The Positive Brexit Thread

[Indy 3,283]

2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

You called me a bigot for posting a link about the massacre of 99 soldiers of the 2nd battalion Royal Norfolks. 

You need to sort yourself out. 

No I said Justification? I have no idea why you needed to post it, so made the assumption you have a chip on your shoulder regarding Germans? So I showed you the same response RTB and said war brings our atrocities on all sides! Apologies if I offended you, but what was your reason for posting it?

[Indy 3,283]

1 hour ago, benchwarmer said:

Can anyone think of a worse possible time to implement Brexit? 

Whatever is agreed (or not) there should be a six month delay before it comes into force.  By 1st July businesses large and small will have had time to absorb the implications, covid rates should be much lower and the most vulnerable people will have been vaccinated.

Will it happen?  Not a chance.  Far too sensible and ideology-free.  

I had an inkling that was what would happen, most sensible way forwards in my opinion.

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/15/kent-lorry-park-to-miss-brexit-day-deadline

The Kent lorry park designed to relieve queues of up to 7,000 trucks taking goods across the Channel will not be ready for Brexit on 1 January, it has emerged.

Don't worry, the Government have set up an account on www.parkonmydrive.com.

 

[horsefly 4,287]

45 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/15/kent-lorry-park-to-miss-brexit-day-deadline

The Kent lorry park designed to relieve queues of up to 7,000 trucks taking goods across the Channel will not be ready for Brexit on 1 January, it has emerged.

Don't worry, the Government have set up an account on www.parkonmydrive.com.

 

I believe the Government's campanion site to www.parkonmydrive.com is www.sh*itinmygarden.com

Edited December 15, 2020 by horsefly

[The Raptor 1,199]

3 hours ago, benchwarmer said:

Can anyone think of a worse possible time to implement Brexit?

Thats probably the reason they're pushing it thru now. Then when it all goes to **** they can just blame covid instead of their own incompetence.

Edited December 15, 2020 by The Raptor

[Well b back 3,190]

Apparently they are about to announce a deal, to be voted on Monday / Tuesday

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Apparently they are about to announce a deal, to be voted on Monday / Tuesday

we need to make sure those naughty foreigners don't try to deal from the bottom of the pack

[SwindonCanary 455]

 

“We want a comprehensive free trade agreement, similar to Canada’s”, the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the negotiations on the future trade deal between the UK and the EU. Well, it turns out that a Canada-style relationship is indeed what’s on offer – but something that looks much more like Canada’s relationship with the US.

And it is the UK’s failure to understand that this was always the likely outcome of the negotiations that explains not just some of the frankly hysterical rhetoric now flying around but the current political impasse.

The claim is that the EU’s proposals – unlike those in the EU-Canada trade deal – would infringe the UK’s ‘sovereignty’ because, under some circumstances, if the UK chose to change its domestic regulations, or perhaps refused to align with the EU’s own changing regulations, the EU would be entitled to impose tariffs on UK goods.

This is a novel and frankly incoherent definition of sovereignty. As Ursula von der Leyen said, the UK would “remain free – sovereign if you wish – to decide what they want to do.” Equally, the EU would retain the (sovereign!) right to raise tariffs.

[Herman 9,717]

Notorisch witzbold.

[benchwarmer 624]

3 hours ago, The Raptor said:

Thats probably the reason they're pushing it thru now. Then when it all goes to **** they can just blame covid instead of their own incompetence.

Let's hope the vaccine doesn't thaw out in the queue for Eurotunnel.

[Bill 1,788]

3 hours ago, The Raptor said:

Thats probably the reason they're pushing it thru now. Then when it all goes to **** they can just blame covid instead of their own incompetence.

I'm not sure it is about competence - as that presumes that brexit could work, if only it had the right people in charge

It couldn't

On the basis of one fundamental flaw. There is no 'halfway house'.

If you are in it is because you accept the responsibilities that go with the benefits. If you are outside you cannot expect the benefits alone.

