Politics

[bwfcfan5]

2 minutes ago, Moon boy said:

You’ve obviously got inside information, didnt  you predict the last vote correctly

I think eventually we'll end up with May's deal with some very minor concession on the backstop. But I'm not sure its happening by March 29th. It might. It might not. We'll see. The numbers with all the amendments and options (and not all amendments will be picked) are too hard to call. Yes the ERG and DUP will row back IF the backstop has an end date. But it will depend entirely on whether the EU play ball and the timescale.

If Cooper's amendment succeeds it changes the game as then the end date would be 26th February. 

None of that requires inside information, just basic reading and comprehension skills. 

[darwen_white]

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

The trouble is folk like you don't even understand what the EU is, or international trade and are clearly a fruitcake. 

 

I never aimed the fruitcake comment at anyone in particular, so not sure why you took it personally    - and threw it directly at me 

Anyway, I have taken onboard what you said about not understanding the EU, and taken myself off the electoral register. How dare people like me be entitled to a vote. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by darwen_white

[bwfcfan5]

38 minutes ago, darwen_white said:

I never aimed the fruitcake comment at anyone in particular, so not sure why you took it personally    - and threw it directly at me 

Anyway, I have taken onboard what you said about not understanding the EU, and taken myself off the electoral register. How dare people like me be entitled to a vote. 

Why did you say "we could only trade with 27 EU countries" then if you have an understanding of what being in the EU actually meant? 

[Mounts Kipper]

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

The trouble is folk like you don't even understand what the EU is, or international trade and are clearly a fruitcake. 

The EU negotiated over 160 bilateral agreements or FTAs with other non-EU countries. When we leave we'll have to start from scratch again. How on earth can anyone suggest your average Brexiteer has a fucking clue what they are talking about when nonsense like this gets repeated? 

Have you missed the agreed in principal deals with Australia and Israel? These deals initially are to trade exactly as we currently trade via EU rules. This seems the quickest way forward and deals could be agreed on that basis with all our current trading partners and then once we clear ourselves of EU rules and regulations we can then look at improving these deals for both parties. 

 

   

[bwfcfan5]

16 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Have you missed the agreed in principal deals with Australia and Israel? These deals initially are to trade exactly as we currently trade via EU rules. This seems the quickest way forward and deals could be agreed on that basis with all our current trading partners and then once we clear ourselves of EU rules and regulations we can then look at improving these deals for both parties. 

 

   

That wasn't my point. It was that someone actually thought being in the EU meant we could only trade with EU countries. How ridiculous it is that someone thought that. 

Its kind of sweet that you keep peddling the "clear ourselves of EU rules and regulations" line as though that is a major barrier. May has already stated umpteen times that the majority of those regulations are part of international law and international trading regulations and we'd still have to abide by them. Could you be specific as to EXACTLY which ones we can shed and how they will actually benefit our ability to strike "better than EU" trade deals with other countries?

[Salford Trotter]

20 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Have you missed the agreed in principal deals with Australia and Israel? These deals initially are to trade exactly as we currently trade via EU rules. This seems the quickest way forward and deals could be agreed on that basis with all our current trading partners and then once we clear ourselves of EU rules and regulations we can then look at improving these deals for both parties. 

 

   

Isn't the common rulebook part of May's WA? 

[Mounts Kipper]

16 minutes ago, Salford Trotter said:

Isn't the common rulebook part of May's WA? 

I think she has said that we can diverge and strike out for new trade deals once we leave the EU, this suggests not.   

[Mounts Kipper]

29 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

That wasn't my point. It was that someone actually thought being in the EU meant we could only trade with EU countries. How ridiculous it is that someone thought that. 

Its kind of sweet that you keep peddling the "clear ourselves of EU rules and regulations" line as though that is a major barrier. May has already stated umpteen times that the majority of those regulations are part of international law and international trading regulations and we'd still have to abide by them. Could you be specific as to EXACTLY which ones we can shed and how they will actually benefit our ability to strike "better than EU" trade deals with other countries?

Currently in my sector (Textiles) my biggest supplier is Chinese, we are subject to tariff of 10-12% if we leave we might agree a better deal with China making products cheaper for the customer. We buy a fair bit from Bangladesh and Pakistan currently who have zero tariffs however I might move more production to Chinese factory if tariffs reduce making China more competitive, because the quality is better from the Chinese factory. I am sure China will be very happy to do some sort of a deal that puts them on a level playing field with their competition. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[Tonge moor green jacket]

What a load of horse shit this bollocks about us not knowing what we voted for is.

