Jump to content

Hard Brexit - You WILL need a CDS


Cathar Tours
 Share

Recommended Posts

Your right in that Blair would not allow the vote and also he knew the answer was no but that was for the Treaty Establishing a Constitution of Europe. Some countries did have a referendum including France and The Netherlands which came out at around 68% against it.

Fortunately the then EU got the message and scrapped this treaty because it knew it would never get people to agree to it.

They went away and made amendments to the then Treaty of Rome and came out, after much negotiating amongst EU countries, with the Treaty of Lisbon which is an update to the Treaty of Rome. It actually made the EU more democratic because before you had votes based on the majority win where as the Treaty of Lisbon said it needed all countries to agree.

Something else the Treaty of Lisbon added was Art. 50 which allowed, as you know, countries to leave the EU. Something that was not an option before.

As Farage said at the time it should have been a 60/40 requirement for a win either way where as the result was pretty close and even he said it would cause problems. Probably the most intelligent thing he has ever said.

Brexiteers should also remember that 16.14M people voted to remain. The behaviour of Brexiteers since has only cemented the resolve of those that voted remain to disrupt as much as possible leaving the EU. Going round saying "you lost get over it" is more like something a football yob would be expected to say. Rather than lead the Remainers with a carrot their attitude is to try and beat them into submission with a big stick which will one day come back and bite them on the bottom.

People who voted to remain do accept the majority but what they don't accept is the method of withdrawal. Even the Brexit camp said they would expect a deal of some sort "because the EU needed the UK's money" (even that has since turned out not to be true, missed yes but got over the loss). Nobody ever on the Brexit side during the campaigning for the referendum said it would be a hard Brexit.

Another thing I would agree with you and Woolly about was there were lies told and there was cheating but it was on both sides.

I would like to see a second referendum but respecting the Brexiteers I would not agree to anything about leaving or remaining, that's done but not dusted. I want to see the British people have the opportunity to agree on whatever deal May comes up with and if people vote against it she would be force to go back and renegotiate further. There should then be another referendum with the understanding that if there was no agreement then it would be an automatic hard Brexit. Because May wants a legal stipulation in the agreement about NI on the time period I can't see why she would object unless of course she knows what she has negotiated is not what the people want in which case she is behaving undemocratically.

It is very important that the interests of country are at the core, even May has said this. What we have ended up with is a bunch of morons who put their personal ambitions before the country and then people wonder why the rest of the world laughs at us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am losing the will to live with this thread.

Politicians LIE! C'est tout!!!!!!!

And the idea that those that voted against remaining just accepted what politicans said, is an insult, people are not 'simple' and 'I' would have accepted a remain vote, if it had happened.

The likes of Gina Miller she has said democracy because 'she' wants her say and parliaments say on every last bit of this.......... and the 'loody courts sort of agreed.... GRRRRRR! And will parliament go against a majority vote?????  AND then there is  Vince Cable, who I am sure, if he had won any election with 52% of the vote would have called it a resounding victory, 'loody hypocrite, he is!

My hatred of the EU remains. Look at it at the moment, Italy says that it is going to do as IT pleases with it's budget and the EU says that they can't. What will the italians do????? as they please I imagine. Let's face it France often does!!!!

Greece, 'uggered up it's economy completely.

What will happen, well, it is NOT like the start of some world war, like my parents had to go through, it will sort itself out. Look at history folks, great upheavals have happened and YET we are all here and I daresay our plastic filled children and grand children will be or not, who knows what health problems the future will hold. 

Do I wonder about the future and how it will affect us, ofcourse I do, and I shall get on with it, no matter what. And we can be badly affected by this, so what.

Strange isn't it that this thread just makes me feel like giving up, but 'life' and getting on with it doesn't.

And Mrs May wanted that job they all want their political jobs, I don't care what anyone says about any politician, they have the power of life and death over all of us, and skins so thick they would put an elephant to shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The complication with Italy, Idun, is that if Italy goes ahead and wrecks its economy it will expect the EU to bail it out. If it does an Italexit then yes it can do what it wants (but without the safety blanket of the EU it will in fact probably change its plans). Maybe it will. But while it's still living in the EU house, it is expected to follow EU house rules.

