Discussion:
Trial "free trade" deal with USA - 300% tariffs
(too old to reply)
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-07 10:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What has Boris done?

Off he went to the USA and sure enough Trump then announces there will be a quick and comprehensive trade deal with the UK.

Sure enough within weeks: -

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-commerce/u-s-backs-300-percent-in-duties-on-bombardier-after-boeing-complaint-idUSKBN1CB29X
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/06/us-escalates-trade-dispute-with-uk-and-canada-over-bombardier-jets

Could the UK retaliate, sorry reciprocate, with 300% duty on iPhones?
BurfordTJustice
2017-10-07 11:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Probably not the UK lost its balls decades ago.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What has Boris done?
Off he went to the USA and sure enough Trump then announces there will be
a quick and comprehensive trade deal with the UK.
Sure enough within weeks: -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-commerce/u-s-backs-300-percent-in-duties-on-bombardier-after-boeing-complaint-idUSKBN1CB29X
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/06/us-escalates-trade-dispute-with-uk-and-canada-over-bombardier-jets
Could the UK retaliate, sorry reciprocate, with 300% duty on iPhones?
Ian Jackson
2017-10-07 11:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What has Boris done?
Off he went to the USA and sure enough Trump then announces there will
be a quick and comprehensive trade deal with the UK.
Sure enough within weeks: -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-commerce/u-s-backs-
300-percent-in-duties-on-bombardier-after-boeing-complaint-idUSKBN1CB29X
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/06/us-escalates-trade-disp
ute-with-uk-and-canada-over-bombardier-jets
Could the UK retaliate, sorry reciprocate, with 300% duty on iPhones?
I can't see what the problem is. This IS a trade deal - one where we pay
300% tariff.
--
Ian
Jethro_uk
2017-10-07 16:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You missed the kicker, which is the unions asking (begging ?) the EU to
get involved.
Phi
2017-10-07 17:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
You missed the kicker, which is the unions asking (begging ?) the EU to
get involved.
A lot of Boeing's investment in research and development is shifted from
lucrative military contracts. I remember back in the seventies where a
company called Federal Scientific started marketing an FFT Analyser totally
backed with American defence money.

I am also wondering if the Bombardier production has any highly advanced
systems in place that the yanks don't like.......similar to the TSR2
debacle.

http://theconversation.com/when-the-federal-budget-funds-scientific-research-its-the-economy-that-benefits-80651
Jethro_uk
2017-10-08 10:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phi
I am also wondering if the Bombardier production has any highly advanced
systems in place that the yanks don't like.......similar to the TSR2
debacle.
TSR2 was obsolete before it flew. (Nice surviving model at RAF Cosford)
Fredxxx
2017-10-07 17:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What has Boris done?
Off he went to the USA and sure enough Trump then announces there will be a quick and comprehensive trade deal with the UK.
Sure enough within weeks: -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-commerce/u-s-backs-300-percent-in-duties-on-bombardier-after-boeing-complaint-idUSKBN1CB29X
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/06/us-escalates-trade-dispute-with-uk-and-canada-over-bombardier-jets
The lack of EU intervention says more about what little the EU does for us.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Could the UK retaliate, sorry reciprocate, with 300% duty on iPhones?
Given they don't use the industry standard charging adaptors I don't see
the problem with that. But that's more reason to leave the EU so we can
do something about it.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-08 11:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What has Boris done?
Off he went to the USA and sure enough Trump then announces there will be a quick and comprehensive trade deal with the UK.
Sure enough within weeks: -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-commerce/u-s-backs-300-percent-in-duties-on-bombardier-after-boeing-complaint-idUSKBN1CB29X
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/06/us-escalates-trade-dispute-with-uk-and-canada-over-bombardier-jets
The lack of EU intervention says more about what little the EU does for us.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Could the UK retaliate, sorry reciprocate, with 300% duty on iPhones?
Given they don't use the industry standard charging adaptors
You do know that it was the EU that pushed standardising the connector on micro USB don't you?

Crapple always do things in a proprietary way to rip off their customers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Apple_Inc.
Post by Fredxxx
I don't see
the problem with that. But that's more reason to leave the EU so we can
do something about it.
like concerted action over a whole continent - oh wait a minute...
Fredxxx
2017-10-08 11:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxxx
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What has Boris done?
Off he went to the USA and sure enough Trump then announces there will be a quick and comprehensive trade deal with the UK.
Sure enough within weeks: -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-commerce/u-s-backs-300-percent-in-duties-on-bombardier-after-boeing-complaint-idUSKBN1CB29X
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/06/us-escalates-trade-dispute-with-uk-and-canada-over-bombardier-jets
The lack of EU intervention says more about what little the EU does for us.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Could the UK retaliate, sorry reciprocate, with 300% duty on iPhones?
Given they don't use the industry standard charging adaptors
You do know that it was the EU that pushed standardising the connector on micro USB don't you?
I have never said that there aren't good aspects to the EU, there are
many. Indeed even when we leave I'm sure there will be an attempt at
maintaining harmony of standards.

The issue is where the bad outweigh the good. Can you ever accept there
are some good aspects to Brexit? Are you truly as blinkered as MM?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Crapple always do things in a proprietary way to rip off their customers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Apple_Inc.
Then their customers can pay. I recall a thread where you were
complaining that Apple were raising their prices, you seem to like your
cake and eat it.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxxx
I don't see
the problem with that. But that's more reason to leave the EU so we can
do something about it.
like concerted action over a whole continent - oh wait a minute...
That doesn't happen, when a small province in Belgium can veto the rest
of the continent.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-08 11:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxxx
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What has Boris done?
Off he went to the USA and sure enough Trump then announces there will be a quick and comprehensive trade deal with the UK.
Sure enough within weeks: -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-commerce/u-s-backs-300-percent-in-duties-on-bombardier-after-boeing-complaint-idUSKBN1CB29X
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/06/us-escalates-trade-dispute-with-uk-and-canada-over-bombardier-jets
The lack of EU intervention says more about what little the EU does for us.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Could the UK retaliate, sorry reciprocate, with 300% duty on iPhones?
Given they don't use the industry standard charging adaptors
You do know that it was the EU that pushed standardising the connector on micro USB don't you?
I have never said that there aren't good aspects to the EU, there are
many. Indeed even when we leave I'm sure there will be an attempt at
maintaining harmony of standards.
Hopefully, and there are international standards e.g. ITU for telecoms.
Post by Fredxxx
The issue is where the bad outweigh the good. Can you ever accept there
are some good aspects to Brexit? Are you truly as blinkered as MM?
The potential for cheap New Zealand lamb was about the only thing so far...
Post by Fredxxx
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Crapple always do things in a proprietary way to rip off their customers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Apple_Inc.
Then their customers can pay. I recall a thread where you were
complaining that Apple were raising their prices, you seem to like your
cake and eat it.
The price rises I complained about were the ones caused by the post leave vote on the Fx rate of the pound.

Apple gouges their customers all right, but I am not one of them.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxxx
I don't see
the problem with that. But that's more reason to leave the EU so we can
do something about it.
like concerted action over a whole continent - oh wait a minute...
That doesn't happen, when a small province in Belgium can veto the rest
of the continent.
So the EU bosses can't just impose their will arbitrarily as Brexiteers claim?
pamela
2017-10-07 22:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What has Boris done?
Off he went to the USA and sure enough Trump then announces
there will be a quick and comprehensive trade deal with the UK.
Sure enough within weeks: -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-commerce/u-s
-backs-300-percent-in-duties-on-bombardier-after-boeing-complaint
-idUSKBN1CB29X
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/06/us-escalates-tra
de-dispute-with-uk-and-canada-over-bombardier-jets
Could the UK retaliate, sorry reciprocate, with 300% duty on
iPhones?
As the UK is still in the EU maybe the EU can have some stern words
with the US on our behalf.

Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why should
they care about the UK.
Mike Swift
2017-10-07 23:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why should they
care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?

Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
pamela
2017-10-07 23:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over the money
if we want further agreements.

We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have predicted
that.
Yellow
2017-10-08 01:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over the money
if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have predicted
that.
So we should stay in the EU?
pamela
2017-10-08 10:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over the
money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
Yellow
2017-10-08 12:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over the
money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.

You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we do? Stay
in the EU?
pamela
2017-10-08 14:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:18:43 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over
the money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we
do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the EU has us over
a barrel.
Yellow
2017-10-08 15:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:18:43 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over
the money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we
do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the EU has us over
a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it makes a
difference to people who want to leave either?
pamela
2017-10-08 16:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:24:29 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:18:43 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so
why should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over
the money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could
have predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should
we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the EU has
us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it makes a
difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit negotiations.
Haven't you noticed?

Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a barrel?
Altroy1
2017-10-08 18:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:24:29 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:18:43 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so
why should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over
the money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could
have predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should
we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the EU has
us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it makes a
difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit negotiations.
Haven't you noticed?
Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a barrel?
Boris promised that vote leave would make June 24 2016 quote "independence day"
but now apparently signs up to this two year (albeit he claims "not a second
more") transition. And the terms of the transition he reportedly signed up to?
The EU puts it like this:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/brexit-steering-group/en/documents.html


..... underlines that such a transitional period, when the
United Kingdom is no longer a Member State, can only be
the continuation of the whole of the acquis communautaire
which entails the full application of the four freedoms
(free movement of citizens, capital, services and goods),
and that this must take place without any limitation on
the free movement of persons through the imposition of any
new conditions; stresses that such a transitional period
can only be envisaged under the full jurisdiction of the
Court of Justice of the European Union (`CJEU'); insists
that such a transition period can only be agreed provided
that a fully-fledged withdrawal agreement covering all the
issues pertaining to the United Kingdom's withdrawal is
concluded; ......
pamela
2017-10-08 17:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:08:51 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:24:29 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:18:43 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so
why should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over
the money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could
have predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should
we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the EU has
us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it makes a
difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit
negotiations. Haven't you noticed?
Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a barrel?
Boris promised that vote leave would make June 24 2016 quote
"independence day" but now apparently signs up to this two year
(albeit he claims "not a second more") transition. And the terms
of the transition he reportedly signed up to?
It would be entirely typical of Boris to suddenly waive his "not a
second more" at the drop of a hat. It has no useful meaning.
Post by Altroy1
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/brexit-steering-group/
en/documents.html
..... underlines that such a transitional period, when the
United Kingdom is no longer a Member State, can only be
the continuation of the whole of the acquis communautaire
which entails the full application of the four freedoms
(free movement of citizens, capital, services and goods),
and that this must take place without any limitation on
the free movement of persons through the imposition of any
new conditions; stresses that such a transitional period
can only be envisaged under the full jurisdiction of the
Court of Justice of the European Union (`CJEU'); insists
that such a transition period can only be agreed provided
that a fully-fledged withdrawal agreement covering all the
issues pertaining to the United Kingdom's withdrawal is
concluded; ......
So much for a quick hard Brexit.
Yellow
2017-10-08 20:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:24:29 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could
have predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should
we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the EU has
us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it makes a
difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit negotiations.
Haven't you noticed?
So do you think that for that reason alone, people who want to leave the
EU should change their position to staying in the EU?
Post by pamela
Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a barrel?
The UK always has the option to walk away so on that basis, I guess my
answer would have to be no.
pamela
2017-10-09 10:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:08:51 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:24:29 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could
have predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what
should we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the EU
has us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it makes
a difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit
negotiations. Haven't you noticed?
So do you think that for that reason alone, people who want to
leave the EU should change their position to staying in the EU?
Who claimed that?
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a barrel?
The UK always has the option to walk away so on that basis, I
guess my answer would have to be no.
Of course it's a wild possibility but seems very unlikely if we
want to conclude an agreement with the EU.
Yellow
2017-10-09 11:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:08:51 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:24:29 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could
have predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what
should we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the EU
has us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it makes
a difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit
negotiations. Haven't you noticed?
So do you think that for that reason alone, people who want to
leave the EU should change their position to staying in the EU?
Who claimed that?
Clearly, I thought, I am simply asking for your opinion.

