Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[shurlock]

I'd sign up to a strictly trade based bloc absolutely.

 

[Wes Tender]

A quick primer on trade for dummies and stupid old duffers.

 

I. If you believe in free trade, then the Common Market is a sideshow.

II. Once upon a time, tariffs used to be the main impediment to trade - hence the emergence of the Common Market. However, thanks to global and regional efforts over the past half century, tariffs have fallen to a point where in most cases they are trivial.

III. Today the real barrier to trade is regulation - the fact that businesses must deal with overlapping, conflicting and complex regulations whenever they trade across borders. Complying with different rules of the game pushes up the cost of exporting and reduces business activity.

IV. Regulatory alignment is a way of reducing these costs. It also seeks to promote competition by integrating a market that would otherwise be fragmented and inefficiently small. Note alignment is a relative concept: sometimes it’s prescriptive; in other cases, it’s very loose, leaving regulatees plenty of discretion on how to meet outcomes.

V. Either way, regulatory alignment is inherently political. A country’s regulation says a lot about its values, how it balances risk and safety, price and quality, individualism and collectivism as well as the priority it gives to different stakeholders, including the environment.

VI. In other words, getting countries with different preferences to align on a regulatory standard, regardless whether it is loose or prescriptive, implies processes to manage and resolve these competing demands. That could be done by fiat - or it could be done as fairly and democratically as possible. Enter political institutions and impartial enforcement mechanisms to ensure countries are subsequently keeping their word.

 

Invoking the Common Market is basically a giveaway that you’re clueless about trade. Likewise it is clueless to champion free trade without understanding where it necessarily leads you in the 21st century i.e. regulatory alignment when most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked.

 

I mentioned the Common Market in an ironic way, but you don't do irony, do you? I was being flippant about how we started off all those years ago before the whole thing morphed in the direction of a United States of Europe via the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon treaties without the electorate having the opportunity to vote on any of them, and now we will revert back to trading with the EU either with a free trade arrangement that suits us, or on WTO terms. Further down the line, the EU will fall apart because the Euro will collapse and other member states will follow us out of the door when they see how beneficial it was for our economy outside of the EU straightjacket. I give it a decade.

[shurlock]

I mentioned the Common Market in an ironic way, but you don't do irony, do you? I was being flippant about how we started off all those years ago before the whole thing morphed in the direction of a United States of Europe via the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon treaties without the electorate having the opportunity to vote on any of them, and now we will revert back to trading with the EU either with a free trade arrangement that suits us, or on WTO terms. Further down the line, the EU will fall apart because the Euro will collapse and other member states will follow us out of the door when they see how beneficial it was for our economy outside of the EU straightjacket. I give it a decade.

 

Les you don't know what free trade means or what the WTO does - so best stay in your own lane and not get too ahead of yourself. I'm also still waiting for the great domino effect of 2016, so I'd hold off any new predictions if I were you pal.

 

One last time: you cannot have truly free trade without regulatory alignment that, in turn, necessitates some form of political integration (unless you want to do a Norway and be bound by regulation that you have had no say in shaping or determining).

Edited 17 January, 2020 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

I'm also still waiting for the great domino effect of 2016, so I'd hold off any new predictions if I were you pal.

 

It seems to have gone right over your head that we haven't yet left the EU and that any inclination for other nations to follow us out will be influenced by how well we fare economically once freed from the EU's straightjacket. As you know, other countries have voted to leave the EU and then held second referendums which overturned that decision. The EU and the remoaner establishment, aided by a majority in the House, did their best to engineer a second referendum here too, in order that we thickos who didn't know what we had voted for, could change our minds and make the right decision if given the chance. When we are finally out, then those others who might join us will wait to see what sort of deal we can arrange with the EU on the one hand, and with the rest of the World on the other.

 

When it comes to predicting our economic prospects, I bet that you were among the cognoscenti who thought it would be economically damaging if we didn't join the eurozone and that just voting to leave the EU would result in the necessity for a punishment budget, a huge rise in unemployment, house prices and a fall in GDP that would cost the average household an extra £4300 per annum. What happened to that lot, eh?

