Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[buctootim]

Hey Shurlock, you're wasting your time on here. Don't you know we have a trade deal with Akrotiri??? It's an island near Greece with a population of 7,700. They might be up for a bit of consultancy LOLOLOL

 

****ing hell, you are endlessly stupid. Akrotiri and Dhekelia are sovereign RAF bases on Cyprus you utter bellend.

[Johnny Bognor]

China

Georgia, Australia, Korea, Switzerland, Iceland, Costa Rica, Peru, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Pakistan, Hong Kong and Macao

 

US

Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru and Singapore

 

EU

Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Egypt, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Norway, Palestinian Authority, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey plus Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden

 

So shurlock is all about quality over quantity, whilst you are clearly quantity over quality.

 

Chile has trade deals with countries that have FIVE times the GDP of all of the EU trade deals.

 

Love it how remainers have to include member states to beef up the negotiating prowess of the EU ROFL

[Johnny Bognor]

****ing hell, you are endlessly stupid. Akrotiri and Dhekelia are sovereign RAF bases on Cyprus you utter bellend.

 

I know that. I found that out when I googled where they are. Great deal though, don't you think????

 

Even Teresa May should be able to negotiate a deal with these guys LOL

 

At the end of the day, you surely can't be that impressed with the EU's external trade deals because they are pretty cr@p, lets be honest

[shurlock]

So shurlock is all about quality over quantity, whilst you are clearly quantity over quality.

 

Chile has trade deals with countries that have FIVE times the GDP of all of the EU trade deals.

 

Love it how remainers have to include member states to beef up the negotiating prowess of the EU ROFL

 

You still don't get it. Most FTAs have little impact on export volumes unless they involve deeper forms of trade integration, my original point. You were unable to rebut this, so went full on, sectionable MLG, compiling vacuous lists. How comprehensive have Chile's deals been? Let's start with that. Take your time pal. You don't want to screw up again.

[Johnny Bognor]

You still don't get it. Most FTAs have little impact on export volumes unless they involve deeper forms of trade integration, my original point. You were unable to rebut this, so went full on, sectionable MLG, compiling vacuous lists. How comprehensive have Chile's deals been? Let's start with that. Take your time pal. You don't want to screw up again.

 

Well they managed to negotiate a deal with the EU, which is a feat in itself.

 

Now, your turn.

 

Can you or Buctootim tell me which external trade agreements you are particularly proud of??

 

Maybe we could start with an economy in the world's top 10 in terms of GDP?? I'll even give you top 20??

Edited 17 October, 2017 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

Can you or Buctootim tell me which external trade agreements you are particularly proud of??

 

Maybe we could start with an economy in the world's top 10 in terms of GDP?? I'll even give you top 20??

 

Sure, by being in the EU Britain gets free trade with 10 of the top 20. China only gets 2 and the US get four.

[shurlock]

Well they managed to negotiate a deal with the EU, which is a feat in itself.

 

Now, your turn.

 

Can you or Buctootim tell me which external trade agreements you are particularly proud of??

 

Maybe we could start with an economy in the world's top 10 in terms of GDP?? I'll even give you top 20??

 

Still not answering the question - how deep was that agreement? Which areas did it cover? Given its unequal negotiating position, how much did Chile have to give up? You seem fundamentally confused how trade agreements work.

Edited 17 October, 2017 by shurlock

[Johnny Bognor]

Sure, by being in the EU Britain gets free trade with 10 of the top 20. China only gets 2 and the US get four.

External??? (Ie not including member states)

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Johnny Bognor]

Still not answering the question - how deep was that agreement? Which areas did it cover? Given its unequal negotiating position, how much did Chile have to give up? You seem fundamentally confused how trade agreements work.

Errr we can debate the merits of the chile agreement, but it doesnt defllect from the fact that external deals are majorly underwhelming

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

Errr we can debate the merits of the chile agreement, but it doesnt defllect from the fact that external deals are majorly underwhelming

Underwhelming and yet the cumbersome, collapsing EU has negotiated far superior trade deals than nimble single countries of comparable size like the US or China. How odd.

[shurlock]

Errr we can debate the merits of the chile agreement, but it doesnt defllect from the fact that external deals are majorly underwhelming

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

 

You’re a businessman, Balders. I’m sure you think both big picture and the bottom line. You need to stop fetishising trade deals for the sake of trade deals and look at what they actually accomplish on a case-by-case basis. Thus, a World Bank study found that Chile’s FTAs with the EU and US were ‘not a big deal…effects are small because the FTA-induced changes are small’. It did acknowledge that the costs of negotiating deals were also small, so at the margins, they were benefical but they were hardly a game changer.

 

Note if you're already one of the largest economies or trading blocs in the world, its difficult, if not impossible to match the size of deal that a small economy can strike (unless you count trading with yourself). You shouldn't parrot Peter Lilley - you're more intelligent than that pal.

 

The state equivalent of every man and his dog can do a trade deal. Take Switzerland’s FTAwith China. On your crude measure, that counts as a blinding success; however, the devil is in the detail and tells a very different story.

 

As Dhingra and Datta point out: “Swiss tariffs on Chinese industrial products, shoes and textiles were removed immediately, whereas Chinese tariffs on Swiss exports are being dismantled in some cases over a 15-year period, while other sectors like machinery and chemical products are keeping their tariffs. As a report by Lalive, a Swiss law firm, makes clear, the agreement ‘is more favourable to Chinese exports’, and a survey conducted by the Swiss Chamber of Commerce two years after its introduction concluded that ‘the FTA is not very attractive.’ In that survey, 89 per cent of respondents claimed that the agreement had had no clear effect so far, and that the biggest problems they faced were red tape, time delays and customs officers’ lack of knowledge. The deal did cover services, but didn’t really extend the already existing WTO services commitments. The most recent Swiss embassy report noted that service exports from Switzerland to China shrank by 0.3 per cent in 2015, dropping 1.3 per cent from the year before, during most of which the agreement wasn’t in force”.

 

Never mind that the deal barely scratched the surface of the China’s deeply protectionist economy: stringent foreign ownership restrictions and licensing requirements, if not open discrimination in areas such as public procurement, all manner of direct and indirect subsidies, high levels of discretion in everything from customs clearance to weak enforcement of intellectual property rights. As Ken Clarke said, pinning your hopes on emerging economies like China is truly Alice in Wonderland stuff.

 

The impetus to do deals among developed countries, on some levels, is much less pressing. Tariffs are already in the low single figures. Much more progress can be made on harmonisation of standards and other nontariff barriers, though as they reflect clear differences in countries preferences (e.g. risk-based regulation vs. the precautionary principle = hello Misselbrook), they are limits to how far they can be overcome. Getting major economies or trading blocs to agree on the appropriate forum to resolve trade disputes and enforce investors rights is always a stumbling block.

 

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the EU has made some progress on these fronts- hence it recently reached a political agreement with Japan on a FTA whereas the US-Japan negotiations have been bogged down. Surprised you missed this news, Balders.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/business/economy/japan-eu-trade-agreement.html

https://www.ft.com/content/572fef42-6260-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-japan-dialogue/u-s-japan-fail-to-bridge-gap-on-trade-in-economic-talks-idUSKBN1CL2FM?il=0

 

Ultimately, study after study shows mo FTA matches the comprehensiveness of the single market, so yes, it is completely rational to spend scarce political and economic capital on deepening and enlarging it. By extension, it makes complete sense for the UK to prioritise a deal with the EU. You don’t get bonus points for nostalgia and delusions of Empire 2.0 in the real world, pal.

