Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, aintforever said:

A Brexit supporting friend of mine came out with this crap, "I don't want Brussels making my laws", so I asked what specific law Brussels brought in that they wanted changing and they didn't even have an answer.

 

 

It's not as if we didn't have any input into the formulation of EU laws, rules, and regulations. Some people seem to think we are escaping from a dictatorship that denied the UK any say in it's own affairs.

Edited 11 September, 2020 by badgerx16

[Hockey_saint]

4 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Corbyn was a frequent contributor to RT, as was Milne. Milne was a Putin cheerleader. 

When Salisbury happened the Cretin could not bring himself to condemn the Russian state for hostile act on a British soil.

Yes, the is plenty of dodgy Russian money in the country and the Conservatives are as culpable as any.

But Corbyn, mainly because of his pitifully dim "anti-imperialism" sixth former worldview,  is a perpetual facilitator and apologist for the Russian state.

That's undeniable but it ignores the currently hushed up Russian report, Boris' ongoing affair with a Russian heiress and a whole host of other points....Trump is no doubt in the pocket of Russia...and who's in the pocket of Trump eh? As I say, sold lies and half-truths.

 

Let's just say if you voted against Labour and for brexit because of links to Russia....you've followed my "simplistic, one-dimensional" route.

Edited 11 September, 2020 by Hockey_saint

[Hockey_saint]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It's not as if we didn't have any input into the formulation of EU laws, rules, and regulations. Some people seem to think we are escaping from a dictatorship that denied the UK any say in it's own affairs.

Quite; we were, ironically, the driving force in letting the A8 countries in to....add more socialist elements to the union....which let's face it, getting rid of the lies about "independence" "taking orders from Brussels" and "freedom" which are all very nice buzzwords but utter boll0cks is more the reason for Brexit than anything else.

[SFC Forever]

taken from  the web below is a small part of what we have had thrust upon us by the EU.

the figure is about 13 per cent, according to House of Commons Library research. This percentage is an average of how much UK legislation was passed to implement EU law or other EU obligations in the period from 1993 to 2014.

further to that 

That proportion does increase signif­icantly when you add the dreaded EU regulations. You know the ones: responsible for all sorts of abominations from straightening bananas to disempowering vacuum cleaners. Regulations apply automatically in all EU member states. We can also add EU directives to this – one of which suggested in 2013 that “jam” be redefined to include only products with more than 60 per cent sugar. As business secretary, Vince Cable fended off this horror, which would have left anything with a sugar content of between 51 and 59 per cent with no legal name. (As the Guardian noted, “The regulations have created what the famously dour Cable has described, in a rare moment of humour, as a ‘no jams land’.”)

If we take EU regulations and directives into account, then yes, it does start to look as if up to 65 per cent of our legislation comes from Brussels. But this figure is based on counting every law passed by the European Commission between 1993 and 2014: all 49,699 of them. Plenty of these have been dropped, replaced or rendered redundant. It is thought the total number of EU laws in force is less than half that figure (22,398, according to March 2015 reports). And many of these – measuring the pungency of olive oil, tobacco growing guidelines – are not relevant to British farmers or manufacturers.

Taking regulations into account, the Commons Library has conceded that it is possible to justify any figure between 15 and 55 per cent. So, everyone is right.

Besides gleefully drawing attention to the loopiest rules, Brexiters argue that there is a democratic deficit in having our laws made in Brussels. Although our MEPs get a say in the standard legislative process, they are not held to account in Britain by their opponents and the media in the same way as MPs. Ukip MEPs in particular take pride in failing to turn up to European parliamentary debates and committee meetings.

Among Eurosceptics, the most hated law of all is the Human Rights Act. They claim that it “protects” terrorists and criminals. Yet this is not an EU issue. The act simply incorporates the Convention on Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe after the Second World War: it’s nothing to do with the EU. The UK parliament passed the act independently in 1998.

So yes, a significant proportion of our law is affected by the EU. But calculating just how much is a worthless exercise, partly because much of the legislation would have been implemented – or even initiated – by the UK anyway, and partly because not every law has an equal impact. We may be British, but it’s time to stop counting major acts of parliament, such as the restructuring of the NHS, as equal to a ruling on the ingredients of a Cornish pasty.

so that I believe shows that we are not as free standing as you would have us believe.

 

[badgerx16]

How much of that EU legislation would we have introduced anyway ? Health and Safety regs, Data Protection, Human Rights, etc. Most of the EU stuff will stay, some of the rest will be modified. Only a small proportion will be revoked.