 

Prediction wise, I was confident that once having voted to leave the EU, that the best efforts of the remoaner establishment to thwart Brexit would fail eventually, that the broken promises to allow a referendum on those EU treaties would force a day of reckoning when the pent-up frustrations of the Europhobes would exact their retribution. As it turns out, the political wrangling by firstly Cameron and then the useless May, the 2015 and 2017 elections, the shenanigans from the remoaner dominated House and the rogue speaker, Chequers, the Benn Surrender Act, all conspired towards a fed-up and exasperated electorate giving Boris the stonking majority he needed to get Brexit done finally. In many ways, the three and a half years delay brought about a situation whereby we negotiate with the EU with a far stronger hand than before, the threat to leave without a deal and to trade on WTO terms being far more forcibly weaponised than previously. If it was the case that this outcome had been war-gamed in some way by Cummings and others since Boris took over, then indeed he has played a blinder.

 

You are on the wrong side of history on this issue, Gavyn, so I am not about to pay much attention to advice from you about what I think will happen in the future post-Brexit. I believe that we will thrive. You will have to wait a few years in order to crow about how you were right and I was wrong. But you will be the disappointed one again.

[Tamesaint]

It seems to have gone right over your head that we haven't yet left the EU and that any inclination for other nations to follow us out will be influenced by how well we fare economically once freed from the EU's straightjacket. As you know, other countries have voted to leave the EU and then held second referendums which overturned that decision. The EU and the remoaner establishment, aided by a majority in the House, did their best to engineer a second referendum here too, in order that we thickos who didn't know what we had voted for, could change our minds and make the right decision if given the chance. When we are finally out, then those others who might join us will wait to see what sort of deal we can arrange with the EU on the one hand, and with the rest of the World on the other.

 

When it comes to predicting our economic prospects, I bet that you were among the cognoscenti who thought it would be economically damaging if we didn't join the eurozone and that just voting to leave the EU would result in the necessity for a punishment budget, a huge rise in unemployment, house prices and a fall in GDP that would cost the average household an extra £4300 per annum. What happened to that lot, eh?

 

Prediction wise, I was confident that once having voted to leave the EU, that the best efforts of the remoaner establishment to thwart Brexit would fail eventually, that the broken promises to allow a referendum on those EU treaties would force a day of reckoning when the pent-up frustrations of the Europhobes would exact their retribution. As it turns out, the political wrangling by firstly Cameron and then the useless May, the 2015 and 2017 elections, the shenanigans from the remoaner dominated House and the rogue speaker, Chequers, the Benn Surrender Act, all conspired towards a fed-up and exasperated electorate giving Boris the stonking majority he needed to get Brexit done finally. In many ways, the three and a half years delay brought about a situation whereby we negotiate with the EU with a far stronger hand than before, the threat to leave without a deal and to trade on WTO terms being far more forcibly weaponised than previously. If it was the case that this outcome had been war-gamed in some way by Cummings and others since Boris took over, then indeed he has played a blinder.

 

You are on the wrong side of history on this issue, Gavyn, so I am not about to pay much attention to advice from you about what I think will happen in the future post-Brexit. I believe that we will thrive. You will have to wait a few years in order to crow about how you were right and I was wrong. But you will be the disappointed one again.

 

Straitjacket rather than straightjacket is the normal, correct spelling of the word.

 

If you are going to write tedious tosh, you could at least spell correctly.

[Wes Tender]

Straitjacket rather than straightjacket is the normal, correct spelling of the word.

 

If you are going to write tedious tosh, you could at least spell correctly.

 

Is that really the best response you can muster? Both are permissible. It isn't like you to be a petty, small-minded nit-picker. Oh, sorry, it is.

[Tamesaint]

Is that really the best response you can muster? Both are permissible. It isn't like you to be a petty, small-minded nit-picker. Oh, sorry, it is.

 

Dont blame me if I fall asleep after reading the first sentence. Why not try to be more concise and less repetitive?

 

... and by the way, improve your spelling.

[Wes Tender]

Dont blame me if I fall asleep after reading the first sentence. Why not try to be more concise and less repetitive?

 

... and by the way, improve your spelling.

 

I've already told you, it is permissible to spell it both ways. Who cares whether my opinion renders you dozy? If all you can do is nit-pick, and then not even make a good job of that, you'll just make yourself look like a prat.

[Whitey Grandad]

I've already told you, it is permissible to spell it both ways. Who cares whether my opinion renders you dozy? If all you can do is nit-pick, and then not even make a good job of that, you'll just make yourself look like a prat.