Edited 17 October, 2017 by shurlock

[Johnny Bognor]

You’re a businessman, Balders. I’m sure you think both big picture and the bottom line. You need to stop fetishising trade deals for the sake of trade deals and look at what they actually accomplish on a case-by-case basis. Thus, a World Bank study found that Chile’s FTAs with the EU and US were ‘not a big deal…effects are small because the FTA-induced changes are small’. It did acknowledge that the costs of negotiating deals were also small, so at the margins, they were benefical but they were hardly a game changer.

 

Note if you're already one of the largest economies or trading blocs in the world, its difficult, if not impossible to match the size of deal that a small economy can strike (unless you count trading with yourself). You shouldn't parrot Peter Lilley - you're more intelligent than that pal.

 

“Trade deal” is a very loosely applied, covering a whole array of different agreements. Hence I am with you on the “quality” aspect, as opposed to your mate bucktootim, who is creaming himself over the prospect of a customs union with an RAF airbase.

 

I’m not one that sees future prosperity linked to trade deals, which is why the effects of leaving the single market are overstated. We are a net importer with the EU and the only way to reverse that is to provide more products and services that they want to buy. If you make products and services that people want to buy, you will sell them. Whether that’s Microsoft windows on every PC, Apple iPhones in the pockets of most millennials or Dyson hoovers in every household. These products/services are sold all over the world, create immense wealth for the countries from which they come. No trade deals needed.

 

Our future prosperity will be linked to our ability as a nation to design, invent or create. Simple really. FTA’s maybe a bit of grease that oils the wheels of commerce, but that it is, it’s just grease when our “engine” is what needs attention.

 

I will still maintain though, that the advantage gained by being part of a big block, is outweighed by the fact that only 1 member out of 28 can veto a deal. This in itself can make a deal harder to get. I take Buctootims point that the EU have managed better deals than the US or China, but we’re starting from a low base.

 

 

The state equivalent of every man and his dog can do a trade deal. Take Switzerland’s FTAwith China. On your crude measure, that counts as a blinding success; however, the devil is in the detail and tells a very different story.

 

As Dhingra and Datta point out: “Swiss tariffs on Chinese industrial products, shoes and textiles were removed immediately, whereas Chinese tariffs on Swiss exports are being dismantled in some cases over a 15-year period, while other sectors like machinery and chemical products are keeping their tariffs. As a report by Lalive, a Swiss law firm, makes clear, the agreement ‘is more favourable to Chinese exports’, and a survey conducted by the Swiss Chamber of Commerce two years after its introduction concluded that ‘the FTA is not very attractive.’ In that survey, 89 per cent of respondents claimed that the agreement had had no clear effect so far, and that the biggest problems they faced were red tape, time delays and customs officers’ lack of knowledge. The deal did cover services, but didn’t really extend the already existing WTO services commitments. The most recent Swiss embassy report noted that service exports from Switzerland to China shrank by 0.3 per cent in 2015, dropping 1.3 per cent from the year before, during most of which the agreement wasn’t in force”.

 

Never mind that the deal barely scratched the surface of the China’s deeply protectionist economy: stringent foreign ownership restrictions and licensing requirements, if not open discrimination in areas such as public procurement, all manner of direct and indirect subsidies, high levels of discretion in everything from customs clearance to weak enforcement of intellectual property rights. As Ken Clarke said, pinning your hopes on emerging economies like China is truly Alice in Wonderland stuff.

 

I agree with this. Switzerland won’t be able to sit down for a raw arse, by the time they can sell anything into China

 

 

The impetus to do deals among developed countries, on some levels, is much less pressing. Tariffs are already in the low single figures. Much more progress can be made on harmonisation of standards and other nontariff barriers, though as they reflect clear differences in countries preferences (e.g. risk-based regulation vs. the precautionary principle = hello Misselbrook), they are limits to how far they can be overcome. Getting major economies or trading blocs to agree on the appropriate forum to resolve trade disputes and enforce investors rights is always a stumbling block.

 

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the EU has made some progress on these fronts- hence it recently reached a political agreement with Japan on a FTA whereas the US-Japan negotiations have been bogged down. Surprised you missed this news, Balders.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/business/economy/japan-eu-trade-agreement.html

https://www.ft.com/content/572fef42-6260-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-japan-dialogue/u-s-japan-fail-to-bridge-gap-on-trade-in-economic-talks-idUSKBN1CL2FM?il=0

 

Ultimately, study after study shows mo FTA matches the comprehensiveness of the single market, so yes, it is completely rational to spend scarce political and economic capital on deepening and enlarging it. By extension, it makes complete sense for the UK to prioritise a deal with the EU. You don’t get bonus points for nostalgia and delusions of Empire 2.0 in the real world, pal.

 

They are still underwhelming, but actually the discussion as to whether this nation prospers or not should focus on how we are going to continue or improve on making products and services that the world wants to buy. FTA's will not guarantee future prosperity on their own.

[Verbal]

Actually the discussion as to whether this nation prospers or not should focus on how we are going to continue or improve on making products and services that the world wants to buy. FTA's will not guarantee future prosperity on their own.

 

Are you slowly turning into a remoaner? You seem at least part of the way there. Now you just need to add a few things to this. Like the fact that 80% of the British economy is services, and so the most vital component of a successful service economy is wrapped up in the non-tariff barriers and frictionless movement (e.g. passporting) that is already unsurpassedly offered by the single market and the customs union.

 

Any alternative - and I mean any known international goods and services agreement anywhere in the world - is inferior to this combination.

 

May we sign you up to the non-Jihadist side of this debate?

[Johnny Bognor]

Are you slowly turning into a remoaner? You seem at least part of the way there. Now you just need to add a few things to this. Like the fact that 80% of the British economy is services, and so the most vital component of a successful service economy is wrapped up in the non-tariff barriers and frictionless movement (e.g. passporting) that is already unsurpassedly offered by the single market and the customs union.

 

Any alternative - and I mean any known international goods and services agreement anywhere in the world - is inferior to this combination.

 

May we sign you up to the non-Jihadist side of this debate?

 

Note "the world wants to buy", not just the EU.

 

I was a Remainer at the beginning of the debate. Ideally we would stay in the single market, but that's not going to happen as we can't have our cake and eat it. But as I have said before, there is a risk to staying in the EU.

[shurlock]

“Trade deal” is a very loosely applied, covering a whole array of different agreements. Hence I am with you on the “quality” aspect, as opposed to your mate bucktootim, who is creaming himself over the prospect of a customs union with an RAF airbase.

 

I’m not one that sees future prosperity linked to trade deals, which is why the effects of leaving the single market are overstated. We are a net importer with the EU and the only way to reverse that is to provide more products and services that they want to buy. If you make products and services that people want to buy, you will sell them. Whether that’s Microsoft windows on every PC, Apple iPhones in the pockets of most millennials or Dyson hoovers in every household. These products/services are sold all over the world, create immense wealth for the countries from which they come. No trade deals needed.

 

Our future prosperity will be linked to our ability as a nation to design, invent or create. Simple really. FTA’s maybe a bit of grease that oils the wheels of commerce, but that it is, it’s just grease when our “engine” is what needs attention.

 

I will still maintain though, that the advantage gained by being part of a big block, is outweighed by the fact that only 1 member out of 28 can veto a deal. This in itself can make a deal harder to get. I take Buctootims point that the EU have managed better deals than the US or China, but we’re starting from a low base.

