Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well first off Scotland isn't going anywhere so your question is hypothetical.

But an Indy Scotland would take years to join the EU, would have to join Schengan and would have to adapt the Euro and all the while bprrowng like crazy to cover that massive deficit.

So no, I don't think Scotland would be better off.

Well actually my question wasn't hypothetical as the word means "based on or serving as a hypothesis". Scotland leaving the EU isn't a hypothesis, it's a fact.

So when Scotland leaves the EU will it be better or worse off?

tomwaterford

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well first off Scotland isn't going anywhere so your question is hypothetical.

But an Indy Scotland would take years to join the EU, would have to join Schengan and would have to adapt the Euro and all the while bprrowng like crazy to cover that massive deficit.

So no, I don't think Scotland would be better off.

Why would they have to adopt the euro??


Seems you are like most of the Brexiters horrifically miss informed about the eu

Anita Blow

I'm not really sure where the discussion goes people aren't willing to accept May admitting leaving the EU is bad in her Goldman Sachs speech, all the first ministers concluding there is no plan for Brexit, the markets not convinced there is a plan for Brexit or government backbenchers suggesting there's no plan for Brexit.
Can people who support Brexit cite any reputable economic analysis which suggests it will have a positive effect for Britain?

• The UK Treasury has stated that almost every possible outcome leaves the UK worse off. A bilateral FTA agreement similar to CETA which people here are championing would reduce GDP by >6% by 15 years, costing each household 4300 pounds. Relying on WTO rules which is the worst case scenario, they predict, would give a 10% GDP contraction by 15 years. You can read their report here
• LSE states that leaving the single market will product a 6-9% reduction in GDP by 10 years depending on whether a FTA is negotiated. You can read that report here
• Institute for Fiscal Studies in London predicts leaving the single market would cost the UK 70 billion pounds in the medium-term

Is there any evidence to the contrary? Or is it just people hoping it works out well without any factual basis

steddyeddy

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'm not really sure where the discussion goes people aren't willing to accept May admitting leaving the EU is bad in her Goldman Sachs speech, all the first ministers concluding there is no plan for Brexit, the markets not convinced there is a plan for Brexit or government backbenchers suggesting there's no plan for Brexit.
Can people who support Brexit cite any reputable economic analysis which suggests it will have a positive effect for Britain?

• The UK Treasury has stated that almost every possible outcome leaves the UK worse off. A bilateral FTA agreement similar to CETA which people here are championing would reduce GDP by >6% by 15 years, costing each household 4300 pounds. Relying on WTO rules which is the worst case scenario, they predict, would give a 10% GDP contraction by 15 years. You can read their report here
• LSE states that leaving the single market will product a 6-9% reduction in GDP by 10 years depending on whether a FTA is negotiated. You can read that report here
• Institute for Fiscal Studies in London predicts leaving the single market would cost the UK 70 billion pounds in the medium-term

Is there any evidence to the contrary? Or is it just people hoping it works out well without any factual basis

We seem to have a lot of people saying (insert nation here) will leap at a trade deal. It's just not the case.

FrancieBrady

Anita Blow wrote: »

Can people who support Brexit cite any reputable economic analysis which suggests it will have a positive effect for Britain?

I'd run out for popcorn but it's gone up.

The Rape of Lucretia

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'm not really sure where the discussion goes people aren't willing to accept May admitting leaving the EU is bad in her Goldman Sachs speech, all the first ministers concluding there is no plan for Brexit, the markets not convinced there is a plan for Brexit or government backbenchers suggesting there's no plan for Brexit.
Can people who support Brexit cite any reputable economic analysis which suggests it will have a positive effect for Britain?

• The UK Treasury has stated that almost every possible outcome leaves the UK worse off. A bilateral FTA agreement similar to CETA which people here are championing would reduce GDP by >6% by 15 years, costing each household 4300 pounds. Relying on WTO rules which is the worst case scenario, they predict, would give a 10% GDP contraction by 15 years. You can read their report here
• LSE states that leaving the single market will product a 6-9% reduction in GDP by 10 years depending on whether a FTA is negotiated. You can read that report here
• Institute for Fiscal Studies in London predicts leaving the single market would cost the UK 70 billion pounds in the medium-term

Is there any evidence to the contrary? Or is it just people hoping it works out well without any factual basis

This is all very well and Financial Timesy, but you cannot put a price on taking back control, not having other countries have a say in the laws of your land, and deciding they are going to come into your country, live there, and work there, just because the mood takes them.

