Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Akrasia

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/aqbyrne/status/1095372308515078146

Of course "indefinite" and "temporary" aren't contradictory.

Exactly. They don't even understand their own language!

Do they even think before releasing these statements?

Water John

Verhofstadt is basically telling MPs that the UK Govn't and TM are lying to you.
They are telling the HoC about crucial ongoing talks, which Verhofstadt says are not happening.

listermint

Folkstonian wrote: »

Whilst it is true, what has Jaguar’s decision to start building cars in China got to do with Brexit? It’s a trend that started long before Britain voted to leave the EU unfortunately. As soon as Jaguar stopped being a british brand, it was inevitable. The emotional attachment to the English Midlands and the company’s British hereitage vanished overnight

Hold on we have to wash this nonsense out right now.

It's has everything to do with brexit everything. Literally everything. Guinness were talking about moving lock stock and barrel out of Dublin some years ago with diageo acquisition serious talks. But then the damage to the brand synonymous with Ireland was revalued.

You claim jaguar or any other British symbols move out of the UK is solely a cost thing. That's nonsense.

Brexit pushed any decisions into reality and no they were not inevitable. It's this endless yarn spinning that you are picking up from the UK press and disingenuous twitter dumps from leading conservatives that needs to be challenged.


Own brexit. Including yourself you own it. Because in tired of this deflection. It's nobody else's problem or fault but the English and the Tory party to be very very specific.

Akrasia

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So what do you say about BMW, Mecedes Benz/Daimler and Volkswagen which all manufacture in China?

Do they manufacture in China for the Chinese market or for export to the EU?

Akrasia

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Nor does the word "temporary" actually appear in Article 50. The closest thing is this part of Art 50.2:



Requiring the framework of the future relationship to be taken into account is very different from requiring the withdrawal agreement to be temporary by its nature.

Youve gotta admire the ability of the UK gov to invent a new section of EU law then give out to the EU because they breached its non existent terms.

Especially when a UK house of Lords member Lord Kerr of Kinlochard wrote Article 50.

VinLieger

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So what do you say about BMW, Mecedes Benz/Daimler and Volkswagen which all manufacture in China?

They still also manufacture cars in the eu and the us

bob mcbob

Folkstonian wrote: »

It hasn’t happened for the last 200 years and I’ve seen precious little evidence to suggest it will happen now.

You’d have to think that conservatism only gained traction in British society in the mid 80s if you wanted to subscribe to the ‘old tories will die off and Jeremy will build a socialist paradise from the ground up’ school of thought

At the last election the average age of Tory voter was above 50 for the first time.
The number of Tory party members is decreasing well dying actually. (They are now the 3rd biggest party for the first time).
The average age of Tory party member is estimated to be 72
In 2017, the Tory party got more money from dead members than live ones (thru deceased estate donations)

There's 4 for you.

Capt'n Midnight

Bexit is beyond satire.

NHS stockpiling body bags to prepare for no-deal Brexit reveals Tory minister

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The shambles continues.

UK sued by Channel tunnel firms over Brexit ferry plans They're claiming it's an unfair subsidy for ferry companies.

The regulator forced Eurotunnel to shut down their own ferry company, MyFerryLink, a few years ago so I'd imagine they are a little miffed about the whole thing.

Last week
The government plans to pay a law firm £800,000 for advice in case Eurotunnel decides to sue over the effects of Brexit on its business.

And now News just in.
Trains will be permitted to use the Channel Tunnel for three months if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, under a proposed European Commission law. Proposed law. This isn't a given yet.

Ferries could be deployed on other routes. You can't move a tunnel.

prawnsambo

Speaking of the ECMT haulage permits we were talking about the other day.

There are only 60 of them in total for NI.

lawred2

prawnsambo wrote: »

Speaking of the ECMT haulage permits we were talking about the other day.

There are only 60 of them in total for NI.

"They need us more than we need them"

Doesn't sound so smart any longer.

