Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

andarkian posted:

totemphile posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

It would be good if you'd stop circulating this unadulterated nonsense. I've read a lot of rubbish in my time, but this beggars belief ...

You mean you'd want me to concentrate on the facts instead? Like after Brexit Britain will take back control of its boarders, keep all unwanted immigrants out and fund the NHS with £350m a week to finally turn it into the kind of health care system Britain long wanted but couldn't get because of the EU? 

All good then. 

 

Yes, all good! I guess that you will be celebrating yesterday's success with Comrade Corbyn. To keep it musical, you must be living in a 'Past time Paradise' i.e. Corbyn's own 1973 version. The next time any politician, say a Blair or a Cameron, decides that the electorate are nought but sheeple, they may just want to look at what has happened over the last few years.

Both Blair and Cameron believed that all they had to do was capture the middle ground minority to form a government and the majority could be taken for granted.

First, the SNP killed Labour for assuming they could just 'weigh' Scottish votes.

Secondly, UKIP arose to give voice to those that thought we had ceded way too much control to the EU. This resulted in a Referendum that Cameron thought he would never have to hold, as he mistakenly believed that, at best, he would be in a Coalition which would refuse 'his'o Referendum request.

Thirdly, the British public voted to leave the EU.

Fourthly, the not so stupid British electorate, deserted UKIP to ensure that May would have sufficient power to honour the Brexit promises unalloyed i.e. forget hard and soft Brexits, just Brexit. Oh, and because the British public saw through Corbyn and his mates way back in 1973. 

Over to you Mrs May, but beware of what has been happening around you should you decide to take your electorate for granted. 

Don't know what you're on about but feel free to imagine what I celebrate or where I live, if that makes you happy.

As I said above simple answers to complicated issues never got a nation anywhere and it will be the same with Brexit. It's an idiotic decision, which was taken by and large based on complete and utter misinformation about the EU and the role of Britain within Europe. What's more, most, if not all of the issues people complained about had little to do with the EU and more with the failure of your past governments to address them, let alone solve them. Those that had to do with EU membership probably could have been solved within the EU. Instead, now, you are left with a government (Tory) that will do f*ck all for the common man on the street and everything for those well off already. Or a Labour leader who hasn't got the guts or will to save your country from stepping into the void. Either way the future looks a lot more complicated than it did before Brexit because one thing is for certain, Britain will not get a better deal than the one it had while being a member of the EU. Anyone who believes that is either living in cloud cuckoo land or simply lying. That's the uncomfortable truth. Sorry.

totemphile posted:

andarkian posted:

totemphile posted:

 

 

 

Don't know what you're on about but feel free to imagine what I celebrate or where I live, if that makes you happy.

As I said above simple answers to complicated issues never got a nation anywhere and it will be the same with Brexit. It's an idiotic decision, which was taken by and large based on complete and utter misinformation about the EU and the role of Britain within Europe. What's more, most, if not all of the issues people complained about had little to do with the EU and more with the failure of your past governments to address them, let alone solve them. Those that had to do with EU membership probably could have been solved within the EU. Instead, now, you are left with a government (Tory) that will do f*ck all for the common man on the street and everything for those well off already. Or a Labour leader who hasn't got the guts or will to save your country from stepping into the void. Either way the future looks a lot more complicated than it did before Brexit because one thing is for certain, Britain will not get a better deal than the one it had while being a member of the EU. Anyone who believes that is either living in cloud cuckoo land or simply lying. That's the uncomfortable truth. Sorry.

 

As you gaze upon the rubble of Len McCluskey's Labour Party and as the Eurocrats celebrate the election in France of a man without a Party, but three Mummies (Merkel, his wife and possibly his real one), do you really think we are taking a leap in the dark rather than a place on the first lifeboat out of that madhouse?

As for the common man, it rather looks like he is heading for the Conservatives, at least those who work for a living and want to be recognised and rewarded for having a job, rather than being treated as a milch cow for the big State of Jeremy Corbyn aka Len McCluskey.

Am also afraid that your trite Socialist statements such as being left with a "Tory government who will do f@ck all for the common man in the street", are not being swallowed by that 'man in the streets' who is sick to the back teeth of Eurocrats and dabbling, preachy  Socialists who deliver nothiing but empty rhetoric and big bills. 

andarkian posted:

totemphile posted:

andarkian posted:

totemphile posted:

 

 

 

Don't know what you're on about but feel free to imagine what I celebrate or where I live, if that makes you happy.