Is there a reason you are being so defensive?
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a barrel?
The UK always has the option to walk away so on that basis, I
guess my answer would have to be no.
Of course it's a wild possibility but seems very unlikely if we
want to conclude an agreement with the EU.
What is the solution then? If the EU have us over this barrel.
pamela
2017-10-09 13:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 17:33:47 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:08:51 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:24:29 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer
could have predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what
should we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the EU
has us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it
makes a difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit
negotiations. Haven't you noticed?
So do you think that for that reason alone, people who want
to leave the EU should change their position to staying in
the EU?
Who claimed that?
Clearly, I thought, I am simply asking for your opinion.
Is there a reason you are being so defensive?
Then to answer your question.... no, not for that reason alone.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by pamela
Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a barrel?
The UK always has the option to walk away so on that basis, I
guess my answer would have to be no.
Of course it's a wild possibility but seems very unlikely if we
want to conclude an agreement with the EU.
What is the solution then? If the EU have us over this barrel.
Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this mess.
Yellow
2017-10-09 16:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what
should we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the EU
has us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it
makes a difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit
negotiations. Haven't you noticed?
So do you think that for that reason alone, people who want
to leave the EU should change their position to staying in
the EU?
Who claimed that?
Clearly, I thought, I am simply asking for your opinion.
Is there a reason you are being so defensive?
Then to answer your question.... no, not for that reason alone.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a barrel?
The UK always has the option to walk away so on that basis, I
guess my answer would have to be no.
Of course it's a wild possibility but seems very unlikely if we
want to conclude an agreement with the EU.
What is the solution then? If the EU have us over this barrel.
Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this mess.
The mess being that the EU, in your view, have the whip hand?

Given you do not however think this is sufficient for the UK to change
its mind and stay in the EU, I guess the next question has to be - so
what?

If they really do have us over your barrel, then our only options are to
agree to the unreasonable terms "over a barrel" implies, or walk.

Would you agree?
pamela
2017-10-09 17:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:11:01 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what
should we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the
EU has us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it
makes a difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit
negotiations. Haven't you noticed?
So do you think that for that reason alone, people who
want to leave the EU should change their position to
staying in the EU?
Who claimed that?
Clearly, I thought, I am simply asking for your opinion.
Is there a reason you are being so defensive?
Then to answer your question.... no, not for that reason alone.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a
barrel?
The UK always has the option to walk away so on that
basis, I guess my answer would have to be no.
Of course it's a wild possibility but seems very unlikely if
we want to conclude an agreement with the EU.
What is the solution then? If the EU have us over this
barrel.
Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this mess.
The mess being that the EU, in your view, have the whip hand?
The mess is to do with progress we are making and the outcome we
may get with leaving the EU, the arrangements we will have with
the EU after we leave and the arrangements we will have with non-
EU trading partners.
Post by Yellow
Given you do not however think this is sufficient for the UK to
change its mind and stay in the EU, I guess the next question
has to be - so what?
The UK would do better to stay in the EU.

We are not getting £350 million a week but having to pay out
divorce money to the EU. EU immigrants will be replaced by ROW
immigration. Our trade with the EU might well incur significant
tariffs and trade with ROW has not been agreed.

Exactly what are the tangible benefits Britain gains by leaving?
Post by Yellow
If they really do have us over your barrel, then our only
options are to agree to the unreasonable terms "over a barrel"
implies, or walk.
Would you agree?
Now that the true details and costs of leaving are becoming
clearer, we should think carefully if we want to leave at all.
Yellow
2017-10-09 19:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this mess.
The mess being that the EU, in your view, have the whip hand?
The mess is to do with progress we are making and the outcome we
may get with leaving the EU, the arrangements we will have with
the EU after we leave and the arrangements we will have with non-
EU trading partners.
Did you think a deal would have been struck by now then?
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Given you do not however think this is sufficient for the UK to
change its mind and stay in the EU, I guess the next question
has to be - so what?
The UK would do better to stay in the EU.
Why? Because it is too hard to leave?
Post by pamela
We are not getting £350 million a week but having to pay out
divorce money to the EU.
But you do realise that the settlement will be a one off, yes?
Post by pamela
EU immigrants will be replaced by ROW immigration.
They will? This is news.
Post by pamela
Our trade with the EU might well incur significant
tariffs and trade with ROW has not been agreed.
Exactly what are the tangible benefits Britain gains by leaving?
In my opinion it is of benefit that will not longer be part of the
Single Market or Customs Union and we will not ever be part of the EU's
drive towards "ever closer union".

So, no more FOM, no more competing with 27 other countries for
government tenders, the opportunity for non-EU trade deals, no more red
tape for companies that do not export which is the same as if they did,
no more laws that are not in the UK's interest, and did I mention - no
"ever closer union"?

Just off the top of my head of course.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
If they really do have us over your barrel, then our only
options are to agree to the unreasonable terms "over a barrel"
implies, or walk.
Would you agree?
Now that the true details and costs of leaving are becoming
clearer, we should think carefully if we want to leave at all.
Because our membership of the EU is only about money? In your opinion,
that is.
pamela
2017-10-09 22:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:19:04 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this mess.
The mess being that the EU, in your view, have the whip hand?
The mess is to do with progress we are making and the outcome
we may get with leaving the EU, the arrangements we will have
with the EU after we leave and the arrangements we will have
with non- EU trading partners.
Did you think a deal would have been struck by now then?
I ownder, did you?
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Given you do not however think this is sufficient for the UK
to change its mind and stay in the EU, I guess the next
question has to be - so what?
The UK would do better to stay in the EU.
Why?
The real question is why is it better to leave rather than stay.
Post by Yellow
Because it is too hard to leave?
Of course, the difficulty of leaving does not even arise if you
choose to stay and staying has its own advantages too.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
We are not getting £350 million a week but having to pay out
divorce money to the EU.
But you do realise that the settlement will be a one off, yes?
How many billion do you estimate the settlement will be? I guess
we should now add the two additional years Theresa May propose
during which time it was be surprising if the EU invests in the UK
as heavily as when it had not triggered Article 50.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
EU immigrants will be replaced by ROW immigration.
They will? This is news.
"more recent figures we have suggest we might be seeing a return
to having more immigration from the rest of the world than from
the EU."

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Our trade with the EU might well incur significant
tariffs and trade with ROW has not been agreed.
Exactly what are the tangible benefits Britain gains by
leaving?
In my opinion it is of benefit that will not longer be part of
the Single Market or Customs Union and we will not ever be part
of the EU's drive towards "ever closer union".
How tangible is that? I suggest it is not very tangible at all.
Post by Yellow
So, no more FOM, no more competing with 27 other countries for
government tenders, the opportunity for non-EU trade deals, no
more red tape for companies that do not export which is the same
as if they did, no more laws that are not in the UK's interest,
and did I mention - no "ever closer union"?
Does any of that have hard monetary value to us or do we only end
up with a warm feeling and less need for us to stay competitive?

There's just no need for all this "Rule Brittania, Britons will
never be slaves". France is a nation just as proud of its
indepedence as we are and it had no fear that its sovereignty is
going to be engulfed by the EU but to Brexiteers it is now the
primary objective.
Post by Yellow
Just off the top of my head of course.
Post by pamela
If they really do have us over your barrel, then our only
options are to agree to the unreasonable terms "over a
barrel" implies, or walk.
Would you agree?
Now that the true details and costs of leaving are becoming
clearer, we should think carefully if we want to leave at all.
Because our membership of the EU is only about money? In your
opinion, that is.
The biggest selling point the Leave campaign could think of before
the referendum was plastered across their battle bus and it
referred to £350 million per week.

What's the point of us making essentially the same laws as the EU
does (and whatever else you believe is the benfit of Brexit) if
that costs us a significant amount of money every year together
with a loss of jobs from fleeing industries?
Yellow
2017-10-10 00:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:19:04 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this mess.
The mess being that the EU, in your view, have the whip hand?
The mess is to do with progress we are making and the outcome
we may get with leaving the EU, the arrangements we will have
with the EU after we leave and the arrangements we will have
with non- EU trading partners.
Did you think a deal would have been struck by now then?
I ownder, did you?
So you didn't think a deal would be struck by now? Which is it?
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Given you do not however think this is sufficient for the UK
to change its mind and stay in the EU, I guess the next
question has to be - so what?
The UK would do better to stay in the EU.
Why?
The real question is why is it better to leave rather than stay.
Because that was the result of the referendum.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Because it is too hard to leave?
Of course, the difficulty of leaving does not even arise if you
choose to stay and staying has its own advantages too.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
We are not getting £350 million a week but having to pay out
divorce money to the EU.
But you do realise that the settlement will be a one off, yes?
How many billion do you estimate the settlement will be?
I don't know. Less is better but it is not something I am going to get
het up over, as long as payments stop after.

As a net contributor, leaving is always going to be cheaper than
staying.
Post by pamela
I guess
we should now add the two additional years Theresa May propose
during which time it was be surprising if the EU invests in the UK
as heavily as when it had not triggered Article 50.
One of the EU's demands is that the UK pays to the end of the current
budget period, your "extra 2 years" - so this is not additional but
instead is what the UK has said it will agree to.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
EU immigrants will be replaced by ROW immigration.
They will? This is news.
"more recent figures we have suggest we might be seeing a return
to having more immigration from the rest of the world than from
the EU."
But you said "replaced" - which is clearly rubbish.

And so what if we have more people from outside the EU?
Post by pamela
https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Our trade with the EU might well incur significant
tariffs and trade with ROW has not been agreed.
Exactly what are the tangible benefits Britain gains by
leaving?
In my opinion it is of benefit that will not longer be part of
the Single Market or Customs Union and we will not ever be part
of the EU's drive towards "ever closer union".
How tangible is that? I suggest it is not very tangible at all.
Tangible - a thing that is perceptible by touch.

You mean like you want the benefits and pitfalls of EU membership to be
cast in aspic?
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
So, no more FOM, no more competing with 27 other countries for
government tenders, the opportunity for non-EU trade deals, no
more red tape for companies that do not export which is the same
as if they did, no more laws that are not in the UK's interest,
and did I mention - no "ever closer union"?
Does any of that have hard monetary value to us or do we only end
up with a warm feeling and less need for us to stay competitive?
So, for example, you do not think that it might be in the UK's interest
to purchase fit for purpose goods from a UK manufacturer, employing UK
residents, rather than having to field (at £27,000 each according to
LUL's purchasing department) tenders from across the EU, having to
legally accept imported goods instead?

You also do not think it might be in the UK's interest to not have a
flood of cheap labour to increase the profits of big business to save
them having to train and employ UK residents?

And you do not think it is in UK's consumer's interest to be able to
purchase food from outside the EU rather than having to pay extra to
subsidise EU agriculture?
Post by pamela
There's just no need for all this "Rule Brittania, Britons will
never be slaves". France is a nation just as proud of its
indepedence as we are and it had no fear that its sovereignty is
going to be engulfed by the EU but to Brexiteers it is now the
primary objective.
If you think France is so cool, please feel free to go and live there. I
hope you are thin or you will not get a job.

http://tinyurl.com/ydbfeahv

or

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/10/gabrielle-deydier-fat-
in-france-abuse-grossophobia-book-women
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Just off the top of my head of course.
Post by pamela
If they really do have us over your barrel, then our only
options are to agree to the unreasonable terms "over a
barrel" implies, or walk.
Would you agree?
Now that the true details and costs of leaving are becoming
clearer, we should think carefully if we want to leave at all.
Because our membership of the EU is only about money? In your
opinion, that is.
The biggest selling point the Leave campaign could think of before
the referendum was plastered across their battle bus and it
referred to £350 million per week.
I ask again - do *you* think our membership of the EU should only be
measured in terms of money?
Post by pamela
What's the point of us making essentially the same laws as the EU
does (and whatever else you believe is the benfit of Brexit) if
that costs us a significant amount of money every year together
with a loss of jobs from fleeing industries?
Because it is not (just) about the money.
pamela
2017-10-10 16:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 18:28:51 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:19:04 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this
mess.
The mess being that the EU, in your view, have the whip
hand?
The mess is to do with progress we are making and the
outcome we may get with leaving the EU, the arrangements we
will have with the EU after we leave and the arrangements we
will have with non- EU trading partners.
Did you think a deal would have been struck by now then?
I ownder, did you?
So you didn't think a deal would be struck by now? Which is it?
Post by pamela
Post by pamela
Given you do not however think this is sufficient for the
UK to change its mind and stay in the EU, I guess the next
question has to be - so what?
The UK would do better to stay in the EU.
Why?
The real question is why is it better to leave rather than
stay.
Because that was the result of the referendum.
That is one definition of "better". Better because it reflects
the referendum.