The UK was the EU's petulant child who has finally almost left home, and Italy is its bolshy teenager who wants to keep living at home while sticking two fingers up at its parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="EuroTrash"]". It's not just about bashing out a decent product and selling it any more, it's more extreme in some industries than others but you're a less credible player if you don't have a string of accreditations after your logo.[/quote]

Its even worse. The fact that a product, say a screw, is made in the UK will mean it is NOT made in the EU. So even when that screw is made of first class German steel and produced in the UK with a quality certification that is valid and recognised in the EU then it is still not an EU product. So this screw can no longer be used in products with a 'made in the EU ' label that can be sold to countries that have a trade agreement with the EU because they are no longer compliant with the 'rules of origin', it is not an EU product. EU producers will still have to find another supplier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A actually, that's over egging it a bit. What the EU preparedness document actually says is:

When exporting products to third countries with which the EU has a Free Trade Agreement, exporters may enjoy a preferential tariff rate if the products have enough «EU content» according to rules of origin. Post-Brexit, you can no longer count on UK input to the finished product being considered as EU content. You should therefore examine your supply chains and start treating any UK input as “non-originating”, in order to ensure EU preferential origin for your goods.

Note the "may" and "enough EU content". In other words, a screw may not tip the balance. It's about percentage content, and if the UK manufactured component is small, it may make absolutely no difference. Your point is perfectly valid, but your example is a bit exaggerated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed it is about content or amount of added value that determines whether a product can be marketed as "made in...."

Back in the 70s Volvo used a lot of Ford parts and it was suggested that one model could actually have been labelled as Made in the UK.

If you think about it, it has to be this way, otherwise anything that contained for example a rubber gasket could not have European status since rubber trees grow nowhere in Europe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is another major reason why companies like Honda, Nissan and Toyota set up production lines inside the UK because they wouldn't pay tariffs on the cars they made in the UK and sold in the EU apart for their JIT manufacturing and bits getting stuck in customs.

They could have gone anywhere in the EU but Thatcher gave them a "Golden Deal" to fill the void made by steel works and ship yards closing. If you want to be competitive and sell cars in the EU they need to be made there. There are potentially 500M plus consumers in the EU and only 60M in the UK. Who would you be keen to do a trade deal with?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you have vast experience with Ford, CT, but I've worked with and for more motor manufacturers than you can shake a stick at during my career. I know not much...but I do know that Nissan Sunderland export to 130 countries (hmmm.. Let's think...how many are there in the EU?) and Honda at least 70. It may well be that cars for sale in the EU will, in future, be better off made there, but don't forget there's a big, wide world out there beyond the EU, and that Nissan could choose to shut Sunderland, but it's still their most efficient and productive plant more or less anywhere...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right about the countries but there is a reason why your right. Nissan make the all electric Leaf's in Sunderland. That car is exported world wide. The other cars they export are the Infiniti cars. The latter are not exported to Europe and the reason why is because they are a luxury end car designed to take on Mercedes and the big BMW's. In Europe why buy a Nisan when you can buy the real thing even if they are very nice well built cars. Bit like Toyota and their Lexus (Luxury Export for the US) which also find their way into other world markets.

Nissan having announced a massive investment plan for the Sunderland plant pre referendum have no put that on hold and have actually let staff go. The investment will happen if there is a trade deal with the EU.

So whilst they do export to non EU countries like you say it's very specific models (2 versions of the Leaf and to models of Infiniti) the bulk goes to the EU for the reasons I already explained.

Nissan also builds RHD cars in the US along LHD cars for the domestic market there as they also do in Mexico. The RHD cars are exported to Japan (talk about coals to Newcastle), Australia, New Zeeland and some now to the UK.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CT wrote,

and then people wonder why the rest of the world laughs at us.

And I wonder who you consider are 'us'

Thank you for repeating what you have been told about the various treaties in class, but I am fully aware of what happened. What it did was open the doors for all of Europe to have a right to enter the UK without being vetted.

As for the lies that you claim the leave campaign used to win the referendum. The one that remainers love to go on (and on and on) about is the figure of £340K on the side of the bus. I would like to point out that this was brought up on every news channel for weeks prior to the vote, so if you had not heard that the figure was the gross amount we send and not the net amount after they kindly handed us back some of our own money, then I would be amazed.

This vote was not about trade, I hope there is no deal, it was about sovereignty, the right to make our own laws, and stopping any Tom Dick or Abdul from being able to enter the UK and blow us and our kids up.

