Brexit - merged threads

[muncher]

7 minutes ago, Scully said:

Have I missed something? Unless I’m mistaken I think we’ve already had a referendum on whether to stay in the EU or not. 

They won't let a democratic vote get in the way of the gravy train.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, muncher said:

They won't let a democratic vote get in the way of the gravy train.

Ah well,  if that's the case one can only hope for civil unrest. 👍

[muncher]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

Ah well,  if that's the case one can only hope for civil unrest. 👍

I have never protested in my life, but over this I'm sure I will if it's not delivered as we voted. I believe before next March,if they don't deliver, there will be riots.

[ordnance]

Quote

Have I missed something? Unless I’m mistaken I think we’ve already had a referendum on whether to stay in the EU or not. 

+ 1 We’ve already had a referendum. What do we do keep having referendums, it was sold as one off final decision stay or leave the people chose leave. 

[Mice!]

17 minutes ago, ordnance said:

+ 1 We’ve already had a referendum. What do we do keep having referendums, it was sold as one off final decision stay or leave the people chose leave. 

Yes but they chose wrong, haven't you heard, so its the best of three, maybe 5 until the public vote the way there supposed to vote. 😂😂 

[ordnance]

25 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Yes but they chose wrong, haven't you heard, so its the best of three, maybe 5 until the public vote the way there supposed to vote. 😂😂 

You are right.  Ironically if the EU had given Cameron something when he went to negotiate some changes, there might not have being a referendum and if there was the outcome might have being different. And they seem to be making the same again giving May nothing, her trying to spin it like she got something and it being rejected. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

2 minutes ago, ordnance said:

You are right.  Ironically if the EU had given Cameron something when he went to negotiate some changes, there might not have being a referendum and if there was the outcome might have being different. And they seem to be making the same again giving May nothing, her trying to spin it like she got something and it being rejected. 

I absolutely think you're quite correct, we will never know, but if they (the EU) had given a little it would all be moving along nicely now.

[oowee]

What Cameron wanted: A four-year freeze on in-work benefits for EU citizens working in the UK. Ahead of the summit, David Cameron made a crucial concession that the changes would not apply to EU workers already in Britain, only to new arrivals.

This left one problem to solve at the summit: how long Britain could keep special rules in place. The British government wanted to keep the emergency brake in place for 13 years, but the Visegrád group of four central European countries (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) arrived at the summit with a starting bid of five years. 

What he got: The consensus settled on seven years, which matches the time period other western countries had to keep eastern Europeans out of their labour markets. Britain was one of a handful of countries that allowed eastern European workers into its labour market, after the EU enlargement of 2004. The seven-year emergency brake cannot be extended.

Child benefits

What Cameron wanted: Before the negotiations got serious, Cameron wanted to stop all payments of child benefit going to children living outside the UK, whose parents are working in the UK. Ahead of the summit, the UK relaxed this demand, so child benefit would merely be indexed to the standard of living in the country where the offspring are based. Despite this concession – and the relatively small sums at stake – child benefits caused one of the biggest rows at the summit, as the Visegrád countries opposed other countries taking advantage.

What he’s got: Child benefit payments will be indexed to the cost of living for children living outside the UK, under new EU legislation. This will apply to new arrivals to the UK, once legislation has been passed, and to all workers from 1 January 2020.

Stronger protection for non-euro v eurozone

What Cameron wanted: Safeguards to protect countries outside the eurozone against regulation made by those inside was at the top of prime minister’s wishlist in the Bloomberg speech. Specifically, he wanted any non-eurozone country to be able to stall new regulations for the currency union, by triggering further discussions among EU leaders of the proposals.

What he’s got: In a surprising win for Cameron, only one euro ‘out’ will be able to force a debate among EU leaders about ‘problem’ eurozone laws. Other EU leaders agreed to this because neither the UK, nor any other country, would have a veto. The tactic can be used to delay, but not to stop eurozone laws.

Ever-closer union

What Cameron wanted: a declaration that the treaty motto of “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe” did not apply to the UK. EU leaders had already agreed a special formula of wording in June 2014 that not all member states were on the road to integration, but Cameron wanted something stronger.

What he’s got: Much more emphatic language, stressing that the UK is not on the road to deeper integration. “It is recognised that the United Kingdom ... is not committed to further political integration in the European Union ... References to ever-closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.”

[panoma1]

46 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Yes but they chose wrong, haven't you heard, so its the best of three, maybe 5 until the public vote the way there supposed to vote. 😂😂 

Watched one of Mays remaining supportive (anus licking) ministers interviewed on TV the other day, he said its Mays deal, or nothing as the politicians wouldn't agree to the UK leaving with "no deal"........he then went on to say, we would be given another opportunity to stay in the EU via a new referendum.......where he said, and I paraphrase "in order to make the right choice, this time"

Freudian slip methinks?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

4 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Watched one of Mays remaining supportive (anus licking) ministers interviewed on TV the other day, he said its Mays deal, or nothing as the politicians wouldn't agree to the UK leaving with "no deal"........he then went on to say, we would be given another opportunity to stay in the EU via a new referendum.......where he said, and I paraphrase "in order to make the right choice, this time"

Freudian slip methinks?