 

 

 

 

I agree with this. Switzerland won’t be able to sit down for a raw arse, by the time they can sell anything into China

 

 

 

 

They are still underwhelming, but actually the discussion as to whether this nation prospers or not should focus on how we are going to continue or improve on making products and services that the world wants to buy. FTA's will not guarantee future prosperity on their own.

 

Agree with most of this.

[Guided Missile]

“Trade deal” is a very loosely applied, covering a whole array of different agreements. Hence I am with you on the “quality” aspect, as opposed to your mate bucktootim, who is creaming himself over the prospect of a customs union with an RAF airbase.

 

I’m not one that sees future prosperity linked to trade deals, which is why the effects of leaving the single market are overstated. We are a net importer with the EU and the only way to reverse that is to provide more products and services that they want to buy. If you make products and services that people want to buy, you will sell them. Whether that’s Microsoft windows on every PC, Apple iPhones in the pockets of most millennials or Dyson hoovers in every household. These products/services are sold all over the world, create immense wealth for the countries from which they come. No trade deals needed.

 

Our future prosperity will be linked to our ability as a nation to design, invent or create. Simple really. FTA’s maybe a bit of grease that oils the wheels of commerce, but that it is, it’s just grease when our “engine” is what needs attention.

 

They are still underwhelming, but actually the discussion as to whether this nation prospers or not should focus on how we are going to continue or improve on making products and services that the world wants to buy. FTA's will not guarantee future prosperity on their own.

I love the total over reaction on this thread, despite the good news daily, regarding our exit from the EU and our prospects thereafter. I think it may be worth reminding the "We're Doomed" brigade of some very simple UK trade figures from 2015.

 

[TABLE=class: cms_table, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Country[/TD]

[TD]Imports (£m)[/TD]

[TD]Exports (£m)[/TD]

[TD]Total Trade(£m)[/TD]

[TD]Trade Balance (£m)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]EU[/TD]

[TD]220,150[/TD]

[TD]133,832[/TD]

[TD]353,982[/TD]

[TD]-86,318[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Germany[/TD]

[TD]60,860[/TD]

[TD]30,382[/TD]

[TD]91,242[/TD]

[TD]-30,478[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]US[/TD]

[TD]35,291[/TD]

[TD]45,278[/TD]

[TD]80,568[/TD]

[TD]+9,987[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

You may wonder why both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are unwilling to complete the TTIP, given the US trade figures below:

 

[TABLE=class: cms_table, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Country[/TD]

[TD]Imports ($m)[/TD]

[TD]Exports ($m)[/TD]

[TD]Total Trade ($m)[/TD]

[TD]Balance ($m)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]EU[/TD]

[TD]416,666[/TD]

[TD]270,325[/TD]

[TD]686,991[/TD]

[TD]-146,340[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Germany[/TD]

[TD]114,227[/TD]

[TD]49,362[/TD]

[TD]163,589[/TD]

[TD]-64,865[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

Two simple questions spring to mind from the trade figures above.

 

 

 

1. Why are we worried in the slightest about the trade terms being "dictated" to us by a bunch of un-elected bureaucrats from Brussels whose masters have more to lose than we do?
   
2. How did we let Germany dominate world trade, post WWII to the detriment of countries they tried to enslave?
   

 

 

As Trump warned them:

 

The Germans are bad, very bad. See the millions of cars they sell in the U.S., terrible. We will stop this.

In 1950, the UK was the world's largest exporter of cars. It just shows what socialism and the EU has done to our car industry since. We need to fight socialism and the inevitable state interference in our private industries and let them compete on the world market. That is the way we will be forced to produce goods the whole world wants. "Necessity is the mother of invention". A maxim that has served our great country well for centuries.

 

 

• Soda water: Joseph Priestley, 1772
  
• Hydraulic press: Joseph Bramah, 1795
  
• Steam engine: Richard Trevithick, 1801
  
• Glider: George Cayley, 1804
  
• Tension-spoked wheel: George Cayley, 1808
  
• Tin can: Peter Durand, 1810
  
• Modern fire extinguisher: George William Manby, 1818
  
• Electric motor: Michael Faraday, 1821
  
• Waterproof material: Charles Macintosh, 1823
  
• Cement: Joseph Aspdin, 1824
  
• Passenger railway: George Stephenson, 1825
  
• Lawnmower: Edwin Beard Budding, 1827
  
• Photography: William Henry Fox Talbot, 1835
  
• Electric telegraph: Charles Wheatstone & William Cooke, 1837
  
• Chocolate bar: JS Fry & Sons, 1847
  
• Hypodermic syringe: Alexander Wood, 1853
  
• Synthetic dye: William Perkin, 1856
  
• Bessemer process: Henry Bessemer, 1856
  
• Linoleum: Frederick Walton, 1860
  
• Sewage system: Joseph Bazalgette, 1865
  
• Modern Torpedo: Robert Whitehead, 1866
  
• Telephone: Alexander Graham Bell, 1876
  
• Light Bulb: Joseph Swan, 1880
  
• Steam turbine: Charles Parsons, 1884
  
• Safety bicycle: John Kemp Stanley, 1885
  
• Pneumatic tyre: John Boyd Dunlop, 1887
  
• Thermos flask: Sir James Dewar, 1892
  
• Electric vacuum cleaner: Hubert Cecil Booth, 1901
  
• Disc Brakes: Frederick William Lanchester, 1902
  
• Stainless Steel: Harry Brearley, 1913
  
• Military tank: Ernest Swinton, 1914
  
• Television: John Logie Baird, 1925
  
• Catseye: Percy Shaw, 1933
  
• Jet Engine: Frank Whittle, 1937
  
• Electronic programmable computer: Tommy Flowers, 1943
  
• Hovercraft: Christopher Cockerell, 1953
  
• Automatic kettle: Peter Hobbs, 1955
  
• Float Glass: Alastair Pilkington, 1959
  
• Hip Replacement: John Charnley, 1962
  
• Carbon fibre: Royal Aircraft Establishment engineers, 1963
  
• Collapsible baby buggy: Owen Maclaren, 1965
  
• ATM: John Shepherd-Barron, 1967
  
• World Wide Web: Tim Berners-Lee, 1989
  
• Wind-up radio: Trevor Baylis, 1991
  
• Steri-spray: Ian Helmore, c. 2008
  

 

 

I love our country...

[shurlock]

I love the total over reaction on this thread, despite the good news daily, regarding our exit from the EU and our prospects thereafter. I think it may be worth reminding the "We're Doomed" brigade of some very simple UK trade figures from 2015.

 

[TABLE=class: cms_table, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Country[/TD]

[TD]Imports (£m)[/TD]

[TD]Exports (£m)[/TD]

[TD]Total Trade(£m)[/TD]

[TD]Trade Balance (£m)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]EU[/TD]

[TD]220,150[/TD]

[TD]133,832[/TD]

[TD]353,982[/TD]

[TD]-86,318[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Germany[/TD]

[TD]60,860[/TD]

[TD]30,382[/TD]

[TD]91,242[/TD]

[TD]-30,478[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]US[/TD]

[TD]35,291[/TD]

[TD]45,278[/TD]

[TD]80,568[/TD]

[TD]+9,987[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

You may wonder why both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are unwilling to complete the TTIP, given the US trade figures below:

 

[TABLE=class: cms_table, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Country[/TD]

[TD]Imports ($m)[/TD]

[TD]Exports ($m)[/TD]

[TD]Total Trade ($m)[/TD]

[TD]Balance ($m)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]EU[/TD]

[TD]416,666[/TD]

[TD]270,325[/TD]

[TD]686,991[/TD]

[TD]-146,340[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Germany[/TD]

[TD]114,227[/TD]

[TD]49,362[/TD]

[TD]163,589[/TD]

[TD]-64,865[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

Two simple questions spring to mind from the trade figures above.

