Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Theophile

Rough_Justice wrote: »

No it does not.
You appear to have a difficulty with basic comprehension.

"a 99-year lease." is not the same as "in perpetuity.
Just as a short excerpt is not the same as swathes being cut and pasted.
Yet more attempted baiting from you I note.
Habitual when you have no accurate or appropriate response it seems and evidence of an inability to effectively debate.

Try to understand the difference between Hong Kong and New Territories and come back to me once you're up to date.

Ballard

Rough_Justice wrote: »

In fairness you have ignored the original question from that poster of how you can conclude something that has not yet been concluded?
An answer to that would perhaps be better than your continued and IMHO unnecessary condescension.

How difficult is this to understand?

Leavers claimed that the EU would be falling over themselves to conclude a deal and that that deal would be a good one for the UK.

The EU has not got anywhere close to concluding any deal and the indications are that it won’t be as beneficial to the UK as they claimed to have expected.

We do not need to get to the stage of signing the deal as we started article 50 many many months ago. According to many Leavers, the future EU trade deal would at worst have been in the latter stages. At best it would have been signed long ago and we’d have already been looking to conclude some of the many non-eu deals by now.

Thus, the claims made by many leavers have already proven to have been false.

I agree that it is unfortunate that things sometimes need to be explained in their most basic form.

Lornapink

ilovehouses wrote: »

There's some truth to what you say but I think you're over-egging it.

For example BMW could take a hit and they'd certainly prefer a deal which is beneficial to them - that's obvious. However, the reason you've not seen car workers and tomato growers march on Brussels as you predicted is because they think they have, and will, benefit from being in the EU so are pretty sanguine about it all.

Test the argument in the UK. Plenty of businesses not happy about brexit and if they, say, argue for a customs union they're shouted down by people with red faces. Why would tomato pickers in Spain be in any better lobbying position.

You didn't address my post in any way

Lornapink

Ballard wrote: »

How difficult is this to understand?

Leavers claimed that the EU would be falling over themselves to conclude a deal and that that deal would be a good one for the UK.

The EU has not got anywhere close to concluding any deal

.

Brexiteers always said the deal would be done at a quarter to midnight.

Herzlos

Lornapink wrote: »

Brexiteers always said the deal would be done at a quarter to midnight.

So did the remainers. That's largely how these things work especially on deals this complex.

Do you honestly think the EU will play consistent hardball with us up until 23:44 and then suddenly cave into all of our demands?
Or do you think the EU will hold their ground and the UK will finally have to chose an option?

Theophile

ilovehouses wrote: »

The EU losing a net contributor is also being over-egged. They'll have to spend less and/ or raise more. Expect some squabbling but try not to worry about it.

As a big chunk of each country's contribution is calculated based on GNI (Gross National Income) and most Eurozone countries have seen decent to superb growth recently, their contribution will increase anyway.
It's a non issue.

cogito

Theophile wrote: »

Hong Kong was also ceded IN PERPETUITY.

Some of it was, some of it was leased.

tracey3596

Lornapink wrote: »

You didn't address my post in any way

It is a remainer habit.
Ballard has been doing this for two days and still has not answered my first reply to them as Rough Justice has already pointed out, leading to more of the same waffle but no answer.

tracey3596

ilovehouses wrote: »

No not at all.

Yes.
Make your petty accusations at your own peril.

ilovehouses wrote: »

You didn't say you were offended and I didn't say you did. I have no idea why I was being asked to prove you had said this.

What you said is included in my post and that is evidence enough.
No more needs saying, surely.

ilovehouses wrote: »

No, I've read the last few posts. Zero bullying or lying - you're wrong.

Unwarranted accusations regarding posters that are deliberately wrong prove both are correct.


Perhaps now you could accept your errors, move on and contribute to the thread topic?

Ballard

tracey3596 wrote: »

It is a remainer habit.
Ballard has been doing this for two days and still has not answered my first reply to them as Rough Justice has already pointed out, leading to more of the same waffle but no answer.

Please remind me of your first post.