If you like other countries telling you how straight a banana has to be, how you cant play the bag pipes due to health and safety regulations, how much money you are going to give every week to Greek cheese makers, or that you cannot sell eggs by the dozen, then fine, join that Euro club.

If you want Britain to be British come what may, then get on with it, stop obsessing about trade deals and GNP figures, and take back control of your country.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is all very well and Financial Timesy, but you cannot put a price on taking back control, not having other countries have a say in the laws of your land, and deciding they are going to come into your country, live there, and work there, just because the mood takes them.

If you like other countries telling you how straight a banana has to be, how you cant play the bag pipes due to health and safety regulations, how much money you are going to give every week to Greek cheese makers, or that you cannot sell eggs by the dozen, then fine, join that Euro club.

If you want Britain to be British come what may, then get on with it, stop obsessing about trade deals and GNP figures, and take back control of your country.

And you don't think that such things are important to the economic wellbeing of a country? The Brexit boll*xollogy that hoodwinked an electorate is continuing to be disseminated.

tomwaterford

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is all very well and Financial Timesy, but you cannot put a price on taking back control, not having other countries have a say in the laws of your land, and deciding they are going to come into your country, live there, and work there, just because the mood takes them.

If you like other countries telling you how straight a banana has to be, how you cant play the bag pipes due to health and safety regulations, how much money you are going to give every week to Greek cheese makers, or that you cannot sell eggs by the dozen, then fine, join that Euro club.

If you want Britain to be British come what may, then get on with it, stop obsessing about trade deals and GNP figures, and take back control of your country.

Ya....fcuk that whole economic thing and those pesky Immigrants
.
Sure we'll vote for vague notion of control and Britishness which noone has defined...

:pac: :pac:



It's like the healy-raes on steroids :pac:

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is all very well and Financial Timesy, but you cannot put a price on taking back control, not having other countries have a say in the laws of your land, and deciding they are going to come into your country, live there, and work there, just because the mood takes them.

If you like other countries telling you how straight a banana has to be, how you cant play the bag pipes due to health and safety regulations, how much money you are going to give every week to Greek cheese makers, or that you cannot sell eggs by the dozen, then fine, join that Euro club.

If you want Britain to be British come what may, then get on with it, stop obsessing about trade deals and GNP figures, and take back control of your country.

The government and opposition had no problem with 'control'. They did and still do want to stay in it.
Those who voted were conned on this subject.

catbear

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is all very well and Financial Timesy, but you cannot put a price on taking back control, not having other countries have a say in the laws of your land, and deciding they are going to come into your country, live there, and work there, just because the mood takes them.

Well actually you can measure taking back control on a sovereignty chart but the UK has a bit to go yet before it knocks North Korea off the top.

You're on my ignore list now.

Capt'n Midnight

Del.Monte wrote: »

France would be more likely to do a deal with Moscow than fight - remember their efforts the last time when if it hadn't been for the Royal Navy they would have let their fleets fall into Nazi hands.

Like the discussion about Brexit there's a lot of spin hiding the facts.

The French didn't let their fleet fall into Nazi hands. They destroyed more of their ships than the British did during the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir
The French fleet in Toulon was scuttled on 27 November 1942 to avoid capture by Nazi German forces.

The French destroyed 77 vessels, including three battleships, seven cruisers, 15 destroyers, 13 torpedo boats, six sloops, 12 submarines, nine patrol boats, 19 auxiliary ships, one school ship, 28 tugs and four cranes. Thirty-nine small ships were captured, most of them sabotaged and disarmed

more details on the various actions here - the ships in Egypt simply surrendered
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=96



Ignore the lessons of history at your peril. If the propaganda of the past isn't accurate then can you trust the propaganda of the present ?

There is no point in harking back to glory days, especially when they weren't really glory days.

Anita Blow

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'm not really sure where the discussion goes people aren't willing to accept May admitting leaving the EU is bad in her Goldman Sachs speech, all the first ministers concluding there is no plan for Brexit, the markets not convinced there is a plan for Brexit or government backbenchers suggesting there's no plan for Brexit.
Can people who support Brexit cite any reputable economic analysis which suggests it will have a positive effect for Britain?