However it is not better economically. Nor for our own free
movement through EU countries. Nor for international
environmental agreements. Nor pan-European research. Nor for
British farmers. Etc.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Because it is too hard to leave?
Of course, the difficulty of leaving does not even arise if you
choose to stay and staying has its own advantages too.
Post by pamela
We are not getting £350 million a week but having to pay out
divorce money to the EU.
But you do realise that the settlement will be a one off,
yes?
How many billion do you estimate the settlement will be?
I don't know. Less is better but it is not something I am going
to get het up over, as long as payments stop after.
As a net contributor, leaving is always going to be cheaper than
staying.
The Leavers' calculations of net contribution were selective and
stated with the misleading idea that we would be better off to the
tune of £350 million per week.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
I guess we should now add the two additional years Theresa May
propose during which time it was be surprising if the EU
invests in the UK as heavily as when it had not triggered
Article 50.
One of the EU's demands is that the UK pays to the end of the
current budget period, your "extra 2 years" - so this is not
additional but instead is what the UK has said it will agree to.
Not cheap, is it.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by pamela
EU immigrants will be replaced by ROW immigration.
They will? This is news.
"more recent figures we have suggest we might be seeing a
return to having more immigration from the rest of the world
than from the EU."
But you said "replaced" - which is clearly rubbish.
Depends what you mean by replaced. You have chosen just one
meaning but the article uses a more common meaning in their
context and I would agree with them.
Post by Yellow
And so what if we have more people from outside the EU?
One of the biggest selling points fo Brexit was the significant
reduction in immigrants which control of our own borders would
bring.

In fact, we will end up with fewer EU immigrants and more ROW
immigrants. I don't know about you but I would far rather have EU
immigrants here than immigrants from other continents with their
non-European cultures.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
Post by pamela
Our trade with the EU might well incur significant tariffs
and trade with ROW has not been agreed.
Exactly what are the tangible benefits Britain gains by
leaving?
In my opinion it is of benefit that will not longer be part
of the Single Market or Customs Union and we will not ever be
part of the EU's drive towards "ever closer union".
How tangible is that? I suggest it is not very tangible at
all.
Tangible - a thing that is perceptible by touch.
Exactly. Not dreamy fluffy notions like sovereignty for its own
sake. Sovereignty is of value if it brings real world tangible
benefits.
Post by Yellow
You mean like you want the benefits and pitfalls of EU
membership to be cast in aspic?
Did you really mean "aspic"? It doesn't sound right.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
So, no more FOM, no more competing with 27 other countries
for government tenders, the opportunity for non-EU trade
deals, no more red tape for companies that do not export
which is the same as if they did, no more laws that are not
in the UK's interest, and did I mention - no "ever closer
union"?
Does any of that have hard monetary value to us or do we only
end up with a warm feeling and less need for us to stay
competitive?
So, for example, you do not think that it might be in the UK's
interest to purchase fit for purpose goods from a UK
manufacturer, employing UK residents, rather than having to
field (at £27,000 each according to LUL's purchasing department)
tenders from across the EU, having to legally accept imported
goods instead?
Competition is healthy. If we manufacture something better than
other countries do then we should be allowed to propose it on EU
government tenders. Of course, we also have to accept the
reverse.

The consumer in the UK doesn't really want to subsidise British
jobs of the product supplied under a preferential deal is more
expensive or less good that from another source. If we have to
prop up a particualr industry then, rather than favouritism, we
can ask central government to help them direct.
Post by Yellow
You also do not think it might be in the UK's interest to not
have a flood of cheap labour to increase the profits of big
business to save them having to train and employ UK residents?
Fortress Britain is not going to work in the modern world.
Post by Yellow
And you do not think it is in UK's consumer's interest to be
able to purchase food from outside the EU rather than having to
pay extra to subsidise EU agriculture?
Don't forget the EU helps subsidise British agriculture. Farmers
were politically favoured to ensure self-sufficiency in times of
strife or war. Getting necessary food from half way across the
world in New Zealand is hardly a recipe for doing that.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
There's just no need for all this "Rule Brittania, Britons will
never be slaves". France is a nation just as proud of its
indepedence as we are and it had no fear that its sovereignty
is going to be engulfed by the EU but to Brexiteers it is now
the primary objective.
If you think France is so cool, please feel free to go and live
there. I hope you are thin or you will not get a job.
http://tinyurl.com/ydbfeahv
or
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/10/gabrielle-
deydier-fat-in-france-abuse-grossophobia-book-women
I'm not sure how fat women in France relate to my statement that
France is a nation which is just as proud of its independence as
we are but has no fear that its sovereignty is going to be
engulfed by EU institutions which Brexiteers seem to think will
happen with Britain.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Just off the top of my head of course.
Post by pamela
If they really do have us over your barrel, then our only
options are to agree to the unreasonable terms "over a
barrel" implies, or walk.
Would you agree?
Now that the true details and costs of leaving are becoming
clearer, we should think carefully if we want to leave at
all.
Because our membership of the EU is only about money? In your
opinion, that is.
The biggest selling point the Leave campaign could think of
before the referendum was plastered across their battle bus and
it referred to £350 million per week.
I ask again - do *you* think our membership of the EU should
only be measured in terms of money?
Post by pamela
What's the point of us making essentially the same laws as the
EU does (and whatever else you believe is the benfit of Brexit)
if that costs us a significant amount of money every year
together with a loss of jobs from fleeing industries?
Because it is not (just) about the money.
Britain's place in the EU may be about more than money but that
does not mean it is about everything other than money. As Boris
and Gove who knew that their £350 million a week slogan, even if
false, had a major appeal to the British voter.
Handsome Jack
2017-10-10 17:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
One of the EU's demands is that the UK pays to the end of the
current budget period, your "extra 2 years" - so this is not
additional but instead is what the UK has said it will agree to.
Not cheap, is it.
It's the same as we are paying now, so is essentially cost-neutral.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
And so what if we have more people from outside the EU?
One of the biggest selling points fo Brexit was the significant
reduction in immigrants which control of our own borders would
bring.
In fact, we will end up with fewer EU immigrants and more ROW
immigrants. I don't know about you but I would far rather have EU
immigrants here than immigrants from other continents with their
non-European cultures.
It depends on the numbers and the skill levels. If the numbers of Polish
labourers falls and the number of South African nurses increases, that's
not a bad thing.

snip
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
You also do not think it might be in the UK's interest to not
have a flood of cheap labour to increase the profits of big
business to save them having to train and employ UK residents?
Fortress Britain is not going to work in the modern world.
Do you seriously consider that "Fortress Britain, Fortress Britain, na
na na-na na" is a suitable answer to Yellow's point that EU membership
has let in a flood of cheap labour to the disadvantage of native
workers?
--
Jack
pamela
2017-10-11 00:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
One of the EU's demands is that the UK pays to the end of the
current budget period, your "extra 2 years" - so this is not
additional but instead is what the UK has said it will agree
to.
Not cheap, is it.
It's the same as we are paying now, so is essentially
cost-neutral.
It is an extra 2 years over and above what we have predicted we
would pay after triggering article 50. It has yet to be decided
what benefits and rights the UK will have in that transition
period but I doubt it will the full rights of a member state.
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
And so what if we have more people from outside the EU?
One of the biggest selling points fo Brexit was the significant
reduction in immigrants which control of our own borders would
bring.
In fact, we will end up with fewer EU immigrants and more ROW
immigrants. I don't know about you but I would far rather have
EU immigrants here than immigrants from other continents with
their non-European cultures.
It depends on the numbers and the skill levels. If the numbers
of Polish labourers falls and the number of South African nurses
increases, that's not a bad thing.
You're moving the goal posts. So let me make it clear.... all
other things being equal, I would far rather have EU immigrants
here than immigrants from other continents with their non-European
cultures.

I would rather have Polish nurses than South African nurses.

I would rather have Polish labourers than South African labourers.
Post by Handsome Jack
snip
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
You also do not think it might be in the UK's interest to not
have a flood of cheap labour to increase the profits of big
business to save them having to train and employ UK residents?
Fortress Britain is not going to work in the modern world.
Do you seriously consider that "Fortress Britain, Fortress
Britain, na na na-na na" is a suitable answer to Yellow's point
that EU membership has let in a flood of cheap labour to the
disadvantage of native workers?
I was making a serious point. Here it is again: Fortress Britain
is not going to work in the modern world. In recent decades trade
has progressed to multi-national and multi-lateral agrrangements
and a country like the UK would find it tougher if it became
highlty nationalistic and withdrew from all that.
Yellow
2017-10-10 18:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The real question is why is it better to leave rather than
stay.
Because that was the result of the referendum.
That is one definition of "better". Better because it reflects
the referendum.
You reject that reason?
Post by pamela
However it is not better economically.
That is only *your* definition of better.
Post by pamela
Nor for our own free
movement through EU countries. Nor for international
environmental agreements. Nor pan-European research. Nor for
British farmers. Etc.
But do other people share your vision "better"?
Yellow
2017-10-10 18:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
How many billion do you estimate the settlement will be?
I don't know. Less is better but it is not something I am going
to get het up over, as long as payments stop after.
As a net contributor, leaving is always going to be cheaper than
staying.
The Leavers' calculations of net contribution were selective and
stated with the misleading idea that we would be better off to the
tune of £350 million per week.
You do understand that UK is a net contributor to the EU, don't you?

I ask because this post suggests you are unclear on this fact.
Yellow
2017-10-10 18:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
EU immigrants will be replaced by ROW immigration.
They will? This is news.
"more recent figures we have suggest we might be seeing a
return to having more immigration from the rest of the world
than from the EU."
But you said "replaced" - which is clearly rubbish.
Depends what you mean by replaced.
Replace - to take the place of.

EU immigrants are not being asked to leave and they will still be
welcome in the future along with folks from the rest of the world,
depending of course on the immigration rules at the time.
Post by pamela
You have chosen just one
meaning but the article uses a more common meaning in their
context and I would agree with them.
There is only one definition so if you did not mean what you initially
wrote then you simply need to say so.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
And so what if we have more people from outside the EU?
One of the biggest selling points fo Brexit was the significant
reduction in immigrants which control of our own borders would
bring.
Yep - end to Freedom of Movement. This idea was *very* popular.
Post by pamela
In fact, we will end up with fewer EU immigrants and more ROW
immigrants.
I ask again - so what if we have more people from outside the EU?
Post by pamela
I don't know about you but I would far rather have EU
immigrants here than immigrants from other continents with their
non-European cultures.
You quite clearly "don't know about me".

If people are educated and skilled and we need what they have to offer,
I do not care if they come from Poland, Spain, Japan, Australia or even
countries where they have black people.

I thought it was Leavers who were supposed to be the "little
englanders" here!
tim...
2017-10-10 20:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
EU immigrants will be replaced by ROW immigration.
They will? This is news.
"more recent figures we have suggest we might be seeing a
return to having more immigration from the rest of the world
than from the EU."
But you said "replaced" - which is clearly rubbish.
Depends what you mean by replaced.
Replace - to take the place of.
EU immigrants are not being asked to leave
yes but,

after leaving the EU has knackered the UK economy so that it is 10% smaller
than it is now

we will still, apparently, need an extra 200,000 minimum paid workers to
support our growing economy,

Um which is it then?

tim
Yellow
2017-10-10 18:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Competition is healthy.
Why? Government tenders do not give suppliers the free rein to charge
whatever they want and often specify the maximum profit that can be
earners by the supplier, who has to submit their books.
Post by pamela
If we manufacture something better than
other countries do then we should be allowed to propose it on EU
government tenders. Of course, we also have to accept the
reverse.
You do love that word "better" don't you. Ok, here we go again....

Please define "better" with respect to manufactured goods and when you
have done that, you can go on to explain why a country should be forced
to consider goods from abroad when it can buy perfectly suitable goods
from its own country.

What possible benefit can you see, being *forced* to do this?
Post by pamela
The consumer
More likely it would be the tax payer.
Post by pamela
in the UK doesn't really want to subsidise British
jobs of the product supplied under a preferential deal is more
expensive or less good that from another source.
But what if the goods are not more expensive? And are just as good? The
point is the UK is *forced* to put contracts out to tender to businesses
in the EU once the value of that contract exceeds a certain amount.

