Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Confounded

  1. 4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

    Where there is a will to kick the can, there is a way to kick the can.

    Leave on WTO terms as we should have done in 2016! Where there is a will there is a way.

    The fact the EU and political class who want us to remain don’t want this tells you it is the best route for us. They are creating a naritive similar to this group of very pro EU posters on this forum that the UK did not know what they voted for and that we need to come back to the safety of the EU.

  2. 7 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

    You are repeating arguments from the time of the referendum. They need us more than we need them, easiest ever deal, trade deficit etc etc. All proved wrong by subsequent events, it as if for you  the last two years didn't happen.

    Only proved wrong because we have a very poor leader who wants to remain as does 2/3 of parliament and the route we have chosen to negotiate!

  3. 15 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

    You can be poorly informed and still have enough smarts between your ears to realise you have been poorly informed. All the leavers I know, who are not now deceased, want a second referendum so that they can vote remain because they now admit that they were sold unicorn lies and fabrications. Stop being so melodramatic about sterilisation as it has nothing to do with brexs*it. 

    Only two of my close friends and family voted leave. Virtually all I have spoken to (without getting into any debate like here) are quite happy to leave on WTO terms and get on with it. There are a lot of people who voted remain that have switch to leave.


    7 hours ago, dugsbody said:

    A single market requires a single arbitrar. We've decided we don't want a single market or a single arbitrar. Or Theresa May has, it wasn't on the ballot paper, so who knows what "we" have decided.

    So forget the politicians jingo please. Answer a direct question. We're increasing friction. Show us the maths that you've worked out that says we'll be better off with slightly lower tariffs with distant markets as opposed to completely frictionless trade with 27 nearby markets. 

    This is a source I am sure you will approve of as it is pro EU.


    “The EU is the UK’s largest trading partner, although its importance has been slightly declining. Official UK figures show that 44% of all UK exports went to the EU in 2017, while 53% of all UK imports came from the EU. As a bloc, EU countries sell more to the UK than vice-versa.”

    “The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) estimates that with no deal, 90% of the UK’s goods exports to the EU by value would face tariffs. The average tariff on UK exports to the bloc would be 4.3 percent, it calculates, while the average on imports from the EU into the UK would be around 5.7 percent. Tariffs in some sectors – for example in agriculture and food, the car industry and textiles – would be “significantly higher”.”

    • “Pro-Brexit economists also quote estimates suggesting that import tariffs from EU countries could generate significant revenue for the UK. But a report by the think-tank UK in a Changing Europesays revenue gains from import tariffs would come at a cost of higher consumer prices.”

    So, this article is anti brexit as is 90% of the coverage of brexit, yet it gives some clues how things may not be as bad as you doomungers think. As a sovereign state we could adjust our VAT levels to mitigate the increased costs. So our EU subs won’t be being paid, we will take more tax on WTO terms and we do this on a very substantial trade surplus, it gives a lot of room to adjust things to smooth the process.



  5. 7 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

    You are repeating arguments from the time of the referendum. They need us more than we need them, easiest ever deal, trade deficit etc etc. All proved wrong by subsequent events, it as if for you  the last two years didn't happen.

    The last two years a have been a disasters, they did not happen because they were essential a waste of time and as stated before moving to WTO terms any time in the last nearly 3 years, would have gained that time back to actually progress the relationship with the EU. We still have years and years of negotiation if the proposed withdrawal  treaty was passed on how we leave. Better to do it with a clean sheet and progress our relationships. 

  6. 1 minute ago, Dave Beans said:

    Canada are aligned, but that still means frictioned trade.  

    I don’t know what you are arguing here, of course there will be more friction than being in the single market ( the reason we originally joined the EU before it morphed into the political monster it is now), but where there is a will there is a way, there are 90 billion reason for it to be a smooth as possible from the EU perspective...

  7. 2 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

    That is not answering the question. The 27 other member states have other reasons for deciding not to trade with us (on new terms), for similar reasons for the UK deciding not to trade with the EU (on current terms). Both decisions may not seem optimal to a casual glance but both have wider reasons. Leave that aside.

    Even if we DO have a completely tariff free FTA it still seems to me you're ignoring the non-tariff barriers which we will have outside of the single market. I posed an example in my original question of tariff free trade, but non regulatory alignment between Cornwall and Devon. Ie. Both areas outside a single UK market.  Are you able to address that?

    We are completely aligned with Europe already! It is not like we are coming to them with a clean sheet.

  8. 14 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

    The choices were flawed and we never should have had such a vague referendum.

