Jump to content

Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Guided Missile

By Guided Missile,
in The Lounge

 Share

Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum  

217 members have voted

  1. 1. Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum

    • Leave Before - Leave Now
      46
    • Leave Before - Remain Now
      10
    • Leave Before - Not Bothered Now
      2
    • Remain Before - Remain Now
      127
    • Remain Before - Leave Now
      7
    • Remain Before - Not Bothered Now
      1
    • Not Bothered Before - Leave Now
      3
    • Not Bothered Before - Remain Now
      5
    • I've never been bothered - Why am I on this Thread?
      3
    • No second Ref - 2016 was Definitive and Binding
      13

Recommended Posts

Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
You can’t kick people out that are in work. Therefore, if you believe there are too many EU nationals working in this country, who do you kick out. Drunker, Tusk, Barnier maybe?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Those in full time, official employment aren't the issue though, it's those working cash in hand at car washes, on building sites, picking fruit, living 15 in a 2 bed mid terrace that are the main issues, certainly for the Brexiteers I've spoken to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted

Another Brexiter claim increasingly exposed as fantasy. Who ever thought that America First meant anything other than America First. Hope JJ, Les, LD and the other swivels have got their lube ready.

 

US takes tough line with UK on post-Brexit trade talks

 

The Trump administration has taken an aggressive posture towards the UK on post-Brexit trade talks, demanding greater access to the UK market for its agricultural products and guarantees that London would not manipulate its currency.

 

The office of the US trade representative, led by Robert Lighthizer, on Thursday released its “negotiating objectives” for a possible trade agreement with the UK, suggesting Britain is unlikely to get softer treatment than other US allies.*

 

In the 18-page document, Mr Lighthizer’s office said it was seeking “comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK” through the reduction or elimination of tariffs, a request that has already soured Washington’s trade relations with the EU.*

 

Furthermore, the US is looking for the UK to remove “unwarranted barriers” related to “sanitary and physiosanitary” standards in the farm industry. For years US agricultural groups have complained that European countries have unnecessarily limited American exports of meat and grains based on fears they are unsafe for consumers.*

 

Access to the British agricultural market could end up being the most politically sensitive request made by the Trump administration. The EU has said it was not willing to include agriculture in its own trade negotiations with the US, given that it could trigger a big public backlash in a wide range of member states.*

 

Other demands could also be highly problematic for London. On currency, the US wants to “ensure that the UK avoids manipulating exchange rates in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage”. Currency matters have traditionally been excluded from trade negotiations, but the Trump administration has injected them into talks, including with China and Japan.

 

Another provision that could raise eyebrows would constrain the UK’s ability to secure a trade deal with a “non-market economy” — such as China — by creating a “mechanism to ensure transparency and take appropriate action”. This could allow the US to ditch its trade deal with the UK if it does not like the terms of any agreement London strikes with Beijing.

 

The tough US demands are only an opening gambit, but they highlight the difficulties the UK could face in negotiating a trade deal with Washington, in contrast to claims made by leading Brexit proponents that it would be a smooth exercise.

 

On Thursday a UK government spokesperson said negotiating an “ambitious free trade agreement” with the US was a priority and Washington’s move to publish its objectives “demonstrates their commitment to beginning talks as soon as possible”.

 

She added: “As part of our open and transparent approach to negotiations, we will publish our own negotiating objectives in due course.”

 

The US negotiating objectives for the UK deal are similar to the wish lists published in recent months by Mr Lighthizer’s office for talks with the EU and Japan.

 

On industrial goods, the US said it was aiming for “comprehensive duty-free access” and stronger “disciplines to address non-tariff barriers” from the UK.

 

In digital trade, which is rapidly expanding, the US wants “secure commitments not to impose customs duties on digital products”, such as software, music, video and ebooks, and “non-discriminatory treatment” of content.

 

In commercial partnerships, the US is asking the UK to “discourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel”.