Sadly this will be seen as more vindictive than anything by the usual suspects who refuse to even begin to understand why.

listermint

Quite simply they'll move south of the border.

It's already happening. Net loss to the NI exchequer

downcow

prawnsambo wrote: »

Speaking of the ECMT haulage permits we were talking about the other day.

There are only 60 of them in total for NI.

Anyone know why 60?

listermint

downcow wrote: »

Anyone know why 60?

Yes because the mainland has a finite amount and they should and will get more of the allocation

The UK got 4000 licenses.

NI have the dup as their spokes people.

Net result. 60


Winning

downcow

listermint wrote: »

Yes because the mainland has a finite amount and they should and will get more of the allocation

The UK got 4000 licenses.

Yeah I am aware of that. But let me ask another way. Anyone know why 4000?

prawnsambo

listermint wrote: »

Yes because the mainland has a finite amount and they should and will get more of the allocation

The UK got 4000 licenses.

NI have the dup as their spokes people.

Net result. 60


Winning

Well the UK only had 984 for HGVs. Not sure about the rest, but the 60 is HGVs as well I think. The reason (before somebody starts blaming the EU) is that these are an OECD initiative to reduce air pollution. There are agreed quotas for each country and if you are a haulage company from outside the EU, it can be a real pain because you need one for each country you pass through.

listermint

downcow wrote: »

Yeah I am aware of that. But let me ask another way. Anyone know why 4000?

Let's ask this way.

Let's say its 4000. Im pretty sure that's the figure.

NI got 1.5 % of that allocation.

Who do you blame ? Your elected representatives? Westminster? Brexit ?

This is a beautiful example of the dup closing stormont and representing all of NI and it's interests.

Folkstonian

listermint wrote: »

Hold on we have to wash this nonsense out right now.

It's has everything to do with brexit everything. Literally everything. Guinness were talking about moving lock stock and barrel out of Dublin some years ago with diageo acquisition serious talks. But then the damage to the brand synonymous with Ireland was revalued.

You claim jaguar or any other British symbols move out of the UK is solely a cost thing. That's nonsense.

Brexit pushed any decisions into reality and no they were not inevitable. It's this endless yarn spinning that you are picking up from the UK press and disingenuous twitter dumps from leading conservatives that needs to be challenged.


Own brexit. Including yourself you own it. Because in tired of this deflection. It's nobody else's problem or fault but the English and the Tory party to be very very specific.

Jaguar Land Rover decided to move production of models for the Chinese market to China almost a decade ago.

It also decided to open a Slovakian factory (given an EU grant of course - so Britain incentivised and funded a business moving out of the country as a member of the EU) in 2015.

These were the given examples, to which I was replying. The assertion that jaguar Land Rover is moving from Britain because of Brexit does not stack up, no matter how much umbrage you feel.

What on Earth are you on about with your ‘own Brexit’ nonsense? This isn’t buzzfeed. The self-righteousness is deeply offputting and not conducive to friendly discussion.

listermint

Folkstonian wrote: »

Jaguar Land Rover decided to move production of models for the Chinese market to China almost a decade ago.

It also decided to open a Slovakian factory (given an EU grant of course - so Britain incentivised and funded a business moving out of the country as a member of the EU) in 2015.

These were the given examples, to which I was replying. The assertion that jaguar Land Rover is moving from Britain because of Brexit does not stack up, no matter how much umbrage you feel.

What on Earth are you on about with your ‘own Brexit’ nonsense? This isn’t buzzfeed. The self-righteousness is deeply offputting and not conducive to friendly discussion.

You've come across with am extremely slanted view particularly in the last three weeks. So I'm fine with calling it brexit nonsense.

I still believe you have the notion that the EU is being hard on the UK right now rather than the UK owning its own decisions.

These manufacturers moving lock stock out of the UK are down to brexit. The dogs on the street are aware of it.

You might read your local Tory MP on twitter and feel he's putting a good point across.. but here's the reality. The UK has managed to minnow itself on the global stage when it was a titan within the UK.

