Had she said:
This course of action will bankrupt my company. Let's get on with it anyway.
Would she still have deserved your praise? Yet some of us are concerned that could be the result for all too many.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Had she said:
This course of action will bankrupt my company. Let's get on with it anyway.
Would she still have deserved your praise? Yet some of us are concerned that could be the result for all too many.
no, statistically, businesses will be slightly better off with each radical change - same with property development, you knock down an old block of flats and put in place fewer executive homes.
Brexit affects mostly the largest 1% of companies.
Are you absolutely sure of that statistic?
Would it not be applicable only to the ones that actually survive?
Are businesses in total better off than before 2008? Are individual business better off than before 2008?
yes. Darwinian evolutionary theory.
About that businesswoman you mentioned earlier, her job is like mine, make sure that her business adapts and survives the change.
I have the EU anti-dumping levy to contend with.
Just listened to May dissemble on the Beeb, same old rhetoric, same old sound bites, "Sovereignty" "End of ECJ" "Own trade deals" "money we send to the EU could be spent on the NHS"
We are really in trouble if we imagine these Tory politicians are going to negotiate a bright future with hundreds of Trade Deals rapidly agreed with the big wide world when they actually fight each other like rats in a sack, and fail miserably in any negotiation they undertake.
After all the reason they wanted to leave the EU was because, wait for it
They couldn't get the EU to agree to their demands
Now we are expected to believe they will have more luck conning the rest of the World?.
Promises, promises, We've had enough of promises
We are really in trouble if we imagine these Tory politicians are going to negotiate a bright future with hundreds of Trade Deals rapidly agreed with the big wide world when they actually fight each other like rats in a sack, and fail miserably in any negotiation they undertake.
After all the reason they wanted to leave the EU was because, wait for it
They couldn't get the EU to agree to their demands
Now we are expected to believe they will have more luck conning the rest of the World?.
Promises, promises, We've had enough of promises
that's true enough for half of the voters.
The EU should have given us what DC asked so nicely!
As I recall they did give us what DC asked for, and collectively we turned down something we are now desperate to get at any price!
TBH, many voters just wanted out, having nothing more to do with the EU, except going on holiday or owning a second home there. Many of them are members of the conservative party.
The real problem for remainers is the lack of a credible 'fantasy' about the EU. Brexiters have theirs.
Said Christopher Browning, a political scientist at the University of Warwick.
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-brexit-fantasy-explained-britain-perpetual-revolution/
I was always told that an Eton Education was allegedly thorough
This tweet reveals this isn't true.
Nick Cohen@NickCohen4
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1041556103576907776
Boris Johnson says if Chequers was adopted "it would be first time since 1066 our leaders were deliberately acquiescing in foreign rule".
But Harold didn’t acquiesce in 1066. Rather famously he fought a battle at Hastings.
Can’t he get anything right?
6:15 AM - Sep 17, 2018
This tweet reveals this isn't true.
Nick Cohen@NickCohen4
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1041556103576907776
Boris Johnson says if Chequers was adopted "it would be first time since 1066 our leaders were deliberately acquiescing in foreign rule".
But Harold didn’t acquiesce in 1066. Rather famously he fought a battle at Hastings.
Can’t he get anything right?
6:15 AM - Sep 17, 2018
I don't think EU has actually helped situation with their handling of situation. They could have bought loads more goodwill with a more philosophical approach, rather than coming over authoritarian and rule bound. I suspect had they done so remain would have gained more support, as it is many Brexit supporters are using their handling as an example of why we should leave. They have a point. Telling people what to do and what is best for them is never a clever approach even if it is the case.
I still hold labour partly responsible , deputy leaders talking about "luxury communism" to me shows their complete detachment from both our situation and what they should be doing ie. opposing the government.
I still hold labour partly responsible , deputy leaders talking about "luxury communism" to me shows their complete detachment from both our situation and what they should be doing ie. opposing the government.
I don't buy into your notion that the EU has any need to pander to the brexit voter's sensitivity, they seem to have been quite straight forward when having to deal with the incompetents we sent to negotiate, or should I say more accurately, lie cheat and mislead them on our behalf.
Remember we are constantly assured that the brexit voter's knew what they voted for, and therefore have nothing to complain about.
