L00b Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 All this talk about May being a remainer, this withdrawal agreement keeping things as is until end 2020,... Theresa May clearly targeted a hard Brexit, and raised expectations that could not be met, particularly with her absurd "red lines" that have proven ruinous in the end. The deal she's got is softer than the one she targeted, whence Brexiteers’ disappointment. But it’s not nearly soft enough to avert much of the harm of Brexit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodview Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 All this talk about May being a remainer, this withdrawal agreement keeping things as is until end 2020,... Theresa May clearly targeted a hard Brexit, and raised expectations that could not be met, particularly with her absurd "red lines" that have proven ruinous in the end. The deal she's got is softer than the one she targeted, whence Brexiteers’ disappointment. But it’s not nearly soft enough to avert much of the harm of Brexit. It's not that it's soft, it's that it is impossible to move out of the 'transition' into any next phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 Yes, the £39bn was agreed expenditure when we were agreeing long term budgets, it 'should' be paid. In a gentlemns world it should be paid, but if we are in a scenario of getting turned over, I wouldn't pay. It should have been used as a stronger negotiating tool. Ultimately they'd have taken the UK to court, we'd have lost, if we still refused to pay then sanctions would have been applied. Perhaps for a Russian troll that would be a great outcome, but for anyone actually living in the UK, not so good. (Not suggesting that you are a Russian troll). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 Not talking about what the cash was commited for. Talking about the Customs Territory is potentially never-ending as its end has to be JOINTLY agreed. What the cash was committed for is entirely the point as it has an end date. The eu won't conclude an FTA while that is the case and the £39bn would increase if they were to consider moving from the Customs Territory to an FTA. The money is for commitments the UK made during the last EU budget cycle, it is not dependant on any future FTA. It is a crap position to be in to move forward from here. Compromise is fine, but this isn't. The sensible compromise was always the most obvious, and the only ones the Official Vote Leave campaign said wouldn't be a complete disaster for the UK.... EEA or customs union membership. Both entirely respect the result of the referendum (IMHO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodview Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 Magilla, you're missing what I'm saying. The £39bn isn't in question, forget that bit. The 'never ending' comment was about our membership of this new Customs Territory. It cannot be left without JOINT agreement. Hence it has the potential to be never ending,as the EU can not give their agreement. ---------- Post added 15-11-2018 at 11:43 ---------- The sensible compromise was always the most obvious, and the only ones the Official Vote Leave campaign said wouldn't be a complete disaster for the UK.... EEA or customs union membership. Both entirely respect the result of the referendum (IMHO). So a temporary Customs Union, followed by a comprehensive Free Trade Deal would offer the same, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cats Hat Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 The 'never ending' comment was about our membership of this new Customs Territory. It cannot be left without JOINT agreement. Hence it has the potential to be never ending,as the EU can not give their agreement.? What you seem to be really struggling with is the fact that the single market has been unbelievably beneficial to the UK for a number of decades now. That is why so many countries have been queuing up to join the EU. This economic advantage is in the gift of the EU, and if we want to benefit from it we need to realise that have very little bargaining power. We take it on whatever terms we can. This has always been the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 This surrender deal has no chance what so ever of getting through the house of commons . May is dead in the water ,and so is her deal. Watching her getting hammered from all sides in the commons right now shows it aint going to happen. This isnt a deal to LEAVE , which was the result of the referendum , its a surrender to the suits in Brussels. We made the fatal mistake of appointing a Remain prime minister , when it should have been a Leaver , either David Davies or Jacob Rees Mogg. We are now going to end up with No Deal , which suits me fine . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 (edited) Magilla, you're missing what I'm saying. The £39bn isn't in question, forget that bit. OK, sorry I thought you were conflating the two. They're entirely seperate entities. The 'never ending' comment was about our membership of this new Customs Territory. It cannot be left without JOINT agreement. Hence it has the potential to be never ending,as the EU can not give their agreement. That assumes that the EU will bargain in bad faith, when in reality, so far, thats been the UK (IMO). The need for the backstop is self evident, anything else would just be a re-run of the last two years. Why would anyone assume it'll be any different at the end of the withdrawal agreement? At that point do we need a withdrawal from the withdrawal agreement? So a temporary Customs Union, followed by a comprehensive Free Trade Deal would offer the same, yes? Assuming the Free Trade Deal does offer the same advantages as membership, then yes, but of course... it isn't going to. There will be no FTA thats as good as the deal we have now and that much of our economy relies upon. Edited November 15, 2018 by Magilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidonica Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 (edited) https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/leave-voter-cries-apologises-for-brexit/ A man in tears because he realises the consequences of voting leave. Edited November 15, 2018 by esme url fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 That depend on how you quantify it, normally it is based on GDP per capita so here you go from 2017.. https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/italy/uk Inefficient companies usually go under very quickly as we have already seen over the past several months. Its in their interests to be more efficient otherwise no bank will lend them anything. That assumes an interest rate of 5-7%, and where did you get those estimates from? According to you productivity would increase and unemployment would also increase as a result. Inflation in a country is not measured on a global level only on a local one and the effect it has on its economy. As said we have had in the past and still have skill shortages well before brexit. Maybe you could provide some proper details about it all being because of brexit. ---------- Post added 15-11-2018 at 01:19 ---------- If you use the link I provided in my above post you can compare any country with the UK, it may also surprise you.. This is what I used https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country_group:eu&idim=country:ie:uk:lv&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts