BREXIT

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Yellow Bear said:

Not shifting, just flagging up the points that the "anti no dealers" and remainers are totally ignoring whilst prattling on continuously about any other out deal, and ramping up project fear.

I'd agree with this.

[Dave-G]

22 minutes ago, Mr_Nobody said:

Grieve, Letwin and Benn being investigated by No.10 for their involvement with foreign powers and the funding of their activities.

 

Ooh - links please? 

[Danger-Mouse]

3 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Ooh - links please? 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516083/No-10-probes-MPs-foreign-collusion-amid-plot-John-Bercow-send-surrender-letter-Brussels.html

There are articles in the Express and Sun too.

Oh and this just dropped. Haven't watch it yet though.

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Danger-Mouse

[Newbie to this]

31 minutes ago, Mr_Nobody said:

Grieve, Letwin and Benn being investigated by No.10 for their involvement with foreign powers and the funding of their activities.

 

Let's hope that the full force of our courts and law are thrown at them.

But I won't hold my breath

[panoma1]

Ah! Another whiff of treason!!!!....but hardly a surprise........the smell of collusion and conspiracy between the EU and our remainer Parliament, against Brexit, has been ever present since the referendum.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

21 hours ago, Capt Christopher Jones said:

Bozo will be Ex by nxt weekend

I very much doubt that!

[SpringDon]

6 hours ago, oowee said:

The UK. There is no state aid rules for infrastructure. Outside of the EU, state aid rules for goods would not apply. If however you aid those goods with the point of making them cheaper than otherwise might be the case then export can be problematic. Under WTO terms countries can fairly block those products as they might undercut that countries own production. 

An example is canned tomatoes from Italy. They are very cheap and exported to Australia. Australia tried to block them as they undercut the indigenous market. The EU has taken Australia to WTO for breach of rules and they are arguing over if the tomatoes are subsidised. 

 

You originally said 

So a <yet to be seen>% drop in gdp might be good then? Reduction/ reversal in growth is inevitable, some might say it would be advantage to be in a country where the government is not prevented from investing in infrastructure due to anti state competition rules.

 

Not quite sure what you’re saying there. I completely agree that the eu is protectionist and artificially inflates food prices to the detriment of its members. It then dumps surplus on world markets. At least Australia can defend itself, the third world can’t and consequently has weak agricultural sectors. ( which are then propped up by first world aid but that’s hypocrisy for another day). 

That is not a good thing.

It is simply not true to say there no rules against state aid. In fact Theresa may’s agreement included a declaration to ensure open and fair competition and include provisions to cover state aid. Companies can be nationalised but cannot be supported when they would otherwise fail.

 

4 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

Interesting to see the Brexiteer narrative shifting in places to discussions around the terms under remaining in the EU.

That’s because most believe we are not leaving and the narrative is shifting to discussions around remaining in the eu is a bit rubbish. The fact is that most people who voted remain did not know what sort of remain they were voting for. I know I didn’t.

Edited September 29, 2019 by SpringDon
Added a point

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

Not quite sure what you’re saying there. I completely agree that the eu is protectionist and artificially inflates food prices to the detriment of its members. It then dumps surplus on world markets. At least Australia can defend itself, the third world can’t and consequently has weak agricultural sectors. ( which are then propped up by first world aid but that’s hypocrisy for another day.

It is simply not true to say there no rules against state aid. In fact Theresa may’s agreement included a declaration to ensure open and fair competition and include provisions to cover state aid. Companies can be nationalised but cannot be supported when they would otherwise fail.

 

All that I am saying is. A government can fund infrastructure as much as it likes anywhere within or outside of the EU. It is not a state aid matter. 

State aid comes into play when we are talking of business investment. 

Australia will loose the case on tomatoes it will be forced to open its market. It also wants a trade deal with the EU so it is in a weak position. I don't have any evidence of the EU artificially inflating food prices do you? Where has the EU dumped food on world markets?

[Raja Clavata]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

Within the general public or government levels? 