 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/09bfe7ca-3bae-11e9-b72b-2c7f526ca5d0

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted

"Furthermore, the US is looking for the UK to remove “unwarranted barriers” related to “sanitary and physiosanitary” standards in the farm industry. For years US agricultural groups have complained that European countries have unnecessarily limited American exports of meat and grains based on fears they are unsafe for consumers."

 

This is the bit that worries me about any US deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
"Furthermore, the US is looking for the UK to remove “unwarranted barriers” related to “sanitary and physiosanitary” standards in the farm industry. For years US agricultural groups have complained that European countries have unnecessarily limited American exports of meat and grains based on fears they are unsafe for consumers."

 

This is the bit that worries me about any US deal.

 

And watch the UK get nowhere on promoting trade and exports in professional services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted (edited)
You have to wonder why GM bothers.

 

He seems to post things he finds on Brexiteer websites, without thinking about what the graphs, statements etc mean, as most of the things he posts negatively impact the point he's trying to make. It was very common on the other side I used to frequent as well.

 

It's very odd, but very funny :lol:

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ecuk268

ecuk268

Posted
Posted

I see that the Government has had to pay Eurotunnel £33m due to "failing" Grayling's handling of the Brexit ferry fiasco.

 

I know that the below website is meant to be satirical, but it does strike a chord:

 

https://newsthump.com/2019/03/01/government-forced-to-pay-33m-to-eurotunnel-after-hiring-a-legal-defence-team-with-no-lawyers/

 

After today's damming report of the botched part privatisation of the Probation Service which cost us £500m and resulted in the contracts being terminated 14 months early, is there any Minister in recent memory more incompetent than Grayling.

 

I believe that he was at University with the PM so maybe he has some compromising information about her. How else can he keep his job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

 

After today's damming report of the botched part privatisation of the Probation Service which cost us £500m and resulted in the contracts being terminated 14 months early, is there any Minister in recent memory more incompetent than Grayling.

According to the Guardian report, part of the money paid as 'bailouts' to the companies running the privatised service was given to enable them to pay the fines imposed on them by the MoJ for failing to meet their 'payment by results' targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
I see that the Government has had to pay Eurotunnel £33m due to "failing" Grayling's handling of the Brexit ferry fiasco.

 

I know that the below website is meant to be satirical, but it does strike a chord:

 

https://newsthump.com/2019/03/01/government-forced-to-pay-33m-to-eurotunnel-after-hiring-a-legal-defence-team-with-no-lawyers/

 

After today's damming report of the botched part privatisation of the Probation Service which cost us £500m and resulted in the contracts being terminated 14 months early, is there any Minister in recent memory more incompetent than Grayling.

 

I believe that he was at University with the PM so maybe he has some compromising information about her. How else can he keep his job?

 

Grayling sums up the level of farce and incompetence. These cnts can’t sort anything let alone something as complex as Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
I see that the Government has had to pay Eurotunnel £33m due to "failing" Grayling's handling of the Brexit ferry fiasco.

 

I know that the below website is meant to be satirical, but it does strike a chord:

 

https://newsthump.com/2019/03/01/government-forced-to-pay-33m-to-eurotunnel-after-hiring-a-legal-defence-team-with-no-lawyers/

 

After today's damming report of the botched part privatisation of the Probation Service which cost us £500m and resulted in the contracts being terminated 14 months early, is there any Minister in recent memory more incompetent than Grayling.

 

I believe that he was at University with the PM so maybe he has some compromising information about her. How else can he keep his job?

 

Just imagine the reaction on here if Diane Abbott had presided over all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
Grayling sums up the level of farce and incompetence. These cnts can’t sort anything let alone something as complex as Brexit.

 

When GM's glorious day arrives and the traitors and Quislings get "what they deserve" we will just have to hope that Grayling is in charge of the piano wire. He would probably end up hanging himself :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
Morning John.