 

 

 

1. Why are we worried in the slightest about the trade terms being "dictated" to us by a bunch of un-elected bureaucrats from Brussels whose masters have more to lose than we do?
   
2. How did we let Germany dominate world trade, post WWII to the detriment of countries they tried to enslave?
   

 

 

As Trump warned them:

 

The Germans are bad, very bad. See the millions of cars they sell in the U.S., terrible. We will stop this.

In 1950, the UK was the world's largest exporter of cars. It just shows what socialism and the EU has done to our car industry since. We need to fight socialism and the inevitable state interference in our private industries and let them compete on the world market. That is the way we will be forced to produce goods the whole world wants. "Necessity is the mother of invention". A maxim that has served our great country well for centuries.

 

 

• Soda water: Joseph Priestley, 1772
  
• Hydraulic press: Joseph Bramah, 1795
  
• Steam engine: Richard Trevithick, 1801
  
• Glider: George Cayley, 1804
  
• Tension-spoked wheel: George Cayley, 1808
  
• Tin can: Peter Durand, 1810
  
• Modern fire extinguisher: George William Manby, 1818
  
• Electric motor: Michael Faraday, 1821
  
• Waterproof material: Charles Macintosh, 1823
  
• Cement: Joseph Aspdin, 1824
  
• Passenger railway: George Stephenson, 1825
  
• Lawnmower: Edwin Beard Budding, 1827
  
• Photography: William Henry Fox Talbot, 1835
  
• Electric telegraph: Charles Wheatstone & William Cooke, 1837
  
• Chocolate bar: JS Fry & Sons, 1847
  
• Hypodermic syringe: Alexander Wood, 1853
  
• Synthetic dye: William Perkin, 1856
  
• Bessemer process: Henry Bessemer, 1856
  
• Linoleum: Frederick Walton, 1860
  
• Sewage system: Joseph Bazalgette, 1865
  
• Modern Torpedo: Robert Whitehead, 1866
  
• Telephone: Alexander Graham Bell, 1876
  
• Light Bulb: Joseph Swan, 1880
  
• Steam turbine: Charles Parsons, 1884
  
• Safety bicycle: John Kemp Stanley, 1885
  
• Pneumatic tyre: John Boyd Dunlop, 1887
  
• Thermos flask: Sir James Dewar, 1892
  
• Electric vacuum cleaner: Hubert Cecil Booth, 1901
  
• Disc Brakes: Frederick William Lanchester, 1902
  
• Stainless Steel: Harry Brearley, 1913
  
• Military tank: Ernest Swinton, 1914
  
• Television: John Logie Baird, 1925
  
• Catseye: Percy Shaw, 1933
  
• Jet Engine: Frank Whittle, 1937
  
• Electronic programmable computer: Tommy Flowers, 1943
  
• Hovercraft: Christopher Cockerell, 1953
  
• Automatic kettle: Peter Hobbs, 1955
  
• Float Glass: Alastair Pilkington, 1959
  
• Hip Replacement: John Charnley, 1962
  
• Carbon fibre: Royal Aircraft Establishment engineers, 1963
  
• Collapsible baby buggy: Owen Maclaren, 1965
  
• ATM: John Shepherd-Barron, 1967
  
• World Wide Web: Tim Berners-Lee, 1989
  
• Wind-up radio: Trevor Baylis, 1991
  
• Steri-spray: Ian Helmore, c. 2008
  

 

 

I love our country...

 

 

Stirring stuff, John. If only reality could bend to your second-rate, hackneyed thoughts and assertions. Your understanding of trade, exchange rates and changes in a country's current and capital account, as suspected, is pretty thin.

 

The trade deficit is not a scorecard - it is not inherently good or bad, it can be either depending on the circumstances:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/upshot/the-trade-deficit-isnt-a-scorecard-and-cutting-it-wont-make-america-great-again.html

 

A minor point, your UK numbers are too high: specifically, they omit trade in services and services are the backbone of the UK economy. Further proof of my hypothesis that you can spot a fraud and amateur in these debates by checking whether they focus only on goods trade. Also note that there is controversy over UK-US trade figures. The US actually reports a trade surplus with the UK. That is, UK and US report trade surplus with each other which, of course, is a logical impossibility. None of this changes the the first-order point that obsessing about the deficit alone is a red herring.

 

Still banging on about how the EU has more to lose. I saw a nice metaphor in the FT that puts the situation in terms that someone, like you, who clearly struggles with percentages and abstractions should be able to grasp:

 

Imagine an elephant and a bulldog getting into a fight. In the fight, the elephant loses three pints of blood, the bulldog loses two pints of blood. Note that the elephant loses more blood than the bulldog. Who is worse off afterwards: the elephant or the bulldog, little fella?

 

In concrete terms, UK exports to the EU are around 13% of UK GDP where as EU exports to the UK are only 3-4% of its economy. Still waiting for those prosecco producers and carmakers to ride in and save the day.

 

Lovely list, except that if you and other time-travelling zealots haven't realised, this is the twenty-first century, not the nineteenth century. At least, scousers only live a generation or two in the past. But let's entertain your suggestion that all we need to do is to let the lion roar again and double down on light touch regulation, free trade and laissez-faire economics. Odd then that since Thatcher ushered in many of these changes, so few inventors feature on your little list -never mind that the few dotted islands of world-class excellence in research and business that do exist are surrounded by an ocean of low productivity and low skills.

 

So what about the recent examples in your fantasy narrative: for instance, Tim Berners-Lee, the vocal remainer who invented the WWW while a fellow at CERN, the European research institution which receives plenty of dirty money from the EU. Or Trevor Baylis, who wound up broke and bemoaned how the UK lagged the likes of Germany in their support of engineers and inventors in areas such as IP. You couldn't do a better job of demolishing your own argument, pal.

Edited 19 October, 2017 by shurlock

[moonraker]

A very xenophobic view of a few innovations / inventions. Inventing in and of itself is useless in terms of our economy unless you can translate it to a marketable, the WWW has done no more for the UK than any other economy, hovercraft have hardly revolutionised travel, and manufacturers have come and gone like buses.

There are blatant errors and half truths in your list, sewage systems pre dated Bazalgette, by at least 2000 years, check out those pesky southern European Romans, Thomas Savery. , patented the first practical steam engine in 1698, although the Greek Hero of Alexandria designed the world's first aeolipile around 50 AD to demonstrate the power of steam, bloody Mediterranean folk again. Chocolate is hardly an invention, pesky American natives had already discovered the stuff even before that great fraud Columbus arrived in the West Indies. The Frys, great socialist people, did design a new process for the foodstuff. Nicéphore Niépce is accredited as the inventor of photography circa 1826, Fox Talbot developed a more practical solution but cannot be credited as the inventor. While Aspdin developed Portland cement, the history of cement stretches back to the Greeks more Mediterranean interference. Whilst the Tin Can was perfected by Duarand it relied on the work of Frenchman Philippe de Girard, European co-operation at work.