[Hockey_saint]

4 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

taken from  the web below is a small part of what we have had thrust upon us by the EU.

the figure is about 13 per cent, according to House of Commons Library research. This percentage is an average of how much UK legislation was passed to implement EU law or other EU obligations in the period from 1993 to 2014.

further to that 

That proportion does increase signif­icantly when you add the dreaded EU regulations. You know the ones: responsible for all sorts of abominations from straightening bananas to disempowering vacuum cleaners. Regulations apply automatically in all EU member states. We can also add EU directives to this – one of which suggested in 2013 that “jam” be redefined to include only products with more than 60 per cent sugar. As business secretary, Vince Cable fended off this horror, which would have left anything with a sugar content of between 51 and 59 per cent with no legal name. (As the Guardian noted, “The regulations have created what the famously dour Cable has described, in a rare moment of humour, as a ‘no jams land’.”)

If we take EU regulations and directives into account, then yes, it does start to look as if up to 65 per cent of our legislation comes from Brussels. But this figure is based on counting every law passed by the European Commission between 1993 and 2014: all 49,699 of them. Plenty of these have been dropped, replaced or rendered redundant. It is thought the total number of EU laws in force is less than half that figure (22,398, according to March 2015 reports). And many of these – measuring the pungency of olive oil, tobacco growing guidelines – are not relevant to British farmers or manufacturers.

Taking regulations into account, the Commons Library has conceded that it is possible to justify any figure between 15 and 55 per cent. So, everyone is right.

Besides gleefully drawing attention to the loopiest rules, Brexiters argue that there is a democratic deficit in having our laws made in Brussels. Although our MEPs get a say in the standard legislative process, they are not held to account in Britain by their opponents and the media in the same way as MPs. Ukip MEPs in particular take pride in failing to turn up to European parliamentary debates and committee meetings.

Among Eurosceptics, the most hated law of all is the Human Rights Act. They claim that it “protects” terrorists and criminals. Yet this is not an EU issue. The act simply incorporates the Convention on Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe after the Second World War: it’s nothing to do with the EU. The UK parliament passed the act independently in 1998.

So yes, a significant proportion of our law is affected by the EU. But calculating just how much is a worthless exercise, partly because much of the legislation would have been implemented – or even initiated – by the UK anyway, and partly because not every law has an equal impact. We may be British, but it’s time to stop counting major acts of parliament, such as the restructuring of the NHS, as equal to a ruling on the ingredients of a Cornish pasty.

so that I believe shows that we are not as free standing as you would have us believe.

 

There are an awful lot of conceeding points there like the Human Rights Act and a whole lot of others and that figure of 15 - 55% is so vast it sounds like an awful lot of guesswork.

[Hockey_saint]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

How much of that EU legislation would we have introduced anyway ? Health and Safety regs, Data Protection, Human Rights, etc. Most of the EU stuff will stay, some of the rest will be modified. Only a small proportion will be revoked.

I would be suspicious about how much would be revoked......The timing of this is all very interesting as well since the EU were in the middle of bringing in rules about tax-havens.

[badgerx16]

Just now, Hockey_saint said:

I would be suspicious about how much would be revoked......The timing of this is all very interesting as well since the EU were in the middle of bringing in rules about tax-havens.

Most of the stuff that will end up being revoked will almost certainly need alternative "UK focussed" replacement legislation, it can't simply be red lined out of the Statute Book. How many years will it take to unravel 40 plus years of progressively tighter integration ?

[SFC Forever]

copied

 

Edited 11 September, 2020 by SFC Forever

[SFC Forever]

5 minutes ago, Hockey_saint said:

There are an awful lot of conceding points there like the Human Rights Act and a whole lot of others and that figure of 15 - 55% is so vast it sounds like an awful lot of guesswork.

I agree which is why I question what appears your biased viewpoint on Brexit. 

Funny thing is that in a few years we may all agree that we either did well or made a horrific mistake. Only time will tell.

[badgerx16]

Just now, SFC Forever said:

I agree which is why I question what appears your biased viewpoint on Brexit. 

Funny thing is that in a few years we may all agree that we either did well or made a horrific mistake. Only time will tell.

Both sides hold biased views on Brexit.

[Hockey_saint]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Both sides hold biased views on Brexit.