Out of interest, does it also follow that the UK consumer should be able
to purchase cheap New Zealand lamb rather than Welsh lamb?
Post by pamela
If we have to
prop up a particualr industry then, rather than favouritism, we
can ask central government to help them direct.
So to be clear - you consider the UK tax payer's cash being used to buy
perfectly decent goods from a UK supplier, creating good quality jobs
and trained personnel rather than buying say, German goods thus creating
good quality jobs and trained personnel in Germany, is "propped up"?
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
You also do not think it might be in the UK's interest to not
have a flood of cheap labour to increase the profits of big
business to save them having to train and employ UK residents?
Fortress Britain is not going to work in the modern world.
Post by Yellow
And you do not think it is in UK's consumer's interest to be
able to purchase food from outside the EU rather than having to
pay extra to subsidise EU agriculture?
Don't forget the EU helps subsidise British agriculture. Farmers
were politically favoured to ensure self-sufficiency in times of
strife or war. Getting necessary food from half way across the
world in New Zealand is hardly a recipe for doing that.
But you don't think we should keep our own industry going and instead
should buy abroad and lose our skills? That makes no sense to me.
Ophelia
2017-10-10 20:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Competition is healthy.
Why? Government tenders do not give suppliers the free rein to charge
whatever they want and often specify the maximum profit that can be
earners by the supplier, who has to submit their books.
Post by pamela
If we manufacture something better than
other countries do then we should be allowed to propose it on EU
government tenders. Of course, we also have to accept the
reverse.
You do love that word "better" don't you. Ok, here we go again....

Please define "better" with respect to manufactured goods and when you
have done that, you can go on to explain why a country should be forced
to consider goods from abroad when it can buy perfectly suitable goods
from its own country.

What possible benefit can you see, being *forced* to do this?
Post by pamela
The consumer
More likely it would be the tax payer.
Post by pamela
in the UK doesn't really want to subsidise British
jobs of the product supplied under a preferential deal is more
expensive or less good that from another source.
But what if the goods are not more expensive? And are just as good? The
point is the UK is *forced* to put contracts out to tender to businesses
in the EU once the value of that contract exceeds a certain amount.

Out of interest, does it also follow that the UK consumer should be able
to purchase cheap New Zealand lamb rather than Welsh lamb?
Post by pamela
If we have to
prop up a particualr industry then, rather than favouritism, we
can ask central government to help them direct.
So to be clear - you consider the UK tax payer's cash being used to buy
perfectly decent goods from a UK supplier, creating good quality jobs
and trained personnel rather than buying say, German goods thus creating
good quality jobs and trained personnel in Germany, is "propped up"?
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
You also do not think it might be in the UK's interest to not
have a flood of cheap labour to increase the profits of big
business to save them having to train and employ UK residents?
Fortress Britain is not going to work in the modern world.
Post by Yellow
And you do not think it is in UK's consumer's interest to be
able to purchase food from outside the EU rather than having to
pay extra to subsidise EU agriculture?
Don't forget the EU helps subsidise British agriculture. Farmers
were politically favoured to ensure self-sufficiency in times of
strife or war. Getting necessary food from half way across the
world in New Zealand is hardly a recipe for doing that.
But you don't think we should keep our own industry going and instead
should buy abroad and lose our skills? That makes no sense to me.

==

I am interested to know where she thinks the money comes from for the EU to
'help subsidise British agriculture'?
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Yellow
2017-10-10 21:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Competition is healthy.
Why? Government tenders do not give suppliers the free rein to charge
whatever they want and often specify the maximum profit that can be
earners by the supplier, who has to submit their books.
Post by pamela
If we manufacture something better than
other countries do then we should be allowed to propose it on EU
government tenders. Of course, we also have to accept the
reverse.
You do love that word "better" don't you. Ok, here we go again....
Please define "better" with respect to manufactured goods and when you
have done that, you can go on to explain why a country should be forced
to consider goods from abroad when it can buy perfectly suitable goods
from its own country.
What possible benefit can you see, being *forced* to do this?
Post by pamela
The consumer
More likely it would be the tax payer.
Post by pamela
in the UK doesn't really want to subsidise British
jobs of the product supplied under a preferential deal is more
expensive or less good that from another source.
But what if the goods are not more expensive? And are just as good? The
point is the UK is *forced* to put contracts out to tender to businesses
in the EU once the value of that contract exceeds a certain amount.
Out of interest, does it also follow that the UK consumer should be able
to purchase cheap New Zealand lamb rather than Welsh lamb?
Post by pamela
If we have to
prop up a particualr industry then, rather than favouritism, we
can ask central government to help them direct.
So to be clear - you consider the UK tax payer's cash being used to buy
perfectly decent goods from a UK supplier, creating good quality jobs
and trained personnel rather than buying say, German goods thus creating
good quality jobs and trained personnel in Germany, is "propped up"?
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
You also do not think it might be in the UK's interest to not
have a flood of cheap labour to increase the profits of big
business to save them having to train and employ UK residents?
Fortress Britain is not going to work in the modern world.
Post by Yellow
And you do not think it is in UK's consumer's interest to be
able to purchase food from outside the EU rather than having to
pay extra to subsidise EU agriculture?
Don't forget the EU helps subsidise British agriculture. Farmers
were politically favoured to ensure self-sufficiency in times of
strife or war. Getting necessary food from half way across the
world in New Zealand is hardly a recipe for doing that.
But you don't think we should keep our own industry going and instead
should buy abroad and lose our skills? That makes no sense to me.
==
I am interested to know where she thinks the money comes from for the EU to
'help subsidise British agriculture'?
The game would seem to be one of defending the EU at any and all costs I
think, rather than consider the issues for what they are, on their
merits - how they affect the UK, good or bad.

I just don't get what it achieves.
Ophelia
2017-10-10 18:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:19:04 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this mess.
The mess being that the EU, in your view, have the whip hand?
The mess is to do with progress we are making and the outcome
we may get with leaving the EU, the arrangements we will have
with the EU after we leave and the arrangements we will have
with non- EU trading partners.
Did you think a deal would have been struck by now then?
I ownder, did you?
So you didn't think a deal would be struck by now? Which is it?
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Given you do not however think this is sufficient for the UK
to change its mind and stay in the EU, I guess the next
question has to be - so what?
The UK would do better to stay in the EU.
Why?
The real question is why is it better to leave rather than stay.
Because that was the result of the referendum.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Because it is too hard to leave?
Of course, the difficulty of leaving does not even arise if you
choose to stay and staying has its own advantages too.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
We are not getting £350 million a week but having to pay out
divorce money to the EU.
But you do realise that the settlement will be a one off, yes?
How many billion do you estimate the settlement will be?
I don't know. Less is better but it is not something I am going to get
het up over, as long as payments stop after.

As a net contributor, leaving is always going to be cheaper than
staying.
Post by pamela
I guess
we should now add the two additional years Theresa May propose
during which time it was be surprising if the EU invests in the UK
as heavily as when it had not triggered Article 50.
One of the EU's demands is that the UK pays to the end of the current
budget period, your "extra 2 years" - so this is not additional but
instead is what the UK has said it will agree to.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
EU immigrants will be replaced by ROW immigration.
They will? This is news.
"more recent figures we have suggest we might be seeing a return
to having more immigration from the rest of the world than from
the EU."
But you said "replaced" - which is clearly rubbish.

And so what if we have more people from outside the EU?
Post by pamela
https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Our trade with the EU might well incur significant
tariffs and trade with ROW has not been agreed.
Exactly what are the tangible benefits Britain gains by
leaving?
In my opinion it is of benefit that will not longer be part of
the Single Market or Customs Union and we will not ever be part
of the EU's drive towards "ever closer union".
How tangible is that? I suggest it is not very tangible at all.
Tangible - a thing that is perceptible by touch.

You mean like you want the benefits and pitfalls of EU membership to be
cast in aspic?
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
So, no more FOM, no more competing with 27 other countries for
government tenders, the opportunity for non-EU trade deals, no
more red tape for companies that do not export which is the same
as if they did, no more laws that are not in the UK's interest,
and did I mention - no "ever closer union"?
Does any of that have hard monetary value to us or do we only end
up with a warm feeling and less need for us to stay competitive?
So, for example, you do not think that it might be in the UK's interest
to purchase fit for purpose goods from a UK manufacturer, employing UK
residents, rather than having to field (at £27,000 each according to
LUL's purchasing department) tenders from across the EU, having to
legally accept imported goods instead?

You also do not think it might be in the UK's interest to not have a
flood of cheap labour to increase the profits of big business to save
them having to train and employ UK residents?

And you do not think it is in UK's consumer's interest to be able to
purchase food from outside the EU rather than having to pay extra to
subsidise EU agriculture?
Post by pamela
There's just no need for all this "Rule Brittania, Britons will
never be slaves". France is a nation just as proud of its
indepedence as we are and it had no fear that its sovereignty is
going to be engulfed by the EU but to Brexiteers it is now the
primary objective.
If you think France is so cool, please feel free to go and live there. I
hope you are thin or you will not get a job.

http://tinyurl.com/ydbfeahv

or

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/10/gabrielle-deydier-fat-
in-france-abuse-grossophobia-book-women
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Just off the top of my head of course.
Post by pamela
If they really do have us over your barrel, then our only
options are to agree to the unreasonable terms "over a
barrel" implies, or walk.
Would you agree?
Now that the true details and costs of leaving are becoming
clearer, we should think carefully if we want to leave at all.
Because our membership of the EU is only about money? In your
opinion, that is.
The biggest selling point the Leave campaign could think of before
the referendum was plastered across their battle bus and it
referred to £350 million per week.
I ask again - do *you* think our membership of the EU should only be
measured in terms of money?
Post by pamela
What's the point of us making essentially the same laws as the EU
does (and whatever else you believe is the benfit of Brexit) if
that costs us a significant amount of money every year together
with a loss of jobs from fleeing industries?
Because it is not (just) about the money.

===


Perhaps they don't understand what Sovereignty is ... :))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Fredxxx
2017-10-10 00:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:11:01 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what
should we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the
EU has us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it
makes a difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit
negotiations. Haven't you noticed?
So do you think that for that reason alone, people who
want to leave the EU should change their position to
staying in the EU?
Who claimed that?
Clearly, I thought, I am simply asking for your opinion.
Is there a reason you are being so defensive?
Then to answer your question.... no, not for that reason alone.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a
barrel?
The UK always has the option to walk away so on that
basis, I guess my answer would have to be no.
Of course it's a wild possibility but seems very unlikely if
we want to conclude an agreement with the EU.
What is the solution then? If the EU have us over this
barrel.
Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this mess.
The mess being that the EU, in your view, have the whip hand?
The mess is to do with progress we are making and the outcome we
may get with leaving the EU, the arrangements we will have with
the EU after we leave and the arrangements we will have with non-
EU trading partners.
Post by Yellow
Given you do not however think this is sufficient for the UK to
change its mind and stay in the EU, I guess the next question
has to be - so what?
The UK would do better to stay in the EU.
That depends on you think the 'UK' is. If you're a worker then you're
likely to be better off, there has already been a reduction in
immigration and a reduced unemployment rate. That tends to lead to
increased wages.

If you're someone owning a house then you will be worse off if demand
for housing drops, on the other hand if you want to buy a house then
Brexit will make you 'better off'.

If you run a business and want cheap labour then you might be 'worse off'.

