|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On September 21 2017 06:24 sc-darkness wrote:
Florence speech on Friday is hyped. Let's see what Brexit is going to be about.
Have you just started following this topic? No speech from the Maybot will clarify anything and the four major figures of the movement have very different visions or illusions as to what they can achieve.
The speech will be a load of BS reassuring the British public that all will be fine and dandy with a very different tone towards the EU negotiating team behind closed doors.
|
On September 19 2017 02:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think Norway's deal with the EU kinda involves everything brexit was against? Schengen is implemented here, we pay a significant amount of money to be part of the common market, and we don't have any say in EU decisions. (In theory we can veto stuff, but to my knowledge we've only done that on one occasion).
The main thing here is that Norway and Switzerland were never part of the EU and got a good deal. The EU countries don't have any reason to give a good deal to the UK as it would fuel anti european movements. That was obvious from the beginning.
Leaving the EU means two possible things:
1- Hard brexit which is a disaster for the UK economy and will isolate and hugely weaken the country.
2- Soft brexit which means probably a shitty deal, all the inconvenience of the EU and no voice on what direction it should take and no power to influence anything.
Brexit was the most stupid thing The UK has done in a long time. It was pushed by a xenophobic UKIP and a huge bunch of completely cynical politicians who don't give a flying fuck about the country and saw a political opportunity to take over the conservative party. They had no plan, and just made stuff up by compiling completely contradictory ideas and lying about basically everything.
And if they disn't lie pretending that they would get a fantastic deal and cherry pick EU rules and advantages they are so incompetent it's frightening.
How such a rational and intelligent country like the UK has been able to suddenly become so dumb is mind boggling.
|
On September 21 2017 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 02:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think Norway's deal with the EU kinda involves everything brexit was against? Schengen is implemented here, we pay a significant amount of money to be part of the common market, and we don't have any say in EU decisions. (In theory we can veto stuff, but to my knowledge we've only done that on one occasion). The main thing here is that Norway and Switzerland were never part of the EU and got a good deal. The EU countries don't have any reason to give a good deal to the UK as it would fuel anti european movements. That was obvious from the beginning. Leaving the EU means two possible things: 1- Hard brexit which is a disaster for the UK economy and will isolate and hugely weaken the country. 2- Soft brexit which means probably a shitty deal, all the inconvenience of the EU and no voice on what direction it should take and no power to influence anything. Brexit was the most stupid thing The UK has done in a long time. It was pushed by a xenophobic UKIP and a huge bunch of completely cynical politicians who don't give a flying fuck about the country and saw a political opportunity to take over the conservative party. They had no plan, and just made stuff up by compiling completely contradictory ideas and lying about basically everything. And if they disn't lie pretending that they would get a fantastic deal and cherry pick EU rules and advantages they are so incompetent it's frightening. How such a rational and intelligent country like the UK has been able to suddenly become so dumb is mind boggling.
Ability to make trade deals across the world and free the economy from EU regulation and taxes would not hugely weaken the country especially as the only downside would be what a 3.5% tariff on EU goods? Unfortunately we have a bunch of Politicians and bureaucrats in power who have very little vision and didn't want us to leave in the first place so they are unlikely to exploit the opportunities leaving the EU would bring.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The UK leadership stumbled upon a good thing (Brexit) by a complete accident and aren't properly equipped to know what to do with it.
|
It's a good thing solely by your undefined metric.