General public.

For me, referendum aside, mistake number 1 was Cameron not going straight back to the EU with the referendum result to try and drive concessions on what we were originally asking for. As we all know instead he ran for the hills.

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

General public.

For me, referendum aside, mistake number 1 was Cameron not going straight back to the EU with the referendum result to try and drive concessions on what we were originally asking for. As we all know instead he ran for the hills.

That remains to be seen. I don't believe we're going to leave, but the next GE will in effect be the second referendum.

Mistake number 1 was giving us a referendum. A remainer going straight back to the EU to try and drive concessions? I don't think so. 

[Raja Clavata]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

That remains to be seen. I don't believe we're going to leave, but the next GE will in effect be the second referendum.

Mistake number 1 was giving us a referendum. A remainer going straight back to the EU to try and drive concessions? I don't think so. 

I reckon leave on 31st October is probably 50:50.

i agree on the order of mistakes.

[Mice!]

13 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I reckon leave on 31st October is probably 50:50.

i agree on the order of mistakes.

more like 52:48 but those few percentage points don't seem to concern the MPs

[oowee]

7 minutes ago, Mice! said:

more like 52:48 but those few percentage points don't seem to concern the MPs

whats a few points between friends 🙂 

[panoma1]

16 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

General public.

For me, referendum aside, mistake number 1 was Cameron not going straight back to the EU with the referendum result to try and drive concessions on what we were originally asking for. As we all know instead he ran for the hills.

You are suggesting mistake number 1 was “Cameron not going straight back to the EU with the referendum result to try and drive concessions on what we were originally asking for”.........So you were all for ignoring democracy, the referendum result and Brexit even then!......

[SpringDon]

3 hours ago, oowee said:

All that I am saying is. A government can fund infrastructure as much as it likes anywhere within or outside of the EU. It is not a state aid matter. 

State aid comes into play when we are talking of business investment. 

Australia will loose the case on tomatoes it will be forced to open its market. It also wants a trade deal with the EU so it is in a weak position. I don't have any evidence of the EU artificially inflating food prices do you? Where has the EU dumped food on world markets?

The treaty does not differentiate between business and infrastructure, indeed in a privatised free market economy does a differentiation exist? The treaty just states that aid is incompatible with the common market should the 5 following criteria be met.

1. "the use of state resources"
2. "the measure must confer an advantage to certain firms"
3. "the advantage must be selective"
4. "the measure must distort competition"
5. "affect trade between member states"^[11]

 

To the second point 

https://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo_e/0h3_1_the_truth_about_the_european_union_food_defcit_and_the_dumping_impact_of_its_domestic_subsdies_june_26_2018.pdf

Search for eu food dumping, there’s lots of hits.

 

[Raja Clavata]

3 hours ago, panoma1 said:

You are suggesting mistake number 1 was “Cameron not going straight back to the EU with the referendum result to try and drive concessions on what we were originally asking for”.........So you were all for ignoring democracy, the referendum result and Brexit even then!......

No, mistake number 1 was holding an ill structured referendum in the first place.

Mistake no.2 is as you describe, I was talking in hindsight so no not then but yes now, if the only other option is a no deal Brexit w/o a confirmatory public vote.

[Retsdon]

15 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

How can you possibly state that?

Because there's too much will within the EU to keep it together. People within Europe who have issues with Brussels want some aspects of it changed . But barely anyone who wants to go back to internal borders and rrancs and guilders. They see the benefits of being i a club.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, Retsdon said:

Because there's too much will within the EU to keep it together. People within Europe who have issues with Brussels want some aspects of it changed . But barely anyone who wants to go back to internal borders and rrancs and guilders. They see the benefits of being i a club.

We wanted changes, Cameron went to them, they would not negotiate, why would any other country expect to get changes through?

[Retsdon]

22 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

No, mistake number 1 was holding an ill structured referendum in the first place.