There are also some telling examples of our failure to spot a good thing, the Modern Torpedo was rejected initially Britain and again it took those pesky Europeans in Austria to commission the first ones for military use. The less said about telephones, incandescent light bulbs and vacuum cleaners the better.

As with most of your arguments it is littered with inaccuracies, delusions, flaws and a failure to understand the bigger picture that it is through the sharing of knowledge, collaboration and co-operation that the greatest achievements of mankind have been made, not by isolationism and control.

I also love my country but I do not do so in the belief that it is superior to others.

[Verbal]

Here's a handy test to see if you're a Brexit Jihadist.

 

If you're in favour of a no-deal no-deal - that is, no deal on the divorce and no deal on an FTA - you are bang (sorry) in the middle of the herd - an economic death cultist. A loud and proud Jihadist.

 

If you're in favour of a deal no deal - that is, an agreement on divorce but none on FTA - you're just a confused tag-along straggler - a wannabe Jihadist, if you will.

 

If you're in favour of a deal deal - agreement on divorce and FTA - you're going to be initially disappointed, and then in all likelihood out of a job.

 

And if you're in favour of deal deal + full membership of the single market and customs union - then you're a Remoaner in a cunning disguise.

 

Looking at the apoplectic state of the majority of Brexiteers on here, I'd say we've got enough Jihadists for MI5 to take an interest.

 

HTH.

[moonraker]

A very xenophobic view of a few innovations / inventions. Inventing in and of itself is useless in terms of our economy unless you can translate it to a marketable, the WWW has done no more for the UK than any other economy, hovercraft have hardly revolutionised travel, and manufacturers have come and gone like buses.

There are blatant errors and half truths in your list, sewage systems pre dated Bazalgette, by at least 2000 years, check out those pesky southern European Romans, Thomas Savery. , patented the first practical steam engine in 1698, although the Greek Hero of Alexandria designed the world's first aeolipile around 50 AD to demonstrate the power of steam, bloody Mediterranean folk again. Chocolate is hardly an invention, pesky American natives had already discovered the stuff even before that great fraud Columbus arrived in the West Indies. The Frys, great socialist people, did design a new process for the foodstuff. Nicéphore Niépce is accredited as the inventor of photography circa 1826, Fox Talbot developed a more practical solution but cannot be credited as the inventor. While Aspdin developed Portland cement, the history of cement stretches back to the Greeks more Mediterranean interference. Whilst the Tin Can was perfected by Duarand it relied on the work of Frenchman Philippe de Girard, European co-operation at work.

There are also some telling examples of our failure to spot a good thing, the Modern Torpedo was rejected initially Britain and again it took those pesky Europeans in Austria to commission the first ones for military use. The less said about telephones, incandescent light bulbs and vacuum cleaners the better.

As with most of your arguments it is littered with inaccuracies, delusions, flaws and a failure to understand the bigger picture that it is through the sharing of knowledge, collaboration and co-operation that the greatest achievements of mankind have been made, not by isolationism and control.

I also love my country but I do not do so in the belief that it is superior to others.

 

Sorrry in the belief that it is not superior to others!

[Whitey Grandad]

Stirring stuff, John. If only reality could bend to your second-rate, hackneyed thoughts and assertions. Your understanding of trade, exchange rates and changes in a country's current and capital account, as suspected, is pretty thin.

 

The trade deficit is not a scorecard - it is not inherently good or bad, it can be either depending on the circumstances:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/upshot/the-trade-deficit-isnt-a-scorecard-and-cutting-it-wont-make-america-great-again.html

 

A minor point, your UK numbers are too high: specifically, they omit trade in services and services are the backbone of the UK economy. Further proof of my hypothesis that you can spot a fraud and amateur in these debates by checking whether they focus only on goods trade. Also note that there is controversy over UK-US trade figures. The US actually reports a trade surplus with the UK. That is, UK and US report trade surplus with each other which, of course, is a logical impossibility. None of this changes the the first-order point that obsessing about the deficit alone is a red herring.

 

Still banging on about how the EU has more to lose. I saw a nice metaphor in the FT that puts the situation in terms that someone, like you, who clearly struggles with percentages and abstractions should be able to grasp:

 

Imagine an elephant and a bulldog getting into a fight. In the fight, the elephant loses three pints of blood, the bulldog loses two pints of blood. Note that the elephant loses more blood than the bulldog. Who is worse off afterwards: the elephant or the bulldog, little fella?

 

In concrete terms, UK exports to the EU are around 13% of UK GDP where as EU exports to the UK are only 3-4% of its economy. Still waiting for those prosecco producers and carmakers to ride in and save the day.

 

Lovely list, except that if you and other time-travelling zealots haven't realised, this is the twenty-first century, not the nineteenth century. At least, scousers only live a generation or two in the past. But let's entertain your suggestion that all we need to do is to let the lion roar again and double down on light touch regulation, free trade and laissez-faire economics. Odd then that since Thatcher ushered in many of these changes, so few inventors feature on your little list -never mind that the few dotted islands of world-class excellence in research and business that do exist are surrounded by an ocean of low productivity and low skills.

 

So what about the recent examples in your fantasy narrative: for instance, Tim Berners-Lee, the vocal remainer who invented the WWW while a fellow at CERN, the European research institution which receives plenty of dirty money from the EU. Or Trevor Baylis, who wound up broke and bemoaned how the UK lagged the likes of Germany in their support of engineers and inventors in areas such as IP. You couldn't do a better job of demolishing your own argument, pal.

 

"wound up broke" There's an irony in there somewhere.

[saint si]

Tin can: Peter Durand, 1810

 

Hmm... In some quarters, he is hailed as the "inventor" of the tin can, but a closer look at the patent, held at the National Archives in London, reveals that it was "an invention communicated to him by a certain foreigner residing abroad".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21689069

 

Invented by a foreigner you say? Goodness gracious!

[Lord Duckhunter]

Here's a handy test to see if you're a Brexit Jihadist.

 

If you're in favour of a no-deal no-deal .

 

 

What you can’t seem to grasp, but don’t worry about it because plenty of remoaners are in the same boat, is unless you’re prepared to walk away, unless the other side thinks you’re ok with walking away, you’ll get a terrible deal. What do you want, all the Brexiters to come out and follow labours ridiculous line that we must take any deal. What ****ing planet are you on? How on earth is that basic position going to get you a better deal.

 

Any deal is better than no deal, is just a front for we don’t want to leave . What they want is for the EU to offer us such a horrendous deal that public opinion turns against it, we have another vote , and stay in. It’s not a serious attempt at influencing a negotiation, because if it was ,the people advocating it seriously shouldn’t be anywhere near any sort of decision making. “ I want to sell my house, so before we start I’ll accept any offer you make”. As Cameron found if you go into a negotiation with no walk away position, you’ll get **** all. The EU didn’t for one minute think he’d walk away and recommend voting out, so he got an awful “ deal” prior to the referendum. Only a fool keeps doing the same thing again and again, so there must be a lot of fools on the Remain side, because they’re recommending the same approach this time.