|
On September 21 2017 21:19 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 19 2017 02:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think Norway's deal with the EU kinda involves everything brexit was against? Schengen is implemented here, we pay a significant amount of money to be part of the common market, and we don't have any say in EU decisions. (In theory we can veto stuff, but to my knowledge we've only done that on one occasion). The main thing here is that Norway and Switzerland were never part of the EU and got a good deal. The EU countries don't have any reason to give a good deal to the UK as it would fuel anti european movements. That was obvious from the beginning. Leaving the EU means two possible things: 1- Hard brexit which is a disaster for the UK economy and will isolate and hugely weaken the country. 2- Soft brexit which means probably a shitty deal, all the inconvenience of the EU and no voice on what direction it should take and no power to influence anything. Brexit was the most stupid thing The UK has done in a long time. It was pushed by a xenophobic UKIP and a huge bunch of completely cynical politicians who don't give a flying fuck about the country and saw a political opportunity to take over the conservative party. They had no plan, and just made stuff up by compiling completely contradictory ideas and lying about basically everything. And if they disn't lie pretending that they would get a fantastic deal and cherry pick EU rules and advantages they are so incompetent it's frightening. How such a rational and intelligent country like the UK has been able to suddenly become so dumb is mind boggling. Ability to make trade deals across the world and free the economy from EU regulation and taxes would not hugely weaken the country especially as the only downside would be what a 3.5% tariff on EU goods? Unfortunately we have a bunch of Politicians and bureaucrats in power who have very little vision and didn't want us to leave in the first place so they are unlikely to exploit the opportunities leaving the EU would bring.
And in your mind the the EU isn't searching for tradeagreements around the world? Out of a way stronger position to do so than the UK on its own?
Where do you get your ideas from?
|
On September 21 2017 21:19 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 19 2017 02:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think Norway's deal with the EU kinda involves everything brexit was against? Schengen is implemented here, we pay a significant amount of money to be part of the common market, and we don't have any say in EU decisions. (In theory we can veto stuff, but to my knowledge we've only done that on one occasion). The main thing here is that Norway and Switzerland were never part of the EU and got a good deal. The EU countries don't have any reason to give a good deal to the UK as it would fuel anti european movements. That was obvious from the beginning. Leaving the EU means two possible things: 1- Hard brexit which is a disaster for the UK economy and will isolate and hugely weaken the country. 2- Soft brexit which means probably a shitty deal, all the inconvenience of the EU and no voice on what direction it should take and no power to influence anything. Brexit was the most stupid thing The UK has done in a long time. It was pushed by a xenophobic UKIP and a huge bunch of completely cynical politicians who don't give a flying fuck about the country and saw a political opportunity to take over the conservative party. They had no plan, and just made stuff up by compiling completely contradictory ideas and lying about basically everything. And if they disn't lie pretending that they would get a fantastic deal and cherry pick EU rules and advantages they are so incompetent it's frightening. How such a rational and intelligent country like the UK has been able to suddenly become so dumb is mind boggling. Ability to make trade deals across the world and free the economy from EU regulation and taxes would not hugely weaken the country especially as the only downside would be what a 3.5% tariff on EU goods? Unfortunately we have a bunch of Politicians and bureaucrats in power who have very little vision and didn't want us to leave in the first place so they are unlikely to exploit the opportunities leaving the EU would bring.
Lucky you have more vision than the overwhrlming majority of serious economists who have argued from the beginning that a hard Brexit would very severly impact the british economy. Which is logical: you don't leave a 350 million people single market without some serious consequences.
And i never heard of a european taxation system. What "taxes" are you talking about?
|
Please someone tell me if I am reading this right because my mind is running in circles right now:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/21/theresa-may-to-ask-eu-to-be-creative-about-brexit-in-florence-speech
Particularly this bit:
"She is also likely to make an offer to ensure no country has to pay more into the budget until 2020 as a result of Brexit, without committing to permanent payments to the EU. Her proposal would involve the UK continuing to pay into the EU during its transitional period after leaving the bloc in March 2019 at a cost of around €20bn (£17.5bn)."
Because whatever way I spin it, it seems that she will offer transitional deal maintaining status quo (eg: paying into EU budget) and also she is about to offer that UK will pay int EU budget during transitional period (which UK would had to do anyway)?