See the problem is, for me.....cut everything away.....the far right who absolutely love the idea of a nationalism sh!tshow.....the liar we have in office who's obviously controlled by Dominic Cummings and all his rich, tax-avoiding mates and their views on British institutions.......strip that all away and the idea is always a good one; being free to do trade deals on our own, making agreements on the fly, allowing our citizens to move back and forth to places like Australia whenever they want but sadly, it's just not that simple.

[SFC Forever]

Again I will agree. But at no time have I put you or Hockey with old men with Thai brides, or accused of being racist as Hockey has to me in reply to one of my posts. Nor am I in the NF or other nationalistic parties. I was born English and have fought for my country many years ago but as it is now given the choice I might refrain.

[aintforever]

21 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

taken from  the web below is a small part of what we have had thrust upon us by the EU.

the figure is about 13 per cent, according to House of Commons Library research. This percentage is an average of how much UK legislation was passed to implement EU law or other EU obligations in the period from 1993 to 2014.

further to that 

That proportion does increase signif­icantly when you add the dreaded EU regulations. You know the ones: responsible for all sorts of abominations from straightening bananas to disempowering vacuum cleaners. Regulations apply automatically in all EU member states. We can also add EU directives to this – one of which suggested in 2013 that “jam” be redefined to include only products with more than 60 per cent sugar. As business secretary, Vince Cable fended off this horror, which would have left anything with a sugar content of between 51 and 59 per cent with no legal name. (As the Guardian noted, “The regulations have created what the famously dour Cable has described, in a rare moment of humour, as a ‘no jams land’.”)

If we take EU regulations and directives into account, then yes, it does start to look as if up to 65 per cent of our legislation comes from Brussels. But this figure is based on counting every law passed by the European Commission between 1993 and 2014: all 49,699 of them. Plenty of these have been dropped, replaced or rendered redundant. It is thought the total number of EU laws in force is less than half that figure (22,398, according to March 2015 reports). And many of these – measuring the pungency of olive oil, tobacco growing guidelines – are not relevant to British farmers or manufacturers.

Taking regulations into account, the Commons Library has conceded that it is possible to justify any figure between 15 and 55 per cent. So, everyone is right.

Besides gleefully drawing attention to the loopiest rules, Brexiters argue that there is a democratic deficit in having our laws made in Brussels. Although our MEPs get a say in the standard legislative process, they are not held to account in Britain by their opponents and the media in the same way as MPs. Ukip MEPs in particular take pride in failing to turn up to European parliamentary debates and committee meetings.

Among Eurosceptics, the most hated law of all is the Human Rights Act. They claim that it “protects” terrorists and criminals. Yet this is not an EU issue. The act simply incorporates the Convention on Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe after the Second World War: it’s nothing to do with the EU. The UK parliament passed the act independently in 1998.

So yes, a significant proportion of our law is affected by the EU. But calculating just how much is a worthless exercise, partly because much of the legislation would have been implemented – or even initiated – by the UK anyway, and partly because not every law has an equal impact. We may be British, but it’s time to stop counting major acts of parliament, such as the restructuring of the NHS, as equal to a ruling on the ingredients of a Cornish pasty.

so that I believe shows that we are not as free standing as you would have us believe.

 

What specific law that Brussels brought in effects you and why do you want to change it?

[StDunko]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

What if the legal agreement that was signed had a legal agreement within it that allowed said country to go back on the legal agreement?

Yeah,we had our fingers crossed behind our back when we signed. So it doesn't count.

 

Our government is turning into a pound shop version of Trump's administration.

[Hockey_saint]

50 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

Again I will agree. But at no time have I put you or Hockey with old men with Thai brides, or accused of being racist as Hockey has to me in reply to one of my posts. Nor am I in the NF or other nationalistic parties. I was born English and have fought for my country many years ago but as it is now given the choice I might refrain.

It was just an example. I wasn't calling you a member of the NF or an old man. But to deny there is very much a very big whiff of racism at least egging on Brexit is to ignore a big part of it. Cummings alone has huge links to far right movements. His friend Bannon said he wanted to seed far right movements across Europe and they also have big links to Russia, who, let's face it, would love nothing better than to destablise Europe....sounds very convenient doesn't it. Plus anyone, anywhere can be racist no matter if their entire family is, for example a different colour, it makes no difference so examples, to me, don't really mean much.