 

Straightjacket has only become common amongst those who don't know how to spell.

 

Next thing you'll be calling it the Dover Straight not to mention that famous rock group Dire Straights.

[Wes Tender]

 

Next thing you'll be calling it the Dover Straight not to mention that famous rock group Dire Straights.

 

 

No I won't. My knowledge of geography and pop music won't allow it.

[badgerx16]

Noun

 

straightjacket

 

1. Misspelling of straitjacket.
   

[Danbert]

A quick primer on trade for dummies and stupid old duffers.

 

I. If you believe in free trade, then the Common Market is a sideshow.

II. Once upon a time, tariffs used to be the main impediment to trade - hence the emergence of the Common Market. However, thanks to global and regional efforts over the past half century, tariffs have fallen to a point where in most cases they are trivial.

III. Today the real barrier to trade is regulation - the fact that businesses must deal with overlapping, conflicting and complex regulations whenever they trade across borders. Complying with different rules of the game pushes up the cost of exporting and reduces business activity.

IV. Regulatory alignment is a way of reducing these costs. It also seeks to promote competition by integrating a market that would otherwise be fragmented and inefficiently small. Note alignment is a relative concept: sometimes it’s prescriptive; in other cases, it’s very loose, leaving regulatees plenty of discretion on how to meet outcomes.

V. Either way, regulatory alignment is inherently political. A country’s regulation says a lot about its values, how it balances risk and safety, price and quality, individualism and collectivism as well as the priority it gives to different stakeholders, including the environment.

VI. In other words, getting countries with different preferences to align on a regulatory standard, regardless whether it is loose or prescriptive, implies processes to manage and resolve these competing demands. That could be done by fiat - or it could be done as fairly and democratically as possible. Enter political institutions and impartial enforcement mechanisms to ensure countries are subsequently keeping their word.

 

Invoking the Common Market is basically a giveaway that you’re clueless about trade. Likewise it is clueless to champion free trade without understanding where it necessarily leads you in the 21st century i.e. regulatory alignment when most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked.

 

Exactly, thank-you

[Wes Tender]

Noun

 

straightjacket

 

1. Misspelling of straitjacket.
   

 

Oh dear, here is a misspelling of the word on a Politico report, even worse as it is shown as two words. It is difficult to keep these people on the strait and narrow, isn't it?

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-eu-minister-quick-uk-trade-deal-depends-on-brits-amelie-de-montchalin/

 

Which one of you pedants is going to contact them to put it right?

[badgerx16]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=straight%20jacket

[shurlock]

Les no need to squirm and take yourself so seriously pal

 

Freudian slip Friday?

Edited 17 January, 2020 by shurlock

[shurlock]

It seems to have gone right over your head that we haven't yet left the EU and that any inclination for other nations to follow us out will be influenced by how well we fare economically once freed from the EU's straightjacket. As you know, other countries have voted to leave the EU and then held second referendums which overturned that decision. The EU and the remoaner establishment, aided by a majority in the House, did their best to engineer a second referendum here too, in order that we thickos who didn't know what we had voted for, could change our minds and make the right decision if given the chance. When we are finally out, then those others who might join us will wait to see what sort of deal we can arrange with the EU on the one hand, and with the rest of the World on the other.

 

When it comes to predicting our economic prospects, I bet that you were among the cognoscenti who thought it would be economically damaging if we didn't join the eurozone and that just voting to leave the EU would result in the necessity for a punishment budget, a huge rise in unemployment, house prices and a fall in GDP that would cost the average household an extra £4300 per annum. What happened to that lot, eh?

 

Prediction wise, I was confident that once having voted to leave the EU, that the best efforts of the remoaner establishment to thwart Brexit would fail eventually, that the broken promises to allow a referendum on those EU treaties would force a day of reckoning when the pent-up frustrations of the Europhobes would exact their retribution. As it turns out, the political wrangling by firstly Cameron and then the useless May, the 2015 and 2017 elections, the shenanigans from the remoaner dominated House and the rogue speaker, Chequers, the Benn Surrender Act, all conspired towards a fed-up and exasperated electorate giving Boris the stonking majority he needed to get Brexit done finally. In many ways, the three and a half years delay brought about a situation whereby we negotiate with the EU with a far stronger hand than before, the threat to leave without a deal and to trade on WTO terms being far more forcibly weaponised than previously. If it was the case that this outcome had been war-gamed in some way by Cummings and others since Boris took over, then indeed he has played a blinder.