What else is she going to offer?? Beautiful city of Paris together with rural areas?
|
On September 21 2017 21:19 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 19 2017 02:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think Norway's deal with the EU kinda involves everything brexit was against? Schengen is implemented here, we pay a significant amount of money to be part of the common market, and we don't have any say in EU decisions. (In theory we can veto stuff, but to my knowledge we've only done that on one occasion). The main thing here is that Norway and Switzerland were never part of the EU and got a good deal. The EU countries don't have any reason to give a good deal to the UK as it would fuel anti european movements. That was obvious from the beginning. Leaving the EU means two possible things: 1- Hard brexit which is a disaster for the UK economy and will isolate and hugely weaken the country. 2- Soft brexit which means probably a shitty deal, all the inconvenience of the EU and no voice on what direction it should take and no power to influence anything. Brexit was the most stupid thing The UK has done in a long time. It was pushed by a xenophobic UKIP and a huge bunch of completely cynical politicians who don't give a flying fuck about the country and saw a political opportunity to take over the conservative party. They had no plan, and just made stuff up by compiling completely contradictory ideas and lying about basically everything. And if they disn't lie pretending that they would get a fantastic deal and cherry pick EU rules and advantages they are so incompetent it's frightening. How such a rational and intelligent country like the UK has been able to suddenly become so dumb is mind boggling. Ability to make trade deals across the world and free the economy from EU regulation and taxes would not hugely weaken the country especially as the only downside would be what a 3.5% tariff on EU goods? Unfortunately we have a bunch of Politicians and bureaucrats in power who have very little vision and didn't want us to leave in the first place so they are unlikely to exploit the opportunities leaving the EU would bring.
I'm constantly at a loss about this argument. What the hell does the UK have to trade? The great majority is financial instruments which it will lose due to this vote. It's strength was being, most probably, the most capitalist nation of the EU. It took how many years for CETA? And that still is hitting huge road blocks. Any country may want to trade with the UK but if it means upsetting the 500million (-~60) strong economy why do it? And that is not considering the extreme bad blood that certain countries display towards teh UK.
My sister did a short internship in India as a junior doctor in an Indian hospital. She went there with her Canadian passport because India has already taken a hardened stance against the UK, knowing that there will be no reprecussions from the EU, to force all Britons to pay some 600£ or something if you wish to go there.. And you expect the rest of the world not to do the same? I'm just baffled by this ludicrous optimism... If party politics weren't in play with a goal to save face, the simple best thing the UK could do would be a drastic U-turn and not leave or immediately apply to rejoin. Specifically England expects to export what product? Marmite? Jam? Ties from China? Financial instruments were it's strength and it has, at the very least, voted to lose the right to Euro clearing houses...
|
On September 22 2017 21:55 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 21:19 Zaros wrote:On September 21 2017 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 19 2017 02:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think Norway's deal with the EU kinda involves everything brexit was against? Schengen is implemented here, we pay a significant amount of money to be part of the common market, and we don't have any say in EU decisions. (In theory we can veto stuff, but to my knowledge we've only done that on one occasion). The main thing here is that Norway and Switzerland were never part of the EU and got a good deal. The EU countries don't have any reason to give a good deal to the UK as it would fuel anti european movements. That was obvious from the beginning. Leaving the EU means two possible things: 1- Hard brexit which is a disaster for the UK economy and will isolate and hugely weaken the country. 2- Soft brexit which means probably a shitty deal, all the inconvenience of the EU and no voice on what direction it should take and no power to influence anything. Brexit was the most stupid thing The UK has done in a long time. It was pushed by a xenophobic UKIP and a huge bunch of completely cynical politicians who don't give a flying fuck about the country and saw a political opportunity to take over the conservative party. They had no plan, and just made stuff up by compiling completely contradictory ideas and lying about basically everything. And if they disn't lie pretending that they would get a fantastic deal and cherry pick EU rules and advantages they are so incompetent it's frightening. How such a rational and intelligent country like the UK has been able to suddenly become so dumb is mind boggling. Ability to make trade deals across the world and free the economy from EU regulation and taxes would not hugely weaken the country especially as the only downside would be what a 3.5% tariff on EU goods? Unfortunately we have a bunch of Politicians and bureaucrats in power who have very little vision and didn't want us to leave in the first place so they are unlikely to exploit the opportunities leaving the EU would bring. I'm constantly at a loss about this argument. What the hell does the UK have to trade? The great majority is financial instruments which it will lose due to this vote. It's strength was being, most probably, the most capitalist nation of the EU. It took how many years for CETA? And that still is hitting huge road blocks. Any country may want to trade with the UK but if it means upsetting the 500million (-~60) strong economy why do it? And that is not considering the extreme bad blood that certain countries display towards teh UK. My sister did a short internship in India as a junior doctor in an Indian hospital. She went there with her Canadian passport because India has already taken a hardened stance against the UK, knowing that there will be no reprecussions from the EU, to force all Britons to pay some 600£ or something if you wish to go there.. And you expect the rest of the world not to do the same? I'm just baffled by this ludicrous optimism... If party politics weren't in play with a goal to save face, the simple best thing the UK could do would be a drastic U-turn and not leave or immediately apply to rejoin. Specifically England expects to export what product? Marmite? Jam? Ties from China? Financial instruments were it's strength and it has, at the very least, voted to lose the right to Euro clearing houses...
