Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

My grapes are not sore. But thanks for your concern Crouch.

99% of the problems this country has are home-spun. What are you and your band of brothers going to do about this after we leave? In your acceptance of lies (like more below) - do you think things will get any better in any way after Brexit. Of course sovereignty means more shit from the Tories for ever. More tax evasion. More austerity. More gaffs on the world stage. More asset stripping. Less accessible healthcare. Less jobs. Less education. Less police. More crime. No investment.

Sovereignty is only worth it when there is a destination. When it has a purpose. When laws passed are for the good of the people, not for the good of elites - snooper's charter anybody? Democracy is only real when offers consensus - HS2?

Has it not occurred to you why there are so many who are agitating for a no-deal?

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en

“A small fraction of the money that the EU takes from us each year could be used to give junior doctors the pay settlement they are looking for.” Gisela Stuart 25 April 2016

"Without our EU budget contributions, we could give everyone a 60 per cent council tax cut.” Daniel Hannan 1 September 2015

“The NHS will be stronger, class sizes smaller and taxes lower. We’ll have more money to spend on our priorities, wages will be higher and fuel bills will be lower”, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Gisela Stuart 31 May 2016

"I think when we vote to leave it will be clear that having voted to leave one union the last thing people in Scotland wanted to do is to break up another.” Michael Gove 8 May 2016

“After we Vote Leave, we would immediately be able to start negotiating new trade deals with emerging economies and the world’s biggest economies (the US, China and Japan, as well as Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, and so on), which could enter into force immediately after the UK leaves the EU.” Vote Leave press release, 15 June 2016

“...there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market”, Boris Johnson 26 June 2016

"To me, Brexit is easy." Nigel Farage 20 September 2016

"There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside." David Davis 10 October 2016

"Liars, con-men and charlatans. None of these people should ever hold public office again". ParkaBoi 21 August 2018

 

The problems you refer to predate Brexit and are indeed homespun but I have never said otherwise nor do I believe otherwise; all Brexit has done is bring them to the surface. Politics is broken but it has been headed that way for years. You, as do many, blame everything on Brexit. This is a good article on this very subject:

https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/01/rise-and-fall-political-class-0

I have no "band of brothers" and you have no evidence that I have agreed with any one of the statements you make above; and there is no guilt by association.

You are far too keen to project others' views on other people.

Also are these statements any the less reprehensible than the many instances of Project Fear that we had during and since the vote, most of which have turned out to be wrong and many simply predict a future which is unpredictable? There have been lies on both sides; a rotten political culture is rotten all through, not just rotten in the case of people you happen to disagree with; if you think that then you are very naive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kzb said:

I think it is toast.  Eventually, it will take a few years.

I am also wondering which  government department offered (gave ?) them money to build a massive fuel guzzling dirty diesel SUV when another dept. was dreaming up targets to stop the sale of IC engine cars after 2030.

Noticed today that Birmingham will be introducing a £8 clean air zone in January next year.  Wonder if this X-Trail would've been allowed in that?  Let alone the London ULEZ.

 

Re the gas guzzling dirty diesel. You have admitted that you were unable to find out anything about the new car but, as is your way, just made up a straw you man to complain about. 

The reality is their diesels have been euro 6 compliant since the standard was introduced in 2015 and are already meeting the ULEZ standard. The money was given partly on the basis that the new cars would reduce emission, so presumably are very clean. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonb2 said:

Actually the first referendum was based on all sorts of untruths. If you want to run politics like an African banana republic - go ahead. But it's a long way from the British history of law and parliament.

Liam Fox, 20 July 2017:

    "The free trade agreement we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history."

John Redwood, 17 July 2016:

    "Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation."

Gerard Batten, 7 February 2017:

    "Trade negotiations with the EU could be sorted out in an afternoon over a cup of coffee."

David Davis, 4 February 2016:

    "Within minutes of a vote for Brexit, CEOs would be knocking down Chancellor Merkel's door. Demanding access to the British market."

Boris Johnson, 6 March 2016:

    There are plenty of people who now think the cost of getting out would be virtually nil."

