|
Post by PG on Aug 30, 2017 14:20:22 GMT
This is potentially very good news for the local supply chain. It's long been a worry that, while Nissan is assembling in the UK, an increasing percentage of the parts that go into every vehicle are made across Europe and imported. And good Brexit insurance for Nissan. If the parts are sourced in the UK, there will be no import duties (if no deal is done), no FX risk on those parts and less risk overall on their profit margin on sales into the UK or the rest of the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2017 6:47:25 GMT
Trade balance graph. And they want money from us.......
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 1, 2017 9:40:04 GMT
Yes they do. Life's not fair. It never was. And we knew that. Brexit is, unfortunately, an Quixotic quest. However, I fear that many of its most fervent adherents are either unfamiliar with Cervantes' seminal work or they share the same madness as his famous character.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 1, 2017 9:45:57 GMT
This morning's FT carries a piece about attitudes to Brexit in Staines, where apparently voters are getting impatient about Brexit.
These are some of the quotes from the vox pop they conducted:
“A lot of people I work with thought we would be out within a week, they thought that if we voted leave we would get on and leave,”
“It’s been very slow. Personally, I thought we would be out in six months.”
“The government has been too slow and a bit too weak in the negotiations,”
“I voted to come out, but it seems to be taking a lot longer, I imagined it would be over in two years or so, but it’s turned out to be incredibly complex.”
“Boris was right, we shouldn’t pay a penny. Think how much we’ve given them over the years . . . they probably owe us don’t they?”
That is just so depressing.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Sept 1, 2017 11:26:01 GMT
In simplistic terms, that's because most folk don't have the EU down as a cartel run by the Grande Ecole of Europe.
I understand leaving is a complex process but there is far to much hoo-ha in the way its being handled. Don't try and tell me the process couldn't be simplified if the EU was so engaged. It's not wanting to loose face rather than being in the interest of the UK and the EU. Simplistic thought yes but that's how us proletariat think.
If the EU wanted to teach us a lesson, let us get on with Brexit and then the whole of the world can witness our shit storm recession from afar.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Sept 1, 2017 12:38:16 GMT
I still can't belive, that with only 2 outcomes likely for the Referendum and one outcome was "do nothing, carry on exactly as before", the Government did not seem to have a clue about what to do when the result was declared. Did nobody in the Houses of Parliament stop to give serious consideration to what would need to happen? Are they too lazy or so complacent that they did not think an "out" majority could happen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2017 17:40:15 GMT
I still can't belive, that with only 2 outcomes likely for the Referendum and one outcome was "do nothing, carry on exactly as before", the Government did not seem to have a clue about what to do when the result was declared. Did nobody in the Houses of Parliament stop to give serious consideration to what would need to happen? Are they too lazy or so complacent that they did not think an "out" majority could happen? Wot, think? Members of parliament? Another occasion in a whole warehouse full of them not thinking. Makes me wonder what we pay them for. A slow shooting and boil them in oil, not the eco friendly variety either.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Sept 1, 2017 19:12:18 GMT
I still can't belive, that with only 2 outcomes likely for the Referendum and one outcome was "do nothing, carry on exactly as before", the Government did not seem to have a clue about what to do when the result was declared. Did nobody in the Houses of Parliament stop to give serious consideration to what would need to happen? Are they too lazy or so complacent that they did not think an "out" majority could happen? You forget that the head of that government was David Cameron who promised the referendum in order to get in to power and was so certain he'd get away with it that he didn't need to start planning for that eventuality. If Brexit does indeed cause the serious financial damage it's expected to, the ex-PM's arrogance will be largely to blame.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 1, 2017 19:35:48 GMT
And not the ignorance and intellectual laziness of an electorate that did not have the humility to admit its own ignorance, and remains largely graceless in its pyrrhic victory.
