Discussion:
Bank of England expects 75000 City job losses from hard Brexit
Add Reply
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-31 09:30:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/

In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -

http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency

back came the answer we see.

Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.

A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
James Harris
2017-10-31 09:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
any more. The Remain side has been crying wolf for too long. Besides:

*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.

And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-31 09:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
--
James Harris
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.

No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
James Harris
2017-10-31 11:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
--
James Harris
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
Well, /I/ read it. Did you? :-)

For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go", as you claim
but that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections. And even that
assumes the worst case no deal. In other words, the reality is likely to
be much better than that figure.
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-31 12:30:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
--
James Harris
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
Well, /I/ read it. Did you? :-)
For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go", as you claim
but that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections. And even that
assumes the worst case no deal. In other words, the reality is likely to
be much better than that figure.
No it says this will be the result of a hard Brexit.

BTW where did you buy your rose tinted spectacles?
Post by James Harris
--
James Harris
James Harris
2017-10-31 12:42:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
--
James Harris
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
Well, /I/ read it. Did you? :-)
For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go", as you claim
but that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections. And even that
assumes the worst case no deal. In other words, the reality is likely to
be much better than that figure.
No it says this will be the result of a hard Brexit.
No it doesn't. Your own linked article says "Officials think the figure
could vary depending on the terms of the talks but that 75,000 was at
the upper end of projections."

How can you not read that...?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
BTW where did you buy your rose tinted spectacles?
Ironic.
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-10-31 14:55:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go", as you claim
but that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections. And even that
assumes the worst case no deal. In other words, the reality is likely to
be much better than that figure.
No it says this will be the result of a hard Brexit.
No it doesn't. Your own linked article says "Officials think the figure
could vary depending on the terms of the talks but that 75,000 was at
the upper end of projections."
"Over 200,000 jobs could go" was at the upper end of projections:

"Xavier Rolet, the London Stock Exchange chief executive, has
suggested that over 200,000 jobs could go but the bank finds
these claims too high and thinks a report in 2016 by Oliver Wyman
is more realistic, which suggested job losses would sit between
65,000 and 75,000."
Post by James Harris
How can you not read that...?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
BTW where did you buy your rose tinted spectacles?
Nigel Mirage Opticians
Post by James Harris
Ironic.
James Harris
2017-10-31 15:28:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go", as you claim
but that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections. And even that
assumes the worst case no deal. In other words, the reality is likely to
be much better than that figure.
No it says this will be the result of a hard Brexit.
No it doesn't. Your own linked article says "Officials think the figure
could vary depending on the terms of the talks but that 75,000 was at
the upper end of projections."
"Xavier Rolet, the London Stock Exchange chief executive, has
suggested that over 200,000 jobs could go but the bank finds
these claims too high and thinks a report in 2016 by Oliver Wyman
is more realistic, which suggested job losses would sit between
65,000 and 75,000."
Yes, I read that and found it funny. On what basis did this Mr Rolet
make that "suggestion". Did the figure come to him in a dream one night?
Did he get it from looking at his calculator upside down? Did he blow
out his cheeks one morning and say: "I guess 200,000" while a grateful
world watched on? What basis was there for his figure?
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-10-31 15:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go", as you claim
but that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections. And even that
assumes the worst case no deal. In other words, the reality is likely to
be much better than that figure.
No it says this will be the result of a hard Brexit.
No it doesn't. Your own linked article says "Officials think the figure
could vary depending on the terms of the talks but that 75,000 was at
the upper end of projections."
"Xavier Rolet, the London Stock Exchange chief executive, has
suggested that over 200,000 jobs could go but the bank finds
these claims too high and thinks a report in 2016 by Oliver Wyman
is more realistic, which suggested job losses would sit between
65,000 and 75,000."
Yes, I read that and found it funny. On what basis did this Mr Rolet
make that "suggestion". Did the figure come to him in a dream one night?
Did he get it from looking at his calculator upside down? Did he blow
out his cheeks one morning and say: "I guess 200,000" while a grateful
world watched on? What basis was there for his figure?
"Xavier Rolet" sounds a bit French to me, so my guess is
he's an EU mole. Obviously not to be trusted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-london-city-jobs-losses-lse-boss-warning-uk-eu-a7519396.html
10 January 2017

'... Speaking to MPs on the Treasury Select Committee,
Xavier Rolet said LSE customers simply “would not wait”
for clarity over Britain’s divorce from the EU before moving.

'He said: “I’m not just talking about the clearing jobs themselves
which number into the few thousands.But the very large array of
ancillary functions, whether it’s syndication, trading, treasury
management, middle office, back office, risk management,
software, which range into far more than just a few thousand or
tens of thousands. They would then start migrating.”

'If the City did lose its ability to clear transactions denominated
in euros – which was a contentious issue even before the Brexit
vote – Rolet said 232,000 roles could be lost, citing research by
consultants Ernst & Young for the LSE. ...'
pamela
2017-10-31 16:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 12:42:13 UTC, James Harris
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-
afte
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
r-brexit-
bank-of-eng/
Post by James Harris
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go",
as you cla
im
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
but that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections. And
even that assumes the worst case no deal. In other words,
the reality is likel
y to
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
be much better than that figure.
No it says this will be the result of a hard Brexit.
No it doesn't. Your own linked article says "Officials think
the figur
e
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
could vary depending on the terms of the talks but that
75,000 was at the upper end of projections."
"Over 200,000 jobs could go" was at the upper end of
"Xavier Rolet, the London Stock Exchange chief executive, has
suggested that over 200,000 jobs could go but the bank finds
these claims too high and thinks a report in 2016 by Oliver
Wyman is more realistic, which suggested job losses would sit
between 65,000 and 75,000."
Yes, I read that and found it funny. On what basis did this Mr
Rolet make that "suggestion". Did the figure come to him in a
dream one night?
Did he get it from looking at his calculator upside down? Did
he blow out his cheeks one morning and say: "I guess 200,000"
while a grateful world watched on? What basis was there for his
figure?
"Xavier Rolet" sounds a bit French to me, so my guess is
he's an EU mole. Obviously not to be trusted.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-
latest-news-london-city-jobs-losses-lse-boss-warning-uk-
eu-a7519396.html
10 January 2017
'... Speaking to MPs on the Treasury Select Committee,
Xavier Rolet said LSE customers simply “would not wait”
for clarity over Britain’s divorce from the EU before moving.
'He said: “I’m not just talking about the clearing jobs
themselves which number into the few thousands.But the very
large array of ancillary functions, whether it’s syndication,
trading, treasury management, middle office, back office, risk
management, software, which range into far more than just a few
thousand or tens of thousands. They would then start
migrating.”
'If the City did lose its ability to clear transactions
denominated in euros – which was a contentious issue even
before the Brexit vote – Rolet said 232,000 roles could be
lost, citing research by consultants Ernst & Young for the LSE.
James has relied on and quoted figures from PwC (despite being
from March 2016), so let's see if he extends the same courtesy to
figure from Ernst & Young.
James Harris
2017-11-01 07:58:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by pensive hamster
'If the City did lose its ability to clear transactions
denominated in euros – which was a contentious issue even
before the Brexit vote – Rolet said 232,000 roles could be
lost, citing research by consultants Ernst & Young for the LSE.
James has relied on and quoted figures from PwC (despite being
from March 2016), so let's see if he extends the same courtesy to
figure from Ernst & Young.
I am surprised that Pamela keeps saying this. I have been clear more
than once that I was /contrasting/ the relatively positive 2016 forecast
with the negative spin that was put out to the public based on those
very reports.
--
James Harris
James Harris
2017-11-01 07:52:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go", as you claim
but that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections. And even that
assumes the worst case no deal. In other words, the reality is likely to
be much better than that figure.
No it says this will be the result of a hard Brexit.
No it doesn't. Your own linked article says "Officials think the figure
could vary depending on the terms of the talks but that 75,000 was at
the upper end of projections."
"Xavier Rolet, the London Stock Exchange chief executive, has
suggested that over 200,000 jobs could go but the bank finds
these claims too high and thinks a report in 2016 by Oliver Wyman
is more realistic, which suggested job losses would sit between
65,000 and 75,000."
Yes, I read that and found it funny. On what basis did this Mr Rolet
make that "suggestion". Did the figure come to him in a dream one night?
Did he get it from looking at his calculator upside down? Did he blow
out his cheeks one morning and say: "I guess 200,000" while a grateful
world watched on? What basis was there for his figure?
"Xavier Rolet" sounds a bit French to me, so my guess is
he's an EU mole. Obviously not to be trusted.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-london-city-jobs-losses-lse-boss-warning-uk-eu-a7519396.html
10 January 2017
'... Speaking to MPs on the Treasury Select Committee,
Xavier Rolet said LSE customers simply “would not wait”
for clarity over Britain’s divorce from the EU before moving.
'He said: “I’m not just talking about the clearing jobs themselves
which number into the few thousands.But the very large array of
ancillary functions, whether it’s syndication, trading, treasury
management, middle office, back office, risk management,
software, which range into far more than just a few thousand or
tens of thousands. They would then start migrating.”
'If the City did lose its ability to clear transactions denominated
in euros – which was a contentious issue even before the Brexit
vote – Rolet said 232,000 roles could be lost, citing research by
consultants Ernst & Young for the LSE. ...'
Fair enough if it was an official study but I cannot find it. Maybe it
was kept internal to the LSE and E&Y.

The estimates I have seen are talking about different figures. I wonder
if it's possible that the various bodies broadly agree on 4k to 70k
direct job migrations (over the next few years) and that the total when
other indirect jobs are included would be of the order of 12k to 210k.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-31 16:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-
brexit-bank-of-eng/
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go", as
you claim but that 75,000 was at the upper end of
projections. And even that assumes the worst case no deal.
In other words, the reality is likely to be much better than
that figure.
No it says this will be the result of a hard Brexit.
No it doesn't. Your own linked article says "Officials think
the figure could vary depending on the terms of the talks but
that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections."
"Over 200,000 jobs could go" was at the upper end of
"Xavier Rolet, the London Stock Exchange chief executive, has
suggested that over 200,000 jobs could go but the bank finds
these claims too high and thinks a report in 2016 by Oliver
Wyman is more realistic, which suggested job losses would sit
between 65,000 and 75,000."
I have similar problems with James's interpretation of figures. He
tries to twist what are clearly stated forecasts.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
How can you not read that...?
James Harris
2017-11-01 08:00:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-
brexit-bank-of-eng/
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go", as
you claim but that 75,000 was at the upper end of
projections. And even that assumes the worst case no deal.
In other words, the reality is likely to be much better than
that figure.
No it says this will be the result of a hard Brexit.
No it doesn't. Your own linked article says "Officials think
the figure could vary depending on the terms of the talks but
that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections."
"Over 200,000 jobs could go" was at the upper end of
"Xavier Rolet, the London Stock Exchange chief executive, has
suggested that over 200,000 jobs could go but the bank finds
these claims too high and thinks a report in 2016 by Oliver
Wyman is more realistic, which suggested job losses would sit
between 65,000 and 75,000."
I have similar problems with James's interpretation of figures. He
tries to twist what are clearly stated forecasts.
Again, if Pamela has a claim about some sort of twisting of figures she
is more than welcome to explain what it is. Vague allusions to misuse of
stats is not helpful, and is not substantiated.
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-31 13:34:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based
financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda
exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of
the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
--
James Harris
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their
figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about
£10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
Well, /I/ read it. Did you? :-)
For example, it does not say "about 75,000 jobs will go", as you claim but
that 75,000 was at the upper end of projections. And even that assumes the
worst case no deal.
actually it is no deal on financial services

ISTM that is a much higher possibility than no deal at all

tim
tim...
2017-10-31 13:33:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based
financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda
exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of
the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
--
James Harris
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their
figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
each of these individual figures is a guess

adding them together doesn't stop it being a guess

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-31 14:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
--
James Harris
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their
figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
each of these individual figures is a guess
No a report. A bit like asking staff how many days they want off at Xmas.
Post by tim...
adding them together doesn't stop it being a guess
No its a compilation or sum if you prefer.
Post by tim...
tim
Yellow
2017-10-31 14:17:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 02:56:10 -0700 (PDT), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
--
James Harris
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
Of course it is a guess. How can it not be a guess?7

Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
There will be change, I have no doubt at all about that.
James Harris
2017-10-31 14:30:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 02:56:10 -0700 (PDT), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
--
James Harris
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
Of course it is a guess. How can it not be a guess?7
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
There will be change, I have no doubt at all about that.
I would /prefer/ the banks and others to prepare for there being No
Trade Deal than for the UK to tie its future regulations to those of the
EU. The relevant prize of EU exit is freedom to engage with the world on
terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise as needed. A
short-term alliance with the EU now could jeopardise our chances to do
what we need to do in order to benefit from wider global engagement. So
let branch offices be set up on the continent and let's get ourselves
room to move.
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-10-31 14:44:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
Of course it is a guess. How can it not be a guess?7
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
There will be change, I have no doubt at all about that.
I would /prefer/ the banks and others to prepare for there being No
Trade Deal than for the UK to tie its future regulations to those of the
EU. The relevant prize of EU exit is freedom to engage with the world on
terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise as needed.
That does rather assume that we will be able to persuade other
countries to agree to the terms and rules that we have drawn up
and customised.

It doesn't seem to have been entirely easy to persuade the EU
countries to cooperate in that way, if you believe the Brexit
worldview.
Post by James Harris
A
short-term alliance with the EU now could jeopardise our chances to do
what we need to do in order to benefit from wider global engagement. So
let branch offices be set up on the continent and let's get ourselves
room to move.
James Harris
2017-10-31 15:36:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
Of course it is a guess. How can it not be a guess?7
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
There will be change, I have no doubt at all about that.
I would /prefer/ the banks and others to prepare for there being No
Trade Deal than for the UK to tie its future regulations to those of the
EU. The relevant prize of EU exit is freedom to engage with the world on
terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise as needed.
That does rather assume that we will be able to persuade other
countries to agree to the terms and rules that we have drawn up
and customised.
Not at all. I was careful not to say we would decide them alone. All
such trade is by mutual agreement.