Who was that?

[12gauge82]

15 minutes ago, oowee said:

What Cameron wanted: A four-year freeze on in-work benefits for EU citizens working in the UK. Ahead of the summit, David Cameron made a crucial concession that the changes would not apply to EU workers already in Britain, only to new arrivals.

This left one problem to solve at the summit: how long Britain could keep special rules in place. The British government wanted to keep the emergency brake in place for 13 years, but the Visegrád group of four central European countries (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) arrived at the summit with a starting bid of five years. 

What he got: The consensus settled on seven years, which matches the time period other western countries had to keep eastern Europeans out of their labour markets. Britain was one of a handful of countries that allowed eastern European workers into its labour market, after the EU enlargement of 2004. The seven-year emergency brake cannot be extended.

Child benefits

What Cameron wanted: Before the negotiations got serious, Cameron wanted to stop all payments of child benefit going to children living outside the UK, whose parents are working in the UK. Ahead of the summit, the UK relaxed this demand, so child benefit would merely be indexed to the standard of living in the country where the offspring are based. Despite this concession – and the relatively small sums at stake – child benefits caused one of the biggest rows at the summit, as the Visegrád countries opposed other countries taking advantage.

What he’s got: Child benefit payments will be indexed to the cost of living for children living outside the UK, under new EU legislation. This will apply to new arrivals to the UK, once legislation has been passed, and to all workers from 1 January 2020.

Stronger protection for non-euro v eurozone

What Cameron wanted: Safeguards to protect countries outside the eurozone against regulation made by those inside was at the top of prime minister’s wishlist in the Bloomberg speech. Specifically, he wanted any non-eurozone country to be able to stall new regulations for the currency union, by triggering further discussions among EU leaders of the proposals.

What he’s got: In a surprising win for Cameron, only one euro ‘out’ will be able to force a debate among EU leaders about ‘problem’ eurozone laws. Other EU leaders agreed to this because neither the UK, nor any other country, would have a veto. The tactic can be used to delay, but not to stop eurozone laws.

Ever-closer union

What Cameron wanted: a declaration that the treaty motto of “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe” did not apply to the UK. EU leaders had already agreed a special formula of wording in June 2014 that not all member states were on the road to integration, but Cameron wanted something stronger.

What he’s got: Much more emphatic language, stressing that the UK is not on the road to deeper integration. “It is recognised that the United Kingdom ... is not committed to further political integration in the European Union ... References to ever-closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.”

In other words, his demands didn't go far enough and he got even less than he asked for.

[12gauge82]

It makes me laugh, we're going to see a TV debate on brexit between May and Corbyn (basically two remainers), I'd like to see that but with May and Farage or JRM, so that someone who believes in brexit can actually put the benefits of leaving forwards, of course that will never happen, more stitching up by the establishment.

[Dave-G]

27 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

It makes me laugh, we're going to see a TV debate on brexit between May and Corbyn (basically two remainers), I'd like to see that but with May and Farage or JRM, so that someone who believes in brexit can actually put the benefits of leaving forwards, of course that will never happen, more stitching up by the establishment.

And with the usual BBC host biass too.

[TriBsa]

31 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

It makes me laugh, we're going to see a TV debate on brexit between May and Corbyn (basically two remainers), I'd like to see that but with May and Farage or JRM, so that someone who believes in brexit can actually put the benefits of leaving forwards, of course that will never happen, more stitching up by the establishment.

Yep, and it probably won't  be much of a debate about "the deal" if May can help it. More a vote down the deal and you get Corbyn message.

Or does she think her peerless intellect and supreme oratory powers will sway Labour MP's to back the deal in defiance of their leader?

 

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Who was that?

I believe it was Jeremy Wright? And I got it wrong....what he actually said when suggesting the option of another referendum was something like.........we will have to tell the people they got it wrong and to try again.

[poontang]

1 hour ago, TriBsa said:

 

 

Or does she think her peerless intellect and supreme oratory powers will sway Labour MP's to back the deal in defiance of their leader?

 

Yes, she is bloody awful isn't she? 

She can read a speech ok, but once she's questioned on anything and has to go 'off script' she's like a rabbit caught in the headlights. It seems her new 'go to' phrase now is 'In the national interest'.  Someone should tell her that simply repeating the same old line is neither strong nor stable. 😉

Watch her body language and her eyes when she's being grilled... she really doesn't believe a word she's saying. 

 

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

Watch her body language and her eyes when she's being grilled... she really doesn't believe a word she's saying. 

Watched her getting questioned by the Select Committee a few days ago, her eyes remind me of Cruella de Vil , or should that be Cruella de May...