The media campaign was full on for remain, and leading figures would spout their spin every second. This is why so few people trust the MSM, who would, I wonder subscribe to news channel, or waste their money on a newspaper these days??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowt to do with the title of the thread (but then neither is ebaynut's ravings) but it is Brexit related. I was reading Paris Match at the hairdressers this morning and there was an article about Barnier visiting isolated Danish fishing communities to talk about their concerns over Brexit. Turns out he's been setting himself an exhausting schedule doing a lot of this all over Europe since the negotiations started. I'm quite impressed at that. Has TM even made it to the parts of her own country that have concerns? I know she's been half way round the world to talk about trade and unicorns, but how about the less glamorous job of looking the little people in the eye and saying Yes, your livelihood may be at risk but I haven't forgotten about you, I've come here to listen to you and I am going to keep doing what I can for you.

Throughout Brexit it's been striking that the EU has managed to stay relatively united compared to the UK and having read the article and seeing how hard Barnier worksto do what he sees as his job, and comparing that to the very low effort the UK's leaders seem to have made to keep their country onside, it's hardly surprising.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This vote was not about trade, I hope there is no deal, it was about sovereignty, the right to make our own laws, and stopping any Tom Dick or Abdul from being able to enter the UK and blow us and our kids up."

How has the EU taken away Sovereignty from the UK, name an example please?

What laws has the EU stopped the UK from making?

By Abdul I take it you mean Muslim extremists, how does the EU allow them to enter the country. Don't you think the UK should shoulder some of that responsibility?

PS. I pointed out that both Leave AND Remain told lies. I noted you did not disagree with your hero Farrage and his comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ebaynut said:

<< The media campaign was full on for remain, and leading figures would spout their spin every second >>

I always thought that the Daily Mail was fanatical about brexit, pro-brexit at all times. Until now, with a new editor and opinion around the UK starting to move towards supporting those who always did want to stay in the EU.

And didn’t ‘leading fugures’ such as Johnson, Gove etc constantly ‘spout their spin every second’?

I find it hard to imagine that Macron’s government would want current EU residents in France given a hard time after brexit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What it did was open the doors for all of Europe to have a right to enter the UK without being vetted."

Apparently it did, but that's the fault of the UK government, not the EU.

Every EU state is subject to the same regulations on freedom of movement. Mechanisms are inbuilt into the regulations specifically so that states can protect themself from potential problems that would be caused by mass EU immigration. And out of all the EU states, the UK is the only government that never bothered to use those mechanisms and the only culture that developed a bizarre love-hate relationship with migrants - happy to give them jobs and use their services but don't like them being there..

Try moving to France with no work and no money to live on, and claiming benefits, try coming to France and taking jobs away from the locals. And France is less strict than most on EU migrants, other states such as Spain require them to register within 30 days and prove they have sufficient income. The UK is the only one that looks the other way and then complains it's lost control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" find it hard to imagine that Macron’s government would want current EU residents in France given a hard time after brexit. "

I don't think they do..but they can't avoid the fact that we will become third county nationals, and it would be hard to argue that we deserve special treatment either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What it did was open the doors for all of Europe to have a right to enter the UK without being vetted."

Apparently it did, but that's the fault of the UK government, not the EU.

Indeed it was, it was Blair's government which did this, I never voted for them, or approved of them, so when you quote the UK governments policy, that is not the fault of the people, we were promised a referendum if there was change, it was not given at that time, and when it was, we the people of the UK voted leave.

Every EU state is subject to the same regulations on freedom of movement. Mechanisms are inbuilt into the regulations specifically so that states can protect themself from potential problems that would be caused by mass EU immigration. And out of all the EU states, the UK is the only government that never bothered to use those mechanisms and the only culture that developed a bizarre love-hate relationship with migrants - happy to give them jobs and use their services but don't like them being there..

As above, it was Blair's government, but the conservatives are no different, they allowed it to continue. I get great pleasure in seeing Mrs Mays problems, and the pain she endures. :-)

Try moving to France with no work and no money to live on, and claiming benefits, try coming to France and taking jobs away from the locals. And France is less strict than most on EU migrants, other states such as Spain require them to register within 30 days and prove they have sufficient income. The UK is the only one that looks the other way and then complains it's lost control.

Again, it is the government which looked the other way, and it is the people of the UK who complain. After all it is the peoples tax money which pays for it all.

