Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
The tories are running scared and that is why they constantly invent lies about Jeremy Corbyn and condemn the whole socialist movement. Paul Mason has a view on why:
The fuller story is here: the-elite-stands-to-lose-everything-no-wonder-defeat-socialism-is-its-new-mission
Tom
The fuller story is here: the-elite-stands-to-lose-everything-no-wonder-defeat-socialism-is-its-new-mission
Tom
You really do have some fanciful notions 'Woosh'! Do you really believe that the British electorate thought that the myth of a special relationship with the USA was reason enough to motivate them to vote leave?
I'm starting to doubt your sanity!
Tom
I'm not sure what you meant by this. If you mean the USA wanted the EU to expand into Eastern Europe, then yes, though they certainly didn't want part of the cost of that to be us leaving the EU.
But if you meant our special relationship with the USA influenced the Brexit vote, I think it had only a marginal effect as a trading fallback option. Brexiter's eyes were on worldwide trading as preached by the government right.
.
they did not expect us to have a referendum on brexit.
In fairness, John Major did not expect it either.
We have been drawn toward Canada and the USA for a very long time. When TTIP was delayed, NAFTA was signed, the pull became even stronger than ever. Note that at the time of the brexit vote, Donald Trump was not expected to win.
Joining NAFTA was seen as a real possibility and still is.
If we can join NAFTA and TTIP is signed, then we don't need to stay in the SM and CU.
That's a lot of ifs.
I don't see an attraction in joining NAFTA. Trump's America First stance is likely to last beyond him since it's so popular, Canada is a tiddler no bigger than Spain and Mexico has little money. All I see there is more imports and debt for us since we have little of interest to them.
TTIP seems wonderful on the surface, if it happens as it appears to be. Somehow I'm doubtful, once again seeing the USA as the net beneficiary.
.
in the short term, I agree but in the long term, we are a good fit for the USA, Canada and Mexico with unexploited potential.
Just 20 million dollars down.
And a major solar electricity facility destroyed.
And some of those consumers unable to pay their electricity bills - however shiny their meters and however fast-tripping their protection trips - due to Irma and the other losses it caused.
if it weren't in the hurricane zone, house prices would be like Seychelles or Barbados.
A good Simile is the old none PC comedy gag
"The good news is the Air bags worked Dear"
No substitute at all.
We can have all the things we need and all the things we may desire just across La Manche - there is no need to move goods, foodstuffs, machinery or anything else c3000 miles across the Atlantic.
As you are one who likes his stats, graphs and the processes of logic, you must be aware that.............
Why did I add that? Because it's a piece of useless statistical data, just like the stuff you keep purveying in your attempts to demonstrate how much better off we'd be in any other trade association compared to the EU.
Tom
I did not say that at all.
I said that at the time of the referendum, NAFTA was signed, TTIP was not and joining NAFTA was and still is a possibility. If we join NAFTA and TTIP is signed then we wouldn't need to stay in the SM and CU.
I did not say that NAFTA is better than the SM and/or CU.
TTIP would provide us then with access to the EU27 at zero tariff for most goods that we produce and access for some of our financial services. Re-exports of goods will always be a problem without being a member of a CU with the EU27.
Your conclusion isn't based on Facts is it?
There is no guarantee that we would benefit from NAFTA at all
It is first second and last intended as usual to serve American Corporate interests.
Not us, and they, and we, have nothing worthy of shipping either way we can't get right now without leaving the EU.
Trouble is, looks like NAFTA is in severe difficulties itself. The renegotiations don't sound as if they are going well, and there have been plenty of suggestions that the USA could withdraw.
It would appear rather odd for the UK to embark on a (possibly) sinking ship especially if it then consists of Mexico and Canada only. (Aside from my great reluctance to join something that would then have such a misleading name.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barbados_hurricanes
With respect to the Seychelles, do we really need to be pedantic about the difference between a hurricane and a tropical cyclone?
the guy at the airport said that the anemometer in the plane that was blown into bits recorded that the maximum speed when it (the plane) was airborne was 228mph.
that is a bit more than cyclones (<140 mph).
"No injuries were reported despite the fact the cyclone brought winds of 330 to 345 km/h over Farquhar Sunday evening."
330 km/h is about 205 mph.
I'll not argue the extra 23 mph.
A graphic of wind speeds and names shows that there is huge overlap between hurricanes of various types (major and classifications) and tropical cyclones of various types (intense and very intense).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone#Intensity_classifications
This is known as being damned with faint praise.