I don't think its worth even debating with someone so pig ignorant about the UK that thinks all we have to offer is Marmite and jam.
|
I hold one of your passports. My entire family comes from there (Scotland) I lived there for 5 years of my life. Explain to me what products you do have to offer then. Services I understand, especially those from the financial sector. The tech industry of Cambridge is supposedly on the rise. But those products were cited by your politicians, specifically the blatant risk of hostile takeover attempt (marmite) of Unilever.
Pig ignorant, a higher level than just ignorant? No I don't think that that is warranted.
Again the challenge is there; what does the UK make better than the rest of the world (discluding the financial sector)?
I mean the annual cheddar awards are some how won by Canada. lol.
Maybe ale is the answer, except most of the world does not drink and/or like ale.
|
United States42864 Posts
On September 22 2017 17:28 Razyda wrote:Please someone tell me if I am reading this right because my mind is running in circles right now: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/21/theresa-may-to-ask-eu-to-be-creative-about-brexit-in-florence-speechParticularly this bit: "She is also likely to make an offer to ensure no country has to pay more into the budget until 2020 as a result of Brexit, without committing to permanent payments to the EU. Her proposal would involve the UK continuing to pay into the EU during its transitional period after leaving the bloc in March 2019 at a cost of around €20bn (£17.5bn)." Because whatever way I spin it, it seems that she will offer transitional deal maintaining status quo (eg: paying into EU budget) and also she is about to offer that UK will pay int EU budget during transitional period (which UK would had to do anyway)? What else is she going to offer?? Beautiful city of Paris together with rural areas?
Why would there be a need to honour anything beyond upholding preexisting agreements? What should May offer that she hasn't in your opinion?
|
On September 21 2017 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 02:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think Norway's deal with the EU kinda involves everything brexit was against? Schengen is implemented here, we pay a significant amount of money to be part of the common market, and we don't have any say in EU decisions. (In theory we can veto stuff, but to my knowledge we've only done that on one occasion). The main thing here is that Norway and Switzerland were never part of the EU and got a good deal. The EU countries don't have any reason to give a good deal to the UK as it would fuel anti european movements. That was obvious from the beginning. Leaving the EU means two possible things: 1- Hard brexit which is a disaster for the UK economy and will isolate and hugely weaken the country. 2- Soft brexit which means probably a shitty deal, all the inconvenience of the EU and no voice on what direction it should take and no power to influence anything. Brexit was the most stupid thing The UK has done in a long time. It was pushed by a xenophobic UKIP and a huge bunch of completely cynical politicians who don't give a flying fuck about the country and saw a political opportunity to take over the conservative party. They had no plan, and just made stuff up by compiling completely contradictory ideas and lying about basically everything. And if they disn't lie pretending that they would get a fantastic deal and cherry pick EU rules and advantages they are so incompetent it's frightening. How such a rational and intelligent country like the UK has been able to suddenly become so dumb is mind boggling.
