Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mcfc1632 said:
Get a grip man.....

1. I have not promised any sunny uplands

2. I have not made any promises and lied

3. Can you point me to a post where I have promised you unicorns?

4. I am not responsible for what other people said in campaigns and

5. I am not a Tory

In fact - go and aim such nonsense at either someone that fits the bill - or someone that cares
Click to expand...


So you're now in denial .....please list the benefits of leaving the Eu (as you've been asked to sooo many times before.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Their share price will plummet when the Remain experts on Bluemoon are proven right and they have not been planning properly.

Well - when I say proven right - there is a first time for everything I keep hearing
Click to expand...
Well if you won't discuss fish...

For a start, Arla don't have a traded share price.

What will happen is that Arla will absorb some of the 76p a pack tariff on Lurpak and retailers may absorb some more. Demand will fall a bit as UK customers switch to British butter, and as demand for British butter goes up so will its price, for there will not be a lot more butter produced in the UK as - like fishing fleets - you can't suddenly build a herd of cows. You could import more milk from the EU and pay the tariff on milk. Maybe you could smuggle Kerrygold through Northern Ireland.

Long term, Arla will sell more Lurpak to other EU countries where they don't like the tariffs on British butter and/or build more creameries in the UK.

But UK consumers will pay more as we have deliberately reduced competition with no increase in supply. The only upside is that it may halt the decline of dairy farming in the UK (though the price impact has been mitigated by much improved yields).

And that's without any disruption at ports.

I now expect to be told I don't understand the value of cows as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
I'm not sure he has ever claimed any benefit other than not being part of a failing EU. If he has, he's kept quiet about other benefits for a long time.
Click to expand...
What I have gleaned over many months from listening to the Brexit supporters on here is basically that. mitigating the risk of the UK being subsumed into a politically and fiscally integrated EU. The belief that the financial model that the EU is unsustainable and that continued membership of the EU will significantly compromise U.K. sovereignty and leaving will avoid a future EU financial meltdown. TBF, I can accept that as a valid reason. I don’t subscribe to it personally but can understand why many might.


To believe that there will be future benefits one has to believe that an entrepreneurial U.K. will prosper more from competing directly with the major trading blocks, USA, EU, China/Asia. That’s a much harder one to swallow.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Why on earth would you think that I would think that?

The way these things work is that Frost will have had a significant number of professionals working to him. They will have been brigaded into workstreams and progressing all areas - with him as the Lead Negotiator. He will have been managing the workstreams - each will have their own lead - to achieve the best positions in each area from pre-determined outcomes in a range between Fallback - Realistic and Ideal.

Barnier will have been doing the same but has had the benefit of 3 years head start because he was facing off against the hapless Robbins. That is why we ended up with the WA and the unfettered backstop. Securing the unfettered backstop would have caused Barnier to have to establish a new category as Ideal simply will not have covered it - Utopian might do the trick.

Frost will report to a governance group which will of course include Johnson and others - who will make decisions/give direction against the detail that Frost brings back and the decisions on policy that Frosts requests.

Seemingly the direction from the governance group has been one that reflects resolve in key areas which is what has allowed Frost to be so effective during 2020 and regain a lot of the ground that was conceded in the previous 3 years. That group will have been influenced by a number of factors - and stakeholders and in this regard there has been casualties recently in the ranks that would keep Johnson away from 'unilateral' (aka utterly inept and stupid) involvement and personal decisions.

What I have said - many times - is that I really hope that Johnson 'does not get involved' and I have explained what I mean - e.g. that I hope there are no more examples such as him walking around the grounds with Varadkar - I was/am very concerned when I hear that he has calls scheduled von der Leyen

So Frost will have done all the excellent work in a structured and professional manner, but Johnson is a fuckwit that could fuck it up. I worry that Johnson will bottle it and act unilaterally - not the other way round
Click to expand...
That’s a very nice description of a structured negotiation process. One that is familiar in both the private and public sector and I have no doubt that it is an accurate description of what is in place.
There is a fundamental aspect though that you omit, for good reason.

When May passed the baton to Johnson, he did a deal which included the WA and PD. That deal was as far as he could get at the time but it is the deal he took to the country and got him the mandate in the election. Having passed that hurdle, he has pretty much abandoned what he originally agreed and set out his stall to Frost and Chums to execute which is where we are now. Now you might argue from a Brexit perspective, he will end up with a deal with less strings tying us to the EU.

Others might argue though that he has broken trust with the EU and with those that voted on the basis of the WA. Others might also argue that to get this done he has had to threaten to break international law through the IMB. Many may say he is still risking the GFA and none of us know how that is yet to play out. So he may well get a purer Brexit deal than the WA allowed for, but at what cost? Only history will tell us the answer to that.
 
EnZRfUkWEAQ57jR
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
So you're now in denial .....please list the benefits of leaving the Eu (as you've been asked to sooo many times before.
Click to expand...
I will get right onto it - the minute after you show me the posts in which I have promised unicorns, sunny uplands - made promises and lied etc.

Bring it on - I will be glad to engage
 
mcfc1632 said:
Well - pleased that you found it to be a:

"...very nice description of a structured negotiation process. One that is familiar in both the private and public sector and I have no doubt that it is an accurate description of what is in place."