Plenty of stuff was published on both sides. The biggest bollocks being the almost instant recession upon an out vote.

If it was such a disaster, then the leave MPs made a shit job of putting their case across.

As one person explained; if we didn't know what we voted for, then neither did around 80% (iirc) of MPs when they voted to enact the bill after the referendum.

About time PODs and screetchers got behind it or shut the fuck up and let those genuinely wanting to secure a decent deal get on with it.

Fucking moaning about the EMA. The agreement as it stands makes provision for the pharmaceutical industry as it does other things. Further provisions could be made by future trade discussions.

All this is as difficult as folk chose to make it.

 

[bwfcfan5]

13 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Currently in my sector (Textiles) my biggest supplier is Chinese, we are subject to tariff of 10-12% if we leave we might agree a better deal with China making products cheaper for the customer. We buy a fair bit from Bangladesh and Pakistan currently who have zero tariffs however I might move more production to Chinese factory if tariffs reduce making China more competitive, because the quality is better from the Chinese factory. I am sure China will be very happy to do some sort of a deal that puts them on a level playing field with their competition. 

That doesn't answer the question. We might or might not be able to do preferential deals with China. 

But you haven't outline the "rules and regulations" we can ditch that will enable us to do better deals than the EU. Just name one EU rule or regulation that we can ditch that will make our FTA's more competitive.....

[bwfcfan5]

10 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

What a load of horse shit this bollocks about us not knowing what we voted for is.

Plenty of stuff was published on both sides. The biggest bollocks being the almost instant recession upon an out vote.

If it was such a disaster, then the leave MPs made a shit job of putting their case across.

As one person explained; if we didn't know what we voted for, then neither did around 80% (iirc) of MPs when they voted to enact the bill after the referendum.

About time PODs and screetchers got behind it or shut the fuck up and let those genuinely wanting to secure a decent deal get on with it.

Fucking moaning about the EMA. The agreement as it stands makes provision for the pharmaceutical industry as it does other things. Further provisions could be made by future trade discussions.

All this is as difficult as folk chose to make it.

 

Or as easy as stupid people pretend it is.

The main opposition to the deal has been from Brexiteers. Clearly those who are remainers and always have been might oppose Brexit generally. But the issue arises because the Brexiteers kicked off and slammed the deal from pillar to post for weeks on end. Now they might back down as the true horror of no deal rears its head and they've been told they will get the blame. Funny that. 

[L/H White]

26 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

What a load of horse shit this bollocks about us not knowing what we voted for is.

 

 

disagree.

more shit has cropped up since, even the powers that be didn't have a clue ffs

[Mounts Kipper]

12 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

That doesn't answer the question. We might or might not be able to do preferential deals with China. 

But you haven't outline the "rules and regulations" we can ditch that will enable us to do better deals than the EU. Just name one EU rule or regulation that we can ditch that will make our FTA's more competitive.....

Nothing specific but failure to free ourselves of ECJ would weaken our negotiating position in upcoming trade talks.  

[bwfcfan5]

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Nothing specific but failure to free ourselves of ECJ would weaken our negotiating position in upcoming trade talks.  

There we have it. The Brexit slogan "NOTHING SPECIFIC".

This just sums it up. Brexit Britain. Led by "nothing specific".

[Mounts Kipper]

7 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

There we have it. The Brexit slogan "NOTHING SPECIFIC".

This just sums it up. Brexit Britain. Led by "nothing specific".

Now you are being a silly billy, we have put all EU law into our law and we can then amend and change as we see fit, it is up to our government to amend and change to suit our particular requirements, hence my comments.   

Edited January 28, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[bwfcfan5]

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Now you are being a silly billy, we have put all EU law into our law and we can then amend and change as we see fit, it is up to our government to amend and change to suit our particular requirements, hence my comments.   

But our government are saying that isn't the case - since upwards  of 60%  it is covered by international laws we will continue to do so and much of the rest is about standards that we have pledged not to lower.  And you cannot actually cite what law or regulation you want to change.

The only specific things Brexiteers have ever come up with are "lowering of food safety standards so we can import any shit food we like". That is literally it. As though lowering standards is a good thing.

The Brexit argument is dead - because its clear that nobody leading the campaign has a fecking clue. Therefore nobody who voted for it has a clue. Nobody can actually say in specific terms "here is the advantage". Because simply put, they do not know. 2 and a half years on they do not know. 

