Jump to content
Jools

The Positive Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

they are saying the fall in exports is due to stockpiling before hand and a reluctance to test the the paperwork before you start mouthing off  wait a few months  and see 

Of course there was stockpiling. Anyone who didn't was barmy. But was it you or Moy said our import figures were down compared to exports for that period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Very true, and let's not overlook lying to his own MPs and Parliament generally although of course his own MPs can't really complain as they knew full well they were voting for a serial liar when they elected him............

.......actually come to that the DUP, farmers and fishermen knew full well.......🙄

 

Has he done his job ? Are they beginning to set him up as the fall guy ? Apparently at a Cobra meeting it was suggested we should have parties like “ chicken pox parties “ to enable the virus to spread quickly amongst the population, whilst denying there was ever an intention to go for herd immunity. Thank god that a small minority and a trip to ICU made him see sense.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56406393

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Well b back said:

Has he done his job ? Are they beginning to set him up as the fall guy ? Apparently at a Cobra meeting it was suggested we should have parties like “ chicken pox parties “ to enable the virus to spread quickly amongst the population, whilst denying there was ever an intention to go for herd immunity. Thank god that a small minority and a trip to ICU made him see sense.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56406393

I think he has set himself up as the fall guy - even in our already very over-centralized politcal system Johnson (and Cummings whilst he lasted) has done everything he can to centralise power even further in No 10 - he has pretty much evaded all scrutiny by Prliament and even very senior ministers have no real power - absolutely everything happens on the say-so of no 10.

That is what Johnson wanted and that is what he has successfully put in the place but the corollary is that the responsibility for all the c*ck ups, the incompetence, the corruption, and of course the u-turns and the general shambles which we've lived through for the past year is directly attributable to Johnson himself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

they are saying the fall in exports is due to stockpiling before hand and a reluctance to test the the paperwork before you start mouthing off  wait a few months  and see 

here we are mouse brain

a quote from the very report you quoted from

"it warned that January data which showed a 40% slump in exports to the EU added to evidence that post-Brexit trade restrictions were causing more severe damage than the ‘teething problems’

or maybe the FT, who might know something


'There were no similar falls in Britain’s trade with non-EU countries, showing the move to be related to Brexit controls rather than the effects of the coronavirus surge and January’s lockdown. '

'The haulage and logistics industry, which pointed to an increase in the number of lorries returning empty to the continent from the UK. Before Brexit, about 30 per cent of lorries returning to the EU were typically empty. French port data have suggested that the figure has risen to 50 per cent in the first two months of this year'

 

James Withers, the chief executive, said there could be “no sugar coating” the figures. While he expected volumes to pick up in February and March he warned that the new barriers to trade would cause EU supply chains to “permanently restructure” at the expense of UK jobs


'Shane Brennan, chief executive of the Cold Chain Federation which represents the perishable products industry said there was still a “long way to go” and that new bureaucracy put UK goods at a permanent disadvantage.

“UK goods are slower-moving, much more expensive and way more hassle, and EU customers are buying less. I wish the government spent as much time listening to business concerns as they do searching for ways to spin the trade figures,” he said. James Sproule, chief economist of Handelsbanken in the UK, said the impact of Brexit was “readily apparent” in the trade figures, with the larger proportionate drop in exports showing that “UK exporters have felt the impact more severely than their European counterparts”.

So who do we trust to be correct. Head figures from those industries, or an habitual liar with an IQ only marginally above Abu Hamza's finger count

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Herman said:

What's with this weird obsession Blukip have with friggin statues?

"This bill could have been a watershed moment.

But through its 296 pages, the word “woman” isn’t mentioned once.

It allows someone attacking a statue to receive up to a 10-year term in prison while rape sentences start at five years. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Bill said:

"This bill could have been a watershed moment.

But through its 296 pages, the word “woman” isn’t mentioned once.