 

Perhaps I've read too many books on examples where the people being liberated only find out they've been saved by people worse than the ones they left....Obviously much of Europe and Stalin would be a good example of that but we have a long rouges gallery of people you wouldn't usually trust at a village committee behind this and I don't think a single one of them is honest as to why they are behind it (Boris is a good example....very pro-EU until he saw the chance to improve his career or Mogg who's pulled a fair proportion of his money out of the UK......sounds suspiciously like short-selling against the pound).....it just all smells very very fishy to me.

Edited 11 September, 2020 by Hockey_saint

[SFC Forever]

The fact that you used those examples in reply insinuate the fact even if it is not meant.  I have known families destroyed financially by the EU fishing fleet. Fishing in our waters as more than halved our own fleet. You said earlier that we are no longer a power house and could be drifting towards being a third world country. I have long been of the belief that we are no longer strong enough to be called a power house. Our forces are being reduced to such a level that we are a shadow of our previous strength.

That said I still see no reason why we should be directed by Brussels as we are at present. That does not mean we do not want them as friends and as trade partners. It is possible for us to trade with the EU as well as the rest of the world. Only those blinkered refuse to accept that this is possible. Even so we are still one of the major  participants of the NATO forces. Maybe we are too closely linked to the USA but that has been the way since long before ww2. In fact it was only in Dec 2006 that we finished paying of the USA and Canada for WW2 debts.

I know that has nowt to do with Brexit but it does show how they helped us bigtime when fighting for survival back then. Covid and Brexit do not make good bedfellows but we must in my opinion continue to fight covid and work towards our freedom from foreign rule.  Right or wrong we may have to wait to find out. I hope and believe we are doing the best thing for our country. 

[Hockey_saint]

26 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

The fact that you used those examples in reply insinuate the fact even if it is not meant.  I have known families destroyed financially by the EU fishing fleet. Fishing in our waters as more than halved our own fleet. You said earlier that we are no longer a power house and could be drifting towards being a third world country. I have long been of the belief that we are no longer strong enough to be called a power house. Our forces are being reduced to such a level that we are a shadow of our previous strength.

That said I still see no reason why we should be directed by Brussels as we are at present. That does not mean we do not want them as friends and as trade partners. It is possible for us to trade with the EU as well as the rest of the world. Only those blinkered refuse to accept that this is possible. Even so we are still one of the major  participants of the NATO forces. Maybe we are too closely linked to the USA but that has been the way since long before ww2. In fact it was only in Dec 2006 that we finished paying of the USA and Canada for WW2 debts.

I know that has nowt to do with Brexit but it does show how they helped us bigtime when fighting for survival back then. Covid and Brexit do not make good bedfellows but we must in my opinion continue to fight covid and work towards our freedom from foreign rule.  Right or wrong we may have to wait to find out. I hope and believe we are doing the best thing for our country. 

The point is that this foreign rule notion means nothing if we're going to sign massive and usually one-sided trade deals with other countries and then be beholden to them....our biggest one being with the US, who, at the moment are threatening to walk away. I know people who work in the financial markets of New York and on Capitol hill in DC and all seem to think this is an insane move. It's just the interconnectivity of the world today. The EU trading block sounded good because it gave us influence in a group who's combined GDP outstrips even the US....anyone would want a piece of that....that's probably the main thing they see. This staying friends thing...we're not doing a very good job of that either are we? Walking away from legally binding deals, running half them down in the press?

 

My father worked for BAT and as you may know, it shut most of it's operations due to EU diktats but even with that, I can't see how we'd want to walk away from by far our biggest trading partner. It's a difficult one but I still think we need to move away from all this hyperbole about "freedom" and "having no master" and other lines because they've basically been dreamt up by people who couldn't give two figs about us but are more thinking about the opportunity to make unfetted stacks of tax-free cash and, like the Weatherspoon's owner Tim Martin, don't mind reducing our rights to get it.

[buctootim]

9 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

I read a good article reducing that number of so-called EU trade deals substantially by taking out those where deals weren't fully signed, weren't full deals etc. Also several were minuscule deals with non-entity countries, but looked good to prop up the numbers. I can't find it without further digging.

However, you might like to read this counter argument which calls your argument of bigger is better and stronger as a fallacy.

https://www.brexit-watch.org/the-three-basic-fallacies-that-cause-confusion-about-trade/the-three-basic-fallacies-that-cause-confusion-about-trade

Its a straw man article. He's arguing against things no-one has said. 