 

You are on the wrong side of history on this issue, Gavyn, so I am not about to pay much attention to advice from you about what I think will happen in the future post-Brexit. I believe that we will thrive. You will have to wait a few years in order to crow about how you were right and I was wrong. But you will be the disappointed one again.

 

No I don’t know Les. Can you kindly elucidate?

[Tamesaint]

No I don’t know Les. Can you kindly elucidate?

 

If he does it will be several paragraphs longer than it should be ... with several spelling errors.

Edited 17 January, 2020 by Tamesaint

[shurlock]

If he does it will be many paragraphs of tedium... with several spelling errors.

 

Or per his MO, he slinks off and doesn't respond because he's made a factual howler.

[Wes Tender]

Or per his MO, he slinks off and doesn't respond because he's made a factual howler.

 

No, hands up, other countries held referenda on whether to accept treaties, then overturned the original decision. My train of thought was that the EU being used to others reversing their decision, that they would expect us to do the same.

[Wes Tender]

If he does it will be several paragraphs longer than it should be ... with several spelling errors.

 

But I didn't make a spelling mistake. I used a commonplace alternative spelling, just as that Politico article did. Apart from the one spelling that you questioned, were there several other spelling mistakes in those last several paragraphs? Perhaps you will be good enough to list them all, if you wish to uphold your position as the number one forum small-minded pedant.

[Wes Tender]

If he does it will be several paragraphs longer than it should be ... with several spelling errors.

 

But I didn't make a spelling mistake. I used a commonplace alternative spelling, just as that Politico article did. Apart from the one spelling that you questioned, were there several other spelling mistakes in those last several paragraphs? Perhaps you will be good enough to list them all, if you wish to uphold your position as the number one forum small-minded pedant.

[shurlock]

No, hands up, other countries held referenda on whether to accept treaties, then overturned the original decision. My train of thought was that the EU being used to others reversing their decision, that they would expect us to do the same.

 

You said they voted to leave the EU which is completely and utterly different.

[badgerx16]

You said they voted to leave the EU which is completely and utterly different.

Perhaps it was just a spelling mistake.

[Tamesaint]

Perhaps it was just a spelling mistake.

 

If it was he will not admit it.

 

I forget. Which day of the week is it that Les doesn't do? Is it Fridays by chance?

[Guided Missile]

A Washington based conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, published a paper on the best option for the UK, should we leave the EU, focusing on free trade deals. To me, this is the most important thing to get right. (" It's all about the economy, stupid"). In summary, the report states:

 

 

1. The U.S. and the U.K. should negotiate a free trade area based on the principles of national sovereignty and economic freedom.
   
2. For both nations, the barrier to this goal is the European Union. Britain cannot negotiate unless it leaves the EU, while the U.S. has wrongly supported the EU over the sovereignty of its member nations.
   
3. The U.S. policy of using Britain as its Trojan Horse in the EU is wrong in principle and doomed to failure in practice.
   
4. The U.K. must ensure that its referendum on EU membership offers a real choice. There is no reason why the U.K., the world’s sixth-largest economy, cannot negotiate trade arrangements outside the EU.
   
5. The benefits of an Anglo–American free trade area would be both economic and political. It would insulate the U.K. from the damaging effects of further EU regulatory interference and signal the two countries’ shared political commitment to their close relationship
   

 

For those interested, the full text is here and I found it exciting and stimulating. Onwards and upwards!

 

PS. For any miners out there, ignore the name of the centre publishing the paper....

 

So, the thread has taken it's course and despite the ill informed, dogmatic and undemocratic ranting from the leftist trolls, over the next few weeks my prescient opening post made nearly 4 years ago, will come to pass:

Boris Johnson is expected to formally open trade talks with the US before he begins discussions with the European Union, the Telegraph has learned. US diplomats believe the Prime Minister is poised to seek Cabinet authorisation to open trade talks directly with America on a visit to Washington next month.