Exactly. Before the referendum made it a national bone of contention, hardly anyone gave a thought about the EU.  People grumbled from time to time, but let's face it, grumbling is a national pastime and if it wasn't the EU it would have been something else. And I mean, people complaining about the demographics of Leicester - as if that has anything to do with Brussels. The EU became the scapegoat for every grizzle anyone could think of.

And then there was the referendum itself. The media was woeful in its coverage and never ever asked the question - so what happens if the vote is Leave? And they should have done because nobody had an answer. Oh,, the EU will roll over and give us the quickest trade deal of the century, etc,etc. That wasn't a plan, it was just flannel to fill theTV soundbites, but nobody in the media properly questioned how this could be accomplished without scuppering the Single Market, and whether, if push came to shove,  the EU would willfully destroy one of its main pillars to  accommodate  the UK's menopausal episode and what would we do if they didn't. That Vote Leave managed to get away with running a campaign that, as a matter of policy, had no Exit plan whatsoever is a sorry reflection on the way the whole debate was conducted. How were they allowed to get away with not having any kind of policy or plan at all?

People in Britain have been badly let down. They were persuaded that every ill under the sun from the state of the roads to the colour of the population of Bradford was Brussel's fault. And then, in order to get them to vote Leave they were gulled into crediting that either  1) The EU would roll over like a puppy and allow the UK to cherry-pick whatever benefits it wanted while rejecting the obligations of EU membership or 2) if plan A failed that Britain would be fine, going it alone like Captain Hurricane in a world where every other nation other that Mauritania and North Korea is in a bloc like the one we were choosing to leave. Why would it possibly be fine? Because the people who said that the country would get the quickest and easiest trade deal in history couldn't possibly be wrong twice?

Anyway, it's too late now. And I think the country is about to discover a truth - namely that the light at the end of the tunnel is sometimes an oncoming train.

[panoma1]

55 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

No, mistake number 1 was holding an ill structured referendum in the first place.

Mistake no.2 is as you describe, I was talking in hindsight so no not then but yes now, if the only other option is a no deal Brexit w/o a confirmatory public vote.

But you posted as mistake number 1, that Cameron should have gone straight back to the EU, after the referendum result, and tried to drive concessions etc etc! Well once the referendum result was in, going back to get concessions.....for what purpose? It could only be In order to stay in? The UK voted to leave.......staying in after the referendum result, even with negotiated concessions would, as I said, be ignoring democracy, the referendum result and Brexit.....

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Reaminer logic is found wanting yet again!

[ordnance]

 

Quote

 

 1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

No, mistake number 1 was holding an ill structured referendum in the first place.

 

I think it was well structured, stay or leave. 

[ordnance]

Quote

Retsdon People in Britain have been badly let down. They were persuaded that every ill under the sun from the state of the roads to the colour of the population of Bradford was Brussel's fault.

You obviously have no faith in  the intelligence of the people that voted leave, and a lot of faith in your own intelligence. Its because of thinking like that, and dismissing people genuine  issues with the EU that we are leaving. 

[Retsdon]

40 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Cameron went to them, they would not negotiate, why would any other country expect to get changes through?

By working with other countries who also might want changes. It's a skill that modern British statesmen and women (using the term loosely) seem to have forgotten. If you look at British history, one of the reasons why the country was so successful - perhaps the main reason actually - is that over centuries we were masters at forging  powerful alliances so that we were never alone either politically or militarily, and nearly always on the strongest side. The likes of Pitt and Castlereagh must be turning in their graves.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

By working with other countries who also might want changes. It's a skill that modern British statesmen and women (using the term loosely) seem to have forgotten. If you look at British history, one of the reasons why the country was so successful - perhaps the main reason actually - is that over centuries we were masters at forging  powerful alliances so that we were never alone either politically or militarily, and nearly always on the strongest side. The likes of Pitt and Castlereagh must be turning in their graves.

Oh the "clutching at straws" approach!

Those days are long gone and the capabilities of our current politicians would not be up to the job.

Edited September 29, 2019 by TIGHTCHOKE