It is that simple..................................as are those stupid enough to think there was some arrangement that could ever deliver that delusion

[sonyc 5,492]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit/brexit-news-latest-boris-johnson-live-eu-b1774121.html

 

[SwindonCanary 455]

Jacob Rees-Mogg insists there is 'no last moment' to strike EU trade deal | Daily Mail Online

[horsefly 4,287]

 

[Herman 9,717]

A Brexit positive. 🙄

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/15/facebook-move-uk-users-california-eu-privacy-laws

 

[SwindonCanary 455]

The EU continuously bang on about THEIR level playing field rules. What they refuse to tell anybody, the German's or the French flatly refuse to sign up to or even abide by these restrictive rules. They refuse for the reasons, the rules will severely restrict Germany's ability to (a) support their auto industry through huge subsidies and (b) their state owned railways and their massive support for their part state owned companies like Deutschbahn of which Arriva UK is part of. The French massive subsidies to their car sector to the tune of £4billion and not a word from the EU. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no way we should be forced to sign up to the EU rules regardless of what they are. The EU really do require to get their own house in order and force Germany and France to comply with the rules at all times. Not allow Germany and France do as they please when and how they please. If they want one size fits all, then they have to deal with those that refuse to comply. 

[horsefly 4,287]

6 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

The EU continuously bang on about THEIR level playing field rules. What they refuse to tell anybody, the German's or the French flatly refuse to sign up to or even abide by these restrictive rules. They refuse for the reasons, the rules will severely restrict Germany's ability to (a) support their auto industry through huge subsidies and (b) their state owned railways and their massive support for their part state owned companies like Deutschbahn of which Arriva UK is part of. The French massive subsidies to their car sector to the tune of £4billion and not a word from the EU. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no way we should be forced to sign up to the EU rules regardless of what they are. The EU really do require to get their own house in order and force Germany and France to comply with the rules at all times. Not allow Germany and France do as they please when and how they please. If they want one size fits all, then they have to deal with those that refuse to comply. 

So where did you paste this garbage from?

[horsefly 4,287]

15 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

 

“We want a comprehensive free trade agreement, similar to Canada’s”, the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the negotiations on the future trade deal between the UK and the EU. Well, it turns out that a Canada-style relationship is indeed what’s on offer – but something that looks much more like Canada’s relationship with the US.

And it is the UK’s failure to understand that this was always the likely outcome of the negotiations that explains not just some of the frankly hysterical rhetoric now flying around but the current political impasse.

The claim is that the EU’s proposals – unlike those in the EU-Canada trade deal – would infringe the UK’s ‘sovereignty’ because, under some circumstances, if the UK chose to change its domestic regulations, or perhaps refused to align with the EU’s own changing regulations, the EU would be entitled to impose tariffs on UK goods.

This is a novel and frankly incoherent definition of sovereignty. As Ursula von der Leyen said, the UK would “remain free – sovereign if you wish – to decide what they want to do.” Equally, the EU would retain the (sovereign!) right to raise tariffs.

And just what point do you think you are making here? Feel free to explain.

[Haus 259]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And just what point do you think you are making here? Feel free to explain.

 

15 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

 

“We want a comprehensive free trade agreement, similar to Canada’s”, the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the negotiations on the future trade deal between the UK and the EU. Well, it turns out that a Canada-style relationship is indeed what’s on offer – but something that looks much more like Canada’s relationship with the US.

And it is the UK’s failure to understand that this was always the likely outcome of the negotiations that explains not just some of the frankly hysterical rhetoric now flying around but the current political impasse.

The claim is that the EU’s proposals – unlike those in the EU-Canada trade deal – would infringe the UK’s ‘sovereignty’ because, under some circumstances, if the UK chose to change its domestic regulations, or perhaps refused to align with the EU’s own changing regulations, the EU would be entitled to impose tariffs on UK goods.

This is a novel and frankly incoherent definition of sovereignty. As Ursula von der Leyen said, the UK would “remain free – sovereign if you wish – to decide what they want to do.” Equally, the EU would retain the (sovereign!) right to raise tariffs.

So what do you think they should do ? 

 

It seems perfectly reasonable to say 'Ok, lets have tariff free trade but if the standards change in the future and are different to ours, we will apply tariffs on things where you change the standards'

 

Not accepting tariff free trade now because of some possibility of tariffs on some sectors at some imaginary date in the future if we diverge from EU standards is madness.  

Its like worrying that at some point in the future you will need to have your Guttering on your house fixed, so you burn your house down to avoid it.