When both main party's have the same stance on the EU, there is little chance of things changing, and little point in voting for either of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ebaynut wrote

As for the lies that you claim the leave campaign used to win the referendum. The one that remainers love to go on (and on and on) about is the figure of £340K on the side of the bus. I would like to point out that this was brought up on every news channel for weeks prior to the vote, so if you had not heard that the figure was the gross amount we send and not the net amount after they kindly handed us back some of our own money, then I would be amazed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nearly-half-of-britons-believe-vote-leaves-false-350-million-a-week-to-the-eu-claim-a7085016.html

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/new-poll-suggests-third-brits-11027263

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which only illustrates my point, who would buy any of the MSM, especially left leaning liberal progressive supporting 'news' outlets such as the two you quote.

I've split the UK's national newspapers into 4 categories on the basis of their intellectuality and that of their readerships, starting from the top. Next to the newspaper names I have included where they sit on the political spectrum, as well as the traditional party affiliations of the papers and their readers in brackets.

A (Heavily intellectual, highly serious)

The Guardian - Centre Left (Labour, some Lib Dem)

The Independent - Centre Left (Labour and Lib Dem)

The Observer - Centre Left (Labour and Lib Dem)

The Financial Times - Centrist (Mixed)

The Times - Centrist (Mixed)

The Telegraph - Centre Right (Conservative)

B (Intellectual and serious, but cut down for the convenience of the reader without much time on his or her hands)

The i - Centre Left (Labour and Lib Dem)

The Morning Star - Left (Socialist parties, some Labour)

C (Non-intellectual, sensationalist, often derided by readers of A and B papers)

Mirror - Centre Left (Labour)

Express - Right (Conservative, UKIP)

Mail - Right (Conservative, UKIP)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EbayNut - So you can't answer my questions, never mind I didn't expect that you would be able to. The other issue you didn't or refused to acknowledge is the UK (like ROI) is not a member of the Schengen area and therefore controls its own borders even with regards to EU migrants. Even somebody arriving from an EU country can be stopped from entering the UK, the EU makes that quite clear (look up the rules on working and living in another EU country).

Simply put you can't blame the EU for any immigration problems within the UK when indeed it is the UK Border Agency and successive UK governments not doing their job. Leaving the EU won't make any difference to immigration within the UK.

The immigrants that TB allowed to go to the UK were not EU migrants. Like the Windrush immigrants they went to do jobs that UK citizens either can't or don't want to do. Indeed the UK still needs these people. Unemployment is at the lowest level for over half a century and yet there are nearly more jobs available than there are unemployed. There just aren't enough people with the right skillsets to do these jobs so the UK needs to import them. Look at professional recruitment websites to see what the UK needs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Leaving the EU won't make any difference to immigration within the UK."

Well it could, because if as proposed every EU citizen wishing to move to the UK has to first obtain a job that pays £50k or is it £60k a year, same as all immigrants from wherever, that will deffo make a difference.

However I suspect that there will have to be so many exceptions introduced to keep the UK afloat with nurses, fruitpickers and whatnot, that it will turn into another strategy that gets too complex to adminster rigorously and ends up with more loopholes than Windsor Castle.

I know TM announced a plan to train Brits to do low skilled jobs but it's not lack of skills that's stopping them doing those jobs, it's lack of work ethic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at your list another way:

Guardian/Independent -freely accessible

Times/Telegraph -paywall

Mirror/express/mail - freely accessible.

so although fewer people buy a newspaper, there's little point providing links to those with a paywall as few people are prepared to pay to read online news, either.

I'm sure that a report on a survey NOT done by the newspaper in question is still a report, not propaganda.

I've been teaching the exact lesson you're trying to teach above, to my ESOL students for the last 15 years, so didn't really need the lesson. I can also tell you that the demographic for the Telegraph is "one foot in the grave" if you look at the adverts it carries, whereas most of the red tops assume their readership is largely preoccupied with cheap grocery shopping and better mobile phone contracts, has absolutely zero interest in world news (try finding any in a red top) and speak a peculiar form of English which might as well be morse code for all the sense their headlines make. Unless, of course, your view of "news"leans more towards which Kardashian sneezed yesterday, whether the cast of TOWIE are still friends, and football.

From a literacy perspective, the (very) sad truth is that the most comprehensible newspapers published in the UK are the Express and Mail. Unfortunately, it's a definite case of (linguistic) style over substance. Flying back from holidays earlier in the year, I was pained to find that the airline had left a copy of the Mail on every seat. I enquired of the cabin crew whether there was a shortage of lavatory paper onboard, and was assured there wasn't, so I gave them back their complimentary copy of the Mail as I had been reassured I wouldn't need it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...