It allows someone attacking a statue to receive up to a 10-year term in prison while rape sentences start at five years. "

Isn't it great that we are now free to write our own laws that haven't been written by some unelected official🙈🙉🙊

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear! seems the Express is not too happy with the brexit deal. What happened to all those happy British fish? Seems they are all ending up in the capacious nets of EU countries' fishermen . Well at least they will be able to sell their catch to the EU unlike their UK counterparts. Come on Morrison's, buy yourself a second boat and show those damn foreigners that we still rule the waves.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexiteers-are-betrayed-england-s-fishing-quota-owned-by-eu-factory-ships-mike-hookem/ar-BB1eD5mP?ocid=msedgntp

Hailed by Boris Johnson and his government as 'taking back control of our waters' this Government gave promises and has continued to promise it will end super trawlers fishing in Britain's waters. But at the time it was giving these promises it was simultaneously issuing more than 2000 licences to EU vessels some classed as super trawler. The term super trawler generally refers to large trawlers over 100 metres in length. They catch hundreds of tons of fish EVERY DAY using nets up to a mile long and can process their catch on board which leads to them also being called 'factory ships'.

Whisper this quietly but I'm beginning to think Johnson lied to Fishermen and the public about how brexit would save the UK fishing industry. Who would have thought they would be far worse off than when we were a part of the EU? Just about every remainer in the country and all those posting on here, that's who.

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

they are saying the fall in exports is due to stockpiling before hand and a reluctance to test the the paperwork before you start mouthing off  wait a few months  and see 

Show us where the EU has been stockpiling UK fish exports then, "before you start mouthing off".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK will not pay fines adjudicated by the EU’s puppet court on the basis of an agreement that it has not yet ratified and therefore has no legal standing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

The UK will not pay fines adjudicated by the EU’s puppet court on the basis of an agreement that it has not yet ratified and therefore has no legal standing.

Where did you cut and paste this from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Where did you cut and paste this from?

All my own work, the EU are taking us to the EU Court (that has no jurisdiction over us) to complain about us breaking the the agreement that it has even been ratified yet. Not a chance of winning.  Everyone keeps saying what good has Brexit done, how about what good has the EU done since we left ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

All my own work, the EU are taking us to the EU Court (that has no jurisdiction over us) to complain about us breaking the the agreement that it has even been ratified yet. Not a chance of winning.  Everyone keeps saying what good has Brexit done, how about what good has the EU done since we left ?

Nobody has gained we all lost. 2 wrongs don’t make a right as the saying goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:

All my own work, the EU are taking us to the EU Court (that has no jurisdiction over us) to complain about us breaking the the agreement that it has even been ratified yet. Not a chance of winning.  Everyone keeps saying what good has Brexit done, how about what good has the EU done since we left ?

Oh dear! Which "law school" website did you download your certificate from? Alas I don't think you will get your money back (perhaps you could take them to the EU court).

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually struggling to work out any positives for anybody who even voted for Brexit.

Certainly not the fishermen, farmers, exporters, city, manufacturers, universities (anybody else left?)

The OAPs and boomers that seem most culpable for the result never had any skin in the game anyway and so nought has changed for them. They can still dream of the 1950s and 1960s England of their youth. I suppose we can put their pensions into play to make up for treasury shortfalls.

As to the young - obviously most damaged by Brexit and no doubt will be looking to ameliorate the issues asap. 

Have I missed anybody who does well apart from the odd oddball? I suppose some hedge funds and lots more custom officials and pen pushers. Then of course all our competitors who are snapping up our abandoned markets and lastly the Russians and Chinese who can now safely ignore as irrelevant on the global stage. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

Looks like another positive to be announced later we are to have substantially more nuclear weapons, great news.

Yes, once again, we are told we are the guardians of the World and that we have to ramp it up because those nasty Russians are not to be trusted.

The only nation to have used such weapons are the US. Those nasty Russians haven't. As the song goes, the Russians love their children too.

And do we really think Chin a would militarily interfere when they have the economic version of a warhead?

A nuclear weapon is a first strike one. Its not a defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Yes, once again, we are told we are the guardians of the World and that we have to ramp it up because those nasty Russians are not to be trusted.

The only nation to have used such weapons are the US. Those nasty Russians haven't. As the song goes, the Russians love their children too.

And do we really think Chin a would militarily interfere when they have the economic version of a warhead?

A nuclear weapon is a first strike one. Its not a defence.

