Jump to content RIP Sheffield Admin Mort

Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

Groose

Let me make this perfectly clear - any personal attacks will get you a suspension. The moderating team is not going to continually issue warnings. If you cannot remain civil and post within forum rules then do not bother to contribute.

 

In addition to remoaner we are also not going to allow the use of libdums or liebore - if you cannot behave like adults and post without recourse to these childish insults then please refrain from posting. If you have a problem with this then you all know where the helpdesk is. 

Message added by Groose

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, West 77 said:The economic problems the global pandemic have already caused for the UK pales into insignificance the worse scenarios that the Remainer fanatics dream and pray will happen as a consequence of Brexit.

Really?

 

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/10/22/the-cost-of-brexit-is-likely-to-be-more-than-double-that-of-covid-it-must-be-delayed/

 

Some quite learned people don’t agree with you.

35 minutes ago, West 77 said:

The economic problems the global pandemic have already caused for the UK pales into insignificance the worse scenarios that the Remainer fanatics dream and pray will happen as a consequence of Brexit.

I have no idea why the quote was swallowed. So here it is again for clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

Really?

 

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/10/22/the-cost-of-brexit-is-likely-to-be-more-than-double-that-of-covid-it-must-be-delayed/

 

Some quite learned people don’t agree with you.

I have no idea why the quote was swallowed. So here it is again for clarity.

Oh dear, you've found a blog on the internet to try and prove I'm wrong.  Brexit has already happened because we officially left the EU at the end of January. It's impossible to delay something that as already happened. The transitional period could have been extended but Boris made it perfectly clear before last year's General Election that there would be no extension to the transitional period.  The cost of Brexit has been much higher than it should have been because of the uncertainty caused by delaying the implementation of the EU referendum result caused by the Remainers. Thank goodness as a consequence of a 80 seat Tory majority the UK officially left the EU at the end of January and the UK will leave the transitional period on 31st December. 

 

Just for clarity Brexit has officially happened and as a consequence of that new trade agreements can be negotiated and agreed between the UK and the weakened EU and the UK and every other non EU nation or trading block. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, West 77 said:

The Government have always made it clear they want a trade agreement with the EU. It's because the Remainers are now impotent in Parliament the UK Government can negotiate properly by having the option to walk away if they believe the trade agreement on offer is a bad deal.  As Theresa May said many times no deal is better than a bad deal. The EU and the UK are 95% agreed on a trade deal and Canada have agreed to continue trading with the UK next year on the same basis they do now until a new trade deal is agreed between the UK and Canada. The likelihood is all the other nations outside of the EU will continue to trade with the UK on the current basis until new agreements are made.  There may be a few teething problems at the ports on both sides of the channel in early January which will quickly get sorted out.  At the moment there are delays in Felixstowe because of stockpiling and the global pandemic. The economic problems the global pandemic have already caused for the UK pales into insignificance the worse scenarios that the Remainer fanatics dream and pray will happen as a consequence of Brexit.

Why on earth should anyone of sound mind whether Remainer or not wish for such an outcome.

It is absolute fact that a No Deal would only compound the economic problems resulting  from the pandemic and failure to agree a deal would represent a triumph of obstinacy over pragmatism.

As I said before the obstacle to a deal lies with the likes of Farage,IDS,Fox,and the ERG,who have their own agenda,far removed from the welfare of our population.

Edited by RJRB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Oh dear, you've found a blog on the internet to try and prove I'm wrong.  
 

<Snip the rest of the usual ranty stuff...>

Well, not really. You did notice who wrote it, didn’t you? You did notice who published it didn’t you?

 

Its been published in plenty of other respectable places too. I wasn’t expecting you to even read it, I just wanted to ensure that your incorrect assertion was challenged.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Oh dear, you've found a blog on the internet to try and prove I'm wrong.

Not only that blog...

 

...the governor of the Bank of England, and the LSE appear to think you're wrong too! :? :hihi:

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-impact-worse-than-coronavirus-andrew-bailey-bank-of-england-2020-11

 

Share this post


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

Not only that blog...

 

...the governor of the Bank of England, and the LSE appear to think you're wrong too! :? :hihi:

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-impact-worse-than-coronavirus-andrew-bailey-bank-of-england-2020-11

 

The blog was by the LSE’s John Van Reenen OBE,  

 

Here is his wiki:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Van_Reenen_(economist)

 

I don’t just throw this stuff together you know😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Car Boot said:

It's very revealing that your inspiration for EU membership is derived from European colonialism stealing Native American land in order to build empires. Or do you call it 'lifting them up'?