I am not excusing Cameron, but we are all adults with responsibility for our own actions.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 1, 2017 19:50:44 GMT
I don't blame Cameron. I think the question needed addressing sooner or later. What I do think was insane was triggering article 50 before establishing what happens if we wanted to stop the process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2017 20:19:34 GMT
Why would we stop the process?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 1, 2017 20:31:48 GMT
Should another referendum have been run and the electorate had a different view in light of reality and all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 10:33:10 GMT
OK, no idea why a second referendum would have been called as there were no grounds other than some people getting a bit peeved at not getting their way.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 2, 2017 11:10:14 GMT
OK, no idea why a second referendum would have been called as there were no grounds other than some people getting a bit peeved at not getting their way. But had it gone the other way, Farage had already indicated he wouldn't accept the result and would start agitating for a re-run. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 18:04:18 GMT
Had it gone the other way, there would have been the same call as in the last referendum and the result would have been the same, no repeat referendum. The remainers still have to accept the result just as the leavers would. The Scottish nationalists agitated for a repeat referendum and they will have to accept the result sooner or later. It is just white noise in the background. Farage may have talked but he would have been out of luck.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 3, 2017 11:34:07 GMT
So if we accept that Leavers would have agitated, and Scottish nationalists are still agitating, why is it somehow surprising or wrong that Remainers are agitating? Smacks of double-standards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 12:31:47 GMT
Not double standards at all. The first referendum resulted in a vote to remain. Those who wanted to leave were told to shut up and accept the result. What is so different now?
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Sept 3, 2017 13:27:54 GMT
OK, no idea why a second referendum would have been called as there were no grounds other than some people getting a bit peeved at not getting their way. From where I sit (an office in Westminster, advising a direct report to a SoS) nobody seems to be "getting their way" at all.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 3, 2017 14:18:41 GMT
Not double standards at all. The first referendum resulted in a vote to remain. Those who wanted to leave were told to shut up and accept the result. What is so different now? But they didn't shut up and accept the result. They spent 40 years agitating until they got their own way. I'm not giving way on this point I'm afraid. I find the Leaver attitude that continues to says "we won - put up and shut up" to be fundamentally anti-democratic. Especially given it was such a close result. As I've said before and will say for as long as it proves necessary- Labour voters don't suddenly shut up and accept Tory principles because the Tories win an election, and vice-versa. Nor does anyone expect them to in a functioning democratic political system. Why should a decision taken at one point in time by one set of voters bind for all time on this topic? That rule doesn't hold for any other political position - why should it for this one?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 3, 2017 18:56:51 GMT
Not double standards at all. The first referendum resulted in a vote to remain. Those who wanted to leave were told to shut up and accept the result. What is so different now? But they didn't shut up and accept the result. They spent 40 years agitating until they got their own way. I'm not giving way on this point I'm afraid. I find the Leaver attitude that continues to says "we won - put up and shut up" to be fundamentally anti-democratic. Especially given it was such a close result. As I've said before and will say for as long as it proves necessary- Labour voters don't suddenly shut up and accept Tory principles because the Tories win an election, and vice-versa. Nor does anyone expect them to in a functioning democratic political system. Why should a decision taken at one point in time by one set of voters bind for all time on this topic? That rule doesn't hold for any other political position - why should it for this one? Because using your argument we'd be entering and exiting the EU every change of government in perpetuity.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 3, 2017 19:41:38 GMT
Because article 50 has been triggered I think we have no choice but to get on with it and make the best of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 21:58:39 GMT