As I said it last year. The faster we get this over with the better the EU needs to move on with or without the UK they've been robbing the air for two years.

Anthracite

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So what do you say about BMW, Mecedes Benz/Daimler and Volkswagen which all manufacture in China?

I would say that economic powerhouses can force companies to create jobs and invest in them.

downcow

listermint wrote: »

Let's ask this way.

Let's say its 4000. Im pretty sure that's the figure.

NI got 1.5 % of that allocation.

Who do you blame ? Your elected representatives? Westminster? Brexit ?

This is a beautiful example of the dup closing stormont and representing all of NI and it's interests.

I think you’ll find that’s pretty close to pro rata based on population. The rest of your post is downright inaccurate

listermint

downcow wrote: »

I think you’ll find that’s pretty close to pro rata based on population. The rest of your post is downright inaccurate

I'm pretty sure 4 percent is not 1.5% please stop spreading inaccuracies.

Again you defend the dup. At this point you're very very transparent. All of this stuff is down to the dup they are at the table.

The allocation is less than half your population pro rata as you put it.

This is embarrassing and emblematic of the treatment you can and will expect from a post brexit uk.

Welcome to the new world order. You haven't lived in it before because you've had the luxury of EU membership to shield conservative incompetence

Capt'n Midnight

downcow wrote: »

Yeah I am aware of that. But let me ask another way. Anyone know why 4000?

Ask the UK

They're a member of the ECMT and have known for years and years how many permits the ECMT allocates to third parties.

EDIT ECMT not EU

downcow

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well the UK only had 984 for HGVs. Not sure about the rest, but the 60 is HGVs as well I think. The reason (before somebody starts blaming the EU) is that these are an OECD initiative to reduce air pollution. There are agreed quotas for each country and if you are a haulage company from outside the EU, it can be a real pain because you need one for each country you pass through.

Thanks
That would seem like one that would be easily sorted with the right attitude ie an exemption for licences in UK & eu for each other’s lorries

tuxy

downcow wrote: »

Thanks
That would seem like one that would be easily sorted with the right attitude ie an exemption for licences in UK & eu for each other’s lorries

Yeah, it could be a part of a trade deal so should only take a few years in the case of a no deal Brexit.

Inquitus

downcow wrote: »

Thanks
That would seem like one that would be easily sorted with the right attitude ie an exemption for licences in UK & eu for each other’s lorries

And why would the EU allow that, a 3rd country having full access to the EU's internal freight haulage market, especially when we have no interest in access to yours.

downcow

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well the UK only had 984 for HGVs. Not sure about the rest, but the 60 is HGVs as well I think. The reason (before somebody starts blaming the EU) is that these are an OECD initiative to reduce air pollution. There are agreed quotas for each country and if you are a haulage company from outside the EU, it can be a real pain because you need one for each country you pass through.

Thanks
That would seem like one that would be easily sorted with the right attitude ie an exemption for licences in UK & eu for each other’s lorries

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

Thanks
That would seem like one that would be easily sorted with the right attitude ie an exemption for licences in UK & eu for each other’s lorries

The UK wants special preferential treatment from the EU even after a no-deal Brexit. I think that is known as exceptionalism, why should the UK get better terms than the other third countries the EU deals with?

tuxy

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The UK wants special preferential treatment from the EU even after a no-deal Brexit. I think that is known as exceptionalism, why should the UK get better terms than the other third countries the EU deals with?

Exactly why would the UK get preferential treatment to Turkey for example? It would make no sense.
Also as said the UK would have had a veto vote on many of these regulations so I take it they voted for them for good reason.

Imreoir2

tuxy wrote: »

Exactly why would the UK get preferential treatment to Turkey for example? It would make no sense.
Also as said the UK would have had a veto vote on many of these regulations so I take it they voted for them for good reason.

It really is quite patethic that Brexiteers have no better answer to the many problems of Brexit other than to say that the EU should fix it for the UK. Brexit has consequences.