42 deals does not overstate the EU's trade portfolio. In fact it understates. The single market facilitates free trade between 27 members but only counts as one deal. Arguably the EU has in effect the equivalent of 68 trade deals.         

 

[Wes Tender]

13 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

What if the legal agreement that was signed had a legal agreement within it that allowed said country to go back on the legal agreement?

It did. Section 38 of the Withdrawal Act covers it I believe.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/09/kenneth-armstrong-can-the-uk-breach-the-withdrawal-agreement-and-get-away-with-it-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill/

Plus as far as I am aware,  the EU could be accused of breaking the terms of an international treaty too, because they could be accused of not using their best endeavours, and not acting in good faith to arrange a FTA with us in accordance with the terms of Article 50, the WA and the Political Declaration.

More to come on this later today.

[Wes Tender]

5 hours ago, buctootim said:

Its a straw man article. He's arguing against things no-one has said. 

42 deals does not overstate the EU's trade portfolio. In fact it understates. The single market facilitates free trade between 27 members but only counts as one deal. Arguably the EU has in effect the equivalent of 68 trade deals.         

 

He's arguing against things that lots of remoaners have said. I imagine that he didn't write the article for no apparent reason.

So when we sign a FTA with the EU, that will count as 27 more deals for us, will it? 🤣

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

It did. Section 38 of the Withdrawal Act covers it I believe.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/09/kenneth-armstrong-can-the-uk-breach-the-withdrawal-agreement-and-get-away-with-it-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill/

Plus as far as I am aware,  the EU could be accused of breaking the terms of an international treaty too, because they could be accused of not using their best endeavours, and not acting in good faith to arrange a FTA with us in accordance with the terms of Article 50, the WA and the Political Declaration.

More to come on this later today.

The conclusion of that artice  "It is hard to see how this can avoid embroiling the Supreme Court in another round of Brexit litigation. It is a fight that, perhaps, the Government actually wants."

 

[Wes Tender]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The conclusion of that artice  "It is hard to see how this can avoid embroiling the Supreme Court in another round of Brexit litigation. It is a fight that, perhaps, the Government actually wants."

 

Yes, I spotted that too. I read it that the Supreme Court will be  hampered by the precedent they adjudicated on in the Miller case and will be required to rule that the UK Parliament is sovereign and that Section 38 of the WA permits the  government to proceed with the Internal Market Bill

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 hours ago, aintforever said:

What specific law that Brussels brought in effects you and why do you want to change it?

Freedom of movement for EU nationals & I want to change it because it’s racist. I don’t want to live in a country where the law treats  a Pakistani differently than a Dutchman. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 hours ago, StDunko said:

Yeah,we had our fingers crossed behind our back when we signed. So it doesn't count.

 

Cry me a river.

Euro loons have had their fingers crossed behind their backs for 40 years. Grocer Heath lied when we entered, Wilson lied he’d got meaningful changes before the first referendum, we’ve had 40 years of lies and hiding the real nature of the EU. Luckily with the help of Nigel we’ve finally seen through those lies, and we’re out. 

[Wes Tender]

https://facts4eu.org/news/2020_sep_eu_broke_gfa

https://facts4eu.org/news/2020_sep_eu_weaponising_peace

One in the eye for mad Nancy Pelosi and the background on how and why the EU and Ireland weaponised Northern Ireland in the post Brexit negotiations.

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

https://facts4eu.org/news/2020_sep_eu_broke_gfa

https://facts4eu.org/news/2020_sep_eu_weaponising_peace

One in the eye for mad Nancy Pelosi and the background on how and why the EU and Ireland weaponised Northern Ireland in the post Brexit negotiations.

Any chance of a link to an unbiased souce ?

[Wes Tender]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Any chance of a link to an unbiased souce ?

What's an unbiased source? One that supports the EU?

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

It did. Section 38 of the Withdrawal Act covers it I believe.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/09/kenneth-armstrong-can-the-uk-breach-the-withdrawal-agreement-and-get-away-with-it-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill/

Plus as far as I am aware,  the EU could be accused of breaking the terms of an international treaty too, because they could be accused of not using their best endeavours, and not acting in good faith to arrange a FTA with us in accordance with the terms of Article 50, the WA and the Political Declaration.

More to come on this later today.