British civil servants have drawn up advice for ministers on the “pros and cons” of starting trade talks with America before beginning them with the European Union, the Telegraph understands. A UK government source who has seen the advice said the argument for going to the US first is to show: “We mean business and we’re not messing around.” It would also aim to avoid becoming “trapped” by Brussels negotiators like Theresa May was, and “negate some of the concerns of the EU trying to play the ball in the way they want”, the source said. “The political signal would be - 'We’ve got the capacity to do this at the same time, don’t hold this up'.”

A source briefed directly on plans in Washington said the US was “impatient to get started”.

I must admit, at the time of the original post, I overestimated the intellect of the liberal establishment and underestimated their disdain for the democratic will of the people. Thankfully they have been vanquished at an election and silenced, apart from the occasional desperate whining this post will inevitably engender.

Edited 18 January, 2020 by Guided Missile

[shurlock]

Wow. What prescience John. The UK and US will finally open trade talks. Who would have thought that the UK would want to use Brexit to strike trade deals with countries outside the EU? Literally nobody saw that one coming.

 

Next you’ll be claiming sole credit for predicting that the night follows the day. Black holes are brighter than you pal.

Edited 18 January, 2020 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

If it was he will not admit it.

 

I forget. Which day of the week is it that Les doesn't do? Is it Fridays by chance?

 

Surely that should be 'perchance' rather than 'by chance' to be grammatically correct

[Guided Missile]

Wow. What prescience John. The UK and US will finally open trade talks. Who would have thought that the UK would want to use Brexit to strike trade deals with countries outside the EU? Literally nobody saw that one coming.

You didn't see it coming, troll boy...

2525-06-2016, 07:31 PM This is not to say that the UK is not an important trading partner. Far from it. But TTIP, TTP as well as global initiatives on services are massive ambitious projects that any new president will inherit and are unlikely to be set aside to prioritise a deal with the UK.

Today's Telegraph?

A source briefed directly on plans in Washington said the US was “impatient to get started”. The Telegraph understands all the “chapter heads” covering individual sections for a trade deal have already been appointed and “matched” with their American counterparts in preparation for an accelerated process. Under the timeframe being discussed by both sides, the Cabinet decision will be followed by the publication of UK trade negotiation objectives within two weeks, which the US side will take two weeks to respond to ahead of a political launch. “There is so much political will on both sides for this, the understanding is that the first talks round will come very rapidly after the two-week review period, which could mean as early [to] late February,” said the source.

Like shooting fish in a barrel...

[shurlock]

You didn't see it coming, troll boy...

 

Today's Telegraph?

 

Like shooting fish in a barrel...

 

If you’ve been following the news over the past couple of years, trade talks with China have been the overwhelming priority for the administration. And they still are. Not to mention renegotiating NAFTA and going into a protectionist frenzy (which I anticipated). Opening talks with the UK and embarking on preliminaries (even appointing chapter heads - gee whiz) doesn’t require a huge amount of effort or commitment. You really are an easy touch. I would love to have negotiated with you in business pal.

Edited 18 January, 2020 by shurlock

[Guided Missile]

If you’ve been following the news over the past couple of years, trade talks with China have been the overwhelming priority for the administration. And they still are. Opening talks with the UK and embarking on preliminaries doesn’t require a huge amount of effort or commitment. You really are an easy touch. I would love to have negotiated with you pal.

 

1. But TTIP, TTP as well as global initiatives on services are massive ambitious projects that any new president will inherit and are unlikely to be set aside to prioritise a deal with the UK.
   
2. But TTIP, TTP as well as global initiatives on services are massive ambitious projects that any new president will inherit and are unlikely to be set aside to prioritise a deal with the UK.
   
3. But TTIP, TTP as well as global initiatives on services are massive ambitious projects that any new president will inherit and are unlikely to be set aside to prioritise a deal with the UK.
   

[shurlock]

1. But TTIP, TTP as well as global initiatives on services are massive ambitious projects that any new president will inherit and are unlikely to be set aside to prioritise a deal with the UK.
   
2. But TTIP, TTP as well as global initiatives on services are massive ambitious projects that any new president will inherit and are unlikely to be set aside to prioritise a deal with the UK.
   
3. But TTIP, TTP as well as global initiatives on services are massive ambitious projects that any new president will inherit and are unlikely to be set aside to prioritise a deal with the UK.
   