[Vince Green]

20 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

It makes me laugh, we're going to see a TV debate on brexit between May and Corbyn (basically two remainers), I'd like to see that but with May and Farage or JRM, so that someone who believes in brexit can actually put the benefits of leaving forwards, of course that will never happen, more stitching up by the establishment.

Corbyn is a leaver pretending now to be a remainer, May is a remainer pretending to be a leaver. Where are they going to film it? on the set of would I lie to you????  

[toxo]

I can't wait to hear how Corbyn is going to stay in the customs union and the single market AND leave the EU and trade with the rest of the world

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, toxo said:

I can't wait to hear how Corbyn is going to stay in the customs union and the single market AND leave the EU and trade with the rest of the world

The same way as he is going to fund free higher education, more money for the NHS, trains run on time etc, make the poor rich by taxing the big international companies.  In his imagination.

It won't happen in real life.  The EU won't let it.  But he manages to get people to believe him ...... because it is what they want to believe.  All these 'free' handouts.  They even believe Diane Abbott when she is going to have 100,000 extra police on the beat for only £30M a year - or that she can solve moped crime without pursuing them!

It's a bit like buying a lottery ticket.  We all know we are more likely to be struck by lightning than win, but we love to believe that we can win ........ so we fork out our pound for a ticket - because we just want to believe it.

The truth is that Corbyn will get no better 'deal' than May - because the EU won't give it.  Simple.  Might even be worse because if Corbyn spends all the money, they can't pinch it.

In fact, what May has as a transition deal which remember is all that is being voted on now - not the final leave deal, but only the transition period is quite close to what Kier Starmer originally asked.

What the eventual post transition period deal hasn't even started negotiations yet.  That will be harder still as they want our fish etc. and won't let us out of the transition deal unless we give in.  That is why the elephant in the room is not being able to leave the transition deal unilaterally.

[oowee]

Whatever we might think of Corbyn (and I would share much of that view) there is only one party that got us into this mess, with the support of 17 million voters. We need something pretty radical to get us out of it and I cannot see where it's coming from. More and more muddling and the hole just seems to get deeper. 

[JohnfromUK]

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

I cannot see where it's coming from

I can't either; however, I can (very clearly) see that the team and policies presented by Jeremy Corbyn as his form of government will be a bigger disaster for the UK - and the effects (principally debt) will last for a generation if he carries through his promises.  He will bring;

• Unfunded spending
• Uncontrolled borrowing
• Large rises in interest rates leading to large increases in mortgage payments and defaults
• Higher taxation (for all, not just the 'rich')
• Increased lawlessness and disorder
• A complete end to inward investment (both from UK and overseas businesses)
• A massive run on the pound - which will cause massive inflation (because all goods imported will cot much more)
• A collapse of the market leading to a major crisis in pensions funding (most of our pensions are invested in equities and bonds on our behalf)
• Redundancy and rising unemployment
• Industrial unrest as wages struggle to keep up with the rising prices
• Food and goods shortages as there is no money to buy goods from overseas

ANY economic damage caused by whatever outcome Brexit may have will be minor compared to what a Corbyn government would bring. 

I am old enough (as are many here) to remember the last long period of left labour rule (not the almost Tory economics practised by Blair).

It left the country broke, with 3 day weeks, rubbish piling in the streets, power blackouts, months wait to get a phone, British Steel, British Coal, British Leyland, British Rail ALL loosing money and not delivering on time or on budget, strikes everywhere.  Thatcher had to administer some tough medicine to get back a working economy and competitive industry - and it was tough - I was redundant then as were many others.  But she was only curing the 'illness' caused by rampant labour overspending by Wilson and (to a lesser extent) Callaghan.

•  

Edited December 3, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I can't either; however, I can (very clearly) see that the team and policies presented by Jeremy Corbyn as his form of government will be a bigger disaster for the UK - and the effects (principally debt) will last for a generation if he carries through his promises.  He will bring;

• Unfunded spending
• Uncontrolled borrowing
• Large rises in interest rates leading to large increases in mortgage payments and defaults
• Higher taxation (for all, not just the 'rich')
• Increased lawlessness and disorder
• A complete end to inward investment (both from UK and overseas businesses)
• A massive run on the pound - which will cause massive inflation (because all goods imported will cot much more)
• A collapse of the market leading to a major crisis in pensions funding (most of our pensions are invested in equities and bonds on our behalf)
• Redundancy and rising unemployment
• Industrial unrest as wages struggle to keep up with the rising prices

ANY economic damage caused by whatever outcome Brexit may have will be minor compared to what a Corbyn government would bring.

• Food and goods shortages as there is no money to buy goods from overseas

It's clear to me that at the moment we have no idea of the economic impact of either Corbyn or Brexit. 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

It's clear to me that at the moment we have no idea of the economic impact of either Corbyn

If you want to see what Corbyn will cause as an economic impact, take a look an Venezuela. 

[oowee]

I think they are out of the EU as well. 

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

If you want to see what Corbyn will cause as an economic impact, take a look an Venezuela.