The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[Albert smith 11]

Why don't just leave this corrupt union now , Its no rocket science ,It does not need the so called intellectuals to debate it for years and then still **** it up ,its simple the people have voted , Leave now.

[ez8004 10]

1 minute ago, Albert smith said:

Why don't just leave this corrupt union now , Its no rocket science ,It does not need the so called intellectuals to debate it for years and then still **** it up ,its simple the people have voted , Leave now.

It’s the educated that are going through the legal and parliamentary process of reaching an appropriate resolution whatever that might be. Panicking over what “might” happen are we? Why is that?

[gomgeg 10]

16 minutes ago, ez8004 said:

Do you know how to debate? You have a reasonable level of education right? You are supposed to counter with a logical argument or fact based evidence to support your assertions. Learn to play. 

Like I said when I was voting Labour I always understood they were against the unelected politicians in the Lords and their intention was to get rid, but once in power when they had a big enough majority to do it they bottled it and joined in.

Fairly typical politicians, another of their policies was to get rid of fox hunting, something I don't have any particular opinion on. But once in power again they fudged it it and let down those who were against it and had given them their vote.

As regards my education, I left school at fifteen did my C&G during my apprenticeship and updated my qualifications enough to do my job for the next fifty years.

For  your information I voted Labour til Gordon Brown became PM and the labour government opened the borders to allow anyone from the EU to come here and claim benefits, and before you say they needn't have done that, exactly but they did and we are now expected to trust them.

Like most people I never had much of an opinion about the EU til then, but that changed when it became clear that certain politicians wanted a federal Europe, if it had remained a common market the whole issue of a referendum would never have arisen.

I'll leave you to it now as I'm offski to the pub, so as usual you can have the last word.

[Waldo 96]

I can't help but wonder if the EU has a vested interest in making brexit as painful as possible for us; in that they want to set a precedent, make an example of us for other member states to consider - what might happen to them, should they follow our lead. 

 

If if that is the case; then perhaps we should be treating brexit with all the seriousness as if it were war, looking to maximise the pain we give back. Then go for a no deal brexit, and at a later date we can negotiate a new relationship from a stronger position (stronger, not meaning we are in a better position, but that the EU has far more to gain by giving us a fair and equitable deal).

[Magilla 510]

15 minutes ago, Waldo said:

I can't help but wonder if the EU has a vested interest in making brexit as painful as possible for us; in that they want to set a precedent, make an example of us for other member states to consider - what might happen to them, should they follow our lead. 

They're not making it difficult.

 

They set out the requirements for the level of access we're asking for and we have rejected them.

 

If every other nation that enjoys that level of access has to abide by those requirements, why do you think the UK shouldn't?

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by Magilla

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, Magilla said:

Of course, there's literally loads of examples of the same:

https://evolvepolitics.com/watch-knowledgeable-eu-van-driver-utterly-destroys-jacob-rees-moggs-brexit-bluster-with-firsthand-experience-video/

 

WTO  is the last resort, it's considered a "lifeboat".

 

Of course, lifeboats are used when the ship is sinking!

 

'Basic questions unanswered' on Swiss trade deal:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46854002

 

The tariffs may be lower but the goods still have to flow quickly.

Exactly as is being proposed for a future relationship.

[Magilla 510]

18 minutes ago, woodview said:

The tariffs may be lower but the goods still have to flow quickly.

Which of course, as per my example, won't happen.

 

Quote

Exactly as is being proposed for a future relationship.

No, it isn't. May's withdrawal agreement specifically rules out FoM for goods without the others in any future trade deal.

 

The UK agrees to respect the indivisibility of the four freedoms.

Edited January 13, 2019 by Magilla

[woodview 10]

10 minutes ago, Magilla said:

Which of course, as per my example, won't happen.

 

No, it isn't. May's withdrawal agreement specifically rules out FoM for goods without the others in any future trade deal.

 

The UK agrees to respect the indivisibility of the four freedoms.

Just explain how it works in the example of Kenyan flowers. They aren't in the EU, but have a trade deal.

Do they just sell dead, withered flowers? Or does it actually work in the inconvenient reality?

[ricgem2002 11]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

I can't help but wonder if the EU has a vested interest in making brexit as painful as possible for us; in that they want to set a precedent, make an example of us for other member states to consider - what might happen to them, should they follow our lead. 

 

If if that is the case; then perhaps we should be treating brexit with all the seriousness as if it were war, looking to maximise the pain we give back. Then go for a no deal brexit, and at a later date we can negotiate a new relationship from a stronger position (stronger, not meaning we are in a better position, but that the EU has far more to gain by giving us a fair and equitable deal).

stop talking sense 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 hours ago, ez8004 said:

Panicking over what “might” happen are we? Why is that?

He's not the only one.

 

Those two smug Brexiteers Toby Young and Iain Holm were asked on Politics Live this week, "Do you think Brexit will happen in March?" They both replied that they really didn't know. This is significant because they have both been saying over the past two years "We're leaving the EU in March, come what may!"

 

The writing is very much on the wall.

 

(Corbyn was rubbish on the subject again on Andrew Marr this morning)

[Magilla 510]

 

17 minutes ago, woodview said:

Just explain how it works in the example of Kenyan flowers. They aren't in the EU, but have a trade deal.

Trade deal covers tarrifs only.

 

There's no doubt that if Kenya were (location notwithstanding) a member of the EU they'd save a huge amount of money, time and effort.

 

17 minutes ago, woodview said:

Do they just sell dead, withered flowers?

No, they keep them in specific environments at great expense while customs and phytosanitary checks take place! They do not enjoy free movement.

 

The vast majority of these facilities are in Holland

 

Transport costs for those flower growers to fly directly to the UK, rather than by land from the Netherlands means their, and thus our, costs will rise for the same item.

 

17 minutes ago, woodview said:

Or does it actually work in the inconvenient reality?

It works because we're in the EU! Those flowers go to a central processing facility in the Netherlands before coming to the UK.

 

If Kenya has to distribute to the UK independently, customs checks and all, clearly it won't work as well.... especially given that under Mays or no-deal, there'll be a massive increase in other goods that need to be checked... getting those flowers to the UK might not work out so well going forward.

 

Of course, flower growing isn't utterly dependant on highly integrated JIT supply chains across multiple nations to produce the goods in the first place, or subject to rules of origin issues the UK will find itself in post-Brexit. 

 

[Waldo 96]

1 hour ago, ricgem2002 said:

stop talking sense 

Well, it's a proposition of what may be happening; and one possible response we could take.

 

What do people think, is it unreasonable to suppose that the EU has a vested interest in making an example of us, in order to dissuade other member states from following suit?