If we tied ourselves to EU regulatory requirements such as MIFID or,
possibly, passporting - or something worse - we would be limiting the
scope of agreements we make with countries in the rest of the world. I
would /much/ rather the financial institutions set up offices on the
continent and our negotiators did what's best for our long term rather
than just trying to ease the separation from the EU.
Post by pensive hamster
It doesn't seem to have been entirely easy to persuade the EU
countries to cooperate in that way, if you believe the Brexit
worldview.
Some believe that. I don't know when I last expected the EU to behave
reasonably. I guess it was a long time ago!

The daft thing is that the individual European countries would be, IMO,
far more amenable to good economic decisionmaking. But when they get
together and the EU gets involved then their primary aim is politics
rather than prosperity. It has long been thus. And that's partly why
they keep making poor choices.
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-31 15:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 14:30:04 UTC, James Harris wrote:

SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
There will be change, I have no doubt at all about that.
I would /prefer/ the banks and others to prepare for there being No
Trade Deal than for the UK to tie its future regulations to those of the
EU. The relevant prize of EU exit is freedom to engage with the world on
terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise as needed. A
short-term alliance with the EU now could jeopardise our chances to do
what we need to do in order to benefit from wider global engagement. So
let branch offices be set up on the continent and let's get ourselves
room to move.
--
James Harris
The sheer naivete of it!

Here we are in the biggest free trading block in the world. Brexiteers think we can leave that, but still keep free trade because after all the EU at least believes in it. They also think we trade with [the EU] and the rest of the world "on terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise". We have not got an empire we can simply dictate to any more (the USA left in 1776) and much of the rest of the world simply does not want free trade. The bigger countries (US, Russia, China) will set the terms you can trade with them on and as Trump has said these will put their home markets first.

It is going to be an icy cold bath in a couple of years' time - gruel and small beer...
James Harris
2017-10-31 16:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
There will be change, I have no doubt at all about that.
I would /prefer/ the banks and others to prepare for there being No
Trade Deal than for the UK to tie its future regulations to those of the
EU. The relevant prize of EU exit is freedom to engage with the world on
terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise as needed. A
short-term alliance with the EU now could jeopardise our chances to do
what we need to do in order to benefit from wider global engagement. So
let branch offices be set up on the continent and let's get ourselves
room to move.
--
James Harris
The sheer naivete of it!
Always nice to see poetry on Usenet. ;-)
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Here we are in the biggest free trading block in the world.
The EU has a great free market internally for *goods*. But its services
market has never been completed. And what the UK is best at is ...
services. The EU single market is brilliant for goods-producing Germany;
it's not so good for us. Surprise, that, eh!

Besides, as an economy the EU is smaller than the US and its share of
world trade is decreasing (and will decrease even more when we leave!).
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Brexiteers think we can leave that,
Indeed! Can't wait!
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but still keep free trade because after all the EU at least believes in it.
I wouldn't expect the same free trade we and the EU have now to exist
post Brexit. I'd prefer we focus on the 80% of the world which is not
the EU.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They also think we trade with [the EU] and the rest of the world "on terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise".
In conjunction with trading partners.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
We have not got an empire we can simply dictate to any more (the USA left in 1776) and much of the rest of the world simply does not want free trade. The bigger countries (US, Russia, China) will set the terms you can trade with them on and as Trump has said these will put their home markets first.
That's speculation, Mark. You might be surprised at how open to trade
other countries are - especially if we resist tying ourselves too
closely to the EU single market so we have more freedom to negotiate.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
It is going to be an icy cold bath in a couple of years' time - gruel and small beer...
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-31 16:13:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
There will be change, I have no doubt at all about that.
I would /prefer/ the banks and others to prepare for there being No
Trade Deal than for the UK to tie its future regulations to those of the
EU. The relevant prize of EU exit is freedom to engage with the world on
terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise as needed. A
short-term alliance with the EU now could jeopardise our chances to do
what we need to do in order to benefit from wider global engagement. So
let branch offices be set up on the continent and let's get ourselves
room to move.
--
James Harris
The sheer naivete of it!
Always nice to see poetry on Usenet. ;-)
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Here we are in the biggest free trading block in the world.
The EU has a great free market internally for *goods*.
Most goods - not all.
Post by James Harris
But its services
market has never been completed.
Still pretty good though. I had no problems.
Post by James Harris
And what the UK is best at is ...
services. The EU single market is brilliant for goods-producing Germany;
it's not so good for us. Surprise, that, eh!
Besides, as an economy the EU is smaller than the US and its share of
world trade is decreasing (and will decrease even more when we leave!).
The USA economy is only slightly larger than the EU and 3,000 miles further away. Trump has pulled out of TPP and TTIP and looks set to end free trade with Canada, so more naivete if you think the US will even make up a small amount of what is lost with the EU.
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Brexiteers think we can leave that,
Indeed! Can't wait!
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but still keep free trade because after all the EU at least believes in it.
I wouldn't expect the same free trade we and the EU have now to exist
post Brexit. I'd prefer we focus on the 80% of the world which is not
the EU.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They also think we trade with [the EU] and the rest of the world "on terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise".
In conjunction with trading partners.
You must have missed that bit first time.
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
We have not got an empire we can simply dictate to any more (the USA left in 1776) and much of the rest of the world simply does not want free trade. The bigger countries (US, Russia, China) will set the terms you can trade with them on and as Trump has said these will put their home markets first.
That's speculation, Mark. You might be surprised at how open to trade
other countries are - especially if we resist tying ourselves too
closely to the EU single market so we have more freedom to negotiate.
How many times has Trump said "America first". How many trading partners has he ****ed off telling them that they have been taking advantage or even raping the USA (China)?
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
It is going to be an icy cold bath in a couple of years' time - gruel and small beer...
--
James Harris
James Harris
2017-11-01 08:06:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
There will be change, I have no doubt at all about that.
I would /prefer/ the banks and others to prepare for there being No
Trade Deal than for the UK to tie its future regulations to those of the
EU. The relevant prize of EU exit is freedom to engage with the world on
terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise as needed. A
short-term alliance with the EU now could jeopardise our chances to do
what we need to do in order to benefit from wider global engagement. So
let branch offices be set up on the continent and let's get ourselves
room to move.
--
James Harris
The sheer naivete of it!
Always nice to see poetry on Usenet. ;-)
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Here we are in the biggest free trading block in the world.
The EU has a great free market internally for *goods*.
Most goods - not all.
Post by James Harris
But its services
market has never been completed.
Still pretty good though. I had no problems.
Post by James Harris
And what the UK is best at is ...
services. The EU single market is brilliant for goods-producing Germany;
it's not so good for us. Surprise, that, eh!
Besides, as an economy the EU is smaller than the US and its share of
world trade is decreasing (and will decrease even more when we leave!).
The USA economy is only slightly larger than the EU and 3,000 miles further away. Trump has pulled out of TPP and TTIP and looks set to end free trade with Canada, so more naivete if you think the US will even make up a small amount of what is lost with the EU.
I don't disagree about where the USA is! I was merely pointing out that
your claim of the EU's predominance as a trading entity could be seen as
misleading.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Brexiteers think we can leave that,
Indeed! Can't wait!
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but still keep free trade because after all the EU at least believes in it.
I wouldn't expect the same free trade we and the EU have now to exist
post Brexit. I'd prefer we focus on the 80% of the world which is not
the EU.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They also think we trade with [the EU] and the rest of the world "on terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise".
In conjunction with trading partners.
You must have missed that bit first time.
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
We have not got an empire we can simply dictate to any more (the USA left in 1776) and much of the rest of the world simply does not want free trade. The bigger countries (US, Russia, China) will set the terms you can trade with them on and as Trump has said these will put their home markets first.
That's speculation, Mark. You might be surprised at how open to trade
other countries are - especially if we resist tying ourselves too
closely to the EU single market so we have more freedom to negotiate.
How many times has Trump said "America first".
Of course. That's what I would expect a US president to believe. But
there's good will for the UK from him and in the wider Republican party
- though I fear that some of the British are doing their best to dent
that goodwill in the name of British arrogance.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-31 16:05:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and
about Â
£10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
There will be change, I have no doubt at all about that.
I would /prefer/ the banks and others to prepare for there
being No Trade Deal than for the UK to tie its future
regulations to those of the
EU. The relevant prize of EU exit is freedom to engage with the world on
terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise as
needed. A short-term alliance with the EU now could jeopardise
our chances to do what we need to do in order to benefit from
wider global engagement. So
let branch offices be set up on the continent and let's get
ourselves room to move.
-- James Harris
The sheer naivete of it!
Here we are in the biggest free trading block in the world.
Brexiteers think we can leave that, but still keep free trade
because after all the EU at least believes in it. They also
think we trade with [the EU] and the rest of the world "on terms
and under rules that we can draw up and customise". We have not
got an empire we can simply dictate to any more (the USA left in
1776) and much of the rest of the world simply does not want
free trade. The bigger countries (US, Russia, China) will set
the terms you can trade with them on and as Trump has said these
will put their home markets first.
I tried to explain this to Norman Wells but he's still not able to
accept the truth of it.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
It is going to be an icy cold bath in a couple of years' time - gruel and small beer...
Brexit statements like:

"freedom to engage with the world on terms and under rules that
we can draw up"

remind me that lemmings are probably happy that they're free to
jump off a cliff.
Yellow
2017-10-31 16:25:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The sheer naivete of it!
Here we are in the biggest free trading block in the world.
Brexiteers think we can leave that, but still keep free trade
because after all the EU at least believes in it. They also
think we trade with [the EU] and the rest of the world "on terms
and under rules that we can draw up and customise". We have not
got an empire we can simply dictate to any more (the USA left in
1776) and much of the rest of the world simply does not want
free trade. The bigger countries (US, Russia, China) will set
the terms you can trade with them on and as Trump has said these
will put their home markets first.
I tried to explain this to Norman Wells but he's still not able to
accept the truth of it.
You do realise, when you keep refer to people behind their backs that
they can hear you?

Instead of being this rude, why not just talk to them to their faces?
pamela
2017-10-31 17:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The sheer naivete of it!
Here we are in the biggest free trading block in the world.
Brexiteers think we can leave that, but still keep free trade
because after all the EU at least believes in it. They also
think we trade with [the EU] and the rest of the world "on
terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise". We
have not got an empire we can simply dictate to any more (the
USA left in 1776) and much of the rest of the world simply
does not want free trade. The bigger countries (US, Russia,
China) will set the terms you can trade with them on and as
Trump has said these will put their home markets first.
I tried to explain this to Norman Wells but he's still not able
to accept the truth of it.
You do realise, when you keep refer to people behind their backs
that they can hear you?
Instead of being this rude, why not just talk to them to their
faces?
I have some posters killfiled and only see what they write when
someone else replies to them. The killfiled poster's message is
deleted, so I am only able to reply to one later in the thread.
HTH.
Yellow
2017-10-31 19:39:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The sheer naivete of it!
Here we are in the biggest free trading block in the world.
Brexiteers think we can leave that, but still keep free trade
because after all the EU at least believes in it. They also
think we trade with [the EU] and the rest of the world "on
terms and under rules that we can draw up and customise". We
have not got an empire we can simply dictate to any more (the
USA left in 1776) and much of the rest of the world simply
does not want free trade. The bigger countries (US, Russia,
China) will set the terms you can trade with them on and as
Trump has said these will put their home markets first.
I tried to explain this to Norman Wells but he's still not able
to accept the truth of it.
You do realise, when you keep refer to people behind their backs
that they can hear you?
Instead of being this rude, why not just talk to them to their faces?
I have some posters killfiled and only see what they write when
someone else replies to them. The killfiled poster's message is
deleted, so I am only able to reply to one later in the thread.
HTH.
So you will not reply to people directly and instead decide the way
forward is to slag them off to other posters who do reply to them.

You really are quite pathetic.
pamela
2017-10-31 21:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 14:30:04 UTC, James Harris
The sheer naivete of it!
Here we are in the biggest free trading block in the
world. Brexiteers think we can leave that, but still keep
free trade because after all the EU at least believes in
it. They also think we trade with [the EU] and the rest
of the world "on terms and under rules that we can draw up
and customise". We have not got an empire we can simply
dictate to any more (the USA left in 1776) and much of the
rest of the world simply does not want free trade. The
bigger countries (US, Russia, China) will set the terms
you can trade with them on and as Trump has said these
will put their home markets first.
I tried to explain this to Norman Wells but he's still not
able to accept the truth of it.
You do realise, when you keep refer to people behind their
backs that they can hear you?
Instead of being this rude, why not just talk to them to
their faces?
I have some posters killfiled and only see what they write when
someone else replies to them. The killfiled poster's message
is deleted, so I am only able to reply to one later in the
thread. HTH.
So you will not reply to people directly and instead decide the
way forward is to slag them off to other posters who do reply to
them.
You really are quite pathetic.
Yellow, it is truly rare to meet someone with your talent for
misunderstanding. I explained I had no alternative because I
cannot reply to comments I see in killfiled posts as the post has
disappeared.

Here is what I wrote although your reply talks about me not being
willing to reply to posters! This is getting to be ahabit for you
and you may benefit from a memory or cognitive assessement
performed soon.....

I have some posters killfiled and only see what they write when
someone else replies to them. The killfiled poster's message
is deleted, so I am only able to reply to one later in the
thread. HTH.
Norman Wells
2017-10-31 21:47:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
I tried to explain this to Norman Wells but he's still not able
to accept the truth of it.
You do realise, when you keep refer to people behind their backs
that they can hear you?
Instead of being this rude, why not just talk to them to their faces?
I have some posters killfiled and only see what they write when
someone else replies to them. The killfiled poster's message is
deleted, so I am only able to reply to one later in the thread.
HTH.
So you will not reply to people directly and instead decide the way
forward is to slag them off to other posters who do reply to them.
You really are quite pathetic.
Well said.

If you can't stand discussion, stay out of discussion groups.
pensive hamster
2017-10-31 14:40:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
Of course it is a guess. How can it not be a guess?7
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Similarly:

Vote in Referendum -> estimate or conclude (something) without
sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No the City won't disappear - about 75,000 jobs will go and about £10Billion of business - nothing to worry about...
There will be change, I have no doubt at all about that.
James Harris
2017-10-31 14:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
I am loving all these stories! I don't think many people believe them
*Even if* 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest
financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in
financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.
And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial
services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
Do read the post - the BoE asked every financial institution for their figures and then compiled them - so not a guesstimate.
Of course it is a guess. How can it not be a guess?7
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Vote in Referendum -> estimate or conclude (something) without
sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Quite! We had to vote without knowing the final shape of the deal. What
other option was there?
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-10-31 15:02:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Vote in Referendum -> estimate or conclude (something) without
sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Quite! We had to vote without knowing the final shape of the deal. What
other option was there?
Making the referendum rather less binding, with an opportunity
to review once the the final shape of the deal had become clear(er).