Michael Gove, 1 June 2016:

    We have four years, more or less, between now and the date of the next election. We can easily conclude a new settlement with the EU in that period."

Douglas Carswell, 8 June 2016:

    "I think we could very easily get a better trade deal than we have at the moment."

Paul Nuttall, 17 January 2017:

    "It will be easy to negotiate a trade deal, and of course, it's in the European Union's interest."

Boris Johnson:

"the EU could go whistle"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/02/2019 at 20:43, Kosmin said:

He dropped another set of notes with his strategy to make a success of a no-deal Brexit next to a bin at another petrol station. Can everyone please have a look the next time you fill your car up?

Unbelievable, he is becoming Brexit liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Nissan leaves Tories to explain why they can't even manage a bribe

A £61m off-the-books sweetener failed to do the trick.

Awks. It’s one thing for a government to offer a £61m off-the-books sweetener to reassure Nissan that Brexit wasn’t going to be such a big deal it’s quite another for everyone to find out that the intended bung has proved completely ineffective.

The Conservatives now can’t even manage a decent bribe.

Guardian

 

Not just to car makers, how much was handed out in similar Brexit deals so far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jonb2 said:

Actually the first referendum was based on all sorts of untruths. If you want to run politics like an African banana republic - go ahead. But it's a long way from the British history of law and parliament.

Liam Fox, 20 July 2017:

    "The free trade agreement we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history."

John Redwood, 17 July 2016:

    "Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation."

Gerard Batten, 7 February 2017:

    "Trade negotiations with the EU could be sorted out in an afternoon over a cup of coffee."

David Davis, 4 February 2016:

    "Within minutes of a vote for Brexit, CEOs would be knocking down Chancellor Merkel's door. Demanding access to the British market."

Boris Johnson, 6 March 2016:

    There are plenty of people who now think the cost of getting out would be virtually nil."

Michael Gove, 1 June 2016:

    We have four years, more or less, between now and the date of the next election. We can easily conclude a new settlement with the EU in that period."

Douglas Carswell, 8 June 2016:

    "I think we could very easily get a better trade deal than we have at the moment."

Paul Nuttall, 17 January 2017:

    "It will be easy to negotiate a trade deal, and of course, it's in the European Union's interest."

That was before the EU insisted on sequencing negotiations in breach of Article 50, which May daftly agreed to ignoring her Brexit Secretary's advice. A bit disingenuous to blame Brexiteers for the rank incompetence and/or duplicity of the largely remainer establishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thirdwave said:

That was before the EU insisted on sequencing negotiations in breach of Article 50, which May daftly agreed to ignoring her Brexit Secretary's advice. A bit disingenuous to blame Brexiteers for the rank incompetence and/or duplicity of the largely remainer establishment.

 😁 😂 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thirdwave said:

That was before the EU insisted on sequencing negotiations in breach of Article 50, which May daftly agreed to ignoring her Brexit Secretary's advice. A bit disingenuous to blame Brexiteers for the rank incompetence and/or duplicity of the largely remainer establishment.

If Brexiteers rely on the remainer establishment and the EU not being duplicitous then they could never hope to succeed. That's at least as utopian as wanting political campaigns without lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thirdwave said:

That was before the EU insisted on sequencing negotiations in breach of Article 50, which May daftly agreed to ignoring her Brexit Secretary's advice.

That's wrong.  Article 50 only says the withdrawal agreement should take account of the framework for the future relationship, which was determined by May's red lines.  The EU can't legally negotiate a free trade deal with one of its own members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crouch said:

Also are these statements any the less reprehensible than the many instances of Project Fear that we had during and since the vote, most of which have turned out to be wrong and many simply predict a future which is unpredictable? There have been lies on both sides; a rotten political culture is rotten all through, not just rotten in the case of people you happen to disagree with; if you think that then you are very naive.