Norways and Switzerlands deals aren't that good at all. Like Drone said Norway has to pay into thr EU, is in the Schengen zone and doesn't have any real influence setting the rules. Switzerland s deal is not actually a deal but a lot of bilateral treaties between thr EU and Swiss. They're also part of the Schengen zone and in practise have to adopt a lot of their laws without any say in them. In addition their free trade deal only covers free trade and not services. Im pretty sure the UK could go for the Norway option but they won't do that since it goes against all their wishes.
|
Jep, its basically pay with no say. Afaik the Norway deal is a bit better than the swiss contract construct but in general its just "pay (and benefit) with no say".
Both countries are very rich so the grass looks very green outside that EU border - to the uninformed.
Before the contracts Switzerlands growth was way lacking and we kinda "lost" 5-10 years in the nineties.
|
On September 23 2017 00:22 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 19 2017 02:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think Norway's deal with the EU kinda involves everything brexit was against? Schengen is implemented here, we pay a significant amount of money to be part of the common market, and we don't have any say in EU decisions. (In theory we can veto stuff, but to my knowledge we've only done that on one occasion). The main thing here is that Norway and Switzerland were never part of the EU and got a good deal. The EU countries don't have any reason to give a good deal to the UK as it would fuel anti european movements. That was obvious from the beginning. Leaving the EU means two possible things: 1- Hard brexit which is a disaster for the UK economy and will isolate and hugely weaken the country. 2- Soft brexit which means probably a shitty deal, all the inconvenience of the EU and no voice on what direction it should take and no power to influence anything. Brexit was the most stupid thing The UK has done in a long time. It was pushed by a xenophobic UKIP and a huge bunch of completely cynical politicians who don't give a flying fuck about the country and saw a political opportunity to take over the conservative party. They had no plan, and just made stuff up by compiling completely contradictory ideas and lying about basically everything. And if they disn't lie pretending that they would get a fantastic deal and cherry pick EU rules and advantages they are so incompetent it's frightening. How such a rational and intelligent country like the UK has been able to suddenly become so dumb is mind boggling. Norways and Switzerlands deals aren't that good at all. Like Drone said Norway has to pay into thr EU, is in the Schengen zone and doesn't have any real influence setting the rules. Switzerland s deal is not actually a deal but a lot of bilateral treaties between thr EU and Swiss. They're also part of the Schengen zone and in practise have to adopt a lot of their laws without any say in them. In addition their free trade deal only covers free trade and not services. Im pretty sure the UK could go for the Norway option but they won't do that since it goes against all their wishes.
I remember reading somewhere that the EU would never offer a deal as good as what those two countries get. Might not be great, but apparently a lot better than what the UK can hope for, which is in turn probably still a zillion time better than a hard Brexit. I would say the UK shot itself in the foot, but looks like it would rather be in the face.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Hard Brexit is the only reasonable path forward. No other choice makes sense right now. Too bad the government does not seem to represent the populace and prefers the EU at any cost. The result is a very bizarre game of no one wanting to do anything but they're forced to anyways.
|
On September 23 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:
Hard Brexit is the only reasonable path forward. No other choice makes sense right now. Too bad the government does not seem to represent the populace and prefers the EU at any cost. The result is a very bizarre game of no one wanting to do anything but they're forced to anyways.
Remind me, was the Brexit vote close?
|
United States42864 Posts
On September 23 2017 03:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:
Hard Brexit is the only reasonable path forward. No other choice makes sense right now. Too bad the government does not seem to represent the populace and prefers the EU at any cost. The result is a very bizarre game of no one wanting to do anything but they're forced to anyways. Remind me, was the Brexit vote close?
Not in Russia.
|
I mean there is no reasonable way forward so I guess hard Brexit is the best way. They won't get a decent deal from an EU that wants to make sure the southern countries don't get any ideas.
Your economy being in the lurch for a time with no trade is the best path forward. Brave new world.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In other news.
Uber will not be issued a new private hire licence, Transport for London (TfL) has said.
TfL concluded the ride-hailing app firm was not fit and proper to hold a London private hire operator licence.
It said it took the decision on the grounds of "public safety and security implications".
Confirming it would appeal against the decision, Uber said it showed the world "far from being open, London is closed to innovative companies".
TfL's concerns include Uber's approach to carrying out background checks on drivers and reporting serious criminal offences.
www.bbc.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