As I said above simple answers to complicated issues never got a nation anywhere and it will be the same with Brexit. It's an idiotic decision, which was taken by and large based on complete and utter misinformation about the EU and the role of Britain within Europe. What's more, most, if not all of the issues people complained about had little to do with the EU and more with the failure of your past governments to address them, let alone solve them. Those that had to do with EU membership probably could have been solved within the EU. Instead, now, you are left with a government (Tory) that will do f*ck all for the common man on the street and everything for those well off already. Or a Labour leader who hasn't got the guts or will to save your country from stepping into the void. Either way the future looks a lot more complicated than it did before Brexit because one thing is for certain, Britain will not get a better deal than the one it had while being a member of the EU. Anyone who believes that is either living in cloud cuckoo land or simply lying. That's the uncomfortable truth. Sorry.

 

As you gaze upon the rubble of Len McCluskey's Labour Party and as the Eurocrats celebrate the election in France of a man without a Party, but three Mummies (Merkel, his wife and possibly his real one), do you really think we are taking a leap in the dark not at all, those of us who voted Remain can see the f***ing cliff and the rocks below - the tide is out ! rather than a place on the first lifeboat out of that madhouse?

As for the common man, it rather looks like he is heading for the Conservatives, at least those who work for a living and want to be recognised and rewarded for having a job, rather than being treated as a milch cow for the big State of Jeremy Corbyn aka Len McCluskey.

Am also afraid that your trite Socialist statements such as being left with a "Tory government who will do f@ck all for the common man in the street", are not being swallowed by that 'man in the streets' who is sick to the back teeth of Eurocrats and dabbling, preachy  Socialists who deliver nothiing but empty rhetoric and big bills. 

It's causing many of us a problem.

The Tories are looking for a Hard Brexit and have put a self-proclaimed "difficult" woman in charge of the most important set of negotiations we will have in a century. They aim to remove any form of meaningful check or balance on their negotiations. I don't want to give them this sort of mandate.

On the other hand, Labour and especially with Corbyn in pole position, will be an unmitigated disaster at anything they do, even in opposition. I wouldn't have voted for labour at the best of times, but now, at the worst of time........aarrrgggghhh ! forget them.

I am still waiting to see whether our Conservative MP says he will (or even can) form any meaningful checks and balances within his own party. If he convinces me he can and will, he'll get my vote again.

If not, it goes to the LibDems as a protest vote.

Can anybody help me here ? I know I could “Google” information, but the internet is full of false or ill-informed information…

This business of trade tariffs.

We are currently part of a “Single Market” so we don’t impose import taxes on EU goods such as BMW cars, Champagne, Danish Bacon etc etc and the rest of the EU don’t impose import taxes on UK exports such as Rolls Royce cars, Melton Mowbray pork pies or Naim Amplifiers. I am happy to be corrected if these assumptions are not correct.

After Brexit, we shall probably NOT be part of the Single Market. It has been suggested that we might have to comply with WTO Rules of Trade.

What are the WTO Rules of Trade ? I appreciate they attempt to LIMIT Import/Export tariffs, but are such tariffs MANDATORY. Eg would the UK be OBLIGED to slap (say) 10% import tariff on BMW cars for example. Or would the decision to put ANY tax on such imports be up to the post-Brexit UK government (subject to the WTO limit eg 10%) ?

Would it be possible (not necessarily desirable) for the EU to slap a 10% import tariff on goods from the UK and for the UK to import BMW cars without any such import tariff?

Don ... take this for what it's worth as I'm no expert, but I believe that WTO rules means that the Uk could set its own tariffs on imports, but with a few exceptions those tariffs would have to be applied to any imports not covered by other trade agreements.  So yes 0% tariff on imports of cars could be applied, but that 0% tariff would be on imports of cars from EU, India, China, USA, etc.

I believe that WTO regulations make it difficult to apply tariffs to some imports but not others. So (for example) the suggestion of negotiating a trade deal for cars between UK and EU, but not for any other trade would be against the rules.

Statement from the Bank of England :-

"....It said that this overshoot (forecast inflation going up) was "entirely" due to the impact of weak sterling and that raising interest rates would not be an effective way of tackling that inflation.

Before last June's referendum the pound was trading at about $1.47. It is currently trading around $1.29, down 12%.

The Bank also highlighted that its current forecasts were based on the assumption that the adjustment to the United Kingdom's new relationship with the European Union is smooth".

So, since the BoE, like so many other experts, always get things wrong and peddles nothing but  fear and despondency, we should all rejoice for the good times ahead !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Can anybody clarify the LibDem's position regarding their manifesto referendum proposal.