• The UK Treasury has stated that almost every possible outcome leaves the UK worse off. A bilateral FTA agreement similar to CETA which people here are championing would reduce GDP by >6% by 15 years, costing each household 4300 pounds. Relying on WTO rules which is the worst case scenario, they predict, would give a 10% GDP contraction by 15 years. You can read their report here
• LSE states that leaving the single market will product a 6-9% reduction in GDP by 10 years depending on whether a FTA is negotiated. You can read that report here
• Institute for Fiscal Studies in London predicts leaving the single market would cost the UK 70 billion pounds in the medium-term

Is there any evidence to the contrary? Or is it just people hoping it works out well without any factual basis

This is all very well and Financial Timesy, but you cannot put a price on taking back control, not having other countries have a say in the laws of your land, and deciding they are going to come into your country, live there, and work there, just because the mood takes them.

You're absolutely right. And likewise, Britain no longer as a say in the laws of other countries. Following Brexit it will have lost its ability to influence policy in the largest collection of wealthy countries in the world, an entire continent of 500 million. That's quite a geopolitical blow

The Rape of Lucretia

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There is no point in harking back to glory days, especially when they weren't really glory days.

Britain certainly had its glory days, no doubt about it. And like no other nation before or since. They are right to be proud of it. To celebrate their heritage. And to not want their culture and history diluted by Euro average. To overlook the economic consequences and stay true to the spirit of your history is the single greatest thing any country can do.

Newton, Shakespeare, the industrial revolution, Gainsborough, Florence Nightingale, Churchill, Brunel, cucumber sandwiches with the crusts cut off, sandwiches come to think of it, Scott of the Antarctic, Dickens, Elizabeth I, Lady Diana, The Charge of the Light Brigade, The Beatles, The Empire on which the Sun Never Set, the internet, Whittle. Its just mind boggling. There is no end to their greatness.
Was it achieved by immigrants or having other countries make its laws ....... ? I rest my case. Jealousy will get you no where Capt'n.

Capt'n Midnight

maryishere wrote: »

The country which Spain gets its biggest amount of tourists and business from is the UK ( 12,791,000 ) , so I would imagine the Spanish do not want to lose too much of that business.

People from the UK were going on holidays to Spain when it was a Dictatorship under Generalísimo Franco so dream on. One would presume little englanders would feel more at home there than in North Africa.

And Aerospace is Frances biggest export , with wine second. The UK is Frances second biggest market for wine, after the USA. Would a hard brexit hit wine sales in to the UK from France? Possibly. There will be winners and losers in Brexit. I'd say the non-EC wine producers may be delighted with Brexit, for example.

looks like wine will be going up by 29c a bottle Also there is a shortage of wine due to harvests.

Yes the UK is heavily involved in Aerospace but it's a high margin industry with few alternative suppliers. If you have an airliner you have to buy the engines it was designed for. So Rolls Royce will continue to trade. But if you want a small car you don't have to buy British.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

One of my colleagues here is 80 years of age and rightly says that Brexit was a vote for nostalgia. Those who voted for nostalgia have short memories it seems.

Nostalgia isn't what it use to be.

A film made in 1955 the characters and delusions are still relevant.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/dec/07/my-favourite-film-the-ladykillers

The fable of The Ladykillers is a comic and ironic joke about the condition of postwar England. After the war, the country was going through a kind of quiet, typically British but nevertheless historically fundamental revolution. Though few people were prepared to face up to it, the great days of the Empire were gone for ever. British society was shattered with the same kind of conflicts appearing in many other countries: an impoverished and disillusioned upper class, a brutalised working class, juvenile delinquency among the mods and rockers, an influx of foreign and potentially criminal elements, and a collapse of "intellectual" leadership. All of these threatened the stability of the national character.

Though at no time did Bill Rose or I ever spell this out, look at the characters in the film. The Major (played by Cecil Parker), a conman, is a caricature of the decadent military ruling class. One Round (Danny Green) is the oafish representative of the British masses. Harry (Peter Sellers) is the spiv, the worthless younger generation. Louis (Herbert Lorn) is the dangerously unassimilated foreigner. They are a composite cartoon of Britain's corruption. The tiny figure of Mrs Wilberforce (Wilberforce was the name of the 19th-century idealist who called for the abolition of slavery) is plainly a much diminished Britannia. Her house is in a cul-de-sac. Shabby and cluttered with memories of the days when Britain's navy ruled the world and captains gallantly stayed on the bridge as their ship went down, her house is structurally unsound. Dwarfed by the grim landscape of railway yards and screaming express trains, it is Edwardian England, an anachronism in the contemporary world.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nostalgia isn't what it use to be.