That would probably have put us in a much stronger negotiating
position viz-a-viz the EU too.

Not putting all our eggs in one basket, in other words.
James Harris
2017-10-31 15:50:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Vote in Referendum -> estimate or conclude (something) without
sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Quite! We had to vote without knowing the final shape of the deal. What
other option was there?
Making the referendum rather less binding, with an opportunity
to review once the the final shape of the deal had become clear(er).
That would probably have put us in a much stronger negotiating
position viz-a-viz the EU too.
Not putting all our eggs in one basket, in other words.
I don't understand. /If/ the 2016 referendum had been run on the basis
you suggest, i.e. that we could vote Leave and still get a chance to
review the decision before we made a final choice, wouldn't that have
emboldened many more people to vote leave?

Why did the government tell us that we would get just one vote if it was
not to discourage a casual "let's try it and see"?
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-10-31 16:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Vote in Referendum -> estimate or conclude (something) without
sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Quite! We had to vote without knowing the final shape of the deal. What
other option was there?
Making the referendum rather less binding, with an opportunity
to review once the the final shape of the deal had become clear(er).
That would probably have put us in a much stronger negotiating
position viz-a-viz the EU too.
Not putting all our eggs in one basket, in other words.
I don't understand. /If/ the 2016 referendum had been run on the basis
you suggest, i.e. that we could vote Leave and still get a chance to
review the decision before we made a final choice, wouldn't that have
emboldened many more people to vote leave?
It might have done, or it might not, it's hard to say. Either way,
a clear chance to review the decision would have put us in a
much stronger negotiating position.

It's harder to negotiate a good deal if the salesman knows you
have definitely decided to buy the Brexit car at the end of the
day.
Post by James Harris
Why did the government tell us that we would get just one vote if it was
not to discourage a casual "let's try it and see"?
I don't see that the government did succeed in discouraging a
"let's try it and see" approach to voting, if anything they
encouraged or emboldened such an approach.
James Harris
2017-11-01 08:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Vote in Referendum -> estimate or conclude (something) without
sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Quite! We had to vote without knowing the final shape of the deal. What
other option was there?
Making the referendum rather less binding, with an opportunity
to review once the the final shape of the deal had become clear(er).
That would probably have put us in a much stronger negotiating
position viz-a-viz the EU too.
Not putting all our eggs in one basket, in other words.
I don't understand. /If/ the 2016 referendum had been run on the basis
you suggest, i.e. that we could vote Leave and still get a chance to
review the decision before we made a final choice, wouldn't that have
emboldened many more people to vote leave?
It might have done, or it might not, it's hard to say.
I am not at all a fan of hypotheticals but we have to get real here. If
the public had a choice between

1. Stay in
2. Get a detailed renegotiation and then make the choice

I find it hard to believe that you really think that would not increase
the vote for option 2.
Post by pensive hamster
Either way,
a clear chance to review the decision would have put us in a
much stronger negotiating position.
How would that make our negotiating position stronger?
Post by pensive hamster
It's harder to negotiate a good deal if the salesman knows you
have definitely decided to buy the Brexit car at the end of the
day.
I don't see how that applies.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Why did the government tell us that we would get just one vote if it was
not to discourage a casual "let's try it and see"?
I don't see that the government did succeed in discouraging a
"let's try it and see" approach to voting, if anything they
encouraged or emboldened such an approach.
How did they do that?
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-11-01 15:35:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Vote in Referendum -> estimate or conclude (something) without
sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Quite! We had to vote without knowing the final shape of the deal. What
other option was there?
Making the referendum rather less binding, with an opportunity
to review once the the final shape of the deal had become clear(er).
That would probably have put us in a much stronger negotiating
position viz-a-viz the EU too.
Not putting all our eggs in one basket, in other words.
I don't understand. /If/ the 2016 referendum had been run on the basis
you suggest, i.e. that we could vote Leave and still get a chance to
review the decision before we made a final choice, wouldn't that have
emboldened many more people to vote leave?
It might have done, or it might not, it's hard to say.
I am not at all a fan of hypotheticals but we have to get real here. If
the public had a choice between
1. Stay in
2. Get a detailed renegotiation and then make the choice
I find it hard to believe that you really think that would not increase
the vote for option 2.
It depends how you define option 2. You earlier asked:

"/If/ the 2016 referendum had been run on the basis ... that we
could vote Leave and still get a chance to review the decision
before we made a final choice, wouldn't that have emboldened
many more people to vote leave?"

But now you define option 2 as "Get a detailed renegotiation
and then make the choice". That is a slightly different question,
because it allows the option to make the choice to vote Remain.

If the referendum question had been between
1. Stay in
2. Get a detailed renegotiation and then make the choice

then I can't see how anyone would not have voted for that option 2,
because even diehard Remainers would surely have welcomed
the chance to improve existing terms (and costs) through a
detailed renegotiation.
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Either way,
a clear chance to review the decision would have put us in a
much stronger negotiating position.
How would that make our negotiating position stronger?
Because now the EU know we are more-or-less definitely going
to Leave (barring a major change of heart among UK voters),
so they have no motive to offer us a good deal, and in fact
are motivated to offer us a harsh deal, in order to discourage
any other countries from voting to Leave the EU.

If our negotiating position was "We will probably Leave unless
you offer us a better deal than we presently have", then the EU
would have more reason to offer us a good deal.
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
It's harder to negotiate a good deal if the salesman knows you
have definitely decided to buy the Brexit car at the end of the
day.
I don't see how that applies.
See above.
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Why did the government tell us that we would get just one vote if it was
not to discourage a casual "let's try it and see"?
I don't see that the government did succeed in discouraging a
"let's try it and see" approach to voting, if anything they
encouraged or emboldened such an approach.
How did they do that?
Because they possibly encouraged or emboldened disaffected
and resentful voters to "let's try it and see" how the establishment
feels if we vote Leave.

In other words, they may have encouraged voters who mostly
wanted to stick two fingers up to the establishment (or to people
they saw as more privileged than themselves).

I don't know if that actually did happen, but I suspect it may have,
to some extent.
James Harris
2017-11-02 08:49:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Vote in Referendum -> estimate or conclude (something) without
sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Quite! We had to vote without knowing the final shape of the deal. What
other option was there?
Making the referendum rather less binding, with an opportunity
to review once the the final shape of the deal had become clear(er).
That would probably have put us in a much stronger negotiating
position viz-a-viz the EU too.
Not putting all our eggs in one basket, in other words.
I don't understand. /If/ the 2016 referendum had been run on the basis
you suggest, i.e. that we could vote Leave and still get a chance to
review the decision before we made a final choice, wouldn't that have
emboldened many more people to vote leave?
It might have done, or it might not, it's hard to say.
I am not at all a fan of hypotheticals but we have to get real here. If
the public had a choice between
1. Stay in
2. Get a detailed renegotiation and then make the choice
I find it hard to believe that you really think that would not increase
the vote for option 2.
"/If/ the 2016 referendum had been run on the basis ... that we
could vote Leave and still get a chance to review the decision
before we made a final choice, wouldn't that have emboldened
many more people to vote leave?"
But now you define option 2 as "Get a detailed renegotiation
and then make the choice". That is a slightly different question,
because it allows the option to make the choice to vote Remain.
If the referendum question had been between
1. Stay in
2. Get a detailed renegotiation and then make the choice
then I can't see how anyone would not have voted for that option 2,
because even diehard Remainers would surely have welcomed
the chance to improve existing terms (and costs) through a
detailed renegotiation.
It sounds as though we are in agreement on the difference that question
would have made. And that's surely why the government took that option
off the table and explicitly ruled out a second referendum. Whatever
their reasons, Mr Cameron and those with him wanted to put the issue of
"Europe" to bed for a generation. So they said to the people that there
would be just one vote. No later renegotiation. No later vote on the
terms. Of course, they assumed they could get the result they wanted.
They gambled. They lost.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Either way,
a clear chance to review the decision would have put us in a
much stronger negotiating position.
How would that make our negotiating position stronger?
Because now the EU know we are more-or-less definitely going
to Leave (barring a major change of heart among UK voters),
so they have no motive to offer us a good deal, and in fact
are motivated to offer us a harsh deal, in order to discourage
any other countries from voting to Leave the EU.
I think you are right that they don't want us to have a good deal. Hence
we are engaged in an adversarial negotiation. It is only self interest
that will bring them to make concessions. (IMO their main interest will
be cohesion, not money, albeit that the cohesion may be driven by
economic factors.)

But they have enough self interest at stake in this to be forced to
offer us a good deal. Some EU countries would tough it out, of course,
but others would not. And they want to stay together.
Post by pensive hamster
If our negotiating position was "We will probably Leave unless
you offer us a better deal than we presently have", then the EU
would have more reason to offer us a good deal.
True, it would be an incentive to them, but you have to be realistic and
think about how much. Cameron already negotiated with them /after/
legislating for a referendum. Even though they knew we were about to
vote on membership and the polls were close - in other words, we really
might leave - he came back with two thirds of next to nothing. If we
went back and said "we really, really might leave this time" we could
perhaps get a bit more. But to hope we would effect the change we as a
country need is credulous - partly because the EU know they would only
have to swing the vote by a few percentage points to turn 48:52 into a
victory for their side.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
It's harder to negotiate a good deal if the salesman knows you
have definitely decided to buy the Brexit car at the end of the
day.
I don't see how that applies.
See above.
Have you explained it? I don't see where you did so. If you go to an EU
showroom to buy a car and say to the salesman that you will definitely
buy a car from him then surely he will try to get more money out of you
than if he knows you are prepared to walk away. Surely...!
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Why did the government tell us that we would get just one vote if it was
not to discourage a casual "let's try it and see"?
I don't see that the government did succeed in discouraging a
"let's try it and see" approach to voting, if anything they
encouraged or emboldened such an approach.
How did they do that?
Because they possibly encouraged or emboldened disaffected
and resentful voters to "let's try it and see" how the establishment
feels if we vote Leave.
Why? Did they do something specific to upset such people?
Post by pensive hamster
In other words, they may have encouraged voters who mostly
wanted to stick two fingers up to the establishment (or to people
they saw as more privileged than themselves).
I am struggling to see that happening to any great extent more than it
does in any election. I can see that people who have been left behind
over the past few decades would want change. But by the same token those
who have done well over the same period of time would want it to continue.
Post by pensive hamster
I don't know if that actually did happen, but I suspect it may have,
to some extent.
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-11-02 15:13:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
"/If/ the 2016 referendum had been run on the basis ... that we
could vote Leave and still get a chance to review the decision
before we made a final choice, wouldn't that have emboldened
many more people to vote leave?"
But now you define option 2 as "Get a detailed renegotiation
and then make the choice". That is a slightly different question,
because it allows the option to make the choice to vote Remain.
If the referendum question had been between
1. Stay in
2. Get a detailed renegotiation and then make the choice
then I can't see how anyone would not have voted for that option 2,
because even diehard Remainers would surely have welcomed
the chance to improve existing terms (and costs) through a
detailed renegotiation.
It sounds as though we are in agreement on the difference that question
would have made.
Yes, if you phrase the question in the way you did in your
second version.
Post by James Harris
And that's surely why the government took that option
off the table and explicitly ruled out a second referendum.
As far as I know, the government didn't explicitly rule out a
second referendum until *after* the referendum:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-second-referendum-theresa-may-rules-out-general-election-a7216406.html

30 August 2016
'Theresa May rules out second EU referendum or vote on
terms of Brexit'
Post by James Harris
Whatever
their reasons, Mr Cameron and those with him wanted to put the issue of
"Europe" to bed for a generation. So they said to the people that there
would be just one vote. No later renegotiation. No later vote on the
terms.
When did Cameron & Co say that?
Post by James Harris
Of course, they assumed they could get the result they wanted.
They gambled. They lost.
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
It's harder to negotiate a good deal if the salesman knows you
have definitely decided to buy the Brexit car at the end of the
day.
I don't see how that applies.
See above.
Have you explained it? I don't see where you did so. If you go to an EU
showroom to buy a car and say to the salesman that you will definitely
buy a car from him then surely he will try to get more money out of you
than if he knows you are prepared to walk away. Surely...!
Isn't that what I said?
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Why did the government tell us that we would get just one vote if it was
not to discourage a casual "let's try it and see"?
I don't see that the government did succeed in discouraging a
"let's try it and see" approach to voting, if anything they
encouraged or emboldened such an approach.
How did they do that?
Because they possibly encouraged or emboldened disaffected
and resentful voters to "let's try it and see" how the establishment
feels if we vote Leave.
Why? Did they do something specific to upset such people?
For example:

Remainers such as Cameron and Osborne were widely
perceived as out of touch posh boys. Westminster was
seen as an out of touch metropolitan elite.

And Blair was seen as the architect behind high levels of
immigration from EU countries such as Poland, taking
British jobs, while himself not living in an area affected
by such immigration.
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
In other words, they may have encouraged voters who mostly
wanted to stick two fingers up to the establishment (or to people
they saw as more privileged than themselves).
I am struggling to see that happening to any great extent more than it
does in any election. I can see that people who have been left behind
over the past few decades would want change. But by the same token those
who have done well over the same period of time would want it to continue.
Post by pensive hamster
I don't know if that actually did happen, but I suspect it may have,
to some extent.
James Harris
2017-11-02 16:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
"/If/ the 2016 referendum had been run on the basis ... that we
could vote Leave and still get a chance to review the decision
before we made a final choice, wouldn't that have emboldened
many more people to vote leave?"
But now you define option 2 as "Get a detailed renegotiation
and then make the choice". That is a slightly different question,
because it allows the option to make the choice to vote Remain.
If the referendum question had been between
1. Stay in
2. Get a detailed renegotiation and then make the choice
then I can't see how anyone would not have voted for that option 2,
because even diehard Remainers would surely have welcomed
the chance to improve existing terms (and costs) through a
detailed renegotiation.
It sounds as though we are in agreement on the difference that question
would have made.
Yes, if you phrase the question in the way you did in your
second version.
Post by James Harris
And that's surely why the government took that option
off the table and explicitly ruled out a second referendum.
As far as I know, the government didn't explicitly rule out a
The government didn't rule out another referendum for all time. (And I
agree with that; we could have another one later, some reasonable time
after this one has been implemented.) But they did say we were making a
once-in-a-generation decision. And they also said they /would implement/
what the public decided.