Is it a referendum to "Remain v Leave" or is it a referendum to "Accept the terms negotiated v ?????"

Cheers

Don

Hmm, from the manifesto - 'we will put that deal to a vote of the British people in a referendum, with the alternative option of staying in the EU on the ballot paper'.  The relevant manifesto text is here - http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe

I read it as implying there would be two options on the ballot paper - Accept the deal, reject the deal & stay in the EU.  That's also what I got, somewhat more clearly, from Tim Farron speaking about it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39942573

If I'm right it specifically it leaves out two other options - reject the deal & leave anyway, and reject the deal and send the govt back to the table (the latter is contentious, but as I understand it it's technically a possibility, even if not politically viable at the moment - things change).

I'm not sure that being less vague would be to their advantage at the moment, so perhaps it's intentionally vague.  But it's bound to be pushed & clarified in the next day or two.

I have now re-read their manifesto, and in the light of your comments Dave, I think it's clear :-

"Accept the deal as negotiated" v "Remain in the EU"

Of course, for this to become relevant, the LibDems must :-

Win enough seats to deny the Conservatives a majority in the HoC and form a coalition

Win enough seats to give them a significant say in any coalition, so as to have another referendum

Win enough seats so as to make a practical contribution to the Brexit negotiations.

Sweet dreams, but somehow I don't see it happening ! A pity.

Perhaps the Conservatives could incorporate this concept into their manifesto ?

That will never happen, because they want a strong and stable government, rather than a coalition of chaos. Nothing matters, other than being strong and stable. Let's hope the Brexit negotiation table is a strong and stable table. 

The strong & stable (table) thing is starting to sound like the flagellant monks in The Holy Grail to me. Strong and stable government... *Whack* Make Theresa May stronger... *Whack*

None of it is happening in terms of a Lib Dem govt, apparently even Tim Farron has (refreshingly) been quite sanguine about that.

But it could contribute to dragging the Overton window towards sense, inch by inch. There's a long way to go between now and the final deal.

The Libdem offer of a 'stay' option in a referendum sounds fine, except  that we have already given notice to quit and thus are out after the two years are up. Whilst I suppose it would be possible for the 27 to agree to waive the exit obligation it would almost certainly mean that the generally favourable things we have at present - most notably the budget rebate, but also other opt outs negotiated iver the years - would not be so easily handed back to us. It would be a changed relationship. It is unlikely that they would treat us as a prodigal son and kill the fatted calf.

As for Mrs May's alleged hard line and willingness to walk away, does anyone really think we would get a better deal by saying to the 27 we will accept any deal on offer so long as we can keep some sort of relationship? She has to maintain a stance that we can manage without a deal. When the time comes, provided she has a strong majority, she will be able to accept compromise where necessary without fear of a meaningful Commons rejection.

wanderer posted:

The Libdem offer of a 'stay' option in a referendum sounds fine, except  that we have already given notice to quit and thus are out after the two years are up.

Many people argue that until until the final exit agreement is signed, that the UK could actually withdraw the Article 50 notification.  Politically would be more difficult and would require careful diplomacy...

Whilst I suppose it would be possible for the 27 to agree to waive the exit obligation it would almost certainly mean that the generally favourable things we have at present - most notably the budget rebate, but also other opt outs negotiated iver the years - would not be so easily handed back to us. It would be a changed relationship. It is unlikely that they would treat us as a prodigal son and kill the fatted calf.

It depends... if the UK is such an important part to the EU as some (not you particularly) pro-Brexit people claim ... then they should treat us as the prodigal son!  Anyway that all depends on the legality of withdrawing Article 50.

As for Mrs May's alleged hard line and willingness to walk away, does anyone really think we would get a better deal by saying to the 27 we will accept any deal on offer so long as we can keep some sort of relationship? She has to maintain a stance that we can manage without a deal. When the time comes, provided she has a strong majority, she will be able to accept compromise where necessary without fear of a meaningful Commons rejection.

It's not just her hard line that's a problem (as far as I'm concerned) it's her belligerent attitude towards Europe.  She's not working towards building bridges she is determined to tear them down it appears.

As for leaving without a deal, that's virtually impossible.  No deal would mean a strict UK - EU boarder (NI - Ireland specifically); no deal would leave UK citizens in Europe in limbo; no deal would mean UK citizens having to obtain visas to visit Europe.  And that's before considering any trading relationships.  No deal would leave companies like Nissan in limbo; would shut down the financial centres; leave in down status of imports and exports.  

