Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Enterprise_1701C

I don't mind co-operating, but we should level the playing ground, we should be able to give contracts to British companies because they are British, we should not have to allow European companies to tender, for too long patriotism has been a dirty word in this country, a bit of pride in our country would help an awful lot.

That also means not letting idiots like Corbyn in to give away bits of our country at the slightest wag of the finger. He has already said he would not use the nuclear deterrent, do you think Putin would think twice if he thought he could get away with attacking us with Corbyn in, he needs to look strong, and Argentina have just had the biggest military exercise in decades staging a mock invasion of the Falklands in case he gets in, he is so lilly livered that he would not fight for a people that want to remain British, what does that say for places like Gibraltar?


When we are out of the eu we can cooperate with other countries, trade with other countries, but we can also finally put ourselves first.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

The vast majority are going to be unsatisfied by any outcome, so we need to start setting expectations. Who should be upset the most at what cost?


.

The problem is people like you won't be satisfied unless we remain or leave in name only so you are never going to be satisfied also hard brexit supporters won't be happy without that. There are a large number of people both remain and leave would accept something in between but thier views are being ignored. I personally wish remain had won but we didn't and there is no going back, I don't see the point in going over the same old arguments if all the politicians truly accepted result and pulled together we might get somewhere.

Lungboy

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

You do know that Argentina is preparing to invade The Falklands if Corbyn gets in don't you?

This is the single most ridiculous statement I've seen in any of these threads. It is mind-bogglingly dumb.

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

What's wrong with cooperating and bringing everybody up, rather than this archaic and divisive "Us Vs Them" approach? It's like the Trump school of business where he can't process that a deal can benefit both people, and there doesn't need one party being screwed for the other to feel they've got a good deal.

I’m sure all those weekend ‘stop brexit’ marchers are fully on board with this sentiment.

Thrugelmir

buglawton wrote: »

Ooh-er FT says Chancellor's going to give us a spend and no-new-taxes Budget. That only happens when...

Get ready for a GE soon.

Chancellors aren't just in post to play politics. Improved public sector finances are allowing him some leeway. No new taxes doesn't mean no tightening elsewhere. Budgets are give and take affairs. The take often being in the small print rather than the headlines.

Enterprise_1701C

Lungboy wrote: »

This is the single most ridiculous statement I've seen in any of these threads. It is mind-bogglingly dumb.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/argentina-protests-falklands-exercise-despite-holding-own-military-exercises/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1024855/falklands-war-argentina-invasion-drill-video

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/britain-has-not-fought-just-war-since-1945-says-jeremy-corbyn/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35593095

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I don't mind co-operating, but we should level the playing ground, we should be able to give contracts to British companies because they are British, we should not have to allow European companies to tender, for too long patriotism has been a dirty word in this country, a bit of pride in our country would help an awful lot.

That's not co-operating though; that's protectionism. Why not let an EU company tender if it can do a better job? We don't need to accept their bid if we have any valid reason not to. The government has a duty to do the best for the public above all (even if they are terrible at it).

That also means not letting idiots like Corbyn in to give away bits of our country at the slightest wag of the finger.