 

Changing tack after your latest flop on here - remember you had a meltdown because I claimed that the Parliament would block or force May to take no deal off the table. You know when you've been tangoed pal :lol:

 

Like what Corbyn asked for all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint1977

saint1977

Posted
Posted

Nice one Dodd is a Legend.

 

Grayling now an national and international humiliation for May, the Tory Party and the entire UK system. Even the Telegraph and Sun rate him now as the worst minister from any party ever. In fact, none of the Brexiteers have been anything other than abject. Fox has been a disaster yet again, I’m sure the trade deal ready with the Faroes will help. Boris is widely regarded as the worst ever Foreign Secretary, William Hague he is not. Couldn’t remember any of his lines from his team of minions, and semi fly spent his time womanising and stuffing his face. David Davis thinks he should be PM but couldn’t even be bothered to attend most of the meetings in Brussels. Not a details person clearly. Then his successor Rabb C Nes-**** thinks the EU is backtracking on the Good Friday Agreement. You co-negotiated the wording with them numbnuts! Well until the heat in the kitchen got too much and Barclay had to take over.

 

Only Gove shows any hint of competence and it’s interesting how he has cooled on a hard Brexit seeing the realities of office for more than 5 minutes and actually doing some work.

 

If you offered me a choice of voting for this lot, Corbyn and his Trots or Major scandal hit government of the 90s I’d actually have to vote for Major. Scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted

A no-deal Brexit, meanwhile, would see Britain falling back to the status of a third country under the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).This would push up British import tariffs for German cars to roughly 10 percent. For trucks and pick-ups, tariffs of up to 22 percent would apply. Customs inspections at ports and borders are likely to disrupt just-in-time delivery chains."A no-deal scenario would be serious and entail significant risks for companies and employees in the EU-27," a VDA spokesman said. "Massive impairments in logistics and high customs costs would be the result."Germany, which barely avoided a recession last year, is especially vulnerable to both the risks of U.S. tariffs of up to 25 percent on cars and Britain sliding out of the EU on March 29 without a deal to govern future trade relations with the bloc.Exports make up nearly half of its economic output and cars are by far its main export with annual sales worth 230 billion euros ($263 billion), data from the Federal Statistics Office showed.The most important export destination for German cars last year was the United States with revenues of 27.2 billion euros, followed by China with 24.7 billion euros and Britain with 22.5 billion euros, the data showed..

 

This is why we cant take No deal off the table, as the Germans will fear no deal as much as we do. It is a negotiating tool. No side will want that and so to bin it would give the EU (under pressure from Germany) a lee -way and bonus in the negotiations

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guided Missile

Guided Missile

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It is a negotiating tool. No side will want that and so to bin it would give the EU (under pressure from Germany) a lee -way and bonus in the negotiations

No deal is the best option. Knock the Lego model of the European Kremlin down and build a new Gateway to the World. I've even got a video for the project:

 

[video=youtube;DVZfZu-aAr0]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Not necessarily, after all JRM said it could take up to 50 years to know IF Brexit was a good idea.

 

Continuing with that falsehood makes you look a bit of a fool if I may say so. You can Google what he actually said, or you can pay more attention to what was written about it on this very thread when some idiot last attempted to lie about it. If your chosen route is to Google it, ignore the distorted interpretation from the remoaner propaganda rags, the Guardian and the Independent Russian News in particular, which were presumably your source of misunderstanding in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
Continuing with that falsehood makes you look a bit of a fool if I may say so. You can Google what he actually said, or you can pay more attention to what was written about it on this very thread when some idiot last attempted to lie about it. If your chosen route is to Google it, ignore the distorted interpretation from the remoaner propaganda rags, the Guardian and the Independent Russian News in particular, which were presumably your source of misunderstanding in the first place.