Yes all these things are things that the EU want to negotiate too, but they will take diplomacy and compromise (IMO)  

Above all: To get a deal she needs good will ... I don't think she's getting much!

Don Atkinson posted:

I have now re-read their manifesto, and in the light of your comments Dave, I think it's clear :-

"Accept the deal as negotiated" v "Remain in the EU"

Of course, for this to become relevant, the LibDems must :-

Win enough seats to deny the Conservatives a majority in the HoC and form a coalition

Win enough seats to give them a significant say in any coalition, so as to have another referendum

Win enough seats so as to make a practical contribution to the Brexit negotiations.

Sweet dreams, but somehow I don't see it happening ! A pity.

Perhaps the Conservatives could incorporate this concept into their manifesto ?

 

I thought I heard a senior Lib Dem, it might have been Vince Cable, ruling out a Lib Dem coalition with both Labour and Conservatives. Don't know what's left after that. 

Although the likely Tory majority means it's probably academic, I'd expect that if it came to it, they'd stick to half of that. No coalition with the Conservatives ('You what? Look what happened last time! You can sod off!'), but a willingness to at least talk about it with Labour.

The current Lib Dems seem to be emphasising their progressive instincts more than the (rather gimmicky) approach they took last time. Artificially casting themselves as half way between the two main parties didn't work nearly as well as simply being themselves, and IMO the soul of the party is left leaning.

What makes it interesting from a Brexit perspective is that in a Lib/Lab coalition, I'm fairly sure the Liberals could get Labour to support their final agreement referendum. After all, it's only asking the question once the details are known, and leaving would still be on the table.

Principles aside, I'd be fascinated to see what happened if there was that kind of surprise result in the election.

MDS posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I have now re-read their manifesto, and in the light of your comments Dave, I think it's clear :-

"Accept the deal as negotiated" v "Remain in the EU"

Of course, for this to become relevant, the LibDems must :-

Win enough seats to deny the Conservatives a majority in the HoC and form a coalition

Win enough seats to give them a significant say in any coalition, so as to have another referendum

Win enough seats so as to make a practical contribution to the Brexit negotiations.

Sweet dreams, but somehow I don't see it happening ! A pity.

Perhaps the Conservatives could incorporate this concept into their manifesto ?

 

I thought I heard a senior Lib Dem, it might have been Vince Cable, ruling out a Lib Dem coalition with both Labour and Conservatives. Don't know what's left after that. 

Nothing, really.

But then Politicians and Principles don't have much in common, (other than starting with the letter "P") so anything might happen, depending on the election outcome

MDS posted:

I thought I heard a senior Lib Dem, it might have been Vince Cable, ruling out a Lib Dem coalition with both Labour and Conservatives. Don't know what's left after that. 

I may be remembering wrong, and there may have been announcements after: but as I recall the pronouncement was they ruled out any coalition with Conservatives as well as ruling out a coalition with Labour lead by Corbyn.

Eloise posted:

It's not just her hard line that's a problem (as far as I'm concerned) it's her belligerent attitude towards Europe.  She's not working towards building bridges she is determined to tear them down it appears.

It’s worse than burning her bridges, she’s seems intent on Crossing the Rubicon. Which is ironic considering she’s distancing the UK from Rome, not moving towards it.

She's certainly making it extremely difficult for David Davies, whom I guess is still her nominated man in charge of Brexit and the necessary negotiations. I presume he will be our chief negotiator, and not her ?

Geoffrey Howe claimed that MT (as Team Captain) had secretly broken his bat before sending him out to the wicket. ISTM that if the only thing that TM has broken is David Davies' bat, he stands a fair chance of knocking up a century.

One of my acquaintances at the top of the Civil Aviation Authority has this week clarified the Government's position regarding Aviation and Brexit. It boils down to :-

“We don't know what to do for the best and we don't know whether the negotiations will allow us to do what we think is best, if we ever manage to decide what would be best"

The Great Repeal Bill will obviously dump the existing Rules & Regulations of the European Aviation Safety Agency  firmly into our own legislation, and we will then be at liberty (or rather HMG, whoever that is, will be at liberty) to modify these Rules to suit the UK. But if we decide it would be better to remain harmonized with Europe on aviation matters we will need to establish the right to contribute to future development of regulations and to be able to vote on their introduction.

I imagine there will be hundreds of other (but somewhat similar) situations covering industry from agriculture to Zoo Keeping to be sorted out. And I dread to think how this is going to be done meaningfully if the current position regarding aviation is representative and repeated across the whole spectrum of industry and commerce.

Does anybody have better news regarding their  industry ?