Pathetic isn’t it! No money for a decent pay rise for the nurses yet we’re wasting money on nuclear weapons from the US! I just can’t get my head round this dangerous government! Hiding behind Covid with the total disaster that Brexit is and now ramping up investment into a pointless excersize! 
How about investing decent sums into the police, nhs and other service sectors to boost the economy, get more young people into work and generate growth! The sooner the people turn on this government the better, this buffoon is going to wreck this country then retire to the US, his home country!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Indy said:

Pathetic isn’t it! No money for a decent pay rise for the nurses yet we’re wasting money on nuclear weapons from the US! I just can’t get my head round this dangerous government! Hiding behind Covid with the total disaster that Brexit is and now ramping up investment into a pointless excersize! 
How about investing decent sums into the police, nhs and other service sectors to boost the economy, get more young people into work and generate growth! The sooner the people turn on this government the better, this buffoon is going to wreck this country then retire to the US, his home country!

I thought Stealth was a new weapon. But its a Government policy instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Yes, once again, we are told we are the guardians of the World and that we have to ramp it up because those nasty Russians are not to be trusted.

The only nation to have used such weapons are the US. Those nasty Russians haven't. As the song goes, the Russians love their children too.

And do we really think Chin a would militarily interfere when they have the economic version of a warhead?

A nuclear weapon is a first strike one. Its not a defence.

I get the feeling he must have been playing with his favourite toy submarine in the bath last night. It's utterly ludicrous to think that Russia or China are going to feel the slightest fear from Johnson's attempt to prove the UK is still a world-wide power after its craven withdrawal from the EU. This is nothing more than a pathetic distraction from the fact that brexit has shown us to be a nation with diminished potency on the world stage. We all know that China can do what the hell it likes in Hong Kong and there would be nothing the UK could do militarily to stop them. This is just chucking tax-payer's money into the ocean. No doubt some Tory chum or donor will be there with a net to fish out a few million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, horsefly said:

I get the feeling he must have been playing with his favourite toy submarine in the bath last night. It's utterly ludicrous to think that Russia or China are going to feel the slightest fear from Johnson's attempt to prove the UK is still a world-wide power after its craven withdrawal from the EU. This is nothing more than a pathetic distraction from the fact that brexit has shown us to be a nation with diminished potency on the world stage. We all know that China can do what the hell it likes in Hong Kong and there would be nothing the UK could do militarily to stop them. This is just chucking tax-payer's money into the ocean. No doubt some Tory chum or donor will be there with a net to fish out a few million.

This and his ego has been fed by those bigoted brexiteers who believe in the British empire, not cooperating but sabre rattling.....we are a global power! Sad times ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure someone in the Cabinet has a mate that can source nuclear warheads on the "cheap" ?! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems with a minimum but capable nuclear deterrent. We can't uninvent such a technology and it limits nuclear blackmail by rouge states. 

It not to fight China or Russia - they are rational.

However - leaving the EU certainly reduces our soft power and clout in the world which no UK conceivable military power can these days make up for. We ceased to be superpower at Suez along with the French when we were told by the US to go home (those with a quirky mind for history may recall that there was serious proposal for the UK and France to merge in the 50s as together we would still be superpower (Queen as Head of State of France as well!) 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/15/france.eu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I have no problems with a minimum but capable nuclear deterrent. We can't uninvent such a technology and it limits nuclear blackmail by rouge states. 

I once had sympathy with this view but for the life of me can't think of which "rogue state" presents a nuclear threat to the UK. It seems the vast majority of the world gets by without such independent nuclear protection (including most of europe). Surely it would be far more advantageous to spend the money on equiping our forces with more and better conventional equipment and weaponry. Nuclear weapons were of no use whatsoever to our armed forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but vehicles that were not vulnerable to IEDs would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, horsefly said:

I once had sympathy with this view but for the life of me can't think of which "rogue state" presents a nuclear threat to the UK. It seems the vast majority of the world gets by without such independent nuclear protection (including most of europe). Surely it would be far more advantageous to spend the money on equiping our forces with more and better conventional equipment and weaponry. Nuclear weapons were of no use whatsoever to our armed forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but vehicles that were not vulnerable to IEDs would have been.

North Korea, Iran etc plus possibly others. Their cost is actually quite small.

If we don't have them we hide behind the skirts of  France and the US as guarantors of last resort.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yellow Fever said:

North Korea, Iran etc plus possibly others. Their cost is actually quite small.

