Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You can not mitigate a direct implication of your action, that makes no sense. Like saying i'm going to punch myself hard in the balls but not punch in a way that will hurt - the two statements are contradictory. Leaving the EU/CU will mean a boat load of checks required at ports, they will be a legal obligation and they can't be mitigated. If your policy is to leave the EU/CU then the implication is you are advocating we should have a boat load of checks required at ports

Well you could wear a jockstrap :) That would minimise the risk. What you cannot minimise is the actions of a third party doing the punching. You can ask them to go easy but you cannot control whether they do or not.

We can ask the French to go easy on checks at ports immediately after a no deal but we cannot guarantee they will do so. Knowing the French I think we can safely assume they will not ‘go easy’.
 
Also from BBC NI. Anticipation of trouble ahead.

‘Understand PSNI has this morning informed all officers of leave restrictions in Oct-Nov as part of Brexit preparations’
 
You're aware a right wing government has dragged us into this mess, lied to the people repeatedly, to parliament and the Queen?

On top of that we've had nearly a decade of austerity, the near destruction of the NHS and they've also tanked the pound through brexit.

Yet you think a right wing government is the solution? I'll have some of what you're smoking chippy
Deary me, what politically motivated melodrama. "the near destruction of the NHS"? Absolute bollocks. NHS spending has nearly doubled over the last 10 years. It may be under strain - I don't doubt that - but "near destruction" is complete nonsense.
 
Those figures aren't taking into account the large sums of money that people in other countries have to pay for their healthcare though. Yes, the US tax their citizens less than us, but the amount they lose in private healthcare is huge.
The US healthcare situation is not something we would aspire to. (That said, it provides excellent healthcare and much better than we do, it's just so ****ing expensive.)

But the figures don't lie with respect to our tax rates as they stand (with Labour threatening to massively increase them). They are ALREADY high by internation comparisons. Only a handful of EU countries have higher, and the vast majority of countries around the world have lower taxes than we do.
 
What an absurd clown like performance from Geoffrey Cox - solemnly vows the importance of Parliament observing and respecting the courts - then goes full Mussolini bouncing up and down twirling his arms and shouting at the top of his voice to stoke up the govt line of Parliament vs the People - they have no shame.
 
Ah the EU average with countries like Estonia in the mix. French, German etc tax rates are 40% plus. US have federal and state taxes.

So lower than us then ;-)

We pay taxes. That’s life. For businesses though we are a low tax, lightly regulated economy. It’s easier to set up a business here than in most European countries. Businesses don’t have to pay VAT until they hit a turnover of £85k. We have a business friendly environment which is a good thing. The US is more tightly regulated than us when it comes to business not to mention the barriers to selling services or even goods between US States.

So yes as a highly developed European economy we are low tax, lightly regulated economy.

Which - if indeed we are - Corbyn would change to the huge detriment to our economy and ultimately therefore to the very people who with the best of intentions he's trying to help. Labour flawed thinking, as per usual.
 
Well you could wear a jockstrap :) That would minimise the risk. What you cannot minimise is the actions of a third party doing the punching. You can ask them to go easy but you cannot control whether they do or not.

We can ask the French to go easy on checks at ports immediately after a no deal but we cannot guarantee they will do so. Knowing the French I think we can safely assume they will not ‘go easy’.

Why would they not. Being a member of the EU/CU means there are significant pros and cons. Why would they let us get away with insisting we retain the advantages when we have stormed out over the disadvantages.

The French and Dutch would be enforcing basic international laws / WTO rules. We would be pressuring them not to.
 
What an absurd clown like performance from Geoffrey Cox - solemnly vows the importance of Parliament observing and respecting the courts - then goes full Mussolini bouncing up and down twirling his arms and shouting at the top of his voice to stoke up the govt line of Parliament vs the People - they have no shame.
Importantly though, did he just confirm that the government will abide by the Benn act? I thought Johnson was still claiming that he wouldn't ask for an extension?
 
Well that is absolute nonsense

https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/

Maybe check your stats next time [emoji106]
Maybe you should check yours instead of reading the propaganda you sup up from the Guardian or Socialist Worker every day.

"NHS net expenditure (resource plus capital, minus depreciation) has increased from £78.881 billion in 2006/071 to £120.512 billion in 2016/17.2 Planned expenditure for 2017/18 is £123.817bn and for 2018/19 is £126.269bn."

https://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs

Or from NHS themselves?

"Hard-working NHS staff treated more patients more quickly despite a surge in demand for Emergency Department (ED) services in the early winter period, putting the country’s health service in good stead as we embark on our ambitious Long Term Plan."

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/03/more-patients-treated-more-quickly-despite-surge-in-demand/
 
I've always said a couple of things:

1. That what made me come down on the side of Remain was that I did not believe the pain of getting out, was worth it for the possible upsides which might or might not materialise.

2. They if we were to leave, then a right wing Tory government with yes, Singapore like policies, would be the only way we could end up benefitting. And that leaving under anything like a socialist Labour government, would be an absolute fucking disaster with Labour implementing a pretty much PERFECT set of policies if fucking up our economy was your prime objective: Increase corporation tax, increase employment protections and limit flexibility, interfere with company structures and pay, make strikes more likely, worry investors about punitive measures down the line, etc. In short, discouraging investment in the UK, rather than encouraging it.

My concern was that although Labour would very likely not win a forthcoming GE, nevertheless they have dragged the political centre of gravity to the left, and that there was little prospect of the sort of Tory government needed to deregulate and reduce taxes to the extent necessary.

So I could see no prospect of the gains being realised and yet cast iron certainty of the pain of leaving.
Fair enough, I’ll continue to see you as a goodun whose chosen the wrong path ;)
 
Importantly though, did he just confirm that the government will abide by the Benn act? I thought Johnson was still claiming that he wouldn't ask for an extension?


Yes. By a single word.

Tbh, i think the attorney Generals positions seems .. brave. He might be taking some actual legal flak in the future for Bojo.

Oh look the question is just asked what the consequences should be.
 
Maybe you should check yours instead of reading the propaganda you sup up from the Guardian or Socialist Worker every day.

"NHS net expenditure (resource plus capital, minus depreciation) has increased from £78.881 billion in 2006/071 to £120.512 billion in 2016/17.2 Planned expenditure for 2017/18 is £123.817bn and for 2018/19 is £126.269bn."

https://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs

So 30 billion short doubled then? You and me have got a very different description of "nearly doubled"

Also the source I quoted is an independent fact checking authority, not everything you disagree with is automatically socialist I'm afraid mate

You're also forgetting the conservatives came into power in 2010. You're cherry picking stats
 
Hah! Big error by the attorney general. He can't just argue that there should be no punishment under any circumstance for the goverment to make illegal acts on bad advice.

Suppose youre attorney general gives the advice that you can nuke Glasgow ... someone would pay if it actualy would happen.

The attorney general is brave, he might soon take some bullet for Bojo if he continues like this? Although, i think it simply makes Bojo responsible since he must decide?
 
Fair enough, I’ll continue to see you as a goodun whose chosen the wrong path ;)
And I am absolutely up for changing my mind about that path, if there is ever a prospect of a Corbyn government. I would advocate literally any political path other than that.
 
Importantly though, did he just confirm that the government will abide by the Benn act? I thought Johnson was still claiming that he wouldn't ask for an extension?
Political suicide for Boris to request an extension, I predict he will resign rather than do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top