My 'chosen route' is the horse's mouth, via Youtube;

 

 

"...I may not know for years to come whether it has been better or worse...We won't know the full economic consequences for a very long time,....The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
Not necessarily, after all JRM said it could take up to 50 years to know IF Brexit was a good idea.
That isn't what he said is it. In fact you've just quoted him above and he didn't say it could take up to 50 years to know if brexit was a good idea. Not sure why you felt the need to misrepresent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
That isn't what he said is it. In fact you've just quoted him above and he didn't say it could take up to 50 years to know if brexit was a good idea. Not sure why you felt the need to misrepresent.

So paraphrasing "...I may not know for years to come whether it has been better or worse...We won't know the full economic consequences for a very long time,...over the next 50 years." into "it could take up to 50 years" equates to complete misrepresentation ? How long, in your estimation, is the 'very long time' that we will have to wait to find out 'the full economic consequences" and if we will be better or worse ?

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
So paraphrasing "...I may not know for years to come whether it has been better or worse...We won't know the full economic consequences for a very long time,...over the next 50 years." into "it could take up to 50 years" equates to complete misrepresentation ? How long, in your estimation, is the 'very long time' that we will have to wait to find out 'the full economic consequences" and if we will be better or worse ?

 

More the even bigger fool you, then. Just go and mix together words from three sentences and make a fourth sentence which you call paraphrasing. It contains all the right words, but not necessarily in the right order, to paraphrase Eric Morecombe. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
So paraphrasing "...I may not know for years to come whether it has been better or worse...We won't know the full economic consequences for a very long time,...over the next 50 years." into "it could take up to 50 years" equates to complete misrepresentation ? How long, in your estimation, is the 'very long time' that we will have to wait to find out 'the full economic consequences" and if we will be better or worse ?

 

We won't know the FULL economic consequences for a very long time is not him saying what you are pretending he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
More the even bigger fool you, then. Just go and mix together words from three sentences and make a fourth sentence which you call paraphrasing. It contains all the right words, but not necessarily in the right order, to paraphrase Eric Morecombe. :rolleyes:

So, have you watched the interview ?

I repeat the question -

How long, in your estimation, is the 'very long time' that we will have to wait to find out 'the full economic consequences' and if we will be 'better or worse' ?

 

( And it's Morecambe )

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
So people voted 'out' for "better or worse" ? I thought it was for the promise of the Land of Milk and Honey.
Eh? My only point is that you're misrepresenting what he said by pretending he said something he didn't say. Criticise what he actually said all you like but just making stuff up undermines anything else you say.

 

And the success or failure of brexit would not be judged solely on economic grounds so on that basis alone you've misrepresented what he said.

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
So, have you watched the interview ?

I repeat the question -

How long, in your estimation, is the 'very long time' that we will have to wait to find out 'the full economic consequences' and if we will be 'better or worse' ?

 

( And it's Morecambe )

 

*yawn* read back to where this was all done to death earlier in the thread and stop boring everybody to death raking over old coals. It doesn't do you any favours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
So, have you watched the interview ?

I repeat the question -

How long, in your estimation, is the 'very long time' that we will have to wait to find out 'the full economic consequences' and if we will be 'better or worse' ?

 

( And it's Morecambe )

 

Just so you know, badger, we did go through this at inordinate length a few pages ago. And the problem is that Al-tenderi has become so lost in his cult that he can only give the most Panglossian gloss on anything one of his heroes says. The context for Mogg's remark is a question-and-answer exchange about how long it has to be for his hero to be proved wrong. He gave it a 50-year timescale. Saying 'over the next 50 years' is to employ the usual weasel words that amount to saying Brexiters cannot be proved wrong in our lifetimes.

 

Anyone who accepts that as a legitimate response is, frankly, out of their tiny minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted

 

An interesting conspiracy theory about May's really bad deal that is worse than no deal.

 

Bruges Group

‏ @BrugesGroup

 

An article “Duplicitous Leaders” was initially published in draft form on our website.

It has been removed from our website while it is being reworked and updated.

 

We plan to publish the updated article as soon as it is ready.

 

If there is any truth in this, then it is political dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...