Don Atkinson posted:

One of my acquaintances at the top of the Civil Aviation Authority has this week clarified the Government's position regarding Aviation and Brexit. It boils down to :-

“We don't know what to do for the best and we don't know whether the negotiations will allow us to do what we think is best, if we ever manage to decide what would be best"

 

[...]

Does anybody have better news regarding their  industry ?

I was reading reflections from Vince Cable ... now take his words with a pinch of salt if you will, sour grapes even ... but he was saying that during the coalition period, TM was more interested in doing things for the appearance than for practical reasons.

This perhaps explains some of the government's current thinking on Brexit.  They know that on things like aviation it would be best just to sign up to EU regulations, but for the sake of appearances they refuse to as that would require rolling back on the promise of leaving all EU institutions.

So regardless of the harm done, TM is determined to leave EU completely.

Explains a lot of things Eloise.

and doesn't leave much room for hope !

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

One of my acquaintances at the top of the Civil Aviation Authority has this week clarified the Government's position regarding Aviation and Brexit. It boils down to :-

“We don't know what to do for the best and we don't know whether the negotiations will allow us to do what we think is best, if we ever manage to decide what would be best"

 

[...]

Does anybody have better news regarding their  industry ?

I was reading reflections from Vince Cable ... now take his words with a pinch of salt if you will, sour grapes even ... but he was saying that during the coalition period, TM was more interested in doing things for the appearance than for practical reasons.

This perhaps explains some of the government's current thinking on Brexit.  They know that on things like aviation it would be best just to sign up to EU regulations, but for the sake of appearances they refuse to as that would require rolling back on the promise of leaving all EU institutions.

So regardless of the harm done, TM is determined to leave EU completely.

Reading Vince Cable's reflections ? - you need a job ...

Anybody who thought that TM supported Cameron really needed to remove their blinkers ...

ynwa250505 posted:

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

One of my acquaintances at the top of the Civil Aviation Authority has this week clarified the Government's position regarding Aviation and Brexit. It boils down to :-

“We don't know what to do for the best and we don't know whether the negotiations will allow us to do what we think is best, if we ever manage to decide what would be best"

 

[...]

Does anybody have better news regarding their  industry ?

I was reading reflections from Vince Cable ... now take his words with a pinch of salt if you will, sour grapes even ... but he was saying that during the coalition period, TM was more interested in doing things for the appearance than for practical reasons.

This perhaps explains some of the government's current thinking on Brexit.  They know that on things like aviation it would be best just to sign up to EU regulations, but for the sake of appearances they refuse to as that would require rolling back on the promise of leaving all EU institutions.

So regardless of the harm done, TM is determined to leave EU completely.

 

Anybody who thought that TM supported Cameron really needed to remove their blinkers ...

'I'll support you as my party leader. I'll serve in your cabinet and speak up in support of your policies. I'll say publicly that I think staying in the EU is best for the UK.'  

Then, within months.

'I'll reverse many of Cameron's policies. I'll take the party to the right. I'll do a u-turn on Brexit.'

Is that sort of integrity what you to see in a Prime Minister? Hmmm.

MDS posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

One of my acquaintances at the top of the Civil Aviation Authority has this week clarified the Government's position regarding Aviation and Brexit. It boils down to :-

“We don't know what to do for the best and we don't know whether the negotiations will allow us to do what we think is best, if we ever manage to decide what would be best"

 

[...]

Does anybody have better news regarding their  industry ?

I was reading reflections from Vince Cable ... now take his words with a pinch of salt if you will, sour grapes even ... but he was saying that during the coalition period, TM was more interested in doing things for the appearance than for practical reasons.

This perhaps explains some of the government's current thinking on Brexit.  They know that on things like aviation it would be best just to sign up to EU regulations, but for the sake of appearances they refuse to as that would require rolling back on the promise of leaving all EU institutions.

So regardless of the harm done, TM is determined to leave EU completely.

 

Anybody who thought that TM supported Cameron really needed to remove their blinkers ...

'I'll support you as my party leader. I'll serve in your cabinet and speak up in support of your policies. I'll say publicly that I think staying in the EU is best for the UK.'  

Then, within months.

'I'll reverse many of Cameron's policies. I'll take the party to the right. I'll do a u-turn on Brexit.'

Is that sort of integrity what you to see in a Prime Minister? Hmmm.

 

You expect politicians to say what they mean and mean what they say? Are you serious? It is more useful and practical to take note of what they don't say ...

I expect a Prime Minister to stand up for our nation, our nation's culture and values and be resolute in doing so.