 

Yes Trump the protectionist (called it pal) has ditched multilateralism and prospective multilateral trade arrangements and replaced them with a host of bilateral, individual-country negotiations. A simple matter of substitution. The point is exactly the same: his priorities have laid elsewhere, not with the UK. But hey they’ve now appointed some chapter heads - I’m sure an accelerated comprehensive FTA is just around the corner

Edited 18 January, 2020 by shurlock

[Guided Missile]

1. But TTIP, TTP as well as global initiatives on services are massive ambitious projects that any new president will inherit and are unlikely to be set aside to prioritise a deal with the UK.
   
2. But TTIP, TTP as well as global initiatives on services are massive ambitious projects that any new president will inherit and are unlikely to be set aside to prioritise a deal with the UK.
   
3. But TTIP, TTP as well as global initiatives on services are massive ambitious projects that any new president will inherit and are unlikely to be set aside to prioritise a deal with the UK.
   

Yeah, that's right....let's flash back two years to Tuesday 24 January 2017, and 6 months after you made that prediction, chump:

“A great thing for the American worker what we just did,” said Donald Trump as, with the stroke of his pen, he cancelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP). Trump will also scrap the European equivalent, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which has only just been agreed, and renegotiate (i.e. dismantle) the North American Free Trade Area (Nafta). Candidate Trump described it as the “worst deal ever” – a proud product of the presidencies of Bill Clinton and the first President Bush.

Keep digging, troll boy...

[Wes Tender]

If it was he will not admit it.

 

I forget. Which day of the week is it that Les doesn't do? Is it Fridays by chance?

 

As Weston points out, you don't do grammar, do you? I seem to recall another occasion when you attempted to nitpick on somebody's grammar and then made a howler yourself a couple of posts later. I'm waiting for the list of other spelling mistakes that you inferred I made in that post, in order to justify your assertion that I commonly commit spelling errors.

[shurlock]

Yeah, that's right....let's flash back two years to Tuesday 24 January 2017, and 6 months after you made that prediction, chump:

 

Keep digging, troll boy...

 

Six months before that, Trump wasn’t even in power. Indeed the outcome of presidential election was still up in the air. As it turned out, the UK wasn’t the priority for the US in the intervening three years. And yes a protectionist is in the White House. By contrast, I lost count of the number of posts in which you giddily seized on every snippet of news to claim a la David Davis that an agreement with the US was being negotiated and details hammered out so it would be locked and loaded, if not ready to come into force once the UK left the EU. Instead fast forward to 2020 and where are we? The UK and US have only just appointed chapter heads. Some prioritisation. You were spectacularly wrong.

 

Let’s also be clear: when you posted in Jan 2017, Trump had either done the things in your post (I.e. cancel TPP) or categorically stated he would do them (i.e. renegotiate NAFTA). A prediction isn’t simply to describe and restate what’s already going on, chump

 

While I struggle to find much evidence on here, I’m sure you’re good at some things John. But prediction really isn’t one of them.

Edited 18 January, 2020 by shurlock

[shurlock]

As Weston points out, you don't do grammar, do you? I seem to recall another occasion when you attempted to nitpick on somebody's grammar and then made a howler yourself a couple of posts later. I'm waiting for the list of other spelling mistakes that you inferred I made in that post, in order to justify your assertion that I commonly commit spelling errors.

 

Still waiting for you to clarify which countries voted to leave the EU?

[Guided Missile]

Let’s also be clear: when you posted in Jan 2017, Trump had either done the things in your post (I.e. cancel TPP) or categorically stated he would do them (i.e. renegotiate NAFTA).

Let's also be clear, I started the thread in June, 2016. Trump was elected on November 9, 2016. You continued to make yourself look like a fool on January 18th, 2020.

[Wes Tender]

Still waiting for you to clarify which countries voted to leave the EU?

 

Are you deliberately trying to play the fool this morning? I already admitted that I had made a mistake. Greenland arguably, although it was part of Denmark and it left the EEC rather than the EU.

[Tamesaint]

As Weston points out, you don't do grammar, do you? I seem to recall another occasion when you attempted to nitpick on somebody's grammar and then made a howler yourself a couple of posts later. I'm waiting for the list of other spelling mistakes that you inferred I made in that post, in order to justify your assertion that I commonly commit spelling errors.