It depends on what part the 'UK' is better off. I presume you don't work?
Post by pamela
We are not getting £350 million a week but having to pay out
divorce money to the EU.
There is no need for any payment.
Post by pamela
EU immigrants will be replaced by RO Wimmigration. Our trade with the EU might well incur significant
tariffs and trade with ROW has not been agreed.
And the same tariffs will be imposed on imports, so what?
Post by pamela
Exactly what are the tangible benefits Britain gains by leaving?
If you don't know them by now you seem to be out of touch with how
things are in the UK. I touched on things earlier, there are many more.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
If they really do have us over your barrel, then our only
options are to agree to the unreasonable terms "over a barrel"
implies, or walk.
Would you agree?
Now that the true details and costs of leaving are becoming
clearer, we should think carefully if we want to leave at all.
No, the people have spoken, worst case scenario is WTO tariffs.
pamela
2017-10-10 12:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:19:04 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:11:01 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what
should we do? Stay in the EU?
I believe we should stay in the EU, whether or not the
EU has us over a barrel.
So this barrel makes no difference? So do you think it
makes a difference to people who want to leave either?
Being over a barrel makes a difference to the Brexit
negotiations. Haven't you noticed?
So do you think that for that reason alone, people who
want to leave the EU should change their position to
staying in the EU?
Who claimed that?
Clearly, I thought, I am simply asking for your opinion.
Is there a reason you are being so defensive?
Then to answer your question.... no, not for that reason
alone.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Or do you think the EU does not have the UK over a
barrel?
The UK always has the option to walk away so on that
basis, I guess my answer would have to be no.
Of course it's a wild possibility but seems very unlikely
if we want to conclude an agreement with the EU.
What is the solution then? If the EU have us over this
barrel.
Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this mess.
The mess being that the EU, in your view, have the whip hand?
The mess is to do with progress we are making and the outcome
we may get with leaving the EU, the arrangements we will have
with the EU after we leave and the arrangements we will have
with non- EU trading partners.
Given you do not however think this is sufficient for the UK
to change its mind and stay in the EU, I guess the next
question has to be - so what?
The UK would do better to stay in the EU.
That depends on you think the 'UK' is. If you're a worker then
you're likely to be better off, there has already been a
reduction in immigration and a reduced unemployment rate. That
tends to lead to increased wages.
If you're someone owning a house then you will be worse off if
demand for housing drops, on the other hand if you want to buy a
house then Brexit will make you 'better off'.
If you run a business and want cheap labour then you might be
'worse off'.
It depends on what part the 'UK' is better off. I presume you
don't work?
You can find variation and quibble about each individual case but
the big picture is that the population as a whole is better off.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pamela
We are not getting £350 million a week but having to pay out
divorce money to the EU.
There is no need for any payment.
Britain have agreed the payment. The question now is how any
billions will it be.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pamela
EU immigrants will be replaced by ROW immigration. Our trade
with the EU might well incur significant tariffs and trade with
ROW has not been agreed.
And the same tariffs will be imposed on imports, so what?
It is naieve to think we can get a trade agreement by retaliating
against every tariff increase. Look at Canadian Bombardier and
tell me how they are going to counter the whopping tariff the US
has just imposed unilaterally.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pamela
Exactly what are the tangible benefits Britain gains by
leaving?
If you don't know them by now you seem to be out of touch with
how things are in the UK. I touched on things earlier, there are
many more.
Theer are almost none at all. Now Brexit has encountered
the real world and we can all see Brexit will be costly in
financial terms. There are few tangible benefits.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pamela
If they really do have us over your barrel, then our only
options are to agree to the unreasonable terms "over a barrel"
implies, or walk.
Would you agree?
Now that the true details and costs of leaving are becoming
clearer, we should think carefully if we want to leave at all.
No, the people have spoken, worst case scenario is WTO tariffs.
Brexiteers are a bit like a Disney princess who can make things
happen because she wishes for it very hard with her eyes tightly
shut.

Similarly Brexiteers hope and wish WTO trading will be okay for
the UK but hoping doesn't make it so. Almost every serious
commentator calculates WTO trading would be a disaster. Of
course, the Daily Express and its followers may differ.

At the moment, the UK has gone from being an international
economic wonder to the country with the slowest growth in the G7.
Even the 15% devaluation in the pound hasn't managed to stave off
poor growth. UK productivity has slumped and this directly leads
to low wage growth. WTO trading will knock us further down.
Bod
2017-10-10 12:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Brexiteers are a bit like a Disney princess who can make things
happen because she wishes for it very hard with her eyes tightly
shut.
Similarly Brexiteers hope and wish WTO trading will be okay for
the UK but hoping doesn't make it so. Almost every serious
commentator calculates WTO trading would be a disaster. Of
course, the Daily Express and its followers may differ.
At the moment, the UK has gone from being an international
economic wonder to the country with the slowest growth in the G7.
Even the 15% devaluation in the pound hasn't managed to stave off
poor growth. UK productivity has slumped and this directly leads
to low wage growth. WTO trading will knock us further down.
Britain could join NAFTA if it fails to get Brexit trade deal: Telegraph
newspaper

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nafta/britain-could-join-nafta-if-it-fails-to-get-brexit-trade-deal-telegraph-newspaper-idUKKBN1CF18K
--
Bod
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-10 16:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bod
Post by pamela
Brexiteers are a bit like a Disney princess who can make things
happen because she wishes for it very hard with her eyes tightly
shut.
Similarly Brexiteers hope and wish WTO trading will be okay for
the UK but hoping doesn't make it so. Almost every serious
commentator calculates WTO trading would be a disaster. Of
course, the Daily Express and its followers may differ.
At the moment, the UK has gone from being an international
economic wonder to the country with the slowest growth in the G7.
Even the 15% devaluation in the pound hasn't managed to stave off
poor growth. UK productivity has slumped and this directly leads
to low wage growth. WTO trading will knock us further down.
Britain could join NAFTA if it fails to get Brexit trade deal: Telegraph
newspaper
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nafta/britain-could-join-nafta-if-it-fails-to-get-brexit-trade-deal-telegraph-newspaper-idUKKBN1CF18K
--
Bod
It could - BUT the USA is leaving: -
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/22/trump-well-probably-end-up-terminating-nafta.html

and then there is those pesky 300% tariffs on plane parts...
pamela
2017-10-10 16:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Brexiteers are a bit like a Disney princess who can make things
happen because she wishes for it very hard with her eyes
tightly shut.
Similarly Brexiteers hope and wish WTO trading will be okay for
the UK but hoping doesn't make it so. Almost every serious
commentator calculates WTO trading would be a disaster. Of
course, the Daily Express and its followers may differ.
At the moment, the UK has gone from being an international
economic wonder to the country with the slowest growth in the
G7. Even the 15% devaluation in the pound hasn't managed to
stave off poor growth. UK productivity has slumped and this
directly leads to low wage growth. WTO trading will knock us
further down.
Telegraph newspaper
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nafta/britain-could-j
oin-nafta-if-it-fails-to-get-brexit-trade-deal-telegraph-newspape
r-idUKKBN1CF18K
That almost made me sputter over my PC screen. The poor Telegraph
has lost the plot if it thinks NAFTA is Britain's salvation.

Donald Trump has been repeatedly threatening to leave NAFTA which
would minimise it no end. Although, I'm not sure if it's any better
to deal with NAFTA while Trump is in charge.

Wild suggestions like this do not exactly suggest Britain has truly
envisioned its future place outside the EU.
Bod
2017-10-10 17:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by pamela
Brexiteers are a bit like a Disney princess who can make things
happen because she wishes for it very hard with her eyes
tightly shut.
Similarly Brexiteers hope and wish WTO trading will be okay for
the UK but hoping doesn't make it so. Almost every serious
commentator calculates WTO trading would be a disaster. Of
course, the Daily Express and its followers may differ.
At the moment, the UK has gone from being an international
economic wonder to the country with the slowest growth in the
G7. Even the 15% devaluation in the pound hasn't managed to
stave off poor growth. UK productivity has slumped and this
directly leads to low wage growth. WTO trading will knock us
further down.
Telegraph newspaper
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nafta/britain-could-j
oin-nafta-if-it-fails-to-get-brexit-trade-deal-telegraph-newspape
r-idUKKBN1CF18K
That almost made me sputter over my PC screen. The poor Telegraph
has lost the plot if it thinks NAFTA is Britain's salvation.
Donald Trump has been repeatedly threatening to leave NAFTA which
would minimise it no end. Although, I'm not sure if it's any better
to deal with NAFTA while Trump is in charge.
Wild suggestions like this do not exactly suggest Britain has truly
envisioned its future place outside the EU.
All of these statements from the government just might be part of a
cunning plan. You never know.
--
Bod
tim...
2017-10-10 19:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by pamela
Brexiteers are a bit like a Disney princess who can make things
happen because she wishes for it very hard with her eyes
tightly shut.
Similarly Brexiteers hope and wish WTO trading will be okay for
the UK but hoping doesn't make it so. Almost every serious
commentator calculates WTO trading would be a disaster. Of
course, the Daily Express and its followers may differ.
At the moment, the UK has gone from being an international
economic wonder to the country with the slowest growth in the
G7. Even the 15% devaluation in the pound hasn't managed to
stave off poor growth. UK productivity has slumped and this
directly leads to low wage growth. WTO trading will knock us
further down.
Telegraph newspaper
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nafta/britain-could-j
oin-nafta-if-it-fails-to-get-brexit-trade-deal-telegraph-newspape
r-idUKKBN1CF18K
That almost made me sputter over my PC screen. The poor Telegraph
has lost the plot if it thinks NAFTA is Britain's salvation.
when you think about it it's not as silly as it first seems

whether a deal could be done is another matter

tim
Ophelia
2017-10-08 15:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over the
money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.

You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we do? Stay
in the EU?
==

I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out. Let's see how
much power the EU has then:))

Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be happy
bunnies:))

In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with the EU. It
strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we so wish:)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Yellow
2017-10-08 15:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over the
money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we do? Stay
in the EU?
==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out. Let's see how
much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be happy
bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with the EU. It
strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we so wish:)
You cannot help think this is what is going to happen, in the end.
Ophelia
2017-10-08 16:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over the
money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we do? Stay
in the EU?
==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out. Let's see how
much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be happy
bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with the EU. It
strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we so wish:)
You cannot help think this is what is going to happen, in the end.

==

I won't be sorry.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
pamela
2017-10-08 16:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:18:43 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over
the money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we
do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out. Let's
see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be
happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with the
EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we so
wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU than it
does with us. Anyway, why do you think financial costs are the
only costs the EU is taking into account? It is prepared to take
a loss.

The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy to
leave, and they will take that into consideration to offset any
financial loss.

If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it isn't able
to do anything at all to push back against the EU's decision to
force us to agree certain aspects (Irish border, EU nationals in
Britain, alimony) before discussing trade? We are powerless to do
anything - except moan about how unfair it is.
Yellow
2017-10-08 20:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we
do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out. Let's
see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be
happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with the
EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we so
wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU than it
does with us.
Anyway, why do you think financial costs are the
only costs the EU is taking into account? It is prepared to take
a loss.
The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy to
leave, and they will take that into consideration to offset any
financial loss.
If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it isn't able
to do anything at all to push back against the EU's decision to
force us to agree certain aspects (Irish border, EU nationals in
Britain, alimony) before discussing trade? We are powerless to do
anything - except moan about how unfair it is.
So do you think because it is too hard to leave, leavers should have
instead voted to stay? For that reason alone.
Ophelia
2017-10-08 20:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we
do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out. Let's
see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be
happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with the
EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we so
wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU than it
does with us.
Anyway, why do you think financial costs are the
only costs the EU is taking into account? It is prepared to take
a loss.
The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy to
leave, and they will take that into consideration to offset any
financial loss.
If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it isn't able
to do anything at all to push back against the EU's decision to
force us to agree certain aspects (Irish border, EU nationals in
Britain, alimony) before discussing trade? We are powerless to do
anything - except moan about how unfair it is.
So do you think because it is too hard to leave, leavers should have
instead voted to stay? For that reason alone.