You may feel that Leavers are held to an unfairly high standard, but Leaving is different to Remaining. We didn't need to do anything to remain, whereas we needed to have some idea of what Leaver entailed. Some people may have placed such a great value on sovereignty that they would be untroubled by the possibility of other disadvantages. But the fact that Leave always asserted only advantages suggests that they thought a significant number of potential Leave voters did place a high value on economic advantages (notably £350m per week for the NHS). 

It's almost impossible for someone to tell a lie about remaining as egregious as those quoted by jonb2. I suppose an example would be we voted to Remain and then the following week found we were forced to replace sterling with the Euro, or Turkey was joining after all.

Could you give a few quotes of the worst lies by "Project Fear" representatives? (I think it would be interesting for comparison)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

What line of business are you in?

Don't want to be specific but about 50% of our clients are european institutions who are very nervous about making long term commitments to the UK until they understand the impact Brexit will have in terms of UK economic performance, sterling, trade and the regulation of our sector.  I suspect that there will be ways round most of these concerns but we can't present a plan until we know what the issues are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Exiled Canadian said:

Don't want to be specific but about 50% of our clients are european institutions who are very nervous about making long term commitments to the UK until they understand the impact Brexit will have in terms of UK economic performance, sterling, trade and the regulation of our sector.  I suspect that there will be ways round most of these concerns but we can't present a plan until we know what the issues are.

Fair enough. I think we will be in a much clearer position in a few weeks, either hard no deal, or the WA

Edited by GrizzlyDave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

That's wrong.  Article 50 only says the withdrawal agreement should take account of the framework for the future relationship, which was determined by May's red lines.  The EU can't legally negotiate a free trade deal with one of its own members.

Do you accept there is no requirement under Article 50 for negotiations to be sequenced in the way they were and, in accepting this, May committed a monumental tactical error that cost the UK much leverage in the talks? How are leavers to blame for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dugsbody said:

You guys aren't even trying anymore. 

I could have some sympathy for parts of the brexit argument except for the fact that just about every brexiter I come across is a big fat liar and as above completely unashamed of it.

The only thing you guys care about is leaving the EU no matter how irrational the arguments you have to make or how many lies you have to tell to achieve it. How the ****** can anyone think this is a desirable way to shape our society?

You mean big fat lies by pro-Brexshit liars like this unashamed one: 

 

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/discover/pro-brexit-mp-makes-totally-false-claim-about-europe-after-ww2-901906.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kzb said:

I think it is toast.  Eventually, it will take a few years.

I am also wondering which  government department offered (gave ?) them money to build a massive fuel guzzling dirty diesel SUV when another dept. was dreaming up targets to stop the sale of IC engine cars after 2030.

Noticed today that Birmingham will be introducing a £8 clean air zone in January next year.  Wonder if this X-Trail would've been allowed in that?  Let alone the London ULEZ.

 

5 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

 

Re the gas guzzling dirty diesel. You have admitted that you were unable to find out anything about the new car but, as is your way, just made up a straw you man to complain about. 

The reality is their diesels have been euro 6 compliant since the standard was introduced in 2015 and are already meeting the ULEZ standard. The money was given partly on the basis that the new cars would reduce emission, so presumably are very clean. 

 

All this talk of strawmen and smoke obscures the elephant in the rEUm...

Quote

… 

Arguably, yes — of the thick black diesel variety. As automotive analysts have noted, it has been costing Nissan more to make its new diesel X-Trail model compliant with EU emission rules. So it must now find savings on manufacturing costs. By keeping the production of the X-Trail in Japan, it can do that — avoiding extra investment in a new UK production line, workforce and supply routes...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

All this talk of strawmen and smoke obscures the elephant in the rEUm...

But that argument would apply with or without the Diesel emissions cost. If its cheaper to make them in Japan why not do it.

The real Elephant in the room is that uncertainty about our long term relationship makes it impossible to justify any new investment in UK production with a pay back time measured in anything more than months.

Also the EU/Japan trade deal undermines the long term future of all the assembly plants. I wonder if the deal would have gone through in its current form is the UK had not voted for Brexit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thirdwave said:

Do you accept there is no requirement under Article 50 for negotiations to be sequenced in the way they were and, in accepting this, May committed a monumental tactical error that cost the UK much leverage in the talks? How are leavers to blame for this?