 

You just don't get it do you??

 

You have posted umpteen times on this thread. Your posts are tedious, repetitive and humourless. When put under pressure you disappear from this thread for a couple of weeks before reappearing with the same views. You can never admit to being wrong about anything... even spelling. Of course you don't make loads of spelling mistakes but just admit to one when you do. Don't argue that black is white like you did yesterday.

 

In other words, lighten up pal. Open your mind to the possibility, unlikely to you I am sure, that you do not have a monopoly of knowledge.

[shurlock]

Let's also be clear, I started the thread in June, 2016. Trump was elected on November 9, 2016. You continued to make yourself look like a fool on January 18th, 2020.

 

Nope pal: your post about scrapping TPP and renegotiating NAFTA was made on Tuesday 24 January 2017 -namely after these things had happened (TPP) or Trump had already vowed to make them happen (NAFTA). So much for your prediction. What next? Are you going to come back tomorrow and post today’s lottery numbers

Edited 18 January, 2020 by shurlock

[shurlock]

Are you deliberately trying to play the fool this morning? I already admitted that I had made a mistake. Greenland arguably, although it was part of Denmark and it left the EEC rather than the EU.

 

Fair enough. The admission was so bum-clenchingly oblique and tight-fisted (just your style) that I couldn’t tell.

 

We move on.

[Guided Missile]

Airbus then...

“Airbus,” he warned, “is not dependent on the UK for our future. Please don’t listen to the Brexiteers’ madness which asserts that because we have huge plants here, we will not move and we will always be here. They are wrong.”Airbus – which employs 13,500 directly in the UK and supports almost eight times as many jobs in its supply chain – represents a massive chunk of Britain’s £36bn a year aerospace sector. Enders described the industry as “standing on a precipice, with Brexit threatening to destroy a century of development based on education, research and human capital”.

Airbus now...

Faury, who succeeded Enders in April, said the company was “committed to the UK and committed to working with the new government to be a key partner to an ambitious industrial strategy”. Faury added he saw “great potential to improve and expand our operations in the UK this year... Watch this space”.

[Wes Tender]

You just don't get it do you??

 

You have posted umpteen times on this thread. Your posts are tedious, repetitive and humourless. When put under pressure you disappear from this thread for a couple of weeks before reappearing with the same views. You can never admit to being wrong about anything... even spelling. Of course you don't make loads of spelling mistakes but just admit to one when you do. Don't argue that black is white like you did yesterday.

 

In other words, lighten up pal. Open your mind to the possibility, unlikely to you I am sure, that you do not have a monopoly of knowledge.

 

So, my posts are tedious, repetitive and humourless? Can I make a simple suggestion? Put me on ignore.

If I disappear for a week or two, it is often because. I am often away on business. You might find it surprising, but I do have a life outside of this forum. Sometimes it might be because several of you remoaners gang up and post petty and infantile insults, so I allow you the time to talk among yourselves, knowing how frustrating that must be for you.

Thank you for contradicting your earlier post by admitting that I do not in fact make loads of spelling mistakes. Don't attempt to use sarcasm if it is plainly nonsensical and baseless. A word to the wise; don't accuse others of spelling mistakes and then make grammatical errors yourself. Learn the difference between an actual spelling error and the use of an accepted alternative spelling which was illustrated by it's usage in a media article I provided.

I have never claimed to have a monopoly of knowledge. You are the tediously, small-minded, nit-picking pedant here, and you use it as a strategy attempting to belittle those with whom you disagree. It isn't a good look, pal.

For some reason, you resent me posting several times on a thread about Brexit when it is something I have wanted to occur over several years. If that annoys you, then tough. Happily, we will be out in a fortnight. Suck it up.

[Tamesaint]

So, my posts are tedious, repetitive and humourless? Can I make a simple suggestion? Put me on ignore.

If I disappear for a week or two, it is often because. I am often away on business. You might find it surprising, but I do have a life outside of this forum. Sometimes it might be because several of you remoaners gang up and post petty and infantile insults, so I allow you the time to talk among yourselves, knowing how frustrating that must be for you.