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1163/Brexit-vote-once-in-a-generation
Post by pensive hamster
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-second-referendum-theresa-may-rules-out-general-election-a7216406.html
30 August 2016
'Theresa May rules out second EU referendum or vote on
terms of Brexit'
Post by James Harris
Whatever
their reasons, Mr Cameron and those with him wanted to put the issue of
"Europe" to bed for a generation. So they said to the people that there
would be just one vote. No later renegotiation. No later vote on the
terms.
When did Cameron & Co say that?
Before the referendum. E.g. here:
there's a
a handy condensed clip of him saying it and being extremely clear. It
includes a link to the full transcript on the government website if you
want to check the details.

Do you not remember that being said in the pre-referendum discussions?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Of course, they assumed they could get the result they wanted.
They gambled. They lost.
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
It's harder to negotiate a good deal if the salesman knows you
have definitely decided to buy the Brexit car at the end of the
day.
I don't see how that applies.
See above.
Have you explained it? I don't see where you did so. If you go to an EU
showroom to buy a car and say to the salesman that you will definitely
buy a car from him then surely he will try to get more money out of you
than if he knows you are prepared to walk away. Surely...!
Isn't that what I said?
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Why did the government tell us that we would get just one vote if it was
not to discourage a casual "let's try it and see"?
I don't see that the government did succeed in discouraging a
"let's try it and see" approach to voting, if anything they
encouraged or emboldened such an approach.
How did they do that?
Because they possibly encouraged or emboldened disaffected
and resentful voters to "let's try it and see" how the establishment
feels if we vote Leave.
Why? Did they do something specific to upset such people?
Remainers such as Cameron and Osborne were widely
perceived as out of touch posh boys. Westminster was
seen as an out of touch metropolitan elite.
And Blair was seen as the architect behind high levels of
immigration from EU countries such as Poland, taking
British jobs, while himself not living in an area affected
by such immigration.
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
In other words, they may have encouraged voters who mostly
wanted to stick two fingers up to the establishment (or to people
they saw as more privileged than themselves).
I am struggling to see that happening to any great extent more than it
does in any election. I can see that people who have been left behind
over the past few decades would want change. But by the same token those
who have done well over the same period of time would want it to continue.
Post by pensive hamster
I don't know if that actually did happen, but I suspect it may have,
to some extent.
--
James Harris
Tim Woodall
2017-11-02 17:53:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
The government didn't rule out another referendum for all time. (And I
agree with that; we could have another one later, some reasonable time
after this one has been implemented.) But they did say we were making a
once-in-a-generation decision. And they also said they /would implement/
what the public decided.
But /would implement/ could mean anything from hard brexit to status quo
except that we no longer have a seat at the table but accept everything
that the EU sends our way.

If the government did decide to do that - leave the EU but leave
absolutely everything else completely unchanged - then I suspect a
second referendum would get 100% vote to turn it down in favour of the
status quo because I cannot see how anybody could imagine that was a
better deal for the UK than the status quo (however bad you think the
status quo is)

Brexit - The undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to
get the unspecified for the uninformed.
James Harris
2017-11-02 20:09:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by James Harris
The government didn't rule out another referendum for all time. (And I
agree with that; we could have another one later, some reasonable time
after this one has been implemented.) But they did say we were making a
once-in-a-generation decision. And they also said they /would implement/
what the public decided.
But /would implement/ could mean anything from hard brexit to status quo
except that we no longer have a seat at the table but accept everything
that the EU sends our way.
If the government did decide to do that - leave the EU but leave
absolutely everything else completely unchanged - then I suspect a
second referendum would get 100% vote to turn it down in favour of the
status quo because I cannot see how anybody could imagine that was a
better deal for the UK than the status quo (however bad you think the
status quo is)
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent country
again. The politicians are in danger of trying to hard to mitigate the
cons that they fail to secure the pros. As a Brexiteer I wouldn't want
that. I don't think Remainers would either.
Post by Tim Woodall
Brexit - The undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to
get the unspecified for the uninformed.
So far, even though many in parliament don't understand Brexit May, who
was a Remainer, does grasp it better than they do. She does, however,
lack vision for what we can do post Brexit.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-04 08:45:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent country
again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country, just as
Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a fantasist. Britain
is totally independent and has agreed to abide by certain
international, and internationally accepted, rules, just as we
independent citizens agree to abide by the law laid down in the
British Parliament.

It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading fake news
and told the truth for a change.

MM
James Harris
2017-11-04 08:50:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent country
again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country, just as
Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a fantasist. Britain
is totally independent and has agreed to abide by certain
international, and internationally accepted, rules, just as we
independent citizens agree to abide by the law laid down in the
British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading fake news
and told the truth for a change.
You are in fantasy land, again! From the first google hit:

Independence: One of the essential attributes of a state under
International Law is external sovereignty—that is, the right to exercise
freely the full range of power a state possesses under international
law. Recognition of a state as independent necessarily implies that the
recognizing states have no legal authority over the independent state.
The status of a fully independent state should be contrasted with that
of dependent or vassal states, where a superior state has the legal
authority to impose its will over the subject, or inferior, state.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Independent+(nation)


We've discussed many times the practicalities of that.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-06 09:14:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 08:50:01 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent country
again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country, just as
Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a fantasist. Britain
is totally independent and has agreed to abide by certain
international, and internationally accepted, rules, just as we
independent citizens agree to abide by the law laid down in the
British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading fake news
and told the truth for a change.
Independence: One of the essential attributes of a state under
International Law is external sovereignty—that is, the right to exercise
freely the full range of power a state possesses under international
law. Recognition of a state as independent necessarily implies that the
recognizing states have no legal authority over the independent state.
The status of a fully independent state should be contrasted with that
of dependent or vassal states, where a superior state has the legal
authority to impose its will over the subject, or inferior, state.
Problem with the above (1):
"the right to exercise freely the full range of power a state
possesses under international law"

Which means that Britain has to comply with international law even
though we might not agree with all aspects of it. If that is your
marker for independence, I'd say we meet it hands down.

Problem with the above (2):
"...where a superior state has the legal authority to impose its will
over the subject, or inferior, state"

First, we are not an inferior state. All 28 EU states are equal in
status. Don't try to pretend that the EU is some kind of overarching
superstate. It isn't. It is the name given to the club of 28 nations
all of which agreeing to common standards.

And second, remind me what the EU has done in retaliation for
Britain's childish refusal to allow votes for prisoners and the bulk
collection of DNA.

Britain is an independent country with the power to make its own
decisions within international law, including EU law.

MM
James Harris
2017-11-06 10:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 08:50:01 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent country
again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country, just as
Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a fantasist. Britain
is totally independent and has agreed to abide by certain
international, and internationally accepted, rules, just as we
independent citizens agree to abide by the law laid down in the
British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading fake news
and told the truth for a change.
Independence: One of the essential attributes of a state under
International Law is external sovereignty—that is, the right to exercise
freely the full range of power a state possesses under international
law. Recognition of a state as independent necessarily implies that the
recognizing states have no legal authority over the independent state.
The status of a fully independent state should be contrasted with that
of dependent or vassal states, where a superior state has the legal
authority to impose its will over the subject, or inferior, state.
"the right to exercise freely the full range of power a state
possesses under international law"
Which means that Britain has to comply with international law even
though we might not agree with all aspects of it. If that is your
marker for independence, I'd say we meet it hands down.
International law may include rules on lobbing missiles towards a
neighbour or polluting shared resources but independent nations can
choose what they do within their own borders, can't they? Try changing
our immigration policy to limit numbers coming from the EU27. Try
removing VAT on domestic fuel. Try changing the way CAP applies to
British farmers. And so on.
Post by MM
"...where a superior state has the legal authority to impose its will
over the subject, or inferior, state"
Exactly! The EU has legal authority to impose its will over us. And does
so.
Post by MM
First, we are not an inferior state. All 28 EU states are equal in
status. Don't try to pretend that the EU is some kind of overarching
superstate. It isn't. It is the name given to the club of 28 nations > all of which agreeing to common standards.
If only!
Post by MM
And second, remind me what the EU has done in retaliation for
Britain's childish refusal to allow votes for prisoners and the bulk
collection of DNA.
Britain is an independent country with the power to make its own
decisions within international law, including EU law.
Yes, we can make our own sovereign decisions ... except in areas where
the EU says we can't, of course.
--
James Harris
Norman Wells
2017-11-04 09:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent country
again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country, just as
Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a fantasist. Britain
is totally independent and has agreed to abide by certain
international, and internationally accepted, rules, just as we
independent citizens agree to abide by the law laid down in the
British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading fake news
and told the truth for a change.
What you don't seem to appreciate is that we were an independent nation
before we ceded a certain amount of sovereignty by signing those
agreements. But we weren't completely independent afterwards because we
did, and that situtation continues.

We have now voted to get out of those sovereignty-ceding agreements so
that we will be completely independednt again.
MM
2017-11-06 11:19:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent country
again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country, just as
Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a fantasist. Britain
is totally independent and has agreed to abide by certain
international, and internationally accepted, rules, just as we
independent citizens agree to abide by the law laid down in the
British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading fake news
and told the truth for a change.
What you don't seem to appreciate is that we were an independent nation
before we ceded a certain amount of sovereignty by signing those
agreements. But we weren't completely independent afterwards because we
did, and that situtation continues.
We have now voted to get out of those sovereignty-ceding agreements so
that we will be completely independednt again.
No, we won't. You think the US will allow us to unleash a Trident
missile without its say-so? What about complying with international
law? What about upholding human rights? What about the Geneva
Conventions? What about the UN?

MM
Fredxxx
2017-11-06 11:24:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent country
again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country, just as
Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a fantasist. Britain
is totally independent and has agreed to abide by certain
international, and internationally accepted, rules, just as we
independent citizens agree to abide by the law laid down in the
British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading fake news
and told the truth for a change.
What you don't seem to appreciate is that we were an independent nation
before we ceded a certain amount of sovereignty by signing those
agreements. But we weren't completely independent afterwards because we
did, and that situtation continues.
We have now voted to get out of those sovereignty-ceding agreements so
that we will be completely independednt again.
No, we won't. You think the US will allow us to unleash a Trident
missile without its say-so? What about complying with international
law? What about upholding human rights? What about the Geneva
Conventions? What about the UN?
When did the US sign up to the Geneva convention?
pamela
2017-11-04 09:22:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent
country again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country,
just as Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a
fantasist. Britain is totally independent and has agreed to
abide by certain international, and internationally accepted,
rules, just as we independent citizens agree to abide by the law
laid down in the British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading
fake news and told the truth for a change.
MM
Of course Britain is independent. To suggest otherwise is part of
Brexit's Project Fear.
James Harris
2017-11-04 09:59:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent
country again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country,
just as Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a
fantasist. Britain is totally independent and has agreed to
abide by certain international, and internationally accepted,
rules, just as we independent citizens agree to abide by the law
laid down in the British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading
fake news and told the truth for a change.
MM
Of course Britain is independent. To suggest otherwise is part of
Brexit's Project Fear.
I love the way Remainers feel that just stating something makes it true.
--
James Harris
Bod
2017-11-04 10:01:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent
country again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country,
just as Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a
fantasist. Britain is totally independent and has agreed to
abide by certain international, and internationally accepted,
rules, just as we independent citizens agree to abide by the law
laid down in the British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading
fake news and told the truth for a change.
MM
Of course Britain is independent.  To suggest otherwise is part of
Brexit's Project Fear.
I love the way Remainers feel that just stating something makes it true.
How can we be independent when 70% of laws are decided by 27 other
countries.
--
Bod
James Harris
2017-11-04 10:16:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent
country again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country,
just as Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a
fantasist. Britain is totally independent and has agreed to
abide by certain international, and internationally accepted,
rules, just as we independent citizens agree to abide by the law
laid down in the British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading
fake news and told the truth for a change.
MM
Of course Britain is independent.  To suggest otherwise is part of
Brexit's Project Fear.
I love the way Remainers feel that just stating something makes it true.
How can we be independent when 70% of laws are decided by 27 other
countries.
I don't know the percentage, and AIUI most laws are made by the
Commission and approved by Parliament and Council rather than by the 27.
But there are massively important laws which are taken away from us such
as part of who we have to allow to come in to the country and what trade
terms we can have with the rest of the world. No country can be
independent if it does not have full control of its own borders.
--
James Harris
Bod
2017-11-04 10:37:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent
country again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country,
just as Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a
fantasist. Britain is totally independent and has agreed to
abide by certain international, and internationally accepted,
rules, just as we independent citizens agree to abide by the law
laid down in the British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading
fake news and told the truth for a change.
MM
Of course Britain is independent.  To suggest otherwise is part of
Brexit's Project Fear.
I love the way Remainers feel that just stating something makes it true.
How can we be independent when 70% of laws are decided by 27 other
countries.
I don't know the percentage, and AIUI most laws are made by the
Commission and approved by Parliament and Council rather than by the 27.
But there are massively important laws which are taken away from us such
as part of who we have to allow to come in to the country and what trade
terms we can have with the rest of the world. No country can be
independent if it does not have full control of its own borders.
Indeed.
--
Bod
pamela
2017-11-04 11:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent
country again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent
country, just as Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look
like a fantasist. Britain is totally independent and has
agreed to abide by certain international, and internationally
accepted, rules, just as we independent citizens agree to
abide by the law laid down in the British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading
fake news and told the truth for a change.
MM
Of course Britain is independent.  To suggest otherwise is
part of Brexit's Project Fear.
I love the way Remainers feel that just stating something makes it true.
How can we be independent when 70% of laws are decided by 27
other countries.
Do you have proof for that figures of "70% of laws"? Some say it is
closer to 13%.....