 

I’d be happy with no deal, but I’d be happier with a deal. How happier depends on the deal. I’d rather be out the EU without a deal, than in it. I’d imagine most leave voters feel the same way.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 19 October, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[badgerx16]

As an aside; given that the Brexit vote was similarly 'non-binding', should the Govt carry out the will of the Commons and suspend the roll out of UC ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

The vote for A50 was binding, Parliament voted to trigger the process of leaving the EU

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[badgerx16]

The vote for A50 was binding,

The referendum was not. However, 'call me' Dave decided that the 'will of the people' was important, should the will of Parliament be treated similarly ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

The referendum was not. However, 'call me' Dave decided that the 'will of the people' was important, should the will of Parliament be treated similarly ?

 

The referendum was advisory, the vote for A50 was not. Votes on opposition day debates are not binding either. It will now be up to the government whether they want to pause or not, just as it was up to the government whether they brought forward legislation to trigger A50. If they do, the will of Parliament will prevail. If you’re arguing that opposition day debates should be binding, then Steptoe could enforce this when he has a majority. Of course, like every other labour government, he won’t actually want this when not in opposition

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 19 October, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[Verbal]

What you can’t seem to grasp, but don’t worry about it because plenty of remoaners are in the same boat, is unless you’re prepared to walk away, unless the other side thinks you’re ok with walking away, you’ll get a terrible deal.

 

Threatening to jump off a cliff doesn't make you a clever negotiator. It makes you a suicidal lunatic.

 

Yet how far we've travelled since the referendum. Every individual below is now one of those lunatics.

 

"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market."

Daniel Hannan MEP

 

"Only a madman would actually leave the Market."

Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer

 

"Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing."

Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

 

"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people."

Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive

 

"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK."

Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

 

So the question is: who's been fooled here? The EU negotiators, who - we're supposed to believe - have absolutely no idea that the May regime might be bluffing? Or referendum voters who were told by all the leading Brexiteers that - of course! - our full membership of the single market would stay in place after Brexit?

[shurlock]

Threatening to jump off a cliff doesn't make you a clever negotiator. It makes you a suicidal lunatic.

 

Yet how far we've travelled since the referendum. Every individual below is now one of those lunatics.

 

"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market."

Daniel Hannan MEP

 

"Only a madman would actually leave the Market."

Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer

 

"Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing."

Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

 

"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people."

Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive

 

"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK."

Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

 

So the question is: who's been fooled here? The EU negotiators, who - we're supposed to believe - have absolutely no idea that the May regime might be bluffing? Or referendum voters who were told by all the leading Brexiteers that - of course! - our full membership of the single market would stay in place after Brexit?

 

Lord P will claim they were all cynically taken out of context. Among the cult, parsing these statements and deriving their true meaning is a Talmudic exercise best left to the experts. Lord P has no training in this area but hopes to do his badges at some point. He’s already read the Dummies guide to James McGrory’s film and watched the Brillo interview numerous times. All mandatory coursework.

 

There is also a major growth industry in dredging up Remainers who indicated how Brexit meant leaving the single market. Never mind that this formed part of the rhetoric of the Project Fear which the Jihadists endlessly claimed was pony and a pack of lies. As yet there’s no explanation why this particular aspect of project fear is given a free pass and enjoys the status of an unimpeachable truth.

 

Needless to say, there is no real interest in showing where in last June’s referendum question voters were asked about leaving the single market and the EEA option. Nor are we told how Brexit would deliver the exact same benefits as EU membership as leavers claimed. Perhaps these are such low-hanging fruit that they don’t require an answer, though those of questionable faith would certainly appreciate one.

 

The more sober leavers, including those who had a worm’s eye view of Vote Leave, by contrast, acknowledge that the referendum result provides no such mandate to quit the single market.

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/08/take-it-vote-leave-staffer-there-no-mandate-quit-single-market

Edited 19 October, 2017 by shurlock

[Lord Duckhunter]

I just listened to David Cameron, Nick Clegg & George Osborne before casting my vote. All 3 clearly stated voting Leave would mean leaving SM & CU.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Duckhunter]

Threatening to jump off a cliff doesn't make you a clever negotiator.

 

 

Neither does stating "we will accept any deal" before you start.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

I just listened to David Cameron, Nick Clegg & George Osborne before casting my vote. All 3 clearly stated voting Leave would mean leaving SM & CU.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Bingo!

 

There is also a major growth industry in dredging up Remainers who indicated how Brexit meant leaving the single market. Never mind that this formed part of the rhetoric of the Project Fear which the Jihadists endlessly claimed was pony and a pack of lies. As yet there’s no explanation why this particular aspect of project fear is given a free pass and enjoys the status of an unimpeachable truth.

 

Per the link I sent:

 

Around early May 2016, the Remain campaign started to go hard on the fact that leaving would mean leaving the single market. But there was absolutely no official scope for them to say this at all. It was perhaps their most deceptive lie during the entire campaign. James McGrory and his colleagues on Cannon Street sat in their office and forced this issue on to the agenda. It was something they conjured up out of thin air because it aided one of their primary arguments for remaining: Leave doesn't have a plan for Brexit, it'll therefore be a step into the dark (the horrendous catchphrases are piling back into my brain as I type).

[Jonnyboy]

That Greek bloke has it right. Yanis thingy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Bingo!

 

There is also a major growth industry in dredging up Remainers who indicated how Brexit meant leaving the single market. Never mind that this formed part of the rhetoric of the Project Fear which the Jihadists endlessly claimed was pony and a pack of lies. As yet there’s no explanation why this particular aspect of project fear is given a free pass and enjoys the status of an unimpeachable truth.

 

Per the link I sent:

 

Did Cameron & Osborne emphatically say a vote to leave would be a vote to leave the SM & CU during the referendum campaign

 

No waffle, yes or no?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

Neither does stating "we will accept any deal" before you start.

 

Ah, I see! That's a killer argument! How did I not see that? Just so I can quote it back to fellow remoaners, who've all clearly failed to grasp this, could you provide a link to someone with some influence on all this actually saying "we will accept any deal"?

 

Or is that a teensy weeny bit of a straw man?

 

Also, you still haven't said how you're going to keep this incredible secret from the EU negotiators, that the 'no deal' blather is a bluff. I mean, really, have the the EU not been running rings around the idiots in whom you have faith to deliver all this?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Ah, I see! That's a killer argument! How did I not see that? Just so I can quote it back to fellow remoaners, who've all clearly failed to grasp this, could you provide a link to someone with some influence on all this actually saying "we will accept any deal"?

 

Or is that a teensy weeny bit of a straw man?

 

 

It's labour policy.

 

They said they won't walk away with no deal. Therefore if the EU say this bad deal is the only deal, take it or leave it. They've said they won't leave it, which clearly means they'll take it. Sorry if that's a bit complicated for you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[trousers]

It's labour policy.

 

They said they won't walk away with no deal. Therefore if the EU say this bad deal is the only deal, take it or leave it. They've said they won't leave it, which clearly means they'll take it. Sorry if that's a bit complicated for you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've heard Labour spokespeople say that if the outcome of the negotiations is a 'bad deal' then they would seek an extension to the article 50 two year negotiation period and repeat the negotiations until such time they got a 'good deal'.

 

Of course, the only problem with that strategy is that all 27 other EU members need to agree to said extension(s).

 

What Labour haven't articulated (to my knowledge) is what they would do if the EU 27 refused an extension.which brings us back around to what you're saying, i.e. what would Labour do if there was only a 'bad deal' on the table and the EU 27 don't grant an extension to negotiations? My guess would be: call for another referendum

Edited 20 October, 2017 by trousers

[aintforever]

Ah, I see! That's a killer argument! How did I not see that? Just so I can quote it back to fellow remoaners, who've all clearly failed to grasp this, could you provide a link to someone with some influence on all this actually saying "we will accept any deal"?