A film made in 1955 the characters and delusions are still relevant.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/dec/07/my-favourite-film-the-ladykillers

That's an interesting read. Thanks Cap.

maryishere

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The French didn't let their fleet fall into Nazi hands.

But they were too cowardly to fight the Nazi with it either. From Wiki, the British perceived the French fleet under the Vichy government as a potentially lethal threat. This threat would be made all the more real should the French somehow become formal enemies or, more likely, should the Kriegsmarine (German navy) gain control of French ships. It was deemed essential that the French Navy be put out of action. Some vessels were in port in France, while others escaped to Britain or British-controlled Egypt. The British boarded all French ships in their hands, with many sailors re-joining the Allies as part of the Free French Navy (Forces navales françaises libres, FNFL) because of General de Gaulle’s growing influence. Although the boardings were conducted relatively peacefully, there was resistance on Surcouf, then the largest submarine in the world, resulting in a skirmish in which one French and three British naval personnel were killed. However, the most powerful concentrations of the French fleet remained in Mers-el-Kébir and Dakar. A Royal Navy squadron delivered an ultimatum to the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir. The ultimatum demanded that the ships and their crews either join the war effort or sail with reduced crews to a British port, promising that the ships would be repatriated at the end of the war or compensation paid for damages to them, and giving them the option of sailing to a French port in the West Indies where they could be demilitarised or temporarily given to the United States until the end of the war. If the French refused these offers, they had to scuttle their ships or be fired on. On 3 July 1940, the British opened fire after an agreement proved impossible (Operation Catapult). One French battleship was sunk, and two battleships and four destroyers were knocked out. A British submarine also sank an aviso. Six British naval aircraft were shot down. A total of 1,297 French sailors and 2 British airmen were killed.


Back to Brexit: Latest polls say May has the confidence and backing of her electorate

"Nearly 60 percent approved of Theresa May's handling of Brexit "

"More than half of Britons say tackling immigration is more important than staying the single market, according to a survey.
A total of 56 per cent of those quizzed said they were more concerned about controlling UK borders than maintaining trade benefits with other countries.
Only 44 per cent believed staying in the single market was more important".



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3872954/We-care-migration-single-market-says-Brexit-poll-suggests-Theresa-backing-Great-British-public.html

tomwaterford

maryishere wrote: »

But they were too cowardly to fight the Nazi with it either. From Wiki, the British perceived the French fleet under the Vichy government as a potentially lethal threat. This threat would be made all the more real should the French somehow become formal enemies or, more likely, should the Kriegsmarine (German navy) gain control of French ships. It was deemed essential that the French Navy be put out of action. Some vessels were in port in France, while others escaped to Britain or British-controlled Egypt. The British boarded all French ships in their hands, with many sailors re-joining the Allies as part of the Free French Navy (Forces navales françaises libres, FNFL) because of General de Gaulle’s growing influence. Although the boardings were conducted relatively peacefully, there was resistance on Surcouf, then the largest submarine in the world, resulting in a skirmish in which one French and three British naval personnel were killed. However, the most powerful concentrations of the French fleet remained in Mers-el-Kébir and Dakar. A Royal Navy squadron delivered an ultimatum to the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir. The ultimatum demanded that the ships and their crews either join the war effort or sail with reduced crews to a British port, promising that the ships would be repatriated at the end of the war or compensation paid for damages to them, and giving them the option of sailing to a French port in the West Indies where they could be demilitarised or temporarily given to the United States until the end of the war. If the French refused these offers, they had to scuttle their ships or be fired on. On 3 July 1940, the British opened fire after an agreement proved impossible (Operation Catapult). One French battleship was sunk, and two battleships and four destroyers were knocked out. A British submarine also sank an aviso. Six British naval aircraft were shot down. A total of 1,297 French sailors and 2 British airmen were killed.