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

We don't have to implement any laws we don't like and have voted
against laws at an EU level only 2% of the time since 1999.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-05 16:06:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent
country again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent
country, just as Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look
like a fantasist. Britain is totally independent and has
agreed to abide by certain international, and internationally
accepted, rules, just as we independent citizens agree to
abide by the law laid down in the British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading
fake news and told the truth for a change.
MM
Of course Britain is independent.=C2 To suggest otherwise is
part of Brexit's Project Fear.
I love the way Remainers feel that just stating something makes it true.
How can we be independent when 70% of laws are decided by 27
other countries.
Do you have proof for that figures of "70% of laws"? Some say it is
closer to 13%.....
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/
We don't have to implement any laws we don't like and have voted
against laws at an EU level only 2% of the time since 1999.
Try reading the news once in a while. Even I know that there is EU legi=
slation around every corner.

-- =

To err is human. To really fuck things up requires a computer.
The Peeler
2017-11-05 19:00:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 16:06:06 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pamela
Do you have proof for that figures of "70% of laws"? Some say it is
closer to 13%.....
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/
We don't have to implement any laws we don't like and have voted
against laws at an EU level only 2% of the time since 1999.
Try reading the news once in a while. Even I know that there is EU
legislation around every corner.
What DO you know other than the idiotic sick contents of your idiotic sick
"mind", Birdbrain?
--
JoeyDee to Birdbrain
"I apologize for thinking you were a jerk. You're just someone with an IQ
lower than your age, and I accept that as a reason for your comments."
MID: <***@news.eternal-september.org>
MM
2017-11-06 11:21:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent
country again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country,
just as Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a
fantasist. Britain is totally independent and has agreed to
abide by certain international, and internationally accepted,
rules, just as we independent citizens agree to abide by the law
laid down in the British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading
fake news and told the truth for a change.
MM
Of course Britain is independent.  To suggest otherwise is part of
Brexit's Project Fear.
I love the way Remainers feel that just stating something makes it true.
How can we be independent when 70% of laws are decided by 27 other
countries.
It's not 27, it's 28, and all have signed up to a common set of
regulations as independently seperate, sovereign nations.

MM
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-06 14:05:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:09:24 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Sure. There are pros and cons about becoming an independent
country again.
Ha ha, the idea that we're NOT already an independent country,
just as Germany, France or Greece is, makes you look like a
fantasist. Britain is totally independent and has agreed to
abide by certain international, and internationally accepted,
rules, just as we independent citizens agree to abide by the law
laid down in the British Parliament.
It really is about time that you Brexiters stopped spreading
fake news and told the truth for a change.
MM
Of course Britain is independent. To suggest otherwise is part of
Brexit's Project Fear.
I love the way Remainers feel that just stating something makes it true.
How can we be independent when 70% of laws are decided by 27 other
countries.
It's not 27, it's 28,
Even worse then.
Post by MM
and all have signed up to a common set of
regulations as independently seperate, sovereign nations.
Yeah, signing up makes it ok....
--
If you jog in a jogging suit, lounge in lounging pyjamas, and smoke in a smoking jacket, why would anyone want to wear a windbreaker?
The Peeler
2017-11-06 17:52:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:05:47 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH wanker's latest inane drivel>
--
francis about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"He seems to have a reputation as someone of limited intelligence"
MID: <cf06cdd9-8bb8-469c-800a-***@googlegroups.com>
pensive hamster
2017-11-02 19:02:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Whatever
their reasons, Mr Cameron and those with him wanted to put the issue of
"Europe" to bed for a generation. So they said to the people that there
would be just one vote. No later renegotiation. No later vote on the
terms.
When did Cameron & Co say that?
Before the referendum. E.g. here: http://youtu.be/JRowLjb0x48 there's a
a handy condensed clip of him saying it and being extremely clear. It
includes a link to the full transcript on the government website if you
want to check the details.
It doesn't seem extremely clear to me, it seems to me that
Cameron is stating his own opinion, rather than giving an
undertaking, let alone a legally binding undertaking.

If I was intended to be a legally binding undertaking, why did
the government not mention it at all, so far as I can see, in
its leaflet where it talked about a "A once in a generation
decision" etc.?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

(I think that's the right leaflet)
Post by James Harris
Do you not remember that being said in the pre-referendum discussions?
No I don't, but then I rarely pay much attention to politicians'
speeches, which seem 99% waffle.

And it seem Nigel Farage may not have remembered that being
said in the pre-referendum discussions either, else why would
he have made this comment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

17 May 2016

'Nigel Farage: Narrow Remain win may lead to second
referendum

'... "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business
by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to
one-third that ends it."

[...]
James Harris
2017-11-02 20:17:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Whatever
their reasons, Mr Cameron and those with him wanted to put the issue of
"Europe" to bed for a generation. So they said to the people that there
would be just one vote. No later renegotiation. No later vote on the
terms.
When did Cameron & Co say that?
Before the referendum. E.g. here: http://youtu.be/JRowLjb0x48 there's a
a handy condensed clip of him saying it and being extremely clear. It
includes a link to the full transcript on the government website if you
want to check the details.
It doesn't seem extremely clear to me, it seems to me that
Cameron is stating his own opinion, rather than giving an
undertaking, let alone a legally binding undertaking.
"If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another
renegotiation and another referendum." seems clear to me.
Post by pensive hamster
If I was intended to be a legally binding undertaking, why did
the government not mention it at all, so far as I can see, in
its leaflet where it talked about a "A once in a generation
decision" etc.?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
(I think that's the right leaflet)
I think "once in a generation" is clear enough. How long do you think a
generation lasts...?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Do you not remember that being said in the pre-referendum discussions?
No I don't, but then I rarely pay much attention to politicians'
speeches, which seem 99% waffle.
And it seem Nigel Farage may not have remembered that being
said in the pre-referendum discussions either, else why would
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
17 May 2016
'Nigel Farage: Narrow Remain win may lead to second
referendum
'... "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business
by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to
one-third that ends it."
You'd have to ask Farage what he meant but don't forget that he had no
relevant official position at all. Cameron was the country's PM, had
called the referendum, and spoke up for it.

Seriously, to conflate the two ... and to look for legal loopholes is,
frankly, clearly wriggling out of a conclusion you don't like. Try
getting with the programme. If Brexit is stopped then our children will
be denied the better life that should be their birthright. You need to
look beyond the possible problems of the next few years.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-04 09:04:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:17:51 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
I think "once in a generation" is clear enough. How long do you think a
generation lasts...?
However long, the fact remains that the leaflet was just a form of
advertising (paid by the taxpayers) and not legally binding in any
shape or form.

Do you believe every single word in any advertisement? If so, you're
even more gullible that I thought.

What *mattered* was the form of words agreed to in Parliament when the
European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed.

And in that document there is no mention of either the word "binding"
or "generation". It's 67 pages long and I've checked.

MM
pamela
2017-11-04 09:20:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:17:51 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
I think "once in a generation" is clear enough. How long do you
think a generation lasts...?
However long, the fact remains that the leaflet was just a form
of advertising (paid by the taxpayers) and not legally binding
in any shape or form.
Do you believe every single word in any advertisement? If so,
you're even more gullible that I thought.
What *mattered* was the form of words agreed to in Parliament
when the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed.
And in that document there is no mention of either the word
"binding" or "generation". It's 67 pages long and I've checked.
MM
I think James is pulling your leg. I had the same discussion with
Norman and also with James.

No normal interperatation of such a passing phrase, not being used
in any promissory way whatsoever, would conclude it is binding.
The false arguments for that line of thinking can conjour up
nothing better than to say it is "morally binding" but frankly
even that is a stretch.

You know, I know and also so does Norman, James and any other
person putting forward false arguments that absolutely nothing
will ever come as a consequence of that phrase.

Here is the best reference to the phrase someone could up with to
support the false argument and, as you see, there is nothing
there....

=============== START ==============
A once in a generation decision

The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we
should remain in or leave the European Union.

The government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to
remain in the EU.

This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen
the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path
into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.


https://tinyurl.com/ycset98b
=============== END ==============

Brexiteers really are clutching at straws.
Norman Wells
2017-11-04 09:50:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
No normal interperatation of such a passing phrase, not being used
in any promissory way whatsoever, would conclude it is binding.
The false arguments for that line of thinking can conjour up
nothing better than to say it is "morally binding" but frankly
even that is a stretch.
What would have made it 'binding' in your view then? I fail to see how
the government could have been any more forthright and explicit, or
'promissory', than by saying, in a document sent to every household in
the land, 'this is a once in a generation decision' and 'the government
will implement what you decide'.

Do say how you would have worded it.
Post by pamela
You know, I know and also so does Norman, James and any other
person putting forward false arguments that absolutely nothing
will ever come as a consequence of that phrase.
But it already has. The government is implementing the decision of the
referendum. It has triggered Article 50 and is 'negotiating' our exit
agreement.

Where on the change curve:

https://www.insights.com/resources/coaching-people-through-the-change-curve/

do you think you are currently? It seem to me you're still in the
'denial' or 'blame others' phase.

The world is passing you by.
Post by pamela
Here is the best reference to the phrase someone could up with to
support the false argument and, as you see, there is nothing
there....
=============== START ==============
A once in a generation decision
The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we
should remain in or leave the European Union.
The government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to
remain in the EU.
This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen
the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path
into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.
https://tinyurl.com/ycset98b
=============== END ==============
Brexiteers really are clutching at straws.
As I said, you're still in denial and blaming others.
pamela
2017-11-04 11:05:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
No normal interperatation of such a passing phrase, not being
used in any promissory way whatsoever, would conclude it is
binding. The false arguments for that line of thinking can
conjour up nothing better than to say it is "morally binding"
but frankly even that is a stretch.
What would have made it 'binding' in your view then? I fail to
see how the government could have been any more forthright and
explicit, or 'promissory', than by saying, in a document sent to
every household in the land, 'this is a once in a generation
decision' and 'the government will implement what you decide'.
Do say how you would have worded it.
Post by pamela
You know, I know and also so does Norman, James and any other
person putting forward false arguments that absolutely nothing
will ever come as a consequence of that phrase.
But it already has. The government is implementing the decision
of the referendum. It has triggered Article 50 and is
'negotiating' our exit agreement.
https://www.insights.com/resources/coaching-people-through-the-
ch
Post by Norman Wells
ange-curve/
do you think you are currently? It seem to me you're still in
the 'denial' or 'blame others' phase.
The world is passing you by.
Post by pamela
Here is the best reference to the phrase someone could up with
to support the false argument and, as you see, there is nothing
there....
=============== START ==============
A once in a generation decision
The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if
we should remain in or leave the European Union.
The government believes it is in the best interests of the UK
to remain in the EU.
This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and
strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country
– a clear path into the future, in contrast to the
uncertainty of leaving.
https://tinyurl.com/ycset98b
=============== END ==============
Brexiteers really are clutching at straws.
As I said, you're still in denial and blaming others.
Move on because no one on earth in the total unlimited future of
time is ever going to get that slender reed of a passing phrase
recognised as any sort of a commitment.

You can huff and you can puff as much as you like but you aren't
going to blow the house down.

It's been nice playing with you on this one but now let's get back
from silliness to the real world.
Norman Wells
2017-11-04 11:26:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
No normal interperatation of such a passing phrase, not being
used in any promissory way whatsoever, would conclude it is
binding. The false arguments for that line of thinking can
conjour up nothing better than to say it is "morally binding"
but frankly even that is a stretch.
What would have made it 'binding' in your view then? I fail to
see how the government could have been any more forthright and
explicit, or 'promissory', than by saying, in a document sent to
every household in the land, 'this is a once in a generation
decision' and 'the government will implement what you decide'.
Do say how you would have worded it.
Post by pamela
You know, I know and also so does Norman, James and any other
person putting forward false arguments that absolutely nothing
will ever come as a consequence of that phrase.
But it already has. The government is implementing the decision
of the referendum. It has triggered Article 50 and is
'negotiating' our exit agreement.
https://www.insights.com/resources/coaching-people-through-the-
ch
Post by Norman Wells
ange-curve/
do you think you are currently? It seem to me you're still in
the 'denial' or 'blame others' phase.
The world is passing you by.
Post by pamela
Here is the best reference to the phrase someone could up with
to support the false argument and, as you see, there is nothing
there....
=============== START ==============
A once in a generation decision
The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if
we should remain in or leave the European Union.
The government believes it is in the best interests of the UK
to remain in the EU.
This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and
strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country
– a clear path into the future, in contrast to the
uncertainty of leaving.
https://tinyurl.com/ycset98b
=============== END ==============
Brexiteers really are clutching at straws.
As I said, you're still in denial and blaming others.
Move on because no one on earth in the total unlimited future of
time is ever going to get that slender reed of a passing phrase
recognised as any sort of a commitment.
But it has been. It's time you faced facts.
Post by pamela
You can huff and you can puff as much as you like but you aren't
going to blow the house down.
I've no idea what you mean by huffing and puffing, or what the 'house'
is supposed to represent. Perhaps you'd say?
Post by pamela
It's been nice playing with you on this one but now let's get back
from silliness to the real world.
Quite. Come out of your denial, accept that we've had the referendum,
you lost, the government is implementing what we decided as it said it
would, Article 50 has been triggered, there's not going to be a second
referendum, and we're leaving the EU.

The sooner you do that, the sooner you'll be able to move on.
Norman Wells
2017-11-04 09:32:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:17:51 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
I think "once in a generation" is clear enough. How long do you think a
generation lasts...?
However long, the fact remains that the leaflet was just a form of
advertising (paid by the taxpayers) and not legally binding in any
shape or form.
Do you believe every single word in any advertisement? If so, you're
even more gullible that I thought.
What *mattered* was the form of words agreed to in Parliament when the
European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed.
And in that document there is no mention of either the word "binding"
or "generation". It's 67 pages long and I've checked.
You don't understand the purpose of legislation if you think they should
have been there.

Statute law is not an explanatory memorandum.

Nor would the use of such words as 'binding' or 'generation' have had
any place in it. No parliament can bind any successors. Nor can any
court effectively bind any government. It makes the laws, you see, and
can make them say whatever it likes.

The promises were made, as you very well know, in the explanatory
leaflet the government sent to every household in the country. That set
out the basis on which the referendum was being held, and the effect the
result would have. You could have been in no doubt.

If it also contained 'advertising', the advertised message was soundly
rejected by the electorate, lending even more credibility to the result.
James Harris
2017-11-04 10:05:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:17:51 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
I think "once in a generation" is clear enough. How long do you think a
generation lasts...?
However long, the fact remains that the leaflet was just a form of
advertising (paid by the taxpayers) and not legally binding in any
shape or form.
LOL! So you consider the government's leaflet a form of "advertising"
which is not legally binding, do you? And yet you consider the side of a
red bus to be a requirement?