==

What else do they have?
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
pamela
2017-10-09 10:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should
we do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out.
Let's see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be
happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with
the EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we
so wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU than
it does with us.
Anyway, why do you think financial costs are the
only costs the EU is taking into account? It is prepared to
take a loss.
The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy to
leave, and they will take that into consideration to offset any
financial loss.
If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it isn't
able to do anything at all to push back against the EU's
decision to force us to agree certain aspects (Irish border, EU
nationals in Britain, alimony) before discussing trade? We are
powerless to do anything - except moan about how unfair it is.
So do you think because it is too hard to leave, leavers should
have instead voted to stay? For that reason alone.
I didn't say that.
Yellow
2017-10-09 11:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should
we do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out.
Let's see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be
happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with
the EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we
so wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU than
it does with us.
Anyway, why do you think financial costs are the
only costs the EU is taking into account? It is prepared to
take a loss.
The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy to
leave, and they will take that into consideration to offset any
financial loss.
If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it isn't
able to do anything at all to push back against the EU's
decision to force us to agree certain aspects (Irish border, EU
nationals in Britain, alimony) before discussing trade? We are
powerless to do anything - except moan about how unfair it is.
So do you think because it is too hard to leave, leavers should
have instead voted to stay? For that reason alone.
I didn't say that.
If you had already said this, I would not now need to be asking your
opinion. :-)

So, what do you think?
pamela
2017-10-09 13:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 17:40:57 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what
should we do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out.
Let's see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not
be happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit
with the EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel
if we so wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU
than it does with us.
Anyway, why do you think financial costs are the
only costs the EU is taking into account? It is prepared to
take a loss.
The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy
to leave, and they will take that into consideration to
offset any financial loss.
If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it
isn't able to do anything at all to push back against the
EU's decision to force us to agree certain aspects (Irish
border, EU nationals in Britain, alimony) before discussing
trade? We are powerless to do anything - except moan about
how unfair it is.
So do you think because it is too hard to leave, leavers
should have instead voted to stay? For that reason alone.
I didn't say that.
If you had already said this, I would not now need to be asking
your opinion. :-)
So, what do you think?
Then .... not for that reason alone.
Ophelia
2017-10-10 18:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should
we do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out.
Let's see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be
happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with
the EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we
so wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU than
it does with us.
Anyway, why do you think financial costs are the
only costs the EU is taking into account? It is prepared to
take a loss.
The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy to
leave, and they will take that into consideration to offset any
financial loss.
If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it isn't
able to do anything at all to push back against the EU's
decision to force us to agree certain aspects (Irish border, EU
nationals in Britain, alimony) before discussing trade? We are
powerless to do anything - except moan about how unfair it is.
So do you think because it is too hard to leave, leavers should
have instead voted to stay? For that reason alone.
I didn't say that.
If you had already said this, I would not now need to be asking your
opinion. :-)

So, what do you think?

==

Think??
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
tim...
2017-10-09 09:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:18:43 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so why
should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over
the money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we
do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out. Let's
see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be
happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with the
EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we so
wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU than it
does with us. Anyway, why do you think financial costs are the
only costs the EU is taking into account? It is prepared to take
a loss.
The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy to
leave, and they will take that into consideration to offset any
financial loss.
If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it isn't able
to do anything at all to push back against the EU's decision to
force us to agree certain aspects
because our namby pamby negotiators aren't trying hard enough

tim
pamela
2017-10-09 10:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:24:29 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:18:43 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so
why should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over
the money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we
do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out.
Let's see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be
happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with
the EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we so
wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU than
it does with us. Anyway, why do you think financial costs are
the only costs the EU is taking into account? It is prepared
to take a loss.
The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy to
leave, and they will take that into consideration to offset any
financial loss.
If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it isn't
able to do anything at all to push back against the EU's
decision to force us to agree certain aspects
because our namby pamby negotiators aren't trying hard enough
tim
It's not just that Britain is poor at negotiations. As I wrote
before, the EU could not have hoped to deal with a weaker
Britain.... knife edge referendum result, weak government, lame
duck Prime Minister, no experience at trade deals, sliding pound,
increasing pessimism over financial costs, unrealistic Brexit
expectations, timescale too tight, etc.

As I also pointed out.... in the German elections last week Brexit
was not mentioned at all because they couldn't care less about its
outcome.
Yellow
2017-10-09 11:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:24:29 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:18:43 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving, so
why should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand over
the money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could have
predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should we
do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out.
Let's see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not be
happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with
the EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we so
wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU than
it does with us. Anyway, why do you think financial costs are
the only costs the EU is taking into account? It is prepared
to take a loss.
The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy to
leave, and they will take that into consideration to offset any
financial loss.
If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it isn't
able to do anything at all to push back against the EU's
decision to force us to agree certain aspects
because our namby pamby negotiators aren't trying hard enough
tim
before, the EU could not have hoped to deal with a weaker
Britain.... knife edge referendum result, weak government, lame
duck Prime Minister, no experience at trade deals, sliding pound,
increasing pessimism over financial costs, unrealistic Brexit
expectations, timescale too tight, etc.
So what is the answer? Emily Thornberry says they would do a better job,
so should we let them try?
Post by pamela
As I also pointed out.... in the German elections last week Brexit
was not mentioned at all because they couldn't care less about its
outcome.
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
pamela
2017-10-09 13:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:24:29 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:18:43 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Mike Swift
Post by pamela
Or maybe the EU won't bother because we're leaving,
so why should they care about the UK.
So why should we give them any more money?
Mike
The EU doesn't like us and they can force us to hand
over the money if we want further agreements.
We're over a barrel. Anyone except a Brexiteer could
have predicted that.
So we should stay in the EU?
Who said that?
I was simply asking your opinion.
You believe the EU has the UK over a barrel, so what should
we do? Stay in the EU? ==
I read that we are preparing in case we need to walk out.
Let's see how much power the EU has then:))
Their own business people who sell so much to us will not
be happy bunnies:))
In case anyone doesn't know it, we run a trade deficit with
the EU. It strikes me that we have THEM over a barrel if we
so wish:)
On the contrary, we do far more of our trade with the EU
than it does with us. Anyway, why do you think financial
costs are the only costs the EU is taking into account? It
is prepared to take a loss.
The EU's existence may be threatened if the UK finds it easy
to leave, and they will take that into consideration to
offset any financial loss.
If the UK is in such a strong position then how come it
isn't able to do anything at all to push back against the
EU's decision to force us to agree certain aspects
because our namby pamby negotiators aren't trying hard enough
tim
before, the EU could not have hoped to deal with a weaker
Britain.... knife edge referendum result, weak government, lame
duck Prime Minister, no experience at trade deals, sliding
pound, increasing pessimism over financial costs, unrealistic
Brexit expectations, timescale too tight, etc.
So what is the answer? Emily Thornberry says they would do a
better job, so should we let them try?
Ask Emily Thornberry if you want her to explain what she
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
As I also pointed out.... in the German elections last week
Brexit was not mentioned at all because they couldn't care less
about its outcome.
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
Because Nigel Farage and dozens of Brexiteers say the German car
industry, which is jointly supervised by the most powerful labour
union in Germany, will falter if it doesn't export to the UK.

Also other specious trade arguments like it made by Brexiteers
that should, allegedly, be mightily troubling Germany.

The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort as a
big issue to them. However some people seem to think German
(French, etc) self interest should dictate to the EU that they had
better sit down promptly and negotiate Brexit terms favourable to
the UK. Ha ha!
Yellow
2017-10-09 16:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
before, the EU could not have hoped to deal with a weaker
Britain.... knife edge referendum result, weak government, lame
duck Prime Minister, no experience at trade deals, sliding
pound, increasing pessimism over financial costs, unrealistic
Brexit expectations, timescale too tight, etc.
So what is the answer? Emily Thornberry says they would do a
better job, so should we let them try?
Ask Emily Thornberry if you want her to explain what she
I did not ask for an explanation of what Ms Thornberry said, not least
because she spoke plain English on the telly so no further explanation
is required.

Instead, I asked you for your opinion because you have expressed
dissatisfaction in how the UK are conducting negotiations at the moment.

So, again - would you be happier if we let Labour take over?
pamela
2017-10-09 17:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:42:06 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
It's not just that Britain is poor at negotiations. As I
wrote before, the EU could not have hoped to deal with a
weaker Britain.... knife edge referendum result, weak
government, lame duck Prime Minister, no experience at trade
deals, sliding pound, increasing pessimism over financial
costs, unrealistic Brexit expectations, timescale too tight,
etc.
So what is the answer? Emily Thornberry says they would do a
better job, so should we let them try?
Ask Emily Thornberry if you want her to explain what she
I did not ask for an explanation of what Ms Thornberry said, not
least because she spoke plain English on the telly so no further
explanation is required.
Instead, I asked you for your opinion because you have expressed
dissatisfaction in how the UK are conducting negotiations at the moment.
So, again - would you be happier if we let Labour take over?
I decline to offer you an opinion.
Ophelia
2017-10-10 18:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
before, the EU could not have hoped to deal with a weaker
Britain.... knife edge referendum result, weak government, lame
duck Prime Minister, no experience at trade deals, sliding
pound, increasing pessimism over financial costs, unrealistic
Brexit expectations, timescale too tight, etc.
So what is the answer? Emily Thornberry says they would do a
better job, so should we let them try?
Ask Emily Thornberry if you want her to explain what she
I did not ask for an explanation of what Ms Thornberry said, not least
because she spoke plain English on the telly so no further explanation
is required.

Instead, I asked you for your opinion because you have expressed
dissatisfaction in how the UK are conducting negotiations at the moment.

So, again - would you be happier if we let Labour take over?

==

lol I think you have hit the spot:))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
kat
2017-10-09 16:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort as a
big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our current large
( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will happen eventually. There
would appear to be two choices for the EU then - ask for more from those
countries, like Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget,
and the payouts to the net recipients.
--
kat
Post by pamela
^..^<
pamela
2017-10-09 17:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort as a
big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for the
EU then - ask for more from those countries, like Germany, who
are net contributors, or cut the budget, and the payouts to the
net recipients.
That's the point. Some Brits think Germany should pay attention to
what's happening with Brexit for their own sakes but, in fact, the
Germans are completely unperturbed about it. They seem happy
whichever way Brexit goes.

It might disappoint us that Brexit doesn't cause them as much concern
as we think it should but that's how it is.

It's not a good sign for the leverage Brexiteers assumed we had over
Germany and other EU countries.
tim...
2017-10-10 08:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort as a
big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for the
EU then - ask for more from those countries, like Germany, who
are net contributors, or cut the budget, and the payouts to the
net recipients.
That's the point. Some Brits think Germany should pay attention to
what's happening with Brexit for their own sakes but, in fact, the
Germans are completely unperturbed about it. They seem happy
whichever way Brexit goes.
that doesn't mean that they don't have to sit down and discuss the terms of
future trading relationship

I doubt that Lufthansa would be pleased if all their flight to the UK got
cancelled on leaving date because Berlin had been foolish in not making the
arrangements for them to continue flying.

tim
pamela
2017-10-11 00:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort as
a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like Germany,
who are net contributors, or cut the budget, and the payouts
to the net recipients.
That's the point. Some Brits think Germany should pay
attention to what's happening with Brexit for their own sakes
but, in fact, the Germans are completely unperturbed about it.
They seem happy whichever way Brexit goes.
that doesn't mean that they don't have to sit down and discuss
the terms of future trading relationship
I doubt that Lufthansa would be pleased if all their flight to
the UK got cancelled on leaving date because Berlin had been
foolish in not making the arrangements for them to continue
flying.
tim
If the UK leaves without a deal it is British flights which will
be the issue (not Lufthansa in your example) because WTO rules do
not govern flight arrangements between countries and,
theoretically, all flights from Britain to the continent would
have to stop.
Fredxxx
2017-10-11 00:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort as
a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like Germany,
who are net contributors, or cut the budget, and the payouts
to the net recipients.
That's the point. Some Brits think Germany should pay
attention to what's happening with Brexit for their own sakes
but, in fact, the Germans are completely unperturbed about it.
They seem happy whichever way Brexit goes.
that doesn't mean that they don't have to sit down and discuss
the terms of future trading relationship
I doubt that Lufthansa would be pleased if all their flight to
the UK got cancelled on leaving date because Berlin had been
foolish in not making the arrangements for them to continue
flying.
tim
If the UK leaves without a deal it is British flights which will
be the issue (not Lufthansa in your example) because WTO rules do
not govern flight arrangements between countries and,
theoretically, all flights from Britain to the continent would
have to stop.
In theory! Do you really think the EU would be so stupid?

More reason to leave.
Yellow
2017-10-11 00:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
If the UK leaves without a deal it is British flights which will
be the issue (not Lufthansa in your example) because WTO rules do
not govern flight arrangements between countries and,
theoretically, all flights from Britain to the continent would
have to stop.
Are suggesting that there would be a circumstance where flights out of
the UK to the EU would be grounded while flights into the UK would
simply continue?

