kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
Water John wrote: » Really hope Ch4 go ahead with an interesting debate. Easy to be better than listening to May and Corbyn bore our lights out. Also, Ch4 more impartial and flying pigs will be shot down. How could some one like Andrew Neil chair a debate? He took a good swipe at Carole Cadwallader, of Aaron Banks inquiry. Wonder why that was???
flatty wrote: » A large swathe of the British public are elderly, bitter and a bit dim. This sadly is just a fact. The best of British are a match for anyone, and are wonderful people, but there are huge numbers of people of the type who complain that the Spanish spoil their holidays by not speaking English. Wrt to teresa may refusing to directly answer a question about delaying the vote, I cannot ever remember her answering a direct question about anything. If her govt put it to the people that the initial referendum was flawed by illegal Russian finance and interference, she would instantly be given a popular mandate for a rerun of the referendum. She will do absolutely everything in her power to avoid one, as it threatens what she perceives as her place in history. She doesn't give a flying fcuk about anything else. There will be a second referendum over her political corpse. That is all. She is an ardent brexiteer.
flatty wrote: » If her govt put it to the people that the initial referendum was flawed by illegal Russian finance and interference, she would instantly be given a popular mandate for a rerun of the referendum. She will do absolutely everything in her power to avoid one, as it threatens what she perceives as her place in history. She doesn't give a flying fcuk about anything else. There will be a second referendum over her political corpse. That is all. She is an ardent brexiteer.
Leroy42 wrote: » There is truth in that, except that this info has been out in the open for ages and yet a very large portion of the British public seem totally unconcerned and just want them to "get on with it" in terms of Brexit and the very notion of a second vote is seen as an affront to democracy.
Tell me how wrote: » This is what you end up with when you think that both sides must be represented irrespective of the absence of solid positions from one.https://twitter.com/CBCPolitics/status/922807122055790593?s=19 If there were good ideas for leaving, they'd be out there by now.
Craft's husband, billionaire coal-mining magnate Joe Craft, has criticized Obama's climate change policies.
funkey_monkey wrote: » I'm pro remain, but I feel like there is not enough spread of opinions in here.
Leroy42 wrote: » One simple area that the UK have so far failed to offer any insight in is how they are going to deal with the people in NI post Brexit. Currently, under GFA, a person from NI can be GB, ROI or both. But if they claim ROI then they can legitimately continue to have FoM. Why would people in NI be allowed to retain this when someone from Manchester is not?
funkey_monkey wrote: » TM's deal is a bad for remainers and brexiteers. The majority of MP's are against it. EU states the deal is what it is - you can change the font or the colour of the paper. Canada does not resolve the border problem to their liking as NI remains in CU and in their eyes is tantamount to breaking up of the union. Everyone agrees No Deal would be catastrophic and must be avoided. That only leaves remain option. I'm pro remain, but I feel like there is not enough spread of opinions in here.
Will EU leaders frustrate a managed withdrawal for the sake of a backstop that London, Dublin and Brussels all say they never want to see activated anyway? It’s hard to say. Many of the 27 governments, mindful of their own prosperity, would want to respond to an impasse by extending the current technical arrangements pending further talks. But some Eurocrats would rather see everyone suffer than watch a post-EU Britain succeed. So we need to prepare for the prospect of a disorderly Brexit. There would be costs for both sides. The euro crisis might flare up again, and the states nearest to Britain would take a hit. But there would be also be a heavy blow to the UK, which conducts a higher proportion of its trade across the Channel than anyone else. How might we soften that blow? Our preparations are in a better place than they were before the summer. The lights won’t fail in Northern Ireland. Planes won’t be denied landing slots. It’s true that, to the frustration of some ministers, the Treasury has refused to invest in new customs infrastructure. Then again, why should Britain want additional customs checks? The obvious response to a no-deal Brexit is to remove all our trade barriers. That was what turned Singapore from a poor, equatorial island into a gleaming metropolis. Singaporeans went from having half our income per head in the 1950s to nearly twice today. Why? Because in 1965, they responded to an acrimonious split with a larger neighbour (Malaysia) by slashing taxes, creating enterprise zones and opening their economy to the world. Such things are not easily done in a democracy. But attitudes change when people feel they are being bullied. And, make no mistake, if the EU refused to agree with Britain even the minimal courtesies that democracies take for granted with their neighbours, people would conclude that Britain was, in effect, being blockaded. In such a climate, voters would accept reforms that, in more tranquil times, they might see as too much bother.What reforms? After unilateral free trade, the most important would be tax cuts to stimulate growth and attract investment. Corporation tax should be reduced to the OECD minimum of ten per cent, and other taxes that impair economic activity, such as fuel duty, scrapped. Where would the money come from? Apart from the extra £39 billion that would be immediately freed up, we could drop HS2 and privatise more government assets, including land owned by the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. We should repeal anti-competitive EU regulations: the Temporary Workers Directive, the rules on art sales, the GM ban, the internet restrictions – including GDPR. We should ease planning restrictions. We should also (and this won’t be popular) ensure that the City retains its global re-eminence, abolishing the EU’s MiFID rules on transparency across financial markets, removing bonus caps, giving the FCA the explicit remit of increasing competitiveness. The Bank of England, similarly, should replace its inflation target with a growth target – an apparently minor reform that is critical if we need an emergency boost. But here’s the thing. We should have already embarked on these changes in anticipation of a possible breakdown. Instead, we are spending more and regulating more. EU negotiators have concluded that Theresa May has no interest in economic liberalisation. That has been the problem from the start.