Please explain why you think a slogan on a bus is binding but a message
from the government is not.
Post by MM
Do you believe every single word in any advertisement? If so, you're
even more gullible that I thought.
What *mattered* was the form of words agreed to in Parliament when the
European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed.
And in that document there is no mention of either the word "binding"
or "generation". It's 67 pages long and I've checked.
I love it when people look for legal loopholes to back out of
commitments made.... But if you want legality I suggest you try the
Notification of Withdrawal bill. It added the legal force the referendum
bill had left out - thanks to Gina!
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-03 11:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Whatever
their reasons, Mr Cameron and those with him wanted to put the issue of
"Europe" to bed for a generation. So they said to the people that there
would be just one vote. No later renegotiation. No later vote on the
terms.
When did Cameron & Co say that?
Before the referendum. E.g. here: http://youtu.be/JRowLjb0x48 there's a
a handy condensed clip of him saying it and being extremely clear. It
includes a link to the full transcript on the government website if you
want to check the details.
It doesn't seem extremely clear to me, it seems to me that
Cameron is stating his own opinion, rather than giving an
undertaking, let alone a legally binding undertaking.
If I was intended to be a legally binding undertaking, why did
the government not mention it at all, so far as I can see, in
its leaflet where it talked about a "A once in a generation
decision" etc.?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
(I think that's the right leaflet)
Post by James Harris
Do you not remember that being said in the pre-referendum discussions?
No I don't, but then I rarely pay much attention to politicians'
speeches, which seem 99% waffle.
And it seem Nigel Farage may not have remembered that being
said in the pre-referendum discussions either, else why would
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
17 May 2016
'Nigel Farage: Narrow Remain win may lead to second
referendum
'... "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business
by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to
one-third that ends it."
[...]
Brexiteers are hypocritical, just like the SNP as the above shows.

Since they lost theirs the SNP have talked about little else than when they might manage to have another referendum...
James Harris
2017-11-03 11:44:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
Whatever
their reasons, Mr Cameron and those with him wanted to put the issue of
"Europe" to bed for a generation. So they said to the people that there
would be just one vote. No later renegotiation. No later vote on the
terms.
When did Cameron & Co say that?
Before the referendum. E.g. here: http://youtu.be/JRowLjb0x48 there's a
a handy condensed clip of him saying it and being extremely clear. It
includes a link to the full transcript on the government website if you
want to check the details.
It doesn't seem extremely clear to me, it seems to me that
Cameron is stating his own opinion, rather than giving an
undertaking, let alone a legally binding undertaking.
If I was intended to be a legally binding undertaking, why did
the government not mention it at all, so far as I can see, in
its leaflet where it talked about a "A once in a generation
decision" etc.?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
(I think that's the right leaflet)
Post by James Harris
Do you not remember that being said in the pre-referendum discussions?
No I don't, but then I rarely pay much attention to politicians'
speeches, which seem 99% waffle.
And it seem Nigel Farage may not have remembered that being
said in the pre-referendum discussions either, else why would
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
17 May 2016
'Nigel Farage: Narrow Remain win may lead to second
referendum
'... "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business
by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to
one-third that ends it."
[...]
Brexiteers are hypocritical, just like the SNP as the above shows.
So are Remainers. Your point is what, exactly? Welcome to real life!
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Since they lost theirs the SNP have talked about little else than when they might manage to have another referendum...
--
James Harris
Norman Wells
2017-10-31 17:10:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Vote in Referendum -> estimate or conclude (something) without
sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Quite! We had to vote without knowing the final shape of the deal. What
other option was there?
Making the referendum rather less binding, with an opportunity
to review once the the final shape of the deal had become clear(er).
That would probably have put us in a much stronger negotiating
position viz-a-viz the EU too.
No, it would mean not negotiating in good faith, because the negotiators
haven't been given the authority to negotiate.

No-one will negotiate with the monkey if the organ grinder can just say
'no' for whatever reason he wants at the end.
Post by pensive hamster
Not putting all our eggs in one basket, in other words.
If we have the opportunity to review it after it's been agreed, what you
mean is we have the opportunity to reject what has been agreed in good
faith. That makes a mockery of what purported to be the negotiations.
pensive hamster
2017-11-01 14:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Guess -> estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information
to be sure of being correct.
Vote in Referendum -> estimate or conclude (something) without
sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Quite! We had to vote without knowing the final shape of the deal. What
other option was there?
Making the referendum rather less binding, with an opportunity
to review once the the final shape of the deal had become clear(er).
That would probably have put us in a much stronger negotiating
position viz-a-viz the EU too.
No, it would mean not negotiating in good faith, because the negotiators
haven't been given the authority to negotiate.
No-one will negotiate with the monkey if the organ grinder can just say
'no' for whatever reason he wants at the end.
You will have to explain what you mean by your simile.

Who/what is the monkey, and who/what is the organ grinder, and
who/what is negotiating with one or other of them?

It seems to me that there are at least three protagonists: the
UK voters; the UK government; and the EU. I daresay all of
them would like to be the organ grinder, but in reality they may
all be monkeys.

And not necessarily the three wise monkeys, either.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Not putting all our eggs in one basket, in other words.
If we have the opportunity to review it after it's been agreed, what you
mean is we have the opportunity to reject what has been agreed in good
faith. That makes a mockery of what purported to be the negotiations.
As I understand it, the UK Parliament will vote on the final deal:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38669524
18 January 2017
'Prime Minister Theresa May has said Parliament will vote on the
final deal that is agreed between the United Kingdom and the
European Union.'

I don't know exactly what that means, but presumably it wouldn't
really be a "vote", if they were only allowed to vote in favour.

Also, the final Leave deal/agreement needs to be approved by
20 of the 27 remaining EU countries, so long as they also
represent 65% of the EU population (and any new trade deal
will need to be approved by all 27 countries):

-------------------------
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-veto-brexit-deal/
20th Sep 2016

'... The legal route for a country to leave the EU is by triggering
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. It calls for the EU
to “negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting
out the arrangements for its withdrawal”.

'That agreement can’t be vetoed by a single country, like Slovakia
or Poland. It would go ahead if it were approved by 20 of the 27
remaining EU countries, so long as they also represent 65% of
the EU population.'

-------------------------

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-member-state-elections-and-negotiations
Friday, September 29, 2017

'... Under Article 50 an exit deal requires a qualified majority
(72% of members states) to pass, after obtaining the consent of
the European Parliament, whereas a comprehensive new
partnership deal (or “mixed agreement”) requires unanimous
assent in the Council and ratification by national or subnational
parliaments.'

-------------------------

https://www.pwc.co.uk/the-eu-referendum/beyond-brexit-insights/how-will-the-brexit-negotiations-work-in-practice.html
29/03/17
'... Once the UK and the EU27 agree the final deal - in our best
case scenario, around late Autumn 2018 - then the deal will need
to be ratified. The exit arrangements only need to be approved by
a QMV or ‘Qualified Majority Vote’, equivalent to 72% of the
members of the Council, comprising at least 65% of the population
of the Member States (excluding the UK) and a majority of
European Parliamentarians. However, the new trade deal is what is
called a ‘mixed agreement’ which would require the approval of all
27 member states in line with their own constitutional requirements.'

-------------------------

What could possibly go wrong ...?
BurfordTJustice
2017-10-31 11:21:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
and hillary was a sure bet to be president.





"R. Mark Clayton" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2702743c-4164-4fc0-a6b3-***@googlegroups.com...
: http://www.lbc.co.: In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked
all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard]
Brexit: -
:
: http://www./bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
:
: back came the answer we see.
:
: Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda
exercise rather than a real threat.
:
: A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the
zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-31 12:30:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
and hillary was a sure bet to be president.
Yes - she even got 3M more votes than Trump...
Post by BurfordTJustice
: http://www.lbc.co.: In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked
all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard]
Brexit: -
: http://www./bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
: back came the answer we see.
: Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda
exercise rather than a real threat.
: A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the
zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
BurfordTJustice
2017-10-31 12:35:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Apparently like you she did not know how the system works.





"R. Mark Clayton" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:572dde5e-e84b-48d2-bae3-***@googlegroups.com...
: On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 11:21:08 UTC, BurfordTJustice wrote:
: > and hillary was a sure bet to be president.
: >
: >
:
: Yes - she even got 3M more votes than Trump...
:
: >
: >
: >
: > "R. Mark Clayton" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:2702743c-4164-4fc0-a6b3-***@googlegroups.com...
: > : http://www.lbc.co.: In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE
asked
: > all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a
[hard]
: > Brexit: -
: > :
: > : http://www./bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
: > :
: > : back came the answer we see.
: > :
: > : Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another
propaganda
: > exercise rather than a real threat.
: > :
: > : A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of
the
: > zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
:
Altroy1
2017-10-31 15:47:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
Deep in the Brexit mindset is this apparent suspicion of the EU's non english
speaking Frogs and Krauts. Get us out Now!(tm) with the aid of Moggmentum® is
one proposed solution. They seem to have forgotten the old Kissinger adage about
America having no friends only interests. Post Brexit, they beLEAVE
(geddit!?)[1] English speaking nations will come running to the rescue. These
nations, however, have few ancient feelings of insecurity and will happily free
trade with the furriners.

http://www.newstalk.com/Australias-priority-is-to-trade-with-the-EU--Australian-Foreign-Minister-on-the-opportunities-and-impact-of-Brexit

"Australia's priority is to trade with the EU" [2]

Shona Murray 12:42 Friday 24 February 2017

Speaking to Newstalk, Minister Julie Bishop said Australia sees
Ireland as a "great opportunity"

.....

"We take very seriously this rising sentiment of protectionism and
economic nationalism and intend to continue to pursue an economic
agenda that involves free trade. We are pursuing free trade agreements
- we've concluded a number including with the North Asian giants of
China, Korea and Japan.

"We'll continue with a free trade agreement, hopefully with the EU."

She said she also sees Australia increasing trade with "countries like
Ireland where we have so many similarities and complimentary economies."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/30/goldman-sachs-boss-lloyd-blankfein-has-another-dig-brexit-twitter/

http://news.sky.com/story/goldman-boss-signals-brexit-shift-to-frankfurt-in-tweet-11088162

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html

[1] With apologies to private-eye magazine.

[2] Thanks also to James O'Brien on LBC for drawing my attention to the Julie
Bishop statement.
pamela
2017-10-31 16:09:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit
-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK
based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a
[hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit
-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another
propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions
out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry
about...
Deep in the Brexit mindset is this apparent suspicion of the
EU's non english speaking Frogs and Krauts. Get us out Now!(tm)
with the aid of Moggmentum® is one proposed solution. They seem
to have forgotten the old Kissinger adage about America having
no friends only interests. Post Brexit, they beLEAVE
(geddit!?)[1] English speaking nations will come running to the
rescue. These nations, however, have few ancient feelings of
insecurity and will happily free trade with the furriners.
This can not be anything but hope because it is untested. As your
links indicate, statements from countries like AUS and NZ suggest
that long ago they lost any special feelings for the mother country.
Altroy1
2017-11-01 01:26:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Altroy1
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit
-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK
based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a
[hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit
-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another
propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions
out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry
about...
Deep in the Brexit mindset is this apparent suspicion of the
EU's non english speaking Frogs and Krauts. Get us out Now!(tm)
with the aid of Moggmentum® is one proposed solution. They seem
to have forgotten the old Kissinger adage about America having
no friends only interests. Post Brexit, they beLEAVE
(geddit!?)[1] English speaking nations will come running to the
rescue. These nations, however, have few ancient feelings of
insecurity and will happily free trade with the furriners.
This can not be anything but hope because it is untested. As your
links indicate, statements from countries like AUS and NZ suggest
that long ago they lost any special feelings for the mother country.
I do have family in Australia and regularly read the Australian news online. My
impression is that there is some residual good will left for Britain (and
Ireland to a lesser extent) both contributing significantly to the foundation of
Australia's political, legal and cultural system. But Julie Bishop, a Minister
of the governing Liberal Party, (Liberal <--> UK Conservative ) is fairly clear
she is not supporting a retreat to nationalism. So Australia will be happy to
sign up to a mutually beneficial deal with the UK, one not overly tempered by
favouritism based on past historical ties. Australia and NZ will expect the UK
to play fair with respect to WTO quotas and so on. And the UK turning its back
on 40+ years of close relationship with 27 of its closest trading partners for
the pursuit of a vague nationalist dream is not an attribute wholly welcomed in
Australia exept maybe the more nationalist wing of the Australian Liberal Party
e.g types like deposed former PM Tony Abbott.
tim...
2017-11-01 09:19:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by Altroy1
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit
-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK
based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a
[hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit
-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another
propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions
out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry
about...
Deep in the Brexit mindset is this apparent suspicion of the
EU's non english speaking Frogs and Krauts. Get us out Now!(tm)
with the aid of Moggmentum® is one proposed solution. They seem
to have forgotten the old Kissinger adage about America having
no friends only interests. Post Brexit, they beLEAVE (geddit!?)[1]
English speaking nations will come running to the
rescue. These nations, however, have few ancient feelings of
insecurity and will happily free trade with the furriners.
This can not be anything but hope because it is untested. As your links
indicate, statements from countries like AUS and NZ suggest that long ago
they lost any special feelings for the mother country.
I do have family in Australia and regularly read the Australian news
online. My impression is that there is some residual good will left for
Britain (and Ireland to a lesser extent) both contributing significantly
to the foundation of Australia's political, legal and cultural system. But
Julie Bishop, a Minister of the governing Liberal Party, (Liberal <--> UK
Conservative ) is fairly clear she is not supporting a retreat to
nationalism. So Australia will be happy to sign up to a mutually
beneficial deal with the UK,
why on earth do you think we would expect otherwise
Post by Altroy1
one not overly tempered by favouritism based on past historical ties.
and what on earth could that possible mean?
Post by Altroy1
Australia and NZ will expect the UK to play fair with respect to WTO
quotas and so on. And the UK turning its back on 40+ years of close
relationship with 27 of its closest trading partners
um no it's not

We want to leave its aspirations for a political union.