I agree there was no requirement for May to call an election to “strengthen her hand” just after invoking Article 50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

I agree there was no requirement for May to call an election to “strengthen her hand” just after invoking Article 50.

There's probably a silver lining to May's decision to call GE2017 though. She almost certainly wouldn't have been able to finish Brexit by 2020 which would have meant a general election and possibly a major change in policy close to the end if there was a change in government. Finishing Brexit by 2022 is doable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

I agree there was no requirement for May to call an election to “strengthen her hand” just after invoking Article 50.

Contrariwise. May was aiming for a bigger majority (of mainly Remain supporting new Tory MPs), which would have enabled her to vote down the ERG group, and get her deal through easily. By losing her majority, the ERG MPs and DUP now have more influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, onlooker said:

Contrariwise. May was aiming for a bigger majority (of mainly Remain supporting new Tory MPs), which would have enabled her to vote down the ERG group, and get her deal through easily. By losing her majority, the ERG MPs and DUP now have more influence.

Bull. If voters wanted Remain MP's they wouldn't vote conservative. Battersea switched to Labour because of Brexit, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Bull. If voters wanted Remain MP's they wouldn't vote conservative. Battersea switched to Labour because of Brexit, for instance.

Was it because of Brexit? Maybe in that particular case, I don't know the details of Battersea, but that GE was dominated by largely non-Brexit unpopular issues May assumed she could just shove through because she thought she had so much support, and it came back to bite her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kosmin said:

You may feel that Leavers are held to an unfairly high standard, but Leaving is different to Remaining. We didn't need to do anything to remain, whereas we needed to have some idea of what Leaver entailed. Some people may have placed such a great value on sovereignty that they would be untroubled by the possibility of other disadvantages. But the fact that Leave always asserted only advantages suggests that they thought a significant number of potential Leave voters did place a high value on economic advantages (notably £350m per week for the NHS). 

It's almost impossible for someone to tell a lie about remaining as egregious as those quoted by jonb2. I suppose an example would be we voted to Remain and then the following week found we were forced to replace sterling with the Euro, or Turkey was joining after all.

Could you give a few quotes of the worst lies by "Project Fear" representatives? (I think it would be interesting for comparison)

"Leave always asserted only advantages". Right, so people lapped it up, said "gotcha" and duly put their cross in the wrong place.? How do you know that people who voted Leave voted because of the lies? The lies were largely about how much better off we'd be on your own admission whereas most Leave voters voted because of sovereignty and immigration, despite what you say.

As to Project Fear see this:

https://www.politico.eu/article/accurate-prophecy-or-misleading-project-fear-how-referendum-claims-have-panned-out-so-far/

And:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/the-brexit-bounce-making-a-mockery-of-george-osbornes-project-fear/

And:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/leave-lies-remainers-need_b_12191462.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

I agree there was no requirement for May to call an election to “strengthen her hand” just after invoking Article 50.

Precisely..so why are statements by the leave campaign being judged against the shambolic handling of the negotiations by May, a reluctant leaver at best? I'm not saying the outcome would have been radically different had it been left to someone more committed to Brexit, but it's unlikely to have been so dire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is never a good sign in a negotiation when the parties start declaring publicly who will be to blame if it all goes wrong. Chris Grayling, the transport secretary and one of the most prominent Brexiters in the cabinet, has declared that, if it all goes wrong, it will all be the fault of Brussels.

"We want to work with the EU to reach a deal but if they are not prepared to do that – they will have to take responsibility that we are heading towards a no-deal exit.

If they are not willing to compromise, if they’re not willing to work with us to find common ground – it will be down to them if there is no deal."

Guardian

Tories are fully in charge of Brexit and can't agree in between themselves what they want because every fraction want something else. Brexit is UK internal issue to resolve differences, it is made in UK, deliver in UK and unable to agree and finish in UK.

What a ridiculous and desperate excuses, and trying to avoid full responsibility.

Edited by rollover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 356 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • 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.