 

Or is that a teensy weeny bit of a straw man?

 

Also, you still haven't said how you're going to keep this incredible secret from the EU negotiators, that the 'no deal' blather is a bluff. I mean, really, have the the EU not been running rings around the idiots in whom you have faith to deliver all this?

 

It's quite simple really, I'm surprised you fail to understand. The EU will offer us a deal, if it doesn't get approved by parliament we leave the EU with no deal on 29th March 2019. If Labour say they wont leave without a deal then they obviously have to accept any deal.

 

It is totally up to the other 27 EU countries as to wether we get an extension (which we wont IMO) - nothing Labour or anyone in our parliament can do about it.

[Weston Super Saint]

It's labour policy.

 

They said they won't walk away with no deal. Therefore if the EU say this bad deal is the only deal, take it or leave it. They've said they won't leave it, which clearly means they'll take it. Sorry if that's a bit complicated for you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You walked right in to his trap!

 

He clearly said "could you provide a link to someone with some influence on all this actually saying "we will accept any deal"?"

 

The next come back from the Mental one will be to point out that Labour have no influence 'on all this' so that argument is null and void - or something along those lines! The fact that the only people who have any influence 'in all this' have a Ministerial duty to ensure that Brexit goes ahead and in doing so get the best possible deal for Britain will be immaterial in his argument.

 

It really is pointless trying to have a sensible debate with the lunatic that should be under lock and key in the asylum!

[aintforever]

You walked right in to his trap!

 

He clearly said "could you provide a link to someone with some influence on all this actually saying "we will accept any deal"?"

 

The next come back from the Mental one will be to point out that Labour have no influence 'on all this' so that argument is null and void - or something along those lines! The fact that the only people who have any influence 'in all this' have a Ministerial duty to ensure that Brexit goes ahead and in doing so get the best possible deal for Britain will be immaterial in his argument.

 

It really is pointless trying to have a sensible debate with the lunatic that should be under lock and key in the asylum!

 

Jesus, it's not rocket science. If they say 'no deal' is not an option they have to accept what is offered. If the people offering the deal know that they are only ever going to offer a bad deal.

 

I think the Tories are making a right mess of Brexit which is why I supported a second referendum. But if you are negotiating you have to be prepared to walk away without a deal other wise you will get butt ****ed. It's quite a simple concept.

[shurlock]

Jesus, it's not rocket science. If they say 'no deal' is not an option they have to accept what is offered. If the people offering the deal know that they are only ever going to offer a bad deal.

 

I think the Tories are making a right mess of Brexit which is why I supported a second referendum. But if you are negotiating you have to be prepared to walk away without a deal other wise you will get butt ****ed. It's quite a simple concept.

 

Define a bad deal pal. We can only judge whether no deal is better than a bad deal if we have some baseline from which to make comparisons. We’ve had a few attempts at defining a bad deal: from paying the EU €400bn a year for market access to giving up Gibraltar. But these strawmen have less chance of seeing the light of day than Elvis waterskiing with the Loch Ness Monster.

 

The argument made by remainers is that within the realistic choice set of possible deals, the consequences of a bad deal are unlikely to be worse than the consequences of no deal. As such, the threat of no deal is bluster and lacks credibility. I’m open minded on this - so again, define a bad deal and we can discuss whether a) it’s realistic and b) its consequences are worse than no deal. The real world isn’t like an episode of The Apprentice, little fella.

Edited 20 October, 2017 by shurlock

[Saint86]

What you can’t seem to grasp, but don’t worry about it because plenty of remoaners are in the same boat, is unless you’re prepared to walk away, unless the other side thinks you’re ok with walking away, you’ll get a terrible deal. What do you want, all the Brexiters to come out and follow labours ridiculous line that we must take any deal. What ****ing planet are you on? How on earth is that basic position going to get you a better deal.

 

Any deal is better than no deal, is just a front for we don’t want to leave . What they want is for the EU to offer us such a horrendous deal that public opinion turns against it, we have another vote , and stay in. It’s not a serious attempt at influencing a negotiation, because if it was ,the people advocating it seriously shouldn’t be anywhere near any sort of decision making. “ I want to sell my house, so before we start I’ll accept any offer you make”. As Cameron found if you go into a negotiation with no walk away position, you’ll get **** all. The EU didn’t for one minute think he’d walk away and recommend voting out, so he got an awful “ deal” prior to the referendum. Only a fool keeps doing the same thing again and again, so there must be a lot of fools on the Remain side, because they’re recommending the same approach this time.

 

I’d be happy with no deal, but I’d be happier with a deal. How happier depends on the deal. I’d rather be out the EU without a deal, than in it. I’d imagine most leave voters feel the same way.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

This is the crux of it.

 

A lot of remain voters are being incredibly weak and short sighted. Britain and the EU are now locked into a negotiating struggle, and the EU has shown time and time again that it will walk all over everyone that gets in its way (see Cameron as our most pertinent example). You cannot simply go tho them cap in hand saying, "sorry guys, please be nice to us and let us back in with the same perks", because that opportunity no longer exists.

 

If you support the country and want the best deal for Britain then you now have no choice but to back brexit, and back a hard deal - only then can the country negotiate from a strong stand point and achieve the best deal we can get.

 

Anyone thinking differently is frankly a weak minded fantasist who would probably have hailed chamberlain as a hero for his scrap of paper. That or someone who would put thousands of people suffering job/home losses, rising poverty levels etc. as a fair price for left wing corbynism having its day.

[Saint86]

You walked right in to his trap!

 

He clearly said "could you provide a link to someone with some influence on all this actually saying "we will accept any deal"?"

 

The next come back from the Mental one will be to point out that Labour have no influence 'on all this' so that argument is null and void - or something along those lines! The fact that the only people who have any influence 'in all this' have a Ministerial duty to ensure that Brexit goes ahead and in doing so get the best possible deal for Britain will be immaterial in his argument.

 

It really is pointless trying to have a sensible debate with the lunatic that should be under lock and key in the asylum!

 

The EU gains massively from interfering in the British political system to undermine the Tories and weaken their position of power.

[aintforever]

the consequences of a bad deal are unlikely to be worse than the consequences of no deal.

 

I agree. But in the unlikely event it is considered worse you have to be prepared to walk away. Saying you will definitely not leaves you open to get screwed. It's like walking into a car showroom and telling the salesman you have no option but to buy one of his cars - see what sort of deal you get then.

[hutch]

I agree. But in the unlikely event it is considered worse you have to be prepared to walk away. Saying you will definitely not leaves you open to get screwed. It's like walking into a car showroom and telling the salesman you have no option but to buy one of his cars - see what sort of deal you get then.

But the prognosis must be that it would be better to build new post-Brexit arrangements, piece by piece, going forward from a basis where none exist, than trying to reverse out of bad arrangements weighted heavily in favour of the EU.

[Verbal]

This is the crux of it.

 

A lot of remain voters are being incredibly weak and short sighted. Britain and the EU are now locked into a negotiating struggle, and the EU has shown time and time again that it will walk all over everyone that gets in its way (see Cameron as our most pertinent example). You cannot simply go tho them cap in hand saying, "sorry guys, please be nice to us and let us back in with the same perks", because that opportunity no longer exists.

 

If you support the country and want the best deal for Britain then you now have no choice but to back brexit, and back a hard deal - only then can the country negotiate from a strong stand point and achieve the best deal we can get.