I don't count that as turning our back on them

There are dozens of other areas where we are still keen to co-operate. It
is the EU putting up the barriers to that.
tim
Altroy1
2017-11-01 15:19:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
tim... wrote:
[....]
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
I do have family in Australia and regularly read the Australian news
online. My impression is that there is some residual good will left
for Britain (and Ireland to a lesser extent) both contributing
significantly to the foundation of Australia's political, legal and
cultural system. But Julie Bishop, a Minister of the governing Liberal
Party, (Liberal <--> UK Conservative ) is fairly clear she is not
supporting a retreat to nationalism. So Australia will be happy to
sign up to a mutually beneficial deal with the UK,
why on earth do you think we would expect otherwise
If I read rightly Foreign Minister Bishop's statements, - she is happy to trade
with the UK AND Ireland AND the EU. The UK will be treated sympathetically but
the desire by the "no deal Brextremists" to turn their back on 40 years of
shared values with 27 of its closest neighbours will NOT be seen so
sympathetically other than by Australia's isolationists and regulation-lite
paradise believers who admittedly do have influence in the current government.
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
one not overly tempered by favouritism based on past historical ties.
and what on earth could that possible mean?
Well, I was thinking of Daniel J Hannan's toadying speech to America's CPAC
where after praising "the most sublime constitution devised by human
intelligence" then went on to say:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846097/posts


Never be afraid to speak to and for the soul of this nation, of
which by good fortune and God's grace you are privileged to be a
part. God bless you, my friends, God bless America, and God
bless the alliance of the free English speaking nations. Thank you.

I'm fairly sure that even the most starstruck CPAC groupies could see through
that sycophantic speech and would have gone on to celebrate the 4th of July with
ever more gusto.

Anyway what I read from the Australian Foreign Minister's speeches is yes there
is sympathy on offer to the UK particularly if led by a government that disavows
isolationist low regulation to hell with employment rights sentiments. The
automatic presumption that speaking English, so apparently dear to Daniel J
Hannan's heart, will lead to extra trade-deal kudos to a government for example
led by the likes of Patel, Boris or Fox might not be so on offer.
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
Australia and NZ will expect the UK to play fair with respect to WTO
quotas and so on. And the UK turning its back on 40+ years of close
relationship with 27 of its closest trading partners
um no it's not
We want to leave its aspirations for a political union.
What you wish or I wish is less important that what very powerful people like
Liam Fox want. They are apparently perfectly happy with Ever Closer Union. Ever
Closer Union™ with Make America Great Again that is. Here is the perhaps much
mocked George Monbiot's take:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/sovereignty-corporations-liam-fox-eu

George Monbiot Wednesday 27 July 2016 06.00 BST

What does it mean to love your country? What does it mean to
defend its sovereignty? For some of the leaders of the Brexit
campaign, it means reducing the United Kingdom to a franchise of
corporate capital, governed from head offices overseas. They will
take us out of Europe to deliver us into the arms of other powers.


No one embodies this contradiction as much as the man now charged
with determining the scope of our sovereignty: the new
international trade secretary, Liam Fox. He explained his
enthusiasm for leaving Europe thus: "We'll be able to make our own
laws unhindered by anyone else, and our democratic parliament will
not be overruled by a European court." But of all the people
Theresa May could have appointed to this post, he seems to me the
most likely to ensure that our parliament and laws are overruled by
foreign bodies.

Fox looks to me like a corporate sleeper cell implanted in
government. In 2011, he resigned his post as defence secretary
in disgrace after his extracurricular interests were exposed. He
had set up an organisation called Atlantic Bridge, financed in
large part by a hedge fund owner. It formed a partnership with a
corporate lobbying group called the American Legislative
Exchange Council, which is funded by tobacco, pharmaceutical and
oil companies. Before it was struck off by the Charity
Commission, it began assembling a transatlantic conclave of
people who wished to see public services privatised and
corporations released from regulation.

Anyway the UK was given an opt-out from ever closer union. Contrary to the
claims of the Europhobes, Britain was (and still is for the time being) an
influential EU member negotiating many opt-outs over the years including the
Social Chapter [until Tony Blair was elected who was happy to sign up].
Post by tim...
I don't count that as turning our back on them
There is already afoot apparent lobbying by the Get us out Now!™ crowd upset
about the current proposals instead they want to flee to WTO rules. As far as
they are concerned WTO is just fine and the EU "can go whistle" for any exit
payments.
Post by tim...
There are dozens of other areas where we are still keen to co-operate.
It is the EU putting up the barriers to that.
Just a soundbite implying its all the EU's fault and none of the Eurosceptics
fault. The EU is not about to make a deal which will fuel separatism from Geert
Wilders, Marine Le Pen or in places like Catalonia, Lombardy, Flemish Belgium &
other places.
Post by tim...
tim
tim...
2017-11-01 15:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
I do have family in Australia and regularly read the Australian news
online. My impression is that there is some residual good will left for
Britain (and Ireland to a lesser extent) both contributing significantly
to the foundation of Australia's political, legal and cultural system.
But Julie Bishop, a Minister of the governing Liberal Party, (Liberal
<--> UK Conservative ) is fairly clear she is not supporting a retreat
to nationalism. So Australia will be happy to sign up to a mutually
beneficial deal with the UK,
why on earth do you think we would expect otherwise
If I read rightly Foreign Minister Bishop's statements, - she is happy to
trade with the UK AND Ireland AND the EU. The UK will be treated
sympathetically but the desire by the "no deal Brextremists" to turn their
back on 40 years of shared values with 27
we are not turning out back on 40 years of SHARED VALUES

the idea that we are is balderdash

and as for the trading with the EU as a the block, well that will involve
Australia making concession in their trade terms that satisfy every one of
the 27 other countries otherwise - no deal!

It is much easier to make a deal with one country who only has one wish list
of concessions.

It's all very well saying we'd rather have a deal with the 28/27 instead of
just one, but that's pointless if a deal with the 28/27 isn't available

tim
Altroy1
2017-11-01 23:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
I do have family in Australia and regularly read the Australian news
online. My impression is that there is some residual good will left
for Britain (and Ireland to a lesser extent) both contributing
significantly to the foundation of Australia's political, legal and
cultural system. But Julie Bishop, a Minister of the governing
Liberal Party, (Liberal <--> UK Conservative ) is fairly clear she
is not supporting a retreat to nationalism. So Australia will be
happy to sign up to a mutually beneficial deal with the UK,
why on earth do you think we would expect otherwise
If I read rightly Foreign Minister Bishop's statements, - she is
happy to trade with the UK AND Ireland AND the EU. The UK will be
treated sympathetically but the desire by the "no deal Brextremists"
to turn their back on 40 years of shared values with 27
we are not turning out back on 40 years of SHARED VALUES
the idea that we are is balderdash
Tell that to Peter Bone, MP

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/873720/britain-gives-EU-billions-every-year-Brexit

Senior Tory Peter Bone, MP for Wellingborough, said: "If we stopped
paying into EU coffers, we could save ourselves nearly £14 billion,
that would be money we could use for social care, the NHS, reducing
the deficit and we could still have some left for tax cuts.

"The message to the Government is get on and get us out of the EU and
don't pay any more money to Brussels".

Those types are also demanding cuts to the overseas aid budget. As Monbiot wrote
they tend to be connected to hedgefunds and other nice little earners. Certain
of them leave the impression they think those receiving overseas aid are
"picaninnies with watermelon smiles". Membership of the EU is not the only EU
type wishy washy namby pamby leftie vegetable plot growing shared values they
want shot of.
Post by tim...
and as for the trading with the EU as a the block, well that will
involve Australia making concession in their trade terms that satisfy
every one of the 27 other countries otherwise - no deal!
It is much easier to make a deal with one country who only has one wish
list of concessions.
Not if the other country is more powerful. Why do you think Make America Great
Again is so in love with bilaterals. With TPP and NAFTA the other smaller
countries could band together. MAGA thinks that's bad.

Australia knows that with a strict UK/Australia Bilateral, it could be at a
disadvantage. That is why Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is simultaneously
talking up EU/Australian trade and making noises about taking any "unfair" UK/EU
carve up of quotas to the WTO. They're not fools. They're prepared to play one
off against the other. Kissinger was right. America has no friends only
interests. In international trade it will be interests to the front.
Post by tim...
It's all very well saying we'd rather have a deal with the 28/27 instead
of just one, but that's pointless if a deal with the 28/27 isn't available
tim
tim...
2017-11-02 10:50:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
I do have family in Australia and regularly read the Australian news
online. My impression is that there is some residual good will left
for Britain (and Ireland to a lesser extent) both contributing
significantly to the foundation of Australia's political, legal and
cultural system. But Julie Bishop, a Minister of the governing Liberal
Party, (Liberal <--> UK Conservative ) is fairly clear she is not
supporting a retreat to nationalism. So Australia will be happy to
sign up to a mutually beneficial deal with the UK,
why on earth do you think we would expect otherwise
If I read rightly Foreign Minister Bishop's statements, - she is happy
to trade with the UK AND Ireland AND the EU. The UK will be treated
sympathetically but the desire by the "no deal Brextremists" to turn
their back on 40 years of shared values with 27
we are not turning out back on 40 years of SHARED VALUES
the idea that we are is balderdash
Tell that to Peter Bone, MP
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/873720/britain-gives-EU-billions-every-year-Brexit
Senior Tory Peter Bone, MP for Wellingborough, said: "If we stopped
paying into EU coffers, we could save ourselves nearly £14 billion,
that would be money we could use for social care, the NHS, reducing
the deficit and we could still have some left for tax cuts.
"The message to the Government is get on and get us out of the EU and
don't pay any more money to Brussels".
I fail to see how it is necessary to pay money to a country in order to be
counted as "sharing their values"

presumable if we share their values they must be sharing ours, but I don't
see them paying any money to us for that.

Ergo, linking the two is the nonsense that I have already told you it is
Post by Altroy1
Post by tim...
and as for the trading with the EU as a the block, well that will involve
Australia making concession in their trade terms that satisfy every one
of the 27 other countries otherwise - no deal!
It is much easier to make a deal with one country who only has one wish
list of concessions.
Not if the other country is more powerful.
The other more powerful country (which in this case is us) can only take
advantage of that if they don't need the deal

I think it is proven that we do need the deal thus we will be negotiating
with Oz on approximately equal terms dispute us being 5 times larger.

I don't think that the Australians should refuse to enter trade talk with us
for fear of being browbeaten into accepting terms that are unfavorable to
them.
Post by Altroy1
Why do you think Make America Great Again is so in love with bilaterals.
With TPP and NAFTA the other smaller countries could band together. MAGA
thinks that's bad.
Because the US is large enough to walk away
Post by Altroy1
Australia knows that with a strict UK/Australia Bilateral, it could be at
a disadvantage.
I bet you it isn't thinking that way

I wouldn't be in their shoes
Post by Altroy1
That is why Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is simultaneously talking up
EU/Australian trade and making noises about taking any "unfair" UK/EU carve
up of quotas to the WTO.
because they think that the carve up works to the EU's advantage

as I have already explained, their complaint isn't with the UK's part in
this (whatever the gutter press will tell you)
Post by Altroy1
They're not fools. They're prepared to play one off against the other.
They can have deals with both

but they will be 10 years waiting for the EU deal

they can have one with us in a quarter of the time
Altroy1
2017-11-02 15:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
tim... wrote:
[...]
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
"The message to the Government is get on and get us out of the EU and
don't pay any more money to Brussels".
I fail to see how it is necessary to pay money to a country in order to
be counted as "sharing their values"
Maybe because you were impressed by that slogan on that lying battlebus that
summed up 40+ years of relationship by crudely and dishonestly reducing the EU
argument to something like £350 million being robbed from the NHS each week?

The implication some might hold being shared values and monetary exchange
are incompatible? That would be an unusual concept albeit interesting.

What do Eurosceptics expect? Absolutely free shared values? Run the world's
largest Single Market wholly on love and joy? The resentment of the payments
to the EU rouses nationalist feelings but as George Monbiot alluded less
problem selling their country to vested corporate interests, as long
as they are not the wicked EU's vested interests.
Post by tim...
presumable if we share their values they must be sharing ours, but I
don't see them paying any money to us for that.
Ergo, linking the two is the nonsense that I have already told you it is
Imagine a club. It is expensive to run. It offers its members advice,
facilities and mentoring. Although it is expensive to run, it not only
finds a way to pay is own running costs it has found a way to pay its
members to stop them leaving. Interesting. I would like to find such a club
that not only makes its members more wealthy it also pays them for it.


Ergo, the idea that Norway pays 800+ million to be part of the Single Market
merely for the fun of it is an unusual idea. Either they are very stupid or the
Single Market is worth something. Interestingly even the like of Daniel J
Hannan is on record praising the Single Market.

It was the EU sceptics that conflated the two. They said that the relationship
could be crudely reduced [like heating something in an alchemists test-tube]
to a monetary payment of £350 million per week. These are the type of people who
demanded, and got, an opt out from the Social Chapter. Want to abolish the
Human Rights act. Adrian Beecroft abolish unfair dismissal. A free trade
deal with Make America Great again. Links with hedge funds, big
tobacco and big pharma of which George Monbiot wrote so eloquently.