RobMc59 wrote: » In that case getting the public to buy into such a well funded, organised brexit campaign was like shooting fish in a barrel for the cheating brexiteers-perhaps the British public should be cut some slack?
funkey_monkey wrote: » Does this not prove to a certain extent the Brexiteers point about the EU? The deal being offered is so bad that remaining is a better option.
demfad wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=n_wPxAd41js&app=desktophttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46460194 Good BBC Video and article (Finally) on the search for the source of Aaron Banks £8 million funding of Brexit: £2 Million to 'Better for the Country limited' and £6 million to LeaveEU. The ICO referred the matter of the sources of Banks Referendum Funding to the UK National Crime Agency saying they suspected crimes had taken place. Money for British elections must transparently come from the UK. Banks money allegedly came from a company called Rock Services of London but may have come from Rock Services in the Isle of Man. As the accounts for these companies are not transparent and the money is not coming from the company Banks says it was: crimes have been committed by providing False information to the Electoral Commission in order to use illegitimate funding. The £8 million spent by Banks was not legitimate. To understand how serious this is this amounts to more than the entire official Leave campaign allowance. The Russian ambassador to the UK who Mueller described as a central figure in Trump-Russia had met with banks and Wigmore several times at key points leading up to the Referendum. Other Russian officials met with them including a Russian spy deported after the Skripal poisoning. These meetings continued after the referendum at key points in Trump campaion (Day Bannon was appointed Campaign Manager, they met Ambassador in London day after "Bad Boys" Trump tower photo). They were offerred Gold mining deals backed by Sberbank. Banks runs diamond mines in SA which are perfect for laundering money. Potential Illegal spending by Leave campaigns to date:Vote Leave to BeLeave: £1m Crime + Fine LeaveEU/BFTCL : £8m Highly likely illegal source and Crime committed (regardless of Russian connection or not) =£9 million. This doesn't include undeclared benefits in kind by Cambridge Analytica to LeaveEU, or payments by DUP/VeteransForLeave to AIQ or DUP dark £1/2m In a high Court case, This Oxford Professor alleges that the Vote Leave/AIQ illegal overspend alone was enough to swing the Vote to Leave. Thats just a million. We are looking at probably £9m. There is no way in hell that Leaves would have won without cheating and committing crimes.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html
as overall spending grows, an increasing share goes to services, not goods. Consumption of manufactured goods keeps rising, but technological progress lets us produce those goods with ever fewer workers; so the economy shifts toward services. By the way, if you want to know what “services” means: Of the four occupations the Department of Labor expects to add the most jobs over the next decade, three are some kind of nursing (food workers are the fourth). And if you can’t imagine how a prosperous economy can be built on services, bear in mind that health care is a large source of middle-class jobs, and could provide even more with the right policies.
John Calm Ballerina wrote: » Yep, I'll be switching to Amazon.es, .fr, .de .it.... 😁 Amazon is a good example. They obviously do a huge amount of business in Ireland, I wonder what plans they have for Irish customers?
seamus wrote: » Assuming no deal, then you will see a bit of a jump. At the moment UK retailers who sell decent amounts into Ireland (think Amazon), charge our own rate of 23% VAT on the sale. But the goods are not subject to customs duties. After a no-deal exit, the UK site will sell the product to you ex-VAT, but Irish customs will require that you pay duty + VAT on the item. If the item costs less than €150, no duty will be collected on it, but VAT will be. So, not a major issue for the typical kind of online sales, since most are probably under €150. However, the package will be stopped and held by the carrier until you pay the VAT. So what was previously a simple transaction with a package that arrived 3 days later, now becomes a far more annoying transaction that may take two weeks to reach you. For this reason alone, most people will switch to other EU suppliers for online shopping.