Well, fancy that, who knew

Now, if only there were some precedent that had recently been re-affirmed by the Supreme Court vis-a-vis the Sovereignty of Parliament, that would rubber stamp the 'non' law breaking  

Hi Gina - nice work on that whole Brexit thing  

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

 

Hi Gina - nice work on that whole Brexit thing  

She’s an absolute hero, without her her things would have been completely different. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Wes Tender said:

What's an unbiased source? One that supports the EU?

No, but Facts4EU are hardly going to produce opinion pieces that vary from their WTO Brexit agenda.

Edited 12 September, 2020 by badgerx16
brain fade

[buctootim]

5 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

He's arguing against things that lots of remoaners have said. I imagine that he didn't write the article for no apparent reason.

So when we sign a FTA with the EU, that will count as 27 more deals for us, will it? 🤣

Yes you pitiful excuse for an intellect, it is as important as 27 separate deals with individual countries. That's why smooth trade and good relations with the EU is so vital for the UK - it accounts for 43% of trade, not 2% like Japan.  

Edited 12 September, 2020 by buctootim

[SFC Forever]

What you seem to forget is that the EU needs to continue trading with us. We buy more from them than they buy from us.

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

What you seem to forget is that the EU needs to continue trading with us. We buy more from them than they buy from us.

Don't be daft, they've already got 42 trade deals sewn up, they don't need another one with us!  The £95b worth of trade they have with us will be easily replaced by the new trade deal with Vietnam!

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Don't be daft, they've already got 42 trade deals sewn up, they don't need another one with us!  The £95b worth of trade they have with us will be easily replaced by the new trade deal with Vietnam!

And where would we replace the 43% of our trade that we do with them ? Simplistic, narrow minded, single line quips won't fix Brexit if it all goes tits up.

Edited 12 September, 2020 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And where would we replace the 43% of our trade that we do with them ? Simplistic, narrow minded, single line quips won't fix Brexit if it all goes tits up.

It was a flippant comment highlighting how everyone to date has focussed on our need to get a deal with the EU and not, as SFC Forever has stated, their equally important need to trade with us that continually seems to be ignored!

Besides, despite the scare mongering regarding trade, it isn't going to magically disappear on the 1st of January, just the terms will be changing (in the event of no deal).

[Hockey_saint]

1 hour ago, SFC Forever said:

What you seem to forget is that the EU needs to continue trading with us. We buy more from them than they buy from us.

A block as big as their doesn't "Need" to trade with us.....it would be helpful for them if they did....as we've always been the gateway for the US to the EU but there are other ways they can get around us.

[Wes Tender]

45 minutes ago, Hockey_saint said:

A block as big as their doesn't "Need" to trade with us.....it would be helpful for them if they did....as we've always been the gateway for the US to the EU but there are other ways they can get around us.

The EU doesn't need to trade with the 5th biggest economy and their major customer with whom they have a massive trade surplus? You crack me up! 🤣

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, Wes Tender said:

The EU doesn't need to trade with the 5th biggest economy and their major customer with whom they have a massive trade surplus? You crack me up! 🤣

Yeah, we’re just the gateway to US for them. Lol, classic Hock 

[ecuk268]

1 hour ago, Wes Tender said:

The EU doesn't need to trade with the 5th biggest economy and their major customer with whom they have a massive trade surplus? You crack me up! 🤣

We account for 16% of their exports whereas they account for 43% of ours.

I think that we've got more to lose than them.

[Hockey_saint]

32 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

We account for 16% of their exports whereas they account for 43% of ours.

I think that we've got more to lose than them.

Wes' over-inflated nationalist ego cracks me up. We won't be the 5th biggest economy once brexit has shat all over us.

[SFC Forever]

1 hour ago, ecuk268 said:

We account for 16% of their exports whereas they account for 43% of ours.

I think that we've got more to lose than them.

The EU is not just 1 country though is it? In it's entirety it is much bigger than us so those figures fail miserably to tell the whole picture. Show the figures individually for each country and then tell me I am wrong. The overall expenditure is not as you claim using those percentages.

[SFC Forever]

to make it easier for you

Taken as a bloc, the EU is the UK's largest trading partner. In 2019 the EU accounted for 47% of the UK's total trade - 43% of UK exports and 49% imports.

 

In 2019, the UK recorded an overall trade deficit with the EU of -£72 billion. A surplus of £23 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of -£95 billion on trade in goods. The UK recorded an overall trade surplus with non-EU countries - a surplus in trade in services outweighed a deficit in trade in goods.