That battlebus reduced the EU to a crude monetary burden. People that loved
that battlebus tend not to always look further into the distance to recognise
shared values so can't be argued with easily.
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
Post by tim...
and as for the trading with the EU as a the block, well that will
involve Australia making concession in their trade terms that satisfy
every one of the 27 other countries otherwise - no deal!
It is much easier to make a deal with one country who only has one
wish list of concessions.
Not if the other country is more powerful.
The other more powerful country (which in this case is us) can only take
advantage of that if they don't need the deal
I think it is proven that we do need the deal thus we will be
negotiating with Oz on approximately equal terms dispute us being 5
times larger.
I don't think that the Australians should refuse to enter trade talk
with us for fear of being browbeaten into accepting terms that are
unfavorable to them.
Post by Altroy1
Why do you think Make America Great Again is so in love with
bilaterals. With TPP and NAFTA the other smaller countries could band
together. MAGA thinks that's bad.
Because the US is large enough to walk away
Post by Altroy1
Australia knows that with a strict UK/Australia Bilateral, it could be
at a disadvantage.
I bet you it isn't thinking that way
I wouldn't be in their shoes
Post by Altroy1
That is why Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is simultaneously talking up
EU/Australian trade and making noises about taking any "unfair" UK/EU
carve up of quotas to the WTO.
because they think that the carve up works to the EU's advantage
as I have already explained, their complaint isn't with the UK's part in
this (whatever the gutter press will tell you)
Post by Altroy1
They're not fools. They're prepared to play one off against the other.
They can have deals with both
but they will be 10 years waiting for the EU deal
they can have one with us in a quarter of the time
tim...
2017-11-02 17:14:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
"The message to the Government is get on and get us out of the EU and
don't pay any more money to Brussels".
I fail to see how it is necessary to pay money to a country in order to
be counted as "sharing their values"
Maybe because you were impressed
not on jot, no.
Altroy1
2017-11-02 23:37:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
"The message to the Government is get on and get us out of the EU and
don't pay any more money to Brussels".
I fail to see how it is necessary to pay money to a country in order
to be counted as "sharing their values"
Maybe because you were impressed
not on jot, no.
OK, OK. Issue fairly well discussed in thread so I guess time collect thoughts
away from the computer screen.
MM
2017-11-04 09:11:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
OK, OK. Issue fairly well discussed in thread so I guess time collect thoughts
away from the computer screen.
Except for Brexiters. Brexiters have no thoughts to collect, only a
stubborn, religious belief that they are right. And the £350m a week
slogan on the side of a bus is all the evidence they need for the
imminent arrival of their Saviour.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-11-04 09:34:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Altroy1
OK, OK. Issue fairly well discussed in thread so I guess time collect thoughts
away from the computer screen.
Except for Brexiters. Brexiters have no thoughts to collect, only a
stubborn, religious belief that they are right. And the £350m a week
slogan on the side of a bus is all the evidence they need for the
imminent arrival of their Saviour.
Whatever the actual amount and whether it's gross, or net of this and
that, it's still a very large amount, and has brought the enormously
high cost of membership into the discussion, where it needed to be.
MM
2017-11-06 11:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Altroy1
OK, OK. Issue fairly well discussed in thread so I guess time collect thoughts
away from the computer screen.
Except for Brexiters. Brexiters have no thoughts to collect, only a
stubborn, religious belief that they are right. And the £350m a week
slogan on the side of a bus is all the evidence they need for the
imminent arrival of their Saviour.
Whatever the actual amount and whether it's gross, or net of this and
that, it's still a very large amount, and has brought the enormously
high cost of membership into the discussion, where it needed to be.
"enormously high cost" that is so small, it barely shows on the pie
chart of UK expenditure.

"Can you spot it in the pie chart? Britain's contribution to the EU
forms a minuscule part of government spending"
Loading Image...

MM
Fredxxx
2017-11-06 12:04:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Altroy1
OK, OK. Issue fairly well discussed in thread so I guess time collect thoughts
away from the computer screen.
Except for Brexiters. Brexiters have no thoughts to collect, only a
stubborn, religious belief that they are right. And the £350m a week
slogan on the side of a bus is all the evidence they need for the
imminent arrival of their Saviour.
Whatever the actual amount and whether it's gross, or net of this and
that, it's still a very large amount, and has brought the enormously
high cost of membership into the discussion, where it needed to be.
"enormously high cost" that is so small, it barely shows on the pie
chart of UK expenditure.
"Can you spot it in the pie chart? Britain's contribution to the EU
forms a minuscule part of government spending"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5IYvEiWAAE5-Hz.jpg
Are you the sort to say 5% of the health budget is miniscule?

But then you make little contribution to the health budget, or indeed
any other budget.
pamela
2017-11-04 09:34:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
"The message to the Government is get on and get us out of
the EU and don't pay any more money to Brussels".
I fail to see how it is necessary to pay money to a country in
order to be counted as "sharing their values"
Maybe because you were impressed by that slogan on that lying
battlebus that summed up 40+ years of relationship by crudely
and dishonestly reducing the EU argument to something like £350
million being robbed from the NHS each week?
The implication some might hold being shared values and monetary
exchange are incompatible? That would be an unusual concept
albeit interesting.
What do Eurosceptics expect? Absolutely free shared values? Run
the world's largest Single Market wholly on love and joy? The
resentment of the payments to the EU rouses nationalist feelings
but as George Monbiot alluded less problem selling their country
to vested corporate interests, as long as they are not the
wicked EU's vested interests.
Britain has shown itself weak in the face of large corporations.

Look at the sweetheart tax-forgiveness deals the UK tax
authorities struck with large American high tech corporations like
Amazon, Google and Apple. The deals yielded a breath-takingly
small amount for the UK, while countries such as France extracted
far more of what was owed.

Much to its dsicgrace, the UK's settlement with Google permitted
it to continue attributing £5bn of UK sales via Ireland. From an
EU perspective, the UK is effectively colluding with Amazon to
launder money which should have been paid as tax to EU countries.

We think our standards in the UK are so much higher than everyone
else's but the reality can be quite different.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/02/french-finance-
minister-blasts-hmrcs-130m-tax-deal-with-google
Post by Altroy1
Post by tim...
presumable if we share their values they must be sharing ours,
but I don't see them paying any money to us for that.
Ergo, linking the two is the nonsense that I have already told you it is
Imagine a club. It is expensive to run. It offers its members
advice, facilities and mentoring. Although it is expensive to
run, it not only finds a way to pay is own running costs it has
found a way to pay its members to stop them leaving.
Interesting. I would like to find such a club that not only
makes its members more wealthy it also pays them for it.
Ergo, the idea that Norway pays 800+ million to be part of the
Single Market merely for the fun of it is an unusual idea.
Either they are very stupid or the Single Market is worth
something. Interestingly even the like of Daniel J Hannan is on
record praising the Single Market.
It was the EU sceptics that conflated the two. They said that
the relationship could be crudely reduced [like heating
something in an alchemists test-tube] to a monetary payment of
£350 million per week. These are the type of people who
demanded, and got, an opt out from the Social Chapter. Want to
abolish the Human Rights act. Adrian Beecroft abolish unfair
dismissal. A free trade deal with Make America Great again.
Links with hedge funds, big tobacco and big pharma of which
George Monbiot wrote so eloquently.
That battlebus reduced the EU to a crude monetary burden. People
that loved that battlebus tend not to always look further into
the distance to recognise shared values so can't be argued with
easily.
The supreme irony is that our GDP is forecast to falter in coming
years because of Brexit. The total loss of GDP may even end up
being greater than our current payments to the EU.
pensive hamster
2017-11-01 15:55:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
Australia and NZ will expect the UK to play fair with respect to WTO
quotas and so on. And the UK turning its back on 40+ years of close
relationship with 27 of its closest trading partners
um no it's not
We want to leave its aspirations for a political union.
But does the EU actually have aspirations for a *political* union?

This article seems to think it doesn't:

--------------------------------
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/

“Ever closer union” isn’t specifically a call for political union

'This expression is of long-standing origin.

'It is found in the Preamble to the 1957 treaty that set up
what became the EU. On at least six occasions the UK has
signed up to it (firstly in becoming a member, and then
agreeing to subsequent treaty changes).

'So for example, one of the main EU treaties currently refers to:

“the process of creating an ever closer union among the
peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly
as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.

'Notably, the treaties actually say “ever closer union of the
peoples” of Europe, not governments. The phrase does not
contain the word “political”, and it uses the word “union” with
a small u, less suggestive of a formal drive towards a
European super-state. ...'

--------------------------------

And in any case, we have been able to opt out of
"ever closer union", as the above linked article says:

--------------------------------

'...The UK has opt-outs despite “ever closer union”

'It’s also important that the wording “ever closer union” hasn’t
prevented Britain from obtaining a range of opt-outs from EU
integration in the past.

'And in June 2014, the European leaders formally stated that

“the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of
integration for different countries, allowing those that want to
deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish
of those who do not want to deepen any further”.

'... “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the
specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to
further political integration into the European Union. The substance
of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next
revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties
and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States,
so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do
not apply to the United Kingdom” ...'
Post by tim...
I don't count that as turning our back on them
There are dozens of other areas where we are still keen to co-operate. It
is the EU putting up the barriers to that.
pamela
2017-11-01 17:35:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
Post by pamela
Post by Altroy1
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jo xit -bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK
based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a
[hard] Brexit: - http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another
propaganda exercise rather than a real threat. A bit like
the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of
the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry
about...
Deep in the Brexit mindset is this apparent suspicion of the
EU's non english speaking Frogs and Krauts. Get us out
Now!(tm) with the aid of Moggmentum® is one proposed
solution. They seem to have forgotten the old Kissinger adage
about America having no friends only interests. Post Brexit,
they beLEAVE (geddit!?)[1] English speaking nations will come
running to the rescue. These nations, however, have few
ancient feelings of insecurity and will happily free trade
with the furriners.
This can not be anything but hope because it is untested. As
your links indicate, statements from countries like AUS and NZ
suggest that long ago they lost any special feelings for the
mother country.
I do have family in Australia and regularly read the Australian
news online. My impression is that there is some residual good
will left for Britain (and Ireland to a lesser extent) both
contributing significantly to the foundation of Australia's
political, legal and cultural system. But Julie Bishop, a
Minister of the governing Liberal Party, (Liberal <--> UK
Conservative ) is fairly clear she is not supporting a retreat
to nationalism. So Australia will be happy to sign up to a
mutually beneficial deal with the UK,
why on earth do you think we would expect otherwise
Altroy makes good sense. Leavers seem to have unreal expectations
for special consideration by AUS and NZ.... why else would you go
half way around the world for butter and lamb if it wasn't in the
expectation of a sepacial deal?
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
one not overly tempered by favouritism based on past historical ties.
and what on earth could that possible mean?
As usual, the UK is trying to call in favours from
Commonwealth.... but nowadays the UK has far less sway over it.
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
Australia and NZ will expect the UK to play fair with respect
to WTO quotas and so on. And the UK turning its back on 40+
years of close relationship with 27 of its closest trading
partners
um no it's not
We want to leave its aspirations for a political union.
I don't count that as turning our back on them
There are dozens of other areas where we are still keen to
co-operate. It is the EU putting up the barriers to that.
The UK turned away from NZ/Aus imports when it joined the Common
Market much to their annoyance and they probably don't think they
now owe us any favours.
tim...
2017-11-02 10:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
Post by pamela
Post by Altroy1
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jo xit -bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK
based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a
[hard] Brexit: - http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another
propaganda exercise rather than a real threat. A bit like
the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of
the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry
about...
Deep in the Brexit mindset is this apparent suspicion of the
EU's non english speaking Frogs and Krauts. Get us out
Now!(tm) with the aid of Moggmentum® is one proposed
solution. They seem to have forgotten the old Kissinger adage
about America having no friends only interests. Post Brexit,
they beLEAVE (geddit!?)[1] English speaking nations will come
running to the rescue. These nations, however, have few
ancient feelings of insecurity and will happily free trade
with the furriners.
This can not be anything but hope because it is untested. As
your links indicate, statements from countries like AUS and NZ
suggest that long ago they lost any special feelings for the
mother country.
I do have family in Australia and regularly read the Australian
news online. My impression is that there is some residual good
will left for Britain (and Ireland to a lesser extent) both
contributing significantly to the foundation of Australia's
political, legal and cultural system. But Julie Bishop, a
Minister of the governing Liberal Party, (Liberal <--> UK
Conservative ) is fairly clear she is not supporting a retreat
to nationalism. So Australia will be happy to sign up to a
mutually beneficial deal with the UK,
why on earth do you think we would expect otherwise
Altroy makes good sense.
No he doesn't

he picks a few soundbites from a few discredited people and spends three
paragraphs waffling on about it
Post by pamela
Leavers seem to have unreal expectations
for special consideration by AUS and NZ....
Nonsense
Post by pamela
why else would you go
half way around the world for butter and lamb if it wasn't in the
expectation of a sepacial deal?
because it is cheaper
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
one not overly tempered by favouritism based on past historical ties.
and what on earth could that possible mean?
As usual, the UK is trying to call in favours from
Commonwealth....
and why not? It would be stupid not to.
Post by pamela
but nowadays the UK has far less sway over it.
but less than before is still more than zero
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
Australia and NZ will expect the UK to play fair with respect
to WTO quotas and so on. And the UK turning its back on 40+
years of close relationship with 27 of its closest trading
partners
um no it's not
We want to leave its aspirations for a political union.
I don't count that as turning our back on them
There are dozens of other areas where we are still keen to
co-operate. It is the EU putting up the barriers to that.
The UK turned away from NZ/Aus imports when it joined the Common
Market much to their annoyance
Yes I know

I believe then, as now, that that was mistake - not just for us, but for the
whole EU.

But it is done now
Post by pamela
and they probably don't think they
now owe us any favours.
Well of course not, but they have goods to sell (in categories that we want
to buy) and with us outside the EU no longer suffer a tariff disadvantage.
Why not cap that by going for gold with a trade deal?

They would be stupid not to due to some imperialistic historical nonsense

(Though that doesn't mean there aren't some good trading reasons why they
might not)

tim
pullgees
2017-10-31 17:27:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
It's a worse case possibility, but only the editor of Cityam "expects" it.
Peter Percival
2017-10-31 17:36:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
According to today's news, those job losses will be cancelled out by the
hiring of civil servants and government lawyers.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
tim...
2017-10-31 19:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Percival
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexit-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK based
financial firms what contingency plans they had for a [hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submit-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another propaganda
exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions out of the
zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry about...
According to today's news, those job losses will be cancelled out by the
hiring of civil servants and government lawyers.
unfortunately for the treasury, not at million pound salaries

tim
Post by Peter Percival
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
pamela
2017-10-31 21:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Peter Percival
Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/75-000-jobs-could-be-lost-after-brexi
t-bank-of-eng/
In the latest twist of "project fear" the BoE asked all UK
based financial firms what contingency plans they had for a
[hard] Brexit: -
http://www.cityam.com/274862/bank-england-asks-city-firms-submi
t-brexit-contingency
back came the answer we see.
Of course blood and guts Brexiteers will see this as another
propaganda exercise rather than a real threat.
A bit like the animal rights campaigners letting all the lions
out of the zoo and telling people there is nothing to worry
about...
According to today's news, those job losses will be cancelled
out by the hiring of civil servants and government lawyers.
unfortunately for the treasury, not at million pound salaries
tim
How many of those do you think there are?
Loading...