Where would we stack all the incoming planes after they have arrived
here when they are not allowed to leave again?
tim...
2017-10-11 08:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort as
a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like Germany,
who are net contributors, or cut the budget, and the payouts
to the net recipients.
That's the point. Some Brits think Germany should pay
attention to what's happening with Brexit for their own sakes
but, in fact, the Germans are completely unperturbed about it.
They seem happy whichever way Brexit goes.
that doesn't mean that they don't have to sit down and discuss
the terms of future trading relationship
I doubt that Lufthansa would be pleased if all their flight to
the UK got cancelled on leaving date because Berlin had been
foolish in not making the arrangements for them to continue
flying.
tim
If the UK leaves without a deal it is British flights which will
be the issue (not Lufthansa in your example) because WTO rules do
not govern flight arrangements between countries and,
theoretically, all flights from Britain to the continent would
have to stop.
without an alternative agreement, agreed

including the Lufthansa ones

and Ryanair - an Irish company

so as it equally affects EU airlines, why are the EU refusing to sit down
and negotiate that alternative agreement?

tim
pamela
2017-10-11 09:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic
politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort
as a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like
Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget, and
the payouts to the net recipients.
That's the point. Some Brits think Germany should pay
attention to what's happening with Brexit for their own sakes
but, in fact, the Germans are completely unperturbed about
it. They seem happy whichever way Brexit goes.
that doesn't mean that they don't have to sit down and discuss
the terms of future trading relationship
I doubt that Lufthansa would be pleased if all their flight to
the UK got cancelled on leaving date because Berlin had been
foolish in not making the arrangements for them to continue
flying.
tim
If the UK leaves without a deal it is British flights which
will be the issue (not Lufthansa in your example) because WTO
rules do not govern flight arrangements between countries and,
theoretically, all flights from Britain to the continent would
have to stop.
without an alternative agreement, agreed
including the Lufthansa ones
and Ryanair - an Irish company
so as it equally affects EU airlines, why are the EU refusing to
sit down and negotiate that alternative agreement?
tim
I guess you know that different airlines have interpreted the
outcome of Brexit-induced WTO rules for air travel differently.
tim...
2017-10-11 12:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic
politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort
as a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like
Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget, and
the payouts to the net recipients.
That's the point. Some Brits think Germany should pay
attention to what's happening with Brexit for their own sakes
but, in fact, the Germans are completely unperturbed about
it. They seem happy whichever way Brexit goes.
that doesn't mean that they don't have to sit down and discuss
the terms of future trading relationship
I doubt that Lufthansa would be pleased if all their flight to
the UK got cancelled on leaving date because Berlin had been
foolish in not making the arrangements for them to continue
flying.
tim
If the UK leaves without a deal it is British flights which
will be the issue (not Lufthansa in your example) because WTO
rules do not govern flight arrangements between countries and,
theoretically, all flights from Britain to the continent would
have to stop.
without an alternative agreement, agreed
including the Lufthansa ones
and Ryanair - an Irish company
so as it equally affects EU airlines, why are the EU refusing to
sit down and negotiate that alternative agreement?
tim
I guess you know that different airlines have interpreted the
outcome of Brexit-induced WTO rules for air travel differently.
Perhaps they have

but if the rule is that "free skys" agreements for airlines to fly routes
between the EU and UK die with the UK leaving the EU having not put in place
an alternative agreement, that rule applies equally to EVERY airline - UK
owned, EU owned and US owned.

No other interpretation is possible here.

tim
Yellow
2017-10-09 19:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort as a
big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our current large
( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will happen eventually. There
would appear to be two choices for the EU then - ask for more from those
countries, like Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget,
and the payouts to the net recipients.
True - the German people will presumably be filling a big proportion of
the financial hole left by Brexit.
kat
2017-10-09 20:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort as a
big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our current large
( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will happen eventually. There
would appear to be two choices for the EU then - ask for more from those
countries, like Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget,
and the payouts to the net recipients.
True - the German people will presumably be filling a big proportion of
the financial hole left by Brexit.
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will the voters be
happy when they have to cover the bill?
--
kat
Post by Yellow
^..^<
Yellow
2017-10-09 22:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort as a
big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our current large
( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will happen eventually. There
would appear to be two choices for the EU then - ask for more from those
countries, like Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget,
and the payouts to the net recipients.
True - the German people will presumably be filling a big proportion of
the financial hole left by Brexit.
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will the voters be
happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out Greece so my
instinct is they are going to get a bit wound up. :-)
pamela
2017-10-09 22:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:31:19 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic
politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort
as a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like
Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget,
and the payouts to the net recipients.
True - the German people will presumably be filling a big
proportion of the financial hole left by Brexit.
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will the
voters be happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out Greece so
my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like what the
Greeks had demanded. The Germans seem completely unfazed by Brexit
and are not concerned enough to discuss it in their elections.
Yellow
2017-10-10 00:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:31:19 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic
politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort
as a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like
Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget,
and the payouts to the net recipients.
True - the German people will presumably be filling a big
proportion of the financial hole left by Brexit.
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will the
voters be happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out Greece so
my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like what the
Greeks had demanded.
The German people were pretty angry.
Post by pamela
The Germans seem completely unfazed by Brexit
and are not concerned enough to discuss it in their elections.
I have lost the thread of this line of discussion... why do you think
this is important?
pamela
2017-10-10 16:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:31:19 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic
politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any
sort as a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This
will happen eventually. There would appear to be two
choices for the EU then - ask for more from those
countries, like Germany, who are net contributors, or cut
the budget, and the payouts to the net recipients.
True - the German people will presumably be filling a big
proportion of the financial hole left by Brexit.
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will
the voters be happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out Greece
so my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like what
the Greeks had demanded.
The German people were pretty angry.
Post by pamela
The Germans seem completely unfazed by Brexit
and are not concerned enough to discuss it in their elections.
I have lost the thread of this line of discussion... why do you
think this is important?
You should be able to look upwards in the thread to see where this
topic started.

If not then use MID: <news:***@81.171.118.178>
Yellow
2017-10-10 17:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will
the voters be happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out Greece
so my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like what
the Greeks had demanded.
The German people were pretty angry.
Post by pamela
The Germans seem completely unfazed by Brexit
and are not concerned enough to discuss it in their elections.
I have lost the thread of this line of discussion... why do you
think this is important?
You should be able to look upwards in the thread to see where this
topic started.
I did not mean.... I meant I have lost track of what ever point it is
you are trying to make.

You stated Brexit is not an issue within German politics and I am left
wondering - so what? Why do you think the average Brit should be
quaking in their boots over this?
pamela
2017-10-11 00:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 23:52:25 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will
the voters be happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out
Greece so my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound
up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like
what the Greeks had demanded.
The German people were pretty angry.
Post by pamela
The Germans seem completely unfazed by Brexit and are not
concerned enough to discuss it in their elections.
I have lost the thread of this line of discussion... why do
you think this is important?
You should be able to look upwards in the thread to see where
this topic started.
I did not mean.... I meant I have lost track of what ever point
it is you are trying to make.
You stated Brexit is not an issue within German politics and I
am left wondering - so what? Why do you think the average Brit
should be quaking in their boots over this?
I explained that above. You should be able to look upwards in the
thread to see it, else use this MID:

<news:***@81.171.118.178>
Yellow
2017-10-11 00:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 23:52:25 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will
the voters be happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out
Greece so my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound
up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like
what the Greeks had demanded.
The German people were pretty angry.
Post by pamela
The Germans seem completely unfazed by Brexit and are not
concerned enough to discuss it in their elections.
I have lost the thread of this line of discussion... why do
you think this is important?
You should be able to look upwards in the thread to see where
this topic started.
I did not mean.... I meant I have lost track of what ever point
it is you are trying to make.
You stated Brexit is not an issue within German politics and I
am left wondering - so what? Why do you think the average Brit
should be quaking in their boots over this?
I explained that above. You should be able to look upwards in the
So you have taken all the trouble in the world to find the id of some
post, a value I have told you previously I have no way to use, rather
than just answer my question?

What is wrong with you?
pamela
2017-10-11 08:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:38:57 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 23:52:25 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But
will the voters be happy when they have to cover the
bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out
Greece so my instinct is they are going to get a bit
wound up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like
what the Greeks had demanded.
The German people were pretty angry.
Post by pamela
The Germans seem completely unfazed by Brexit and are not
concerned enough to discuss it in their elections.
I have lost the thread of this line of discussion... why
do you think this is important?
You should be able to look upwards in the thread to see
where this topic started.
I did not mean.... I meant I have lost track of what ever
point it is you are trying to make.
You stated Brexit is not an issue within German politics and
I am left wondering - so what? Why do you think the average
Brit should be quaking in their boots over this?
I explained that above. You should be able to look upwards in
So you have taken all the trouble in the world to find the id of
some post, a value I have told you previously I have no way to
use, rather than just answer my question?
What is wrong with you?
You didn't bother to look up above in the thread here to find the
message I referred to, so you asked me for information from it; I
looked up the emssage for you and gave you its MID.

MIDs are unique references to Usenet messages and are the standard
way to reference a specific message. If you didn't take the
trouble to learn how to look up MIDs after I recently gave you one
then that is your own lookout.

The last time I even went as far as to look up the MID I gave you
on a Usenet message archive site (to save you the trouble of doing
it yourself) and now you could do the same.

As it happens I notice my own version of the newsreader you use,
Gravity, will offer to access Google groups to perform a MID
lookup.

This time I even prepended the MID with the URI "news:" to allow
your computer to automatically understand it was being asked to
undertake message searching.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with message searching before
asking someone else to find a message which you can do for
yourself by looking further up the thread.

I can't hand hold you any further.
Yellow
2017-10-11 10:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
I have lost the thread of this line of discussion... why
do you think this is important?
You should be able to look upwards in the thread to see
where this topic started.
I did not mean.... I meant I have lost track of what ever
point it is you are trying to make.
You stated Brexit is not an issue within German politics and
I am left wondering - so what? Why do you think the average
Brit should be quaking in their boots over this?
I explained that above. You should be able to look upwards in
So you have taken all the trouble in the world to find the id of
some post, a value I have told you previously I have no way to
use, rather than just answer my question?
What is wrong with you?
You didn't bother to look up above in the thread here to find the
message I referred to, so you asked me for information from it; I
looked up the emssage for you and gave you its MID.
Again - what is wrong with you?
pamela
2017-10-11 13:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
.... TRIMMED TO CONTEXT ....
You didn't bother to look up above in the thread here to find
the message I referred to, so you asked me for information from
it; I looked up the emssage for you and gave you its MID.
MIDs are unique references to Usenet messages and are the
standard way to reference a specific message. If you didn't
take the trouble to learn how to look up MIDs after I recently
gave you one then that is your own lookout.
The last time I even went as far as to look up the MID I gave
you on a Usenet message archive site (to save you the trouble
of doing it yourself) and now you could do the same.
As it happens I notice my own version of the newsreader you
use, Gravity, will offer to access Google groups to perform a
MID lookup.
This time I even prepended the MID with the URI "news:" to
allow your computer to automatically understand it was being
asked to undertake message searching.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with message searching
before asking someone else to find a message which you can do
for yourself by looking further up the thread.
I can't hand hold you any further.
Again - what is wrong with me?
ICYPFY. I have no idea why you ask for a message you could find for
yourself. Then complain you can't handle the MID which is provided.
Ophelia
2017-10-10 19:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:31:19 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic
politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort
as a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like
Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget,
and the payouts to the net recipients.
True - the German people will presumably be filling a big
proportion of the financial hole left by Brexit.
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will the
voters be happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out Greece so
my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like what the
Greeks had demanded.
The German people were pretty angry.
Post by pamela
The Germans seem completely unfazed by Brexit
and are not concerned enough to discuss it in their elections.
I have lost the thread of this line of discussion... why do you think
this is important?

==

Unfazed by Brexit??? I don't know who daft Pam has been speaking to, but
my daughter who has lived and worked in Germany for many years would beg to
differ!

They know exactly where the money will come from to fill the hole left by
Brexit!!! (as would anyone with at least half a brain:( )
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Fredxxx
2017-10-10 00:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:31:19 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic
politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort
as a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like
Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget,
and the payouts to the net recipients.
True - the German people will presumably be filling a big
proportion of the financial hole left by Brexit.
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will the
voters be happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out Greece so
my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like what the
Greeks had demanded. The Germans seem completely unfazed by Brexit
and are not concerned enough to discuss it in their elections.
Like most British workers then?