    I'm sorry that I only had a binary choice, there isn't anything I can do about that, but the referendum was still ridiculously flawed. I don't believe as a country we cannot admit to a mistake (not in the way people voted but the way the referendum was run), but it seems many others just don't see it the same way.

    Strikes me as insane. Any sane society should be nimble and able to recognise mistakes quick and adjust. But hubris is getting the way.

    Now that is insane, I clearly remember voting in 2016 and the referendum was leave or remain, I can’t think of much clearer terms. It was not vague. Next you are going to tell me people were influenced by lies in the campaign..... 

    Yes, if the EU could politically let’s us leave on good terms, that would be a good route to leave, but they can’t so we will have to move to WTO and rebuild from there. Maybe over the years we will move ever closer to the EU and rejoin, I would not be against it if it made sense for our country. I only want what is best for our country now we are on the leave path.    

  9. 12 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

    You have such a positive outlook that you think we're heading for the worst possible outcome?

    Can the fudged middle be the best place for us? I have stated this before, if offered the EU  German written leave treaty, or staying in I would still vote to stay in! 

    If if we want to protect national democracy and leave I would vote for no deal over the treaty. 

  10. 3 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

    If you put up a barrier, not a tariff barrier (which is simply collecting a sum of money), but a regulatory barrier, between Cornwall and Devon, where each area had to implement their own justice system, their own regulatory bodies, their own customs border, infrastructure, personnel,  and whatever else it might entail to make sure goods from Cornwall were compliant with the standards of Devon and vice versa, would you imagine this would make it easier or harder for a small business in Cornwall to trade with people in Devon compared to now?

    The obvious answer is yes. By the very nature of diverging and not maintaining a single market, Cornwall and Devon increase friction and cost of trade between each other, which means businesses pay more, which means consumers pay more. 

    Your argument is that increasing costs to trade with the EU does not matter because it will decrease with the rest of the world. But that will just be tariffs, which are low anyway. It has nothing to do with non-tariff barriers, which the single market provides.

    You're basically boiling an incredibly detailed and complex issue down to economics, which other brexiters tell us doesn't matter anyway, and telling us you've done ALL THE MATHS and have worked out that everyone will be better off because of it.

    Show your workings please.

    You make very general and interesting points above but don’t show me any workings. No one can predict the outcome of brexit mathermatically, however key facts help give us a reason to be hopeful they will want to trade with us a freely as possible. 

    One of the most important ones being massive trade deficit!

    As stated earlier I voted remain but I just can’t get the remainers consistently thinking this is a UK problem. I would be a lot more worried a if I was a German car maker and French farmer/ dairy producer than any producer in the UK. The behaviour of the EU to me looks very similar to an abusive partner atm. Convinced the other partner they have no self worth, but can’t leave us a alone and portrays intermittent  kindness in this gift of an extension. As stated earlier the main object of the EU is make others feel leaving he EU is not a good option. So if no deal was going to be so bad for the UK then why not let’s us fall of the fabled BBC “cliff edge”.... 


  11. 22 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

    Fine if your will is to be much poorer and spending the next 10 years trying to get back into 90% of what we had just left.

    Coming from up North we had a phrase "stupid is as stupid does" 

    I undestand you now, I much prefer my positive outlook. I voted remain so really just looking for the best way forward for our great country. Such a shame the remain parliament are heading for the worst possible outcome between remain and leaving the EU, which were the choices 3 years ago....

  12. 1 minute ago, Dave Beans said:

    Nope, I've done some reading on how the EU & WTO works..I actually want to leave, but in a pragmatic manner..

    Obviously from the 24th June 2016 the EU would never pragmatically negotiate a deal for the UK that would upset remaining states, it has to penalise as Macron intends. He seemed quite chirpy this morning despite the UK getting an extension his principles objected to. Give me the keys areas we would be disadvantaged? Financially we would be about £12b better off with the EU on WTO terms, ignoring our savings from net contribution to the union. But presumably the one key reason we are seeking to leave is to open up new markets where greater benefits will come. 

  13. Just now, Dave Beans said:

    That's what happens once a UK were to become a third country overnight.  To restore those links would involve £39bn, negotiating an Irish backstop and ensuring citizens rights.  The EU will just push the WA back at the UK to sign it.

    Wow, that would be pretty terrifying.... Macron is keen to teach the UK populist brexit voters a lesson. If he or any of the EU 27 decided to veto the extension, with WTO facing us on Saturday, that would be a very good way of teaching those silly brexit voters a lesson.....

    I love how people think the UK with the 5th largest economy is in the World has nothing to negotiate with. Let me guess you are in May’s inner circle.... 

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.