[horsefly 4,287]

11 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg insists there is 'no last moment' to strike EU trade deal | Daily Mail Online

This shows exactly what a ret*rd Rees-Bogg is:

"It comes as Mr Rees-Mogg last night insisted 'there is no last moment' to strike a post-Brexit trade deal with the European Union as he said talks could continue right up to the deadline on December 31."

So "no last moment" means the deadline on Dec. 31st, which by his own definition is precisely the last moment a deal can be done. Jesus! I thought Rees-Bogg was supposed to be famed for his command of language. Perhaps he's just a bit busy with his company advising its investors to get their money out of the UK.

[horsefly 4,287]

4 minutes ago, Haus said:

 

So what do you think they should do ? 

 

It seems perfectly reasonable to say 'Ok, lets have tariff free trade but if the standards change in the future and are different to ours, we will apply tariffs on things where you change the standards'

 

Not accepting tariff free trade now because of some possibility of tariffs on some sectors at some imaginary date in the future if we diverge from EU standards is madness.  

Its like worrying that at some point in the future you will need to have your Guttering on your house fixed, so you burn your house down to avoid it.

Indeed! And the Government keeps insisting that they have no intention of lowering food or environmental standards or workers rights. So there would be no need for the EU to resort to punitive tarrifs. Or could it be that the Government is lying to us? Surely not!.... Boris!.... Lying! What possible evidence could there be for that?...Oh!...best not push that one.

[Bill 1,788]

36 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And just what point do you think you are making here? Feel free to explain.

The point that whatever lies he posts up, someone will be foolish enough to not only read them. but reply.

Sorry to be so blunt H, but replying to this cretin merely gives him some form of warped credibility and allows his nonsense to be posted twice.

Put him on block, and save wasting more time

[SwindonCanary 455]

53 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So where did you paste this garbage from?

I looked it up, it's all true, none of it is garbage! 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,181]

4 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

The EU continuously bang on about THEIR level playing field rules. What they refuse to tell anybody, the German's or the French flatly refuse to sign up to or even abide by these restrictive rules. 

Then how do you, sorry, your source, know? 

[horsefly 4,287]

3 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Then how do you, sorry, your source, know? 

The man is a prize pr*at, of course. It's impossible for Germany and France to be members of the SM and not sign up to the rules.

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

3 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

I looked it up, it's all true, none of it is garbage! 

A professor of EU law tends to disagree with you and the poor person who wrote that nonsense.

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-single-market/#:~:text=Single market rules require the,national rules at EU level.

 

[Herman 9,717]

Katja Adler is worth a read. Don't tell the headbangers but the UK is going to agree with what the EU have been after. Still wrangling about bloody fish though. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

The EU continuously bang on about THEIR level playing field rules. What they refuse to tell anybody, the German's or the French flatly refuse to sign up to or even abide by these restrictive rules. They refuse for the reasons, the rules will severely restrict Germany's ability to (a) support their auto industry through huge subsidies and (b) their state owned railways and their massive support for their part state owned companies like Deutschbahn of which Arriva UK is part of. The French massive subsidies to their car sector to the tune of £4billion and not a word from the EU. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no way we should be forced to sign up to the EU rules regardless of what they are. The EU really do require to get their own house in order and force Germany and France to comply with the rules at all times. Not allow Germany and France do as they please when and how they please. If they want one size fits all, then they have to deal with those that refuse to comply. 

So why didn't we act the same way? Stop bleating that others don't follow the rules. If all of that is true then how fcukin stupid are we?

Now we are prepared to bleat on about our fishing industry which has a lower turnover than Harrods. And carefully forget we sold off our quotas.

Its all down to the right wing flag wavers who think UK means fear. It doesn't anymore. It is just a place where we live.

[SwindonCanary 455]

2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

A professor of EU law tends to disagree with you and the poor person who wrote that nonsense.

professor of EU law does not know what he's talking about !

 

 

 

some full facts Macron announces plan to rescue French auto industry (france24.com)

Germany aims to provide $2.3B in aid to help auto industry make tech shift (autonews.com)

Deutsche Bahn forms much-debated support pact with state | RailFreight.com

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-single-market/#:~:text=Single market rules require the,national rules at EU level.

Edited December 16, 2020 by SwindonCanary

[ron obvious 1,501]

This article might surprise some of you:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9053755/ANDREW-NEIL-No-Deal-nail-coffin-Western-democracy-celebrated-Russia-China.html