Curiouslyrics enough

https://m.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/operation-reservist-when-the-allies-were-annihilated-by-vichy-french-soldiers.html

maryishere

tomwaterford wrote: »

Curiouslyrics enough

https://m.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/operation-reservist-when-the-allies-were-annihilated-by-vichy-french-soldiers.html

And the end result: "After two days the French surrendered the city but managed to destroy the harbor facilities and disable the ships at the docks."

The French would have been better fighting the Germans....who occupied their country, used slave labourers and deported many Jews, homosexuals, disabled etc to concentration camps. Instead the Allies had to liberate France from Nazi control.

Junkyard Tom

maryishere wrote: »

The French would have been better fighting the Germans....who occupied their country, used slave labourers and deported many Jews, homosexuals, disabled etc to concentration camps. Instead the Allies had to liberate France from Nazi control.

As someone who reflexively supports, or acts as an apologist for, the evils of the British empire you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to criticising the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese or whatever you're having yourself.

maryishere

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As someone who reflexively supports, or acts as an apologist for, the evils of the British empire....

LOL. I was just reporting the facts of what happened, old chap. History shows that the Allies had to liberate France from Nazi control, and some of the French navy had to be sunk to prevent the Kriegsmarine (German navy) gaining control of the French ships.

A Dub in Glasgo

Why do the UK nationalists always bring WW2 into Brexit discussions?

Anita Blow

So far Brexiters on this thread have invoked WW I, WW II, The Troubles, The East India Company and Ireland's role in UN peacekeeping missions. Presumably because a sound argument doesn't actually exist

The_Valeyard

Anita Blow wrote: »

So far Brexiters on this thread have invoked WW I, WW II, The Troubles, The East India Company and Ireland's role in UN peacekeeping missions. Presumably because a sound argument doesn't actually exist

Aliens.

maryishere

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why do the UK nationalists always bring WW2 into Brexit discussions?

Junkyard Tom is not a UK nationalist.

Now, about 6 posts ago I tried to steer the discussion Irish nationalists were having about WW2, the French etc

What do you think of the latest polls which say May has the confidence and backing of her electorate

"Nearly 60 percent approved of Theresa May's handling of Brexit "

"More than half of Britons say tackling immigration is more important than staying the single market, according to a survey.
A total of 56 per cent of those quizzed said they were more concerned about controlling UK borders than maintaining trade benefits with other countries.
Only 44 per cent believed staying in the single market was more important".

Calina

maryishere wrote: »

Junkyard Tom is not a UK nationalist.

Now, about 6 posts ago I tried to steer the discussion Irish nationalists were having about WW2, the French etc

What do you think of the latest polls which say May has the confidence and backing of her electorate

"Nearly 60 percent approved of Theresa May's handling of Brexit "

"More than half of Britons say tackling immigration is more important than staying the single market, according to a survey.
A total of 56 per cent of those quizzed said they were more concerned about controlling UK borders than maintaining trade benefits with other countries.
Only 44 per cent believed staying in the single market was more important".

Quote but no source. Let me know where this comes from.

steddyeddy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why do the UK nationalists always bring WW2 into Brexit discussions?

It helps to look into the past rather the failing economy they promote.

Iwasfrozen

Anita Blow wrote: »

So far Brexiters on this thread have invoked WW I, WW II, The Troubles, The East India Company and Ireland's role in UN peacekeeping missions. Presumably because a sound argument doesn't actually exist

Personally I don't believe Brexit is a good idea but the majority of people voted for it.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

Junkyard Tom is not a UK nationalist.

Now, about 6 posts ago I tried to steer the discussion Irish nationalists were having about WW2, the French etc

What do you think of the latest polls which say May has the confidence and backing of her electorate

"Nearly 60 percent approved of Theresa May's handling of Brexit "

"More than half of Britons say tackling immigration is more important than staying the single market, according to a survey.
A total of 56 per cent of those quizzed said they were more concerned about controlling UK borders than maintaining trade benefits with other countries.
Only 44 per cent believed staying in the single market was more important".

56% of Britons are deluded and hankering for something that never existed outside a book or b/w film?

A Dub in Glasgo

Calina wrote: »

Quote but no source. Let me know where this comes from.

More plagerism

It is from the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3872954/We-care-migration-single-market-says-Brexit-poll-suggests-Theresa-backing-Great-British-public.html