 

I'm on the side of the Native American and opposed to colonialism and EU empire building.

I think you've missed a Loob joke about our weaker position negotiating a trade deal with India from outside the EU.

 

As for colonialism, the people you helped put in charge of sorting out brexit are the ones who came up with the Empire 2.0 proposals what were so roundly rejected by commonwealth countries precisely because they were an attempt to reimpose colonialist attitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, altus said:

I think you've missed a Loob joke about our weaker position negotiating a trade deal with India from outside the EU.

It was less a joke, than an analogy to illustrate the point.

 

You guys are 35 days away from time up and, reading messages now coming out left, right and centre from British hauliers, wholesalers, med distribution and more (messages that are getting absolutely no visibility whatsoever in British MSM), and realising that any deal reached this late can only amount to WTO-with-lipstick...

 

...the time for jokes is well past, tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Well, not really. You did notice who wrote it, didn’t you? You did notice who published it didn’t you?

 

Its been published in plenty of other respectable places too. I wasn’t expecting you to even read it, I just wanted to ensure that your incorrect assertion was challenged.

 

 

20 hours ago, Magilla said:

Not only that blog...

 

...the governor of the Bank of England, and the LSE appear to think you're wrong too! :? :hihi:

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-impact-worse-than-coronavirus-andrew-bailey-bank-of-england-2020-11

 

fingers in ears going ner ner ner ner not listening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2020 at 19:18, Pettytom said:

The question I’m asking is why can’t we make cars, but Germany can?

 

The answers I’ve got so far are that the EU stops us, or that it’s Thatcher’s fault.

 

I’m not convinced.

One of the reasons is the way the Euro is structured, it allows Germany to export quality vehicles relatively cheaply, if they were still on the DMark their currency would be way higher than the Euro and thus exports significantly more expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Carole Cadwalladr has conceded there was absolutely no evidence to support her well publicised claims in the Observer (and subsequently the BBC, TED talks etc etc) that Aaron Banks broke the law with the Leave.EU campaign and that there was Russian interference via Banks in Brexit.

 

Oh dear. If the person who made the claims initially can't provide any evidence, then perhaps those that want to believe it might actually think again.

Share this post


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

I see Carole Cadwalladr has conceded there was absolutely no evidence to support her well publicised claims in the Observer (and subsequently the BBC, TED talks etc etc) that Aaron Banks broke the law with the Leave.EU campaign and that there was Russian interference via Banks in Brexit.

 

Oh dear. If the person who made the claims initially can't provide any evidence, then perhaps those that want to believe it might actually think again.

Since you haven't seen fit to provide any context I will. From Press Gazette

Quote

Cadwalladr told Press Gazette she had withdrawn the truth defence because of Mr Justice Saini’s recent determination on the meaning of her words.

 

“He has ruled that when I said Arron Banks lied about his relationship with the Russian government, it was ‘in relation to acceptance of foreign funding’,” she said.

 

“But these are not words I have ever said. On the contrary, I’ve always been very clear that there is no evidence that Banks accepted Russian funding.

...

A statement from Cadwalladr’s legal team on Thursday said: “In a libel case, the judge decides the meaning of the words complained of. After the judgment in December last year, Arron Banks dropped effectively two-thirds of his case against me and was ordered to pay costs.

 

“We have had a further hearing in the case to consider the judge’s meaning as a result of which I have now dropped two out of my three defences and was ordered to pay costs, leaving the public interest defence to be argued at trial. This is very common in libel cases.

Similarly, when Banks dropped some of his claims

Quote

But Banks has now discontinued his High Court claim against another talk made by Cadwalladr in June last year in which she said: “We know that the Russian Government offered money to Arron Banks. And so, there’s still question marks.”

 

Ruling on the meaning of the words last month, Mr Justice Saini said: “In my judgment, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words was: Mr. Banks has been offered money by the Russians and (by way of inference) that there are substantial grounds to investigate whether he would be willing to accept such funds in violation of prohibitions on foreign electoral funding.”

 

Banks also dropped his claim against a tweet in which Cadwalladr said an investigation into possible corruption in Italian politics involving Russians was a “mirror image of Arron Banks + Russians”.

 

Mr Justice Saini had ruled the tweet did “carry a form of factual meaning”.

I'm sure you wouldn't argue that by doing so Banks was conceding that he had accepted money from the Russians.

 

So much more a matter of legal technicalities than your post implies.

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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.