Thank you for contradicting your earlier post by admitting that I do not in fact make loads of spelling mistakes. Don't attempt to use sarcasm if it is plainly nonsensical and baseless. A word to the wise; don't accuse others of spelling mistakes and then make grammatical errors yourself. Learn the difference between an actual spelling error and the use of an accepted alternative spelling which was illustrated by it's usage in a media article I provided.

I have never claimed to have a monopoly of knowledge. You are the tediously, small-minded, nit-picking pedant here, and you use it as a strategy attempting to belittle those with whom you disagree. It isn't a good look, pal.

For some reason, you resent me posting several times on a thread about Brexit when it is something I have wanted to occur over several years. If that annoys you, then tough. Happily, we will be out in a fortnight. Suck it up.

 

As I said - long winded, repetitive and lacking in humour.

[Wes Tender]

As I said - long winded, repetitive and lacking in humour.

 

As I said, put me on ignore, loser.

[Tamesaint]

As I said, put me on ignore, loser.

 

Remarkably concise for you but not only humourless but graceless.

[Guided Missile]

Remarkably concise for you but not only humourless but graceless.

Repetitive use of the word "but"...

[Tamesaint]

Repetitive use of the word "but"...

 

Blimey! I am off ignore. GM is developing a backbone and is prepared to read views different from his own. Is a new GM on the horizon?

[Wes Tender]

Good news in the past few days about our intentions post-Brexit from 1st February. Sajid Javid stating that the UK planned to diverge from EU rules has caused alarm bells to ring in Brussels, particularly from Merkel. What a refreshing change Javid is to Spreadsheet Phil Hammond. Thank God that the likes of him are no longer in Government.

 

Typically, the French are making noises about how the trade deal cannot be negotiated until the question of EU fisheries access to our coastal waters has been resolved. Time to tell them to go and get lost, that it will not be used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations.

 

https://brexitcentral.com/the-fishing-community-expects-this-government-to-take-back-control-of-our-coastal-waters/

 

Also it is very encouraging to hear that we will be actively negotiating trade deals with the rest of the World simultaneously with those with the EU. That should keep them on their toes and let them know that we are no longer the patsies we were under the terminally useless May and Robbins.

[shurlock]

So, my posts are tedious, repetitive and humourless? Can I make a simple suggestion? Put me on ignore.

If I disappear for a week or two, it is often because. I am often away on business. You might find it surprising, but I do have a life outside of this forum. Sometimes it might be because several of you remoaners gang up and post petty and infantile insults, so I allow you the time to talk among yourselves, knowing how frustrating that must be for you.

Thank you for contradicting your earlier post by admitting that I do not in fact make loads of spelling mistakes. Don't attempt to use sarcasm if it is plainly nonsensical and baseless. A word to the wise; don't accuse others of spelling mistakes and then make grammatical errors yourself. Learn the difference between an actual spelling error and the use of an accepted alternative spelling which was illustrated by it's usage in a media article I provided.

I have never claimed to have a monopoly of knowledge. You are the tediously, small-minded, nit-picking pedant here, and you use it as a strategy attempting to belittle those with whom you disagree. It isn't a good look, pal.

For some reason, you resent me posting several times on a thread about Brexit when it is something I have wanted to occur over several years. If that annoys you, then tough. Happily, we will be out in a fortnight. Suck it up.

 

Away on business? Whatever next? My pet dog taking driving lessons?

[shurlock]

Good news in the past few days about our intentions post-Brexit from 1st February. Sajid Javid stating that the UK planned to diverge from EU rules has caused alarm bells to ring in Brussels, particularly from Merkel. What a refreshing change Javid is to Spreadsheet Phil Hammond. Thank God that the likes of him are no longer in Government.

 

Typically, the French are making noises about how the trade deal cannot be negotiated until the question of EU fisheries access to our coastal waters has been resolved. Time to tell them to go and get lost, that it will not be used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations.

 

https://brexitcentral.com/the-fishing-community-expects-this-government-to-take-back-control-of-our-coastal-waters/

 

Also it is very encouraging to hear that we will be actively negotiating trade deals with the rest of the World simultaneously with those with the EU. That should keep them on their toes and let them know that we are no longer the patsies we were under the terminally useless May and Robbins.

 

The cheap bluster might work for your eBay garden gnome business Les. But it’s fooling nobody in Europe and only succeeding in freaking out UK industry.

 

#fûckbusiness

Edited 20 January, 2020 by shurlock