The truth is they didn't simply let others to fool them, but are still doing it to themselves
Brexit is entirely the responsibility of those who voted for it, no one else. It's not possible to share responsibility around.
Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk
Last edited:
If the EU is guilty of anything it is that they did not engage with the BREXITeers before the referendum, nor did any of the other 27 nation states. The view from outside the UK was bemusement, incredulity and a belief that it was an internal matter for the UK people.
Had they wanted to , they could have listed all the consequences ,all the agencies likely to be lost ,.. They had the information , but out of respect for the internal democratic process of a member state, they refrained. Likewise the Irish, the French, the Dutch .front line states which will be affected.
They, the EU have not told the UK what to do... If you disagree, list examples. What they have done since, is said what they (the EU ) will not do... And that is what is disagreeable to approx 50% of UK subjects.
Your recollection fails you.
He came away with nothing. And he didn't even ask for much in the first place.
the EU could have agreed on a time limited backstop on the question of NI border.
There is no reason why it cannot be time limited, a future government in the North or in the South can modify the GFA.
..are you referring to ireland?. . Why should they agree to something which is against the expressed will of the vast...and I use the word carefully ,majority of the people on the island, who are members of the club,and is likely to impoverish them, for the wishes /whim of outsiders ,who never considered the consequences of their action. Which is the responsible response. ?
The most charitable excuse I can give for the UK position, is that they failed to recognise that RoI has been a seperate state since 1949. ..and is not the Hebrides.
The EU can show as much intransigeance as it likes, the inconvenient truth is there must be a deal on NI border or there is no deal and ROI will lose big time next April. When it comes to the crunch, the EU will concede.
No it didn't but yours certainly has as usual, you really should check before commenting
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/19/camerons-eu-deal-what-he-wanted-and-what-he-got
Emergency brake
What Cameron wanted: A four-year freeze on in-work benefits for EU citizens working in the UK. Ahead of the summit, David Cameron made a crucial concession that the changes would not apply to EU workers already in Britain, only to new arrivals.
This left one problem to solve at the summit: how long Britain could keep special rules in place. The British government wanted to keep the emergency brake in place for 13 years, but the Visegrád group of four central European countries (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) arrived at the summit with a starting bid of five years.
What he’s got: The consensus settled on seven years, which matches the time period other western countries had to keep eastern Europeans out of their labour markets. Britain was one of a handful of countries that allowed eastern European workers into its labour market, after the EU enlargement of 2004. The seven-year emergency brake cannot be extended.
Child benefits
What Cameron wanted: Before the negotiations got serious, Cameron wanted to stop all payments of child benefit going to children living outside the UK, whose parents are working in the UK. Ahead of the summit, the UK relaxed this demand, so child benefit would merely be indexed to the standard of living in the country where the offspring are based. Despite this concession – and the relatively small sums at stake – child benefits caused one of the biggest rows at the summit, as the Visegrád countries opposed other countries taking advantage.
What he’s got: Child benefit payments will be indexed to the cost of living for children living outside the UK, under new EU legislation. This will apply to new arrivals to the UK, once legislation has been passed, and to all workers from 1 January 2020.
Stronger protection for non-euro v eurozone
What Cameron wanted: Safeguards to protect countries outside the eurozone against regulation made by those inside was at the top of prime minister’s wishlist in the Bloomberg speech. Specifically, he wanted any non-eurozone country to be able to stall new regulations for the currency union, by triggering further discussions among EU leaders of the proposals.
What he’s got: In a surprising win for Cameron, only one euro ‘out’ will be able to force a debate among EU leaders about ‘problem’ eurozone laws. Other EU leaders agreed to this because neither the UK, nor any other country, would have a veto. The tactic can be used to delay, but not to stop eurozone laws.
Ever-closer union
What Cameron wanted: a declaration that the treaty motto of “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe” did not apply to the UK. EU leaders had already agreed a special formula of wording in June 2014 that not all member states were on the road to integration, but Cameron wanted something stronger.
What he’s got: Much more emphatic language, stressing that the UK is not on the road to deeper integration. “It is recognised that the United Kingdom ... is not committed to further political integration in the European Union ... References to ever-closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.”
You really should look before you leap,people not doing so are the reason that the mistake of Brexit came about.