German companies are a little more concerned:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/german-firms-told-prepare-hard-brexit-heavy-economic-losses
pamela
2017-10-10 16:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pamela
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:31:19 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic
politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort
as a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like
Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget,
and the payouts to the net recipients.
True - the German people will presumably be filling a big
proportion of the financial hole left by Brexit.
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will the
voters be happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out Greece
so my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like what
the Greeks had demanded. The Germans seem completely unfazed
by Brexit and are not concerned enough to discuss it in their
elections.
Like most British workers then?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/german-firms-
told-prepare-hard-brexit-heavy-economic-losses
That statement from the German business lobby is an attempt to
generate interest in Brexit but nevertheless it ewnded up being an
non-issue in the German election.

However Brexit will cause change in Germany. Deutsche Welle is
reporting that Frankfurt has plans for 10,000 new finance jobs
with no shortage of office space or schooling but housing is
already in demand.

Meanwhile Reuters notes that American banks favour Frankfurt:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-frankfurt/wall-
street-moves-to-frankfurt-as-brexit-doubts-grow-idUKKBN1CA19I
Handsome Jack
2017-10-10 17:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
However Brexit will cause change in Germany. Deutsche Welle is
reporting that Frankfurt has plans for 10,000 new finance jobs
with no shortage of office space or schooling but housing is
already in demand.
Oh, I'm sure Frankfurt has plans, just as Paris does, or Brighton Hove
Albion for that matter. Whether they ever come to anything is a
completely different matter.
Post by pamela
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-frankfurt/wall-
street-moves-to-frankfurt-as-brexit-doubts-grow-idUKKBN1CA19I
Dear me. Some large organisations have rented space in some brand new
office blocks. Surely this has never happened before.
--
Jack
pamela
2017-10-11 00:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by pamela
However Brexit will cause change in Germany. Deutsche Welle is
reporting that Frankfurt has plans for 10,000 new finance jobs
with no shortage of office space or schooling but housing is
already in demand.
Oh, I'm sure Frankfurt has plans, just as Paris does, or
Brighton Hove Albion for that matter. Whether they ever come to
anything is a completely different matter.
Post by pamela
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-frankfurt/wall-
street-moves-to-frankfurt-as-brexit-doubts-grow-idUKKBN1CA19I
Dear me. Some large organisations have rented space in some
brand new office blocks. Surely this has never happened before.
Sounds like you're whistling in the wind. :)

Brexit bravado never ceases to surprise with its disconnection from
reality.
tim...
2017-10-10 19:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pamela
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:36:17 +0100, kat
Post by kat
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:31:19 +0100, kat
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Why would Brexit be an issue in Germany's domestic
politics?
The real fact is, the Germans don't see Brexit of any sort
as a big issue to them.
It might become a bit of an issue when we stop paying our
current large ( net ) amount into the EU budget. This will
happen eventually. There would appear to be two choices for
the EU then - ask for more from those countries, like
Germany, who are net contributors, or cut the budget,
and the payouts to the net recipients.
True - the German people will presumably be filling a big
proportion of the financial hole left by Brexit.
Yes, and pamela thinks they are happy about it. But will the
voters be happy when they have to cover the bill?
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out Greece
so my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like what
the Greeks had demanded. The Germans seem completely unfazed
by Brexit and are not concerned enough to discuss it in their
elections.
Like most British workers then?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/german-firms-
told-prepare-hard-brexit-heavy-economic-losses
That statement from the German business lobby is an attempt to
generate interest in Brexit but nevertheless it ewnded up being an
non-issue in the German election.
However Brexit will cause change in Germany. Deutsche Welle is
reporting that Frankfurt has plans for 10,000 new finance jobs
with no shortage of office space or schooling but housing is
already in demand.
Frankfurt is Dullsville.

In fact it's so dull it makes Dullsville look interesting

it is the last place on earth that million dollar earning financial execs
want to live

tim
Yellow
2017-10-10 21:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
However Brexit will cause change in Germany. Deutsche Welle is
reporting that Frankfurt has plans for 10,000 new finance jobs
with no shortage of office space or schooling but housing is
already in demand.
Frankfurt is Dullsville.
In fact it's so dull it makes Dullsville look interesting
it is the last place on earth that million dollar earning financial execs
want to live
I was reading in one of the papers that where they need to move out a
couple EU institutions from UK, I guess from London, very of the staff
are prepared to go too.

I have had personal experience of this when my first employer went bust
and the IP was brought by a company in the Liverpool area. Out of a
couple of hundred people who had the option, including me, only 20 went.

I stayed here. :-)
Ian Jackson
2017-10-11 06:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I was reading in one of the papers that where they need to move out a
couple EU institutions from UK, I guess from London, very of the staff
are prepared to go too.
I have had personal experience of this when my first employer went bust
and the IP was brought by a company in the Liverpool area. Out of a
couple of hundred people who had the option, including me, only 20 went.
I stayed here. :-)
If a company feels obliged to move from the UK to Europe, and out of 200
only 20 go, the result is that there are 180 more potentially unemployed
in the UK, and they and the company are no longer paying UK taxes. Good
for the UK?
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-10-11 10:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 07:42:41 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
I was reading in one of the papers that where they need to move out a
couple EU institutions from UK, I guess from London, very of the staff
are prepared to go too.
I have had personal experience of this when my first employer went bust
and the IP was brought by a company in the Liverpool area. Out of a
couple of hundred people who had the option, including me, only 20 went.
I stayed here. :-)
If a company feels obliged to move from the UK to Europe, and out of 200
only 20 go, the result is that there are 180 more potentially unemployed
in the UK, and they and the company are no longer paying UK taxes. Good
for the UK?
Your logic would suggest that I have been unemployed since 1992, when I
declined a move to Liverpool. I have not.
Ian Jackson
2017-10-11 11:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 07:42:41 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
I was reading in one of the papers that where they need to move out a
couple EU institutions from UK, I guess from London, very of the staff
are prepared to go too.
I have had personal experience of this when my first employer went bust
and the IP was brought by a company in the Liverpool area. Out of a
couple of hundred people who had the option, including me, only 20 went.
I stayed here. :-)
If a company feels obliged to move from the UK to Europe, and out of 200
only 20 go, the result is that there are 180 more potentially unemployed
in the UK, and they and the company are no longer paying UK taxes. Good
for the UK?
Your logic would suggest that I have been unemployed since 1992, when I
declined a move to Liverpool. I have not.
I said "potentially unemployed" - and that WAS 1992, when possibly more
'real' jobs were available. If this was to happen today, some of the
unemployed might have difficulty finding suitable alternative
employment. [Don't forget there hoards of EU immigrants available to
fill any vacancies! ;o) ]
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-10-11 11:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:00:50 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 07:42:41 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
I was reading in one of the papers that where they need to move out a
couple EU institutions from UK, I guess from London, very of the staff
are prepared to go too.
I have had personal experience of this when my first employer went bust
and the IP was brought by a company in the Liverpool area. Out of a
couple of hundred people who had the option, including me, only 20 went.
I stayed here. :-)
If a company feels obliged to move from the UK to Europe, and out of 200
only 20 go, the result is that there are 180 more potentially unemployed
in the UK, and they and the company are no longer paying UK taxes. Good
for the UK?
Your logic would suggest that I have been unemployed since 1992, when I
declined a move to Liverpool. I have not.
I said "potentially unemployed" - and that WAS 1992, when possibly more
'real' jobs were available.
No - because in the 90s the machine tool industry in the UK all but
collapsed because of "arms for Iraq", if you remember that.

Jobs come, jobs go, companies come, companies go. Yet those of us with
skills always seems to magically manage to make a living, and there is
always the option to follow the work, if that suits. But people who are
living where they want to live don't when they don't need and similarly
people will not move to shitholes, unless they have no other choice.

And of course what often happens in my experience is that out of the
people left when businesses close or move, some will start their own
businesses that go some way towards filling the gap.

Hence how I moved from machine tools to railways.
Post by Ian Jackson
If this was to happen today, some of the
unemployed might have difficulty finding suitable alternative
employment. [Don't forget there hoards of EU immigrants available to
fill any vacancies! ;o) ]
That rubbish is almost worthy of pamela. :-)

The problem of migrants pushing down wages for the unskilled is of
course a completely different issue and not relevant to the redeployment
of skilled people.

Meanwhile, in case you have not noticed, many industries are crying out
for skilled people at the moment and it is therefore much easier to find
a job now than it was in the 90s.
pamela
2017-10-11 12:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 07:42:41 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
I was reading in one of the papers that where they need to
move out a couple EU institutions from UK, I guess from
London, very of the staff are prepared to go too.
I have had personal experience of this when my first employer
went bust and the IP was brought by a company in the
Liverpool area. Out of a couple of hundred people who had the
option, including me, only 20 went.
I stayed here. :-)
If a company feels obliged to move from the UK to Europe, and
out of 200 only 20 go, the result is that there are 180 more
potentially unemployed in the UK, and they and the company are
no longer paying UK taxes. Good for the UK?
Your logic would suggest that I have been unemployed since 1992,
when I declined a move to Liverpool. I have not.
I said "potentially unemployed" - and that WAS 1992, when
possibly more 'real' jobs were available. If this was to happen
today, some of the unemployed might have difficulty finding
suitable alternative employment. [Don't forget there hoards of
EU immigrants available to fill any vacancies! ;o) ]
If you work in a highly specialised job and the industry which
employs those skills moves to another county then you will have to
either follow that industry abroad or not work in it.

For example, if you're a metals trader at the exchange and the
metals exchange moves to Frankfurt then you aren't going to be
able to trade in metals in the UK any longer. It's too bvious
really but Brexiteers in self-denial are conjouring all sort of
exceptions which only serve to prove the rule.

A friend of mine worked doing very specialised work designing
specific parts for jet engines for Rolls Royce. When Royces moves
that design department to Berlin a few years ago, he had the
choice of either following or learning another job. He went to
Berlin.
tim...
2017-10-11 12:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 07:42:41 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
I was reading in one of the papers that where they need to
move out a couple EU institutions from UK, I guess from
London, very of the staff are prepared to go too.
I have had personal experience of this when my first employer
went bust and the IP was brought by a company in the
Liverpool area. Out of a couple of hundred people who had the
option, including me, only 20 went.
I stayed here. :-)
If a company feels obliged to move from the UK to Europe, and
out of 200 only 20 go, the result is that there are 180 more
potentially unemployed in the UK, and they and the company are
no longer paying UK taxes. Good for the UK?
Your logic would suggest that I have been unemployed since 1992,
when I declined a move to Liverpool. I have not.
I said "potentially unemployed" - and that WAS 1992, when
possibly more 'real' jobs were available. If this was to happen
today, some of the unemployed might have difficulty finding
suitable alternative employment. [Don't forget there hoards of
EU immigrants available to fill any vacancies! ;o) ]
If you work in a highly specialised job and the industry which
employs those skills moves to another county then you will have to
either follow that industry abroad or not work in it.
For example, if you're a metals trader at the exchange and the
metals exchange moves to Frankfurt
but it wont.

worst case is that a new exchange will start up in Frankfurt to service any
regulation-restricted EU market - perhaps 15% of the world's total market.

But there is zero chance that the ROW market will move to being served from
Frankfurt, the economies of scale (not to mention the additional costs of
the unnecessary move) mean that it will stay where it is.
Post by pamela
then you aren't going to be
able to trade in metals in the UK any longer.
this will continue - to serve the far greater remaining percentage ROW
market
Post by pamela
It's too bvious
really but Brexiteers in self-denial are conjouring all sort of
exceptions which only serve to prove the rule.
No we are not. We understand how the market works and see all this stuff
about 100% of our trade disappearing as what it is - nonsense.
Post by pamela
A friend of mine worked doing very specialised work designing
specific parts for jet engines for Rolls Royce. When Royces moves
that design department to Berlin a few years ago, he had the
choice of either following or learning another job. He went to
Berlin.
this is far more specialist that being a market trader
tim...
2017-10-10 08:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
They were pretty miffed at the thought of bailing out Greece so
my instinct is they are going to get a bit wound up. :-)
Germany's bailout of Greece was minimal and nothing like what the
Greeks had demanded.
but only to kick the can down the road a bit

the Greek debt problem has not be solved and sooner or later someone
(probably the Germans) will have to take a write-down

tim
Loading...