Not double standards at all. The first referendum resulted in a vote to remain. Those who wanted to leave were told to shut up and accept the result. What is so different now? But they didn't shut up and accept the result. They spent 40 years agitating until they got their own way. I'm not giving way on this point I'm afraid. I find the Leaver attitude that continues to says "we won - put up and shut up" to be fundamentally anti-democratic. Especially given it was such a close result. As I've said before and will say for as long as it proves necessary- Labour voters don't suddenly shut up and accept Tory principles because the Tories win an election, and vice-versa. Nor does anyone expect them to in a functioning democratic political system. Why should a decision taken at one point in time by one set of voters bind for all time on this topic? That rule doesn't hold for any other political position - why should it for this one? I did not hear people arguing for a recount or rerun into perpetuity after the first referendum. Changes in the EU and wanton waste brought about an argument to rerun the whole thing. I had people come out with absolute tripe along the lines of "Everyone else will vote to stay so I will". Pathetic as it is, that was not one or two people. There has been a far bigger level of moaning since the leave result and it is quite sad. MR Juncke is wanting to hit us for as much money as he can to bolster the EU coffers and frankly I cannot believe he will get that big bailout he is after. What will be the effect of big business if he ends up creating a no deal exit? If the EU cannot stop the attempts to punish the UK into bailing out their social and defence projects there will be a huge SNAFU for the EU. Cars alone, how many do they sell US?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 22:02:42 GMT
BTW, it is impossible to say the result was anti-democratic in fact it supports the very act of democracy, to then whinge about the result because it does not suit you IS anti-democratic. There was a vote for the electorate, that vote was to leave, hence democracy won. I have no doubt that you can still live in Germany or anywhere else in the EU should you so wish.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Sept 4, 2017 8:50:48 GMT
If we were to have the vote again, I can see only a landslide victory for the remainers. Of course I called it that way when we had the vote last year so what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 4, 2017 9:50:40 GMT
If we were to have the vote again, I can see only a landslide victory for the remainers. Of course I called it that way when we had the vote last year so what do I know. I don't think we would, I think there would be a landslide for leave as we've triggered article 50 the status quo as was is gone. So the rebate and various opt-outs are gone. Much easier to sell Brexit now than before the referendum.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Sept 4, 2017 10:31:45 GMT
I don't think we would, I think there would be a landslide for leave as we've triggered article 50 the status quo as was is gone. So the rebate and various opt-outs are gone. Much easier to sell Brexit now than before the referendum. Much easier to sell Brexit with some of the reported statements and behaviours coming from Barnier and others. Whilst industry in Germany is desperate to see trade negotiations and deals the EU centralists are concentrating on how much of a financial lesson they can teach the UK for leaving their club, proving a lot of the points made over the past 40-odd years that all the EU are interested in is the UK financial contribution to their un-audited coffers. Brussels is anxious to make its model look like a success, witnessed by the inordinate efforts to keep Greece in the EU despite it being clear that they have not met any of the criteria required of an applicant. That's like me not paying my annual subscription and not clearing my monthly account at the RAC yet still playing squash, having dinners and attending events: it just shouldn't happen. Because of this and the British expectation of equilibrium I think a lot of Leave voters expected the UK to pay 2 years of existing funds during Article 50 run-down and then just stop at that. This so-called "divorce" bill is nothing short of an unlicensed penalty and despite me being a Remainer leaves me wanting to call an airstrike on the European Parliament this month. The EU had absolutely NO IDEA what they would do if a major (or minor) state left the club and are simply making it up as they examine their books and see how fucked their internal finances will be. The individual states (except France - who's lack of labour reforms in the past 3 decades is what really makes the EU such a disaster) want the UK's trading position to be clarified asap (and no wonder based on the balance of trade diagram above) and bollocks to the fine, which the EU states know none will see any of individually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2017 12:51:04 GMT
I would really like to see the EU hardliners get shown the door by our negotiation team. They will probably not survive the backlash politically after that so any ar5e raping they get will be their own problem then anyway.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 4, 2017 12:54:23 GMT
Have you ever worked in an a capacity where you've needed to generate wealth Mike?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2017 13:10:13 GMT
Pardon me but what has that got to do with anything? I hope those people who are pushing for the UK to get an ar5e raping get the treatment themselves. We have put more in than got out of the EU and the balance of trade is in favour of the EU. I served in the Army then worked in the NHS and then tested software and came up with tutorials for that software while running a support forum, on my todd. I contributed like anyone else here. I am not taking anything other than a point of discussion but I confess I am missing it. No offence intended.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 4, 2017 14:26:11 GMT
It's to help me try to understand some of your comments that, to me at least, come across as a bit naive. The EU stance is a mess but I get the impression you're favouring a 'fuck you all' type approach (please correct me if I've got that wrong) which isn't really the way to build relationships with our EU neighbours and customers.
|
|