It suggests that you actually read it and have understanding and experience of such arrangements. So much better to hear such comments, rather than things like:

and others of a similar quality from posters that seemingly have no embarrassment of how they demonstrate that they do not understand how large scale negotiations are actually conducted.

But you say also:

"There is a fundamental aspect though that you omit, for good reason......"

Which seems to be you suggesting that I deliberately left those aspects out.

Not so - I feel that my views of how/why/timing etc. of the decisions surrounding those events are quite close to spot on - but I have posted them before and only got the usual response from those that seek to drive all Leaver comments from the thread.

You do realise that is what they do don't you?

And that is why so many Leavers cannot be arsed with what has generally become an echo chamber for a small group - with posts accepted from others so long as they are 'like-minded'. Do you not notice the general absence of Leaver representation? Congrats to the 'usual suspects' I guess is in order

But any way - re the bit you mention that I omitted - If you wish I will happily discuss my views about the November / December 2019 events with you
Click to expand...
My point was, unlike almost every other negotiation that takes place, the parameters of a deal were taken to the country as part of a general election. The Conservative party were elected on the basis of Johnsons deal including the Irish protocol. Johnson never had any intention of abiding by what he promised the country. He changed the script immediately they won the election. If I missed you bringing that important point out I apologise. In a normal negotiation its questionable but just about acceptable to change the rules mid way through. Promising the country one thing and then delivering something significantly different because you won 'bigger than expected' is in an altogether different league.
 
Vic said:
Well if you won't discuss fish...

For a start, Arla don't have a traded share price.

What will happen is that Arla will absorb some of the 76p a pack tariff on Lurpak and retailers may absorb some more. Demand will fall a bit as UK customers switch to British butter, and as demand for British butter goes up so will its price, for there will not be a lot more butter produced in the UK as - like fishing fleets - you can't suddenly build a herd of cows. You could import more milk from the EU and pay the tariff on milk. Maybe you could smuggle Kerrygold through Northern Ireland.

Long term, Arla will sell more Lurpak to other EU countries where they don't like the tariffs on British butter and/or build more creameries in the UK.

But UK consumers will pay more as we have deliberately reduced competition with no increase in supply. The only upside is that it may halt the decline of dairy farming in the UK (though the price impact has been mitigated by much improved yields).

And that's without any disruption at ports.

I now expect to be told I don't understand the value of cows as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
Click to expand...
Go on then - I will try to explain again for you

It is not a question of me being unwilling to discuss fish with you

It is not a question of me being unwilling to discuss disruption at ports with you

It is just that I have made a judgement that I have so many more things that I would choose to do before discussing anything with you - that is my prerogative and I have explained why
 
Saddleworth2 said:
What I have gleaned over many months from listening to the Brexit supporters on here is basically that. mitigating the risk of the UK being subsumed into a politically and fiscally integrated EU. The belief that the financial model that the EU is unsustainable and that continued membership of the EU will significantly compromise U.K. sovereignty and leaving will avoid a future EU financial meltdown. TBF, I can accept that as a valid reason. I don’t subscribe to it personally but can understand why many might.


To believe that there will be future benefits one has to believe that an entrepreneurial U.K. will prosper more from competing directly with the major trading blocks, USA, EU, China/Asia. That’s a much harder one to swallow.
Click to expand...
Again - so refreshing to see some understanding and some objectivity

Some people start from the wrong point - they start from the baseline of the position recorded in certain economic stats in the last 'golden era'.

To understand the views of Leavers that have been clear for a long time of the imperative for the UK to leave the EU the starting point is in the not too distant future.

I have not much time - in fact beer and wine o'clock is coming around at my household - so I will restrict myself to a simple crass analogy and would be happy to discuss it further.

1. Did those that boarded the RMS Carpathia immediately enjoy benefits beyond those that they are been enjoying for the previous part of their journey?

2. If the results had been that their previously enjoyed quality of life and benefits would have continued for the rest of their journey - if only they had not so foolishly 'left' - of course they would have been proven to be wrong.

3. You are on the right lines (in comparison to my views) to say:

".....mitigating the risk of the UK being subsumed into a politically and fiscally integrated EU. The belief that the financial model that the EU is unsustainable and that continued membership of the EU will significantly compromise U.K. sovereignty and leaving will avoid a future EU financial meltdown......"

But there is more to it from my POV - sovereignty is a term abused on here to try and demean - it is slightly different to me. I have no problem being within a large trading block - it is that if we Remain - that will not be the limit of what our membership will commit us to and constrain us.

4. Back to the crass analogy - there will have been families reluctantly persuaded to endure the privations of the Carpathia by the more sensible members of their families. They will have probably had to deal with hysteria in convincing people to make the move - but a relatively short time into their future they were probably grateful..........

You say:

"......To believe that there will be future benefits one has to believe that an entrepreneurial U.K. will prosper more from competing directly with the major trading blocks, USA, EU, China/Asia. That’s a much harder one to swallow....."

But here I humbly suggest that it is you and others that are drawing the wrong comparison. For me - there are obvious reasons why we will be better off out of the EU in the years to come - because the EU will not be solely a trading block. The poison that will see the end of the EU was taken in the 90's and is bringing forwards the symptoms now and in the near future.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top