 

 

 

[Mounts Kipper]

32 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

But our government are saying that isn't the case - since upwards  of 60%  it is covered by international laws we will continue to do so and much of the rest is about standards that we have pledged not to lower.  And you cannot actually cite what law or regulation you want to change.

The only specific things Brexiteers have ever come up with are "lowering of food safety standards so we can import any shit food we like". That is literally it. As though lowering standards is a good thing.

The Brexit argument is dead - because its clear that nobody leading the campaign has a fecking clue. Therefore nobody who voted for it has a clue. Nobody can actually say in specific terms "here is the advantage". Because simply put, they do not know. 2 and a half years on they do not know. 

 

 

 

 It’s clear that without extracting ourselves from EU law we won’t be in a strong position to negotiate, even you say 60% of our laws enshrined (don’t know the figures myself) but even taking your figures 40% are not. As for your assumption Brexit is dead well that’s a laughable conclusion to draw when what folk voted for is to leave the EU lock, stock and barrel, discussions about how we leave were left in the governments hands and they must act on the democratic vote. I’m afraid you are Letting your remain bias cloud your judgment. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[bwfcfan5]

7 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

 It’s clear that without extracting ourselves from EU law we won’t be in a strong position to negotiate, even you say 60% of our laws enshrined (don’t know the figures myself) but even taking your figures 40% are not. As for your assumption Brexit is dead well that’s a laughable conclusion to draw when what folk voted for is to leave the EU lock, stock and barrel, discussions about how we leave were left in the governments hands and they must act on the democratic vote. I’m afraid you are Letting your remain bias cloud your judgment. 

No I don't. I said that of the EU laws we have adopted 60% of them are related to international laws that we will still be subject to regardless. Comprehension is clearly not your strong point. Neither is detail.

I didn't say "Brexit was dead". I said the argument was. And your response completely proves it. You cannot explain a single rule or regulation that impinges on us and that when freed from will mean we can negotiate preferential deals to the EU. Which was the whole premise of your argument. When pressed you couldn't name a single one.

It sums it up. I'm afraid that the blunt truth is that you haven't got a clue, just like the Brexit campaigners haven't got a clue. Its an ideology - that is literally all it is. "Be free of the EU". But beyond that, the details, the irksome but ever present facts are simply absent. 

 

 

 

[Mounts Kipper]

1 minute ago, bwfcfan5 said:

No I don't. I said that of the EU laws we have adopted 60% of them are related to international laws that we will still be subject to regardless. Comprehension is clearly not your strong point. Neither is detail.

I didn't say "Brexit was dead". I said the argument was. And your response completely proves it. You cannot explain a single rule or regulation that impinges on us and that when freed from will mean we can negotiate preferential deals to the EU. Which was the whole premise of your argument. When pressed you couldn't name a single one.

It sums it up. I'm afraid that the blunt truth is that you haven't got a clue, just like the Brexit campaigners haven't got a clue. Its an ideology - that is literally all it is. "Be free of the EU". But beyond that, the details, the irksome but ever present facts are simply absent. 

 

 

 

The ever present fact is we voted to leave, and whatever it takes to strike new trade deals then that is what we must do,  me being specific about what laws, regulations or rule book we should change is a ridiculous question for me to field in detail,  that’s why we have politicians who are supposed to carry through the wishes of the people.

As ever the remainers arguments are based on questions and policy that have yet to be decided and will only become apparent as we work through new trade deals and make our own way in the world. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, L/H White said:

disagree.

more shit has cropped up since, even the powers that be didn't have a clue ffs

Then by the same token no one knew what they were voting against; so weren't in a position to say how bad it would be and therefore all remain claims were null and void.

Simple fact is plenty of info was out there, some true others bollocks.

No different to a general election. It's for people to make their mind up and go with it.

Once the race is run, the country gets on with it until the next election. Might not be happy if the result isn't what they wanted, but the moaning, and doom mongering doesn't go on like this.

It's like a bloody virus infecting minds of people. Unhelpful to the national good.

[Mounts Kipper]

12 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Then by the same token no one knew what they were voting against; so weren't in a position to say how bad it would be and therefore all remain claims were null and void.

Simple fact is plenty of info was out there, some true others bollocks.

No different to a general election. It's for people to make their mind up and go with it.

Once the race is run, the country gets on with it until the next election. Might not be happy if the result isn't what they wanted, but the moaning, and doom mongering doesn't go on like this.

It's like a bloody virus infecting minds of people. Unhelpful to the national good.

