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

[crouch]

18 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

We wouldn't have enacted a multilateral policy on fisheries without being in the EU even though we actually did do so.  Right-o.

This borders on the childish. We would not have enacted the substance of either the CAP or the CFP had we not been members of the EU. That was the question. Straw man.

[allfiredup]

1 hour ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

It’sa fact that the people I know who voted leave have achieved a lower level of education that the remain ones. 

Seeing as Universities are known to be a hotbed of EU nationalism its hardly surprising

[pig]

2 minutes ago, allfiredup said:

Seeing as Universities are known to be a hotbed of EU nationalism its hardly surprising

Lmao are you even British ?

[Confusion of VIs]

33 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

We won't be leaving the EU on 31st October so the general election is now the focus imo.

Cummings is already saying that the Tories are the party of "No Deal".

Nigel is jealous. 

Cummings might be saying that but it would make for the most dismal manifesto in history.

I don't see it happening, they will try to do some sort of fudge saying that after the election the EU will give them a deal which will leave both major parties trying to get across unconvincing and muddled messages. 

[zugzwang]

Speadsheet Phil has been dropping some trade deal numbers this morning.

UPSIDE from FTAs (including the US) is < 0.5% additional GDP by 2030.

DOWNSIDE of Canada minus deal? Negative 4-7% in 'lost' GDP.

 

 

[crouch]

28 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

1 - Show me.

"Perhaps they value that we make our own laws, even tho most cannot name but one EU law they object to."

QED.

31 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

3 - Show me

Answered.

[IMHAL]

5 minutes ago, crouch said:

"Perhaps they value that we make our own laws, even tho most cannot name but one EU law they object to."

QED.

Answered.

Answered?  Prove it.

As I recall, most on this site (which has accumulated much knowledge) struggled when this questuon came up. I doubt very much that the average bod on the street would come up with these, which is what you are saying. They are more likely to talk about the faux bendy banana mems 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by IMHAL

[slawek]

Liz Truss agrees with Crouchy. It is worth reading replies.  

 

[thecrashingisles]

14 minutes ago, crouch said:

This borders on the childish. We would not have enacted the substance of either the CAP or the CFP had we not been members of the EU. That was the question. Straw man.

I very much doubt you have enough of a grasp on the substance to judge that.

[thecrashingisles]

1 minute ago, slawek said:

Liz Truss agrees with Crouchy. It is worth reading replies. 

Crouchy Tiger, Hidden Benefits.

[crouch]

2 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

I very much doubt you have enough of a grasp on the substance to judge that.

I very much doubt you have enough of a grasp on the substance to judge that.

[pig]

3 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Cummings might be saying that but it would make for the most dismal manifesto in history.

I don't see it happening, they will try to do some sort of fudge saying that after the election the EU will give them a deal which will leave both major parties trying to get across unconvincing and muddled messages. 

Problem is didn’t proroguing also come out of Cummings Big Brother megahorn ? I guess if they shed enough genuine Conservatives they could simply merge with the Brexit Party. 

[Confusion of VIs]

5 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Speadsheet Phil has been dropping some trade deal numbers this morning.

UPSIDE from FTAs (including the US) is < 0.5% additional GDP by 2030.

DOWNSIDE of Canada minus deal? Negative 4-7% in 'lost' GDP.

These figures are nothing new every analysis of the trade cost v potential benefits of leaving the SM have come up with something similar.

Despite this Leavers have created and cling to a belief that we will get huge gains from these new trade deals.  

Mu question to the likes of GD is where did this belief come from there is no evidence at all to support it even being a possible outcome.

The best we can hope for is that after a decade plus of disruption we manage to mostly replicate the third country trade deals we already access through the EU.   

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, crouch said:

I very much doubt you have enough of a grasp on the substance to judge that.

Sadly I've read enough of your oeuvre to have a handle on your affliction.

[crouch]

6 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Answered?  Prove it.

 

Actually I think you are literally right!

However, the post was a challenge and that challenge was met. You have not been arguing the point on whether the assertion was literally correct.; you have been arguing the substance and the substance is that we would never have accepted either the CAP or the CFP outside the EU.