If we don't have them we hide behind the skirts of  France and the US as guarantors of last resort.  

North Korea would never reach us, and I seriously doubt Iraq will develop an appropriate weapon. Neither would either of these countries have anything to gain from initiating any sort of nuclear conflict with the UK (what possible benefit could it serve?). The reality is that Nato countries will always require the threat of the US nuclear arsenal as a counter to any threat from another nuclear power. The idea that would or could use our nuclear weaponry independently to defend ourselves is I believe pure fantasy. 

As for the costs involved I beg to differ that they are small. A parliamentary report in 2016 estimated the costs as follows:

 This report draws upon a mixture of publicly available data and estimates in order to outline both the current operating costs of the Trident nuclear weapon system, as well as the estimated costs of the current plans to renew the UK’s nuclear arsenal.

Report highlights:

  • The UK Government expects future operating costs to remain at 5-6 percent of the defence budget through to 2021.
  • Over the 30-year lifetime of a new system that enters into service in 2031, total In-service costs could range between £71.4 billion and £140.5 billion.
  • The Infrastructure and Projects Authority has rated the Dreadnought programme Amber/Red, meaning that: “Successful delivery of the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas.”
  • Acquisition costs of Britain’s Trident nuclear weapon system amounted to £18.35 billion (in 2015-16 prices) incurred between 1980 and 1998.

https://basicint.org/report-how-much-does-the-uk-spend-on-nuclear-weapons/

I'm of the view that servicemen on the ground could find a better use for those billions to arm and protect themselves in the conflicts that they actually engage in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, horsefly said:

North Korea would never reach us, and I seriously doubt Iraq will develop an appropriate weapon. Neither would either of these countries have anything to gain from initiating any sort of nuclear conflict with the UK (what possible benefit could it serve?). The reality is that Nato countries will always require the threat of the US nuclear arsenal as a counter to any threat from another nuclear power. The idea that would or could use our nuclear weaponry independently to defend ourselves is I believe pure fantasy. 

As for the costs involved I beg to differ that they are small. A parliamentary report in 2016 estimated the costs as follows:

 This report draws upon a mixture of publicly available data and estimates in order to outline both the current operating costs of the Trident nuclear weapon system, as well as the estimated costs of the current plans to renew the UK’s nuclear arsenal.

Report highlights:

  • The UK Government expects future operating costs to remain at 5-6 percent of the defence budget through to 2021.
  • Over the 30-year lifetime of a new system that enters into service in 2031, total In-service costs could range between £71.4 billion and £140.5 billion.
  • The Infrastructure and Projects Authority has rated the Dreadnought programme Amber/Red, meaning that: “Successful delivery of the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas.”
  • Acquisition costs of Britain’s Trident nuclear weapon system amounted to £18.35 billion (in 2015-16 prices) incurred between 1980 and 1998.

https://basicint.org/report-how-much-does-the-uk-spend-on-nuclear-weapons/

I'm of the view that servicemen on the ground could find a better use for those billions to arm and protect themselves in the conflicts that they actually engage in.

Did track and trace cost near £40Bn already vs just to put things into perspective - 30 years for your upper end of £140Bn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Did track and trace cost near £40Bn already vs just to put things into perspective - 30 years for your upper end of £140Bn. 

Have to agree that track and trace has been the most abominable failure in the history of government spending

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Have to agree that track and trace has been the most abominable failure in the history of government spending

It's the same argument vs the Brexiteers and net contributions to the EU - they were actually insignificant in the bigger picture - their state pension benefit costs alone are near 100Bn/year. Snip. ✂️ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

North Korea, Iran etc plus possibly others. Their cost is actually quite small.

If we don't have them we hide behind the skirts of  France and the US as guarantors of last resort.  

But are we likely to want to get involved? The US sees itself as either protagonist or mediator and the one nation that tries to impose its will or "protect its interests=oil" in areas. So it would likely be in a support role that we would engage.

Now is the time to realise that hundreds of years ago it may have been financially expedient to invade a country or start a war but now is a lose/lose situation. Surely the Falklands conflict illustrated his.

And as I said in another post, nuclear is a first strike weapon. And while we must not be held to ransom as a nation by the threat of violence, a better foreign policy and attitude might well alleviate the need for conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...