Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Remember - it's the poor and working class who will actually gain most from Brexit. Prices on basics will fall. This is always what happens when markets are opened up. The middle class and rich will suffer most if anybody is to suffer. Brexit was after all a working class event.
You heard it here first.
The pound and the FTSE hardly moved on the announcement.
What a travesty this debate has been for lack of support
Great speech from@MhairiBlack "This entire farce is emblematic of Britain's broken democracy, a referendum held to appease an Etonian boy's club that was won on the back of financial corruption of elites."
This is my tweet in response
"
Great Speech a pity so many of the benches were empty,where are the blighters when the country is going to pot?
There are so few they should let some of the Public in so that at least there is an audience,It's like an "End of the Pier show on a wet day!"
Great speech from
This is my tweet in response
"
Great Speech a pity so many of the benches were empty,where are the blighters when the country is going to pot?
There are so few they should let some of the Public in so that at least there is an audience,It's like an "End of the Pier show on a wet day!"
That will upset Moggy and co, if they can't make a killing!
Actually apart from them being mugged, it has little to do with the working class, and they will certainly suffer from it.
You can forget about cheap food, that is all nonsense, prices on basics will actually rise as we don't have any trade deals to provide that result and it could be years before we do.
Brexit was a upper class orchestrated treasonous attack on the Welfare State employing lying propaganda to direct Public anger away from the real culprits . Right wing international Corporates lunatic Bankers the Conservative misgovernment ,and onto the EU.
Surely by now you should realise you have been well and truly conned?
Prices on Basics will fall, the Rich and middle class will suffer most, Markets are opened up? really?
All pigs fuelled up and ready to fly
I used the word 'minuscule' but you can look at the current and recent data on this web page where you will discover that my comment was in fact correct.
market-data
Tom
Aren't end of the pier shows empty on sunny days?
It could have had the effect of an unintended person being elected if they'd won.
That's a definite possibility, unlike the outcome of promises, and it is classed as fraud.
.
Last edited:
From Owen Patterson - good stuff here.
Dear Sir Graham,
I write to inform you that I no longer have confidence in the Prime Minister. It would be a travesty if the democratic verdict of the 2016 referendum – the largest in British history – were not delivered, yet the Prime Minister’s proposed “deal” is so bad that it cannot be considered anything other than a betrayal of clear manifesto promises.
These broken promises typify more than two years of poor Government decision-making. It was a mistake not to begin intense preparations for leaving on WTO terms the moment the result was delivered, approaching the negotiations with a stronger hand, positioned to walk away without a deal and consequently much more likely to secure a good one.
It was a mistake for our EU negotiations to be led by a career civil servant with no business experience when the Government had on hand a vastly experienced international trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer.
It was a mistake to create a new Brexit Department only to keep two secretaries of state so in the dark that they had to resign over a policy one would have thought they were overseeing. Trying to bounce Cabinet ministers into supporting her White Paper on the Future Relationship before they had a chance to consider it fully – as the Prime Minister did at Chequers – is simply an intolerable way for a Prime Minister to govern.
It was a mistake to treat Brexit miserably as a problem to be solved rather than an exciting opportunity to be grasped. The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy. We are a key Nato member, a permanent UN Security Council member, a Commonwealth realm, a nuclear power.
We are the source of the English language, the common law and occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade. Yet from the outset we have approached these negotiations as a feeble and unworthy supplicant. As Falconer said, future historians will ask in exasperation: “Why were we so negative about our future?”
These mistakes have eroded trust in the Government, to the point where I and many others can no longer take the Prime Minister at her word. Almost two dozen times, she has ruled out membership of the Customs Union, yet the Withdrawal Agreement’s “single customs territory” sees us locked into it in all but name.
She has repeatedly said “no deal is better than a bad deal”, but it is clear her objective was to secure a deal at any cost.
The backstop would see the whole UK remain in a customs union with the EU, with Northern Ireland in the Customs Union and Single Market.
This could see new internal UK borders in breach of the Belfast Agreement’s Principle of Consent and the requirement to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly.
It breaches the Acts of Union 1800. The UK would not have the unilateral right to end the arrangement. We could be locked into it indefinitely as a permanent rule-taker while paying £39 billion for the privilege.
European customs experts regard the Withdrawal Agreement’s customs arrangements as woefully out of date, proposing physical stamps and paper systems not used for nearly 20 years. They are so vague that it would be impossible to put them into practice.
Eleventh-hour “reassurances” on this issue are mere warm words if the legal text is unchanged. In any case, there is much more besides the backstop making the Withdrawal Agreement unacceptable.
No amount of tinkering will yield a majority in Parliament for this deal. The Government needs to consider more boldly the possible alternatives which might command that support. President Tusk offered just such an alternative in March: a wide-ranging, zero-tariff free trade agreement.
That deal foundered on the question of the Northern Ireland border, but existing techniques and processes can resolve this. From my October meeting with Michel Barnier, I know that a willingness exists on the EU side to explore these possibilities more fully. The meeting also confirmed that Tusk’s offer is still on the table.
Throughout this process, I have sought to support the Government. The conclusion is now inescapable that the Prime Minister is the blockage to the wide-ranging free trade agreement offered by Tusk which would be in the best interests of the country and command the support of Parliament.
I, therefore, have no confidence in Theresa May as Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party and ask that you hold a vote of no confidence.
Dear Sir Graham,
I write to inform you that I no longer have confidence in the Prime Minister. It would be a travesty if the democratic verdict of the 2016 referendum – the largest in British history – were not delivered, yet the Prime Minister’s proposed “deal” is so bad that it cannot be considered anything other than a betrayal of clear manifesto promises.
