade deals negotiated by the EU, but the UK cannot negotiate its own trade agreements while in the EU.

 

If we leave the EU, we no longer benefit from the deals that the EU has done, though we can try to renegotiate them. A small number have been renegotiated on near-identical terms, but most haven't yet.

 

People who support Brexit presumably believe that we'll be able to do better global deals alone than under the EU umbrella.

Those who oppose Brexit disagree and wonder why other countries would offer better deals to a single nation than to the world's biggest trading bloc....a bit like a wholesaler offering better terms to the corner shop than to Tesco (slight exaggeration! )

[Donk]

5 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

What is a credible deal Jezzer, oh one that keeps us in the Customs Union and Single Market, so effectively BRINO, and give 17.4 million leave voters a terrific choice, BRINO or remain. 

What a twat.

Is no deal and everything that could bring more credible? The no deal that is simultaneously a negotiating strategy and something that we want to blame the EU for making us accept? The no deal that is simultaneously the worst case scenario and base scenario all in one depending on who is ordered to re write the yellow hammer report headings? the no deal that is so bad itll be so damaging for both sides both must absolutely work to avoid it, yet so insignificant all the consequences are project fear? (a silly term anyway)

 

Or is it the mythical deal that is definitely out there, but no one can ever negotiate, but every leaver knows what it is telepathically, despite never being asked of its details or have provided any details of, and there is always someone who could deliver it but that person is somehow never in power and never will be?

 

We already have the best possible deal. Certainly the best available deal NOW. Can it be improved? possibly. Can we help shape its future? absolutely.

 

Case closed. No further discussions necessary.

 

 

[Mike Oxlong]

Can Boris appeal to the European Court where no doubt he will find  a sympathetic ear ?

 

edit - just seen that he can’t 

[Mike Oxlong]

I’d prefer the Chuckle brother for PM than Boris or Jezza

[Matt]

A Politician lying and misleading?!!

 

Groundbreaking.

 

[reynard]

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's factually incorrect, Jon - as the judge explained.

 

The Commons usually does not sit for 3+ weeks during conference season, but it is not prorogued to that end. 

Other parliamentary business, processing of legislation & committee meetings normally continues - & parliament could be recalled to sit in an emergency (which some were calling for, before prorogation).

 

Parliament is normally prorogued for less than a week prior to a Queen's Speech, not 5 weeks.

All commentators I've seen agree that this was the longest prorogation since at least WW2, if not the 1930s.....at the time of our biggest crisis since then.

 

It was a blatant and dangerous abuse of democracy & attempt to force through policy by anti-democratic, autocratic means.

There are all sorts of arguments over what should happen with Brexit - bona fide arguments that should continue & hopefully be resolved soon.....by democratic, not dictatorial means. 

It's a shame that you cannot see that undermining parliamentary democracy is not the way to resolve the impasse.

Thank God. Someone actually listens to the judgement and understands it. People need to put Brexit to one side for the moment and ask themselves the following question. Do you want a Prime Minister of whatever political colour or persuasion to be able to suspend parliament whenever he/she wants to at a time when keeping it open might prove to be difficult for them? To have allowed this to have gone unchallenged would have set a very dangerous precedent for our democracy. Like it or loathe it we have a system of parliamentary representative democracy in this country. The highest court in the land has found our current prime minister to have acted unlawfully in suspending parliament. Parliament is there to question and challenge the government and executive in the decisions it makes, not only on the floor of the house, but in the vital work at committee. In its ruling today the Supreme Court have helped to protect the very democracy and political independence of our parliament which we should all hold dear.

[Legend_in_blue]

Not only a politician lying and misleading, but "disagreeing profoundly" with the decision of the supreme court!  He is not only nuts, he's dangerous with it, and ill advised comments such as these will only serve to stir up further trouble amongst the people once we hit 31st October and stalemate.

 

He has to go imo but this will take one monumental push as he won't just walk away.

 

He was always going to be divisive, but the way he's gone about his business is outrageous.  If he puts the usual spin of "I did what I could..." but blames parliament, the supreme court and everyone else he can throw into the mix, he is not only continuing to abuse the position he finds himself in, but he is well and truly lost and completely deluded.  Worrying thing is, they'll still be people out there who believe every word he says!  And vote Tory in a GE!

 

Rory Stewart sums up today well I feel:

 

 

 

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Worrying thing is, they'll still be people out there who believe every word he says!  And vote Tory in a GE!

I don’t believe any politician and I am not a great fan of Boris or the tactics he has employed.  That said I will vote Tory if it means keeping Corbyn and McDonnell out of power.  For me they will do more damage to the country than ‘no deal’ would.  

[The People's Hero]

Can't believe this thread is still alive when we are playing 2 matches. And yet here I am contributing (very little).

[BlueSi13]

On 17/09/2019 at 11:41, Alf Bentley said:

 

Those MPs all won elections in their constituencies. Hard to think of anything more representative under our current democratic system.

 

If Hard Brexiteers wanted a majority of Hard Brexit MPs in parliament, they could have voted for parties or candidates who supported that - or stood as candidates, or had existing "Remainer/Soft Brexit" candidates deselected. They didn't - and the electorate voted in the range of MPs that it did.

 

In 2017, Hard Brexit supporters also had the UKIP option in about 50% of seats: almost a single-issue party devoted to Hard Brexit. They got no MPs elected and got massacred.

 

May called an election seeking a bigger majority to push her Brexit ideas through. But the electorate decided that the election wasn't only about Brexit - and that they wanted to remove May's majority instead.

 

Voters decided that the 2017 election was NOT only about Brexit, but also about tax, spending, public services, care for the elderly, tuition fees, investment, the economy etc. Across a  range of issues, they elected MPs to represent them....pretty representative, really. 

 

The fact that a lot more constituencies had a Leave majority in the preceding referendum is interesting but irrelevant. That was a national referendum, with no constituency element: all that mattered was the national 52-48 vote for Leave - an unclear, non-specific outcome that has divided and messed up the country ever since. 

Hi Alf, sorry for late reply, been awfully busy!  Actually been nice to step away from the back and forth!

 

I'm glad you brought up the topic of the 2017 General Election actually.  My original response was to a poster saying that if the 2016 referendum were based on constituencies it would have been some sort of tie.  I illustrated that it was completely false and that Leave would have had an overwhelming majority.

 

Ignoring Hard/Clean/WTO Brexit, let's go back to the 2017 General Election and look at the Brexit manifesto promises those MP's made to their constituencies when they won their seats:

 

Conservative manifesto - Leave the European Union - Hard-leave with a deal but prepared to leave without one

Labour manifesto - Leave the European Union - Soft-leave with a deal most likely involving staying in the single market and customs union but ending free movement.

Liberal Democrat manifesto - 2nd referendum.

 

Since then we've had multiple MP's abandon those promises with some even changing political parties altogether (with no subsequent by-elections to give their constituencies a say).

 

Let's have a look where we are now:

 

Conservatives - Leave the European Union - Leave with a deal but prepared to leave without one

Labour - 2nd referendum - Rigged with a BRINO vs Remain option.

Liberal Democrats - Revoke and cancel.

 

That isn't anywhere close to being representative of where we were in 2017.  Only the Conservatives have remained consistent but have been subsequently undermined by the now ousted rebels.

 

The country has never been in greater need of a General Election.  But we all know why the opposition won't grant one..