And what folk forget to mention is the creeping federalism of the EU, what new laws, rules and regulations might be implemented, ever increasing contributions, perhaps insistence on switching to EU currency, most likely an EU army, we have idea what will change in Europe yet folk think the EU is certainty while Brexit isn’t. Nothing is certain in this world but we’ve made a democratic decision to leave, yet some remainers will not let go. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Absolutely. Nothing can be certain, so we should go forward with unity to make the best of the opportunity.

 

[bwfcfan5]

13 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Absolutely. Nothing can be certain, so we should go forward with unity to make the best of the opportunity.

 

What if it isn't an opportunity at all but a terrible and horrific mistake? 

Because all evidence (real evidence) suggests that is what it is. Brexiteers wishing it away doesn't make it disappear. Should we just plow on regardless no matter what? And lets say the worst happens and there are genuine medicine shortages - what then? If people start dying - what then? 

Note I'm asking when/if. Not presenting it as an absolute. But its interesting how the Brexit language has changed from "look at how great it will be" ...to..."well it won't be THAT bad, but we must just carry on". 

[bwfcfan5]

42 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

The ever present fact is we voted to leave, and whatever it takes to strike new trade deals then that is what we must do,  me being specific about what laws, regulations or rule book we should change is a ridiculous question for me to field in detail,  that’s why we have politicians who are supposed to carry through the wishes of the people.

As ever the remainers arguments are based on questions and policy that have yet to be decided and will only become apparent as we work through new trade deals and make our own way in the world. 

Do you see how this seems "we need to be out because...well I don't really know...we just need to be out". And then you listen to Brexiteer politicians when really tested being unable to articulate actual reasons for leaving beyond rhetoric. Rhetoric and slogans won the referendum but 2 and a half years on I don't think it unreasonable to expect at this stage something a little more than that. Some real, concrete plan. The only plan on the table has been rubbished by Brexiteers, denounced as "surrender" as "worse than staying in" yet now they might accept it out of desperation.

Do you see how to someone who believes we currently have the best deal possible this is completely and utterly absurd? I can empathise with people who feel they had a democratic vote and now its at risk of being undone. I totally get that. Its a compelling argument for the referendum being a massive mistake. I do not see it as a compelling argument for leaving, especially on no deal, given the huge mass of evidence now that suggests remaining is the best option, especially weighed against no deal.

You have major food retailers today warning of the consequences of no deal being brushed off as "project fear". Its absolutely and completely absurd. Brexiteers could say "project fear" IF they legitimately had a plan to deal with the details, to manage borders, supplies, trade and laws. But they totally and utterly do not. You've had McVey suggest we could have a "no deal transition period" Dorries ask "what is the customs union". Rees Mogg make the pro Brexit case that we could import "hormone treated beef" IDS tell us "the Irish border is easily solvable" but refusing to actually detail how. Patterson asking for "technology to manage a border" repeatedly when it has been explained by experts time and time again that said technology simply doesn't exist on an operational level. Delingpole be utterly humiliated by having to admit he doesn't understand how trade tariffs work.......it just goes on and on and on....you either cannot see or are just too stubborn to. 

We're extricating ourselves from the largest trading block in the world, taking a huge economic risk, and as yet nobody who favours doing so can articulate ANY economic benefits of doing so. Not real ones. The only valid reason is a political "we can determine our own future" which is at best debatable. But even if you subscribe to that you have to acknowledge everything else that goes alongside it. 

 

[Mounts Kipper]

17 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

What if it isn't an opportunity at all but a terrible and horrific mistake? 

Because all evidence (real evidence) suggests that is what it is. Brexiteers wishing it away doesn't make it disappear. Should we just plow on regardless no matter what? And lets say the worst happens and there are genuine medicine shortages - what then? If people start dying - what then? 

Note I'm asking when/if. Not presenting it as an absolute. But its interesting how the Brexit language has changed from "look at how great it will be" ...to..."well it won't be THAT bad, but we must just carry on". 

Nothing is certain, Europe is tearing itself apart, Paris is burning on regular basis, Italy is a basket case, anti EU parties are rising notably in Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Austria, Hungary, and many others, Greece has been ruined by the EU.

One of the main contributors to EU budgets is leaving, the future of the EU isn’t that bright from where I’m looking, have you looked at the situation across Europe?  Or are you just watching that clown outside parliament waving his EU flag like a demented fuckwit, it’s madness thinking everything in the EU garden looks lovely. Remainers can’t seee wood for the trees and have becoming victims of project fear. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Mounts Kipper