 

Anyone thinking differently is frankly a weak minded fantasist who would probably have hailed chamberlain as a hero for his scrap of paper. That or someone who would put thousands of people suffering job/home losses, rising poverty levels etc. as a fair price for left wing corbynism having its day.

 

Depressingly, it's entirely possible that some of May's cabinet - the jihadist leadership in particular - suffer from the paranoid delusions evident in this post.

 

All the EU has demonstrated is a united, singular sense of purpose. It's the May regime that's shown itself incapable of agreeing with itself for a fraction of a minute. That's the true imbalance here.

 

Brexit jihadists are also, it seems, quite literally acting like toddlers. They have undone the cognitive learning process that takes place at around the age of two when we all understand the idea of object permanence. Jihadists somehow think that by adopting a imagined stance of 'no deal' that the EU side will believe them. They don't. And not only do they not believe it; neither May nor Davis, nor anyone for that matter, has even once actually raised the threat of no deal with EU negotiators.

 

The reality is that the 'no deal' rhetoric is fodder for Brexit jihadists here. It has no basis in negotiating reality, and it isn't going to happen.

 

This doesn't weaken 'our' negotiating position. What really weakens it is the utter inaction, incompetence and internal squabbling in the May cabinet and wider Tory party that renders the UK's negotiating position utterly incomprehensible to anyone.

[shurlock]

Depressingly, it's entirely possible that some of May's cabinet - the jihadist leadership in particular - suffer from the paranoid delusions evident in this post.

 

All the EU has demonstrated is a united, singular sense of purpose. It's the May regime that's shown itself incapable of agreeing with itself for a fraction of a minute. That's the true imbalance here.

 

Brexit jihadists are also, it seems, quite literally acting like toddlers. They have undone the cognitive learning process that takes place at around the age of two when we all understand the idea of object permanence. Jihadists somehow think that by adopting a imagined stance of 'no deal' that the EU side will believe them. They don't. And not only do they not believe it; neither May nor Davis, nor anyone for that matter, has even once actually raised the threat of no deal with EU negotiators.

 

The reality is that the 'no deal' rhetoric is fodder for Brexit jihadists here. It has no basis in negotiating reality, and it isn't going to happen.

 

This doesn't weaken 'our' negotiating position. What really weakens it is the utter inaction, incompetence and internal squabbling in the May cabinet and wider Tory party that renders the UK's negotiating position utterly incomprehensible to anyone.

 

The supreme irony is that what little leverage May has stems not from the UK’s importance to the Beemer and Prosecco producers in the EU or the willingness to prepare for no-deal but from her abject weakness -and the concern that if she goes, the crazies will well and truly take over the asylum.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Depressingly, it's entirely possible that some of May's cabinet - the jihadist leadership in particular - suffer from the paranoid delusions evident in this post.

 

All the EU has demonstrated is a united, singular sense of purpose. It's the May regime that's shown itself incapable of agreeing with itself for a fraction of a minute. That's the true imbalance here.

 

Brexit jihadists are also, it seems, quite literally acting like toddlers. They have undone the cognitive learning process that takes place at around the age of two when we all understand the idea of object permanence. Jihadists somehow think that by adopting a imagined stance of 'no deal' that the EU side will believe them. They don't. And not only do they not believe it; neither May nor Davis, nor anyone for that matter, has even once actually raised the threat of no deal with EU negotiators.

 

The reality is that the 'no deal' rhetoric is fodder for Brexit jihadists here. It has no basis in negotiating reality, and it isn't going to happen.

 

This doesn't weaken 'our' negotiating position. What really weakens it is the utter inaction, incompetence and internal squabbling in the May cabinet and wider Tory party that renders the UK's negotiating position utterly incomprehensible to anyone.

 

Dear god

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

The supreme irony is that what little leverage May has stems not from the UK’s importance to the Beemer and Prosecco producers in the EU or the willingness to prepare for no-deal but from her abject weakness -and the concern that if she goes, the crazies will well and truly take over the asylum.

 

Indeed. This really interesting thread from the inside of the 27's talks among themselves shows they're sensitive to that. And it's not because they take seriously a 'no deal' jihadist grabbing power from May and threatening to shoot the British economy in the head as a 'bargaining tool'. It's because they worry that, as useless as May, Davis, et al, are, the thought of going all the way back to square one this late in the game is just too tiresome.

 

https://twitter.com/alexebarker/status/921426504482828288

 

It took all of 90 seconds for the 27 to come to the conclusion that the British had not made enough progress on the divorce settlement: nothing whatsoever of worth on the Irish question, a little but inadequate progress on citizens' rights, and nowhere near enough progress on the financial settlement.

 

Just to take the financial settlement, this is how bad the May regime is. Four months ago, the EU produced a position paper proposing a methodology for calculating the settlement figure. Here it is in full, for the enthusiasts:

 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential-principles-financial_settlement_en_0.pdf

 

What has been the May regime's response? Nada. Absolutely nothing - in four months. It's not as if the civil service is bad at producing responses - that's its bread and butter. It's that there is no political direction to get this done - no agreement in Cabinet for a 'position' to take and defend.

 

But as bad as that is, it's still better than the utterly unhinged approach proposed by the leading jihadists. Patrick Minford is routinely trolleyed out to support their idea that we should all be prepared to default to WTO-only rules. It's so appealing to simpletons that it's been trotted out often enough by the jihadists on here.

 

How many countries actually do this in the real world? One: Mauritania. A place with a tiny, broken economy...and quite a few jihadists.

 

Perfect!

 

Dear god

 

Exactly.

[OldNick]

Indeed. This really interesting thread from the inside of the 27's talks among themselves shows they're sensitive to that. And it's not because they take seriously a 'no deal' jihadist grabbing power from May and threatening to shoot the British economy in the head as a 'bargaining tool'. It's because they worry that, as useless as May, Davis, et al, are, the thought of going all the way back to square one this late in the game is just too tiresome.

 

 

It took all of 90 seconds for the 27 to come to the conclusion that the British had not made enough progress on the divorce settlement: nothing whatsoever of worth on the Irish question, a little but inadequate progress on citizens' rights, and nowhere near enough progress on the financial settlement.

 

Just to take the financial settlement, this is how bad the May regime is. Four months ago, the EU produced a position paper proposing a methodology for calculating the settlement figure. Here it is in full, for the enthusiasts:

 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential-principles-financial_settlement_en_0.pdf

 

What has been the May regime's response? Nada. Absolutely nothing - in four months. It's not as if the civil service is bad at producing responses - that's its bread and butter. It's that there is no political direction to get this done - no agreement in Cabinet for a 'position' to take and defend.

 

But as bad as that is, it's still better than the utterly unhinged approach proposed by the leading jihadists. Patrick Minford is routinely trolleyed out to support their idea that we should all be prepared to default to WTO-only rules. It's so appealing to simpletons that it's been trotted out often enough by the jihadists on here.

 

How many countries actually do this in the real world? One: Mauritania. A place with a tiny, broken economy...and quite a few jihadists.

 

Perfect!

 

 

 

Exactly.

yes that's the EU's wishes. they'd love us to just sign that lot off. In that figure I assume we should have the grants approved to our nation for the period,needs to be credited back. I also recall that in our period of time the EU has purchased many assets, and we should be reimnbursed ur share of the property assets.Like any divorce , the house comes into the pot.