These broken promises typify more than two years of poor Government decision-making. It was a mistake not to begin intense preparations for leaving on WTO terms the moment the result was delivered, approaching the negotiations with a stronger hand, positioned to walk away without a deal and consequently much more likely to secure a good one.
It was a mistake for our EU negotiations to be led by a career civil servant with no business experience when the Government had on hand a vastly experienced international trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer.
It was a mistake to create a new Brexit Department only to keep two secretaries of state so in the dark that they had to resign over a policy one would have thought they were overseeing. Trying to bounce Cabinet ministers into supporting her White Paper on the Future Relationship before they had a chance to consider it fully – as the Prime Minister did at Chequers – is simply an intolerable way for a Prime Minister to govern.
It was a mistake to treat Brexit miserably as a problem to be solved rather than an exciting opportunity to be grasped. The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy. We are a key Nato member, a permanent UN Security Council member, a Commonwealth realm, a nuclear power.
We are the source of the English language, the common law and occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade. Yet from the outset we have approached these negotiations as a feeble and unworthy supplicant. As Falconer said, future historians will ask in exasperation: “Why were we so negative about our future?”
These mistakes have eroded trust in the Government, to the point where I and many others can no longer take the Prime Minister at her word. Almost two dozen times, she has ruled out membership of the Customs Union, yet the Withdrawal Agreement’s “single customs territory” sees us locked into it in all but name.
She has repeatedly said “no deal is better than a bad deal”, but it is clear her objective was to secure a deal at any cost.
The backstop would see the whole UK remain in a customs union with the EU, with Northern Ireland in the Customs Union and Single Market.
This could see new internal UK borders in breach of the Belfast Agreement’s Principle of Consent and the requirement to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly.
It breaches the Acts of Union 1800. The UK would not have the unilateral right to end the arrangement. We could be locked into it indefinitely as a permanent rule-taker while paying £39 billion for the privilege.
European customs experts regard the Withdrawal Agreement’s customs arrangements as woefully out of date, proposing physical stamps and paper systems not used for nearly 20 years. They are so vague that it would be impossible to put them into practice.
Eleventh-hour “reassurances” on this issue are mere warm words if the legal text is unchanged. In any case, there is much more besides the backstop making the Withdrawal Agreement unacceptable.
No amount of tinkering will yield a majority in Parliament for this deal. The Government needs to consider more boldly the possible alternatives which might command that support. President Tusk offered just such an alternative in March: a wide-ranging, zero-tariff free trade agreement.
That deal foundered on the question of the Northern Ireland border, but existing techniques and processes can resolve this. From my October meeting with Michel Barnier, I know that a willingness exists on the EU side to explore these possibilities more fully. The meeting also confirmed that Tusk’s offer is still on the table.
Throughout this process, I have sought to support the Government. The conclusion is now inescapable that the Prime Minister is the blockage to the wide-ranging free trade agreement offered by Tusk which would be in the best interests of the country and command the support of Parliament.
I, therefore, have no confidence in Theresa May as Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party and ask that you hold a vote of no confidence.
Don't worry. The pound is now up against the dollar and the FTSE is up too.That will upset Moggy and co, if they can't make a killing!
Yeah I didn't think for one moment you'd agree with my prediction. I'll repeat it though - prices on basics will fall if we properly exit the EU.
Indeed, that's a characteristic of third world countries and those heading on that path.
True also nationally, the poorest areas are largely in the North of England and they have the lowest prices, while we in the South are largely better off and pay more.
Snag is, the Northerners envy our circumstances while we in the South certainly don't envy theirs.
Hopefully message received and understood.
.
No they don't envy folk in South.
There seems to be rather a Gloating aspect around May's possible down fall but how does anyone assume we, ll be on a better position next week, assuming she goes.
Surely May's demise brings prospect of a no deal so much closer. I, d have thought that's the last thing remainers want.. Its devout leavers wanting that.
A second ref under Tories?? Or
a GE??
Are there actually people who want JRM, Boris or Gove as PM? Or even anybody who actually thinks JC is capable of either getting there or being remotely capable if he does so..
Dont seem to be able to edit my posts under new system... I, ll try PC..
BTW, if you get chance get out to Goa.. South side tho.. Great.
Just sorting same kind of trip to Langebaan.South Africa. Going out 12th Jan... If we get half as well received as India will be fantastic..
Dont seem to be able to edit my posts under new system... I, ll try PC..
BTW, if you get chance get out to Goa.. South side tho.. Great.
Just sorting same kind of trip to Langebaan.South Africa. Going out 12th Jan... If we get half as well received as India will be fantastic..
Economically yes they do, often moaning about the comparative wealth of the South and our infrastructure. Still complaining about Crossrail for example, while getting bitter about Northern transport conditions, the envy is obvious and openly stated.
I fully agree May going won't make anything better, but it doesn't bring no deal closer. I can't see us leaving on no deal, the Commons has no stomach for that.
There could be a deferrment with EU agreement .
Or deferrment by retracting article 50.
Or, if May stays in power, a referendum choosing between May's deal or remaining.
Or enough of a tweak to May's deal to get it accepted as MPs realise how increasingly exasperated the public are becoming, demanding it be brought to a conclusion, whatever that is.
.
I think JRM and Gove have very little public support. Boris Johnson still has quite a lot , but it's greatly reduced from what it once was.
JC could certainly get in with the Tory margin reducing again as it did so much last time. The public are increasingly sick of the Tories, still angry about the long austerity period and firmly believe they've made a complete mess of Brexit. That's what could open the door to Corbyn, but it might not be decisive and could lead to another coalition government.
.