 

Edited 12 September, 2020 by SFC Forever

[SFC Forever]

53 minutes ago, Hockey_saint said:

Wes' over-inflated nationalist ego cracks me up. We won't be the 5th biggest economy once brexit has shat all over us.

Maybe you can finally accept the fact that you are wrong. The EU needs us more as we buy much more from them as last years figures clearly show.

[Hockey_saint]

5 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

Maybe you can finally accept the fact that you are wrong. The EU needs us more as we buy much more from them as last years figures clearly show.

I'm not wrong. The biggest federation on the planet with a bigger GDP than the US doesn't need us. This arrogance really does need to stop. We've been sold down the river by snake oil salesmen. I understand how easy it is to get caught up, Shirley no longer sounds like it did when I grew up and we as a public didn't ask for that but it's still insane to think France, Germany and the rest need us more than we need them....it's a fantasy. A sad, sad fantasy.

 

Also, on a brexit-related point.......remember how the press hounded Meghan and Harry and pretty much every other celebrity..........seen a photo of Boris' child Wilf and Carrie yet? Yeah, press strings are controlling this whole fiasco.

Edited 12 September, 2020 by Hockey_saint

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

Maybe you can finally accept the fact that you are wrong. The EU needs us more as we buy much more from them as last years figures clearly show.

We buy more from them but they have A GDP of about 20 trillion to our 3 trillion. As a percentage our trade is much less important to them than their is to us, that is obvious.

As someone said a few pages back, it’s like a fight between an elephant and a dog. If the dog loses 2 pints of blood and the elephant loses 2.5, who is worse off?

[SFC Forever]

I am being arrogant am I Hockey?. The goods that we buy are not going to be sold as easily to other countries at a drop of a hat. How many businesses here in the UK are folding due to the lack of income? The same will be happening in Europe or do you believe they can wave a magic wand and find customers so willing to take unwanted stock. Even if they succeed in finding customers they will have to lower their prices drastically because the world will know they need to move their goods on.

I am really beginning to think you are either some dummy or are just so unhappy that we are leaving the EU you can not see how stupid you look.

first you insinuate I am a racist because I voted out. Then cast insinuations about being old with a Thai wife. Now I am arrogant because I believe we are needed by the EU. I wonder what you will say next.

Edited 12 September, 2020 by SFC Forever
spelling

[SFC Forever]

If we were not needed so much why the hell is the EU bleating because we are playing hard ball? If things are so cosy for them why don't they just say goodbye and stop complaining endlessly.

[Hockey_saint]

8 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

If we were not needed so much why the hell is the EU bleating because we are playing hard ball? If things are so cosy for them why don't they just say goodbye and stop complaining endlessly.

Because you don't break legally binding contracts....it's not done.....Also Johnson is a highly unstable individual and the rest of the world and his aunt can see it....and it's right on their doorstep so that would be quite an interest.

 

It's also arrogant to think we're a major player anymore. We're not.....haven't been for about 50 years. Someone above explains it better than me.

[Hockey_saint]

24 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

I am being arrogant am I Hockey?. The goods that we buy are not going to be sold as easily to other countries at a drop of a hat. How many businesses here in the UK are folding due to the lack of income? The same will be happening in Europe or do you believe they can wave a magic wand and find customers so willing to take unwanted stock. Even if they succeed in finding customers they will have to lower their prices drastically because the world will know they need to move their goods on.

I am really beginning to think you are either some dummy or are just so unhappy that we are leaving the EU you can not see how stupid you look.

first you insinuate I am a racist because I voted out. Then cast insinuations about being old with a Thai wife. Now I am arrogant because I believe we are needed by the EU. I wonder what you will say next.

Some dummy who knows that Russia is no longer ruled by communists you mean? Or some dummy who doesn't take the word of a liar who has been sacked from every job he's ever worked for, has had many unnamed children, said some god-awful racist comments and who obsesses over a man who calls the KKK "very nice people", who's dad was a member of said kkk and both of who are controlled by a right wing cardel most people in the 40's would call the enemy. You gave me examples of how you couldn't possibly be racist....but wil happily back this racist pond life if it suits your odd fantasy of "freedom".....and you call ME a dummy?

 

Love this clip of the oven-ready deal....brilliant. What a liar, charlaton and crook.....you back that and call other people who don't agree dummies? Protection for the NHS and an oven-ready deal we were promised. Both are lies. All the tories back it apparently....alright then....

 

 

Edited 12 September, 2020 by Hockey_saint