[IMHAL]

26 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Speadsheet Phil has been dropping some trade deal numbers this morning.

UPSIDE from FTAs (including the US) is < 0.5% additional GDP by 2030.

DOWNSIDE of Canada minus deal? Negative 4-7% in 'lost' GDP.

 

 

A while back I thought we'd need between 10 and 20 USA style FTA's to compensate for the loss of trade due to Brexit.

Given that the USA is ~ 25% of the global economy.....the notion that we can make up for Brexit with FTA's is fantasy.

Edited October 10, 2019 by IMHAL

[crouch]

2 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Sadly I've read enough of your oeuvre to have a handle on your affliction.

Sadly I've read enough of your oeuvre to have a handle on your affliction.

[Confusion of VIs]

2 minutes ago, crouch said:

Actually I think you are literally right!

However, the post was a challenge and that challenge was met. You have not been arguing the point on whether the assertion was literally correct.; you have been arguing the substance and the substance is that we would never have accepted either the CAP or the CFP outside the EU.

These things were accepted as part of wider negotiations, you have no counterfactual to show that we wouldn't have done a similar deal as part of a trade treaty with the EEC

[crouch]

12 minutes ago, slawek said:

Liz Truss agrees with Crouchy. It is worth reading replies.  

 

Truss is merely stating the blindingly obvious - but the blindingly obvious has never been obvious to most Remainers; they prefer the warm illusion of the great shining place on the hill that is the EU.

[slawek]

6 minutes ago, pig said:

Problem is didn’t proroguing also come out of Cummings Big Brother megahorn ? I guess if they shed enough genuine Conservatives they could simply merge with the Brexit Party. 

There was a poll that showed that around 70% of Tory voters want no-deal, more than half of the current Tory supporters voted TBP in the EU election. 

I can't imagine Cummings and Farage working together.

[IMHAL]

8 minutes ago, crouch said:

Actually I think you are literally right!

However, the post was a challenge and that challenge was met. You have not been arguing the point on whether the assertion was literally correct.; you have been arguing the substance and the substance is that we would never have accepted either the CAP or the CFP outside the EU.

 I'll let you engage in your fantasy discussion openers made up by you so that you can answer them as you wish. You seem quite good at telling people what you thought they said and not what they actually said........ 

Bold: Show me.....

Edited October 10, 2019 by IMHAL

[crouch]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

These things were accepted as part of wider negotiations, you have no counterfactual to show that we wouldn't have done a similar deal as part of a trade treaty with the EEC

Oh I don't think that is right at all.

With regard to the CAP its principles were quite different to ours concerning food imports and agricultural support and I think your assertion is most unlikely.

As regards the CFP this has been an issue of long contention and I'm pretty sure we would never have agreed this policy as part of a trade deal; the concessions were far too great.

[crouch]

1 minute ago, IMHAL said:

 I'll let you engage in your fantasy discussion openers made up by you so that you can answer them as you wish. You seem quite good at telling people what you thought they said and not what they actually said........ 

Bold: Show me.....

You have continually brought up questions of cost and how these things are insignificant to most people whereas the original question by you - which I posted - was not about cost or significance. but about sovereignty. The later embellishments by you were simply that you'd been called out and wanted to move the goalposts.

[IMHAL]

4 minutes ago, crouch said:

1 - You have continually brought up questions of cost and how these things are insignificant to most people

2 whereas the original question by you - which I posted - was not about cost or significance. but about sovereignty. The later embellishments by you were simply that you'd been called out and wanted to move the goalposts.

1 - Show me.

2 - Show me.

Edited October 10, 2019 by IMHAL

[Confusion of VIs]

9 minutes ago, crouch said:

Oh I don't think that is right at all.

With regard to the CAP its principles were quite different to ours concerning food imports and agricultural support and I think your assertion is most unlikely.

As regards the CFP this has been an issue of long contention and I'm pretty sure we would never have agreed this policy as part of a trade deal; the concessions were far too great.

Just supposition, we don't know what price we would have put on possible offsetting benefits. 

Re. the CFP we might soon have a chance to see, in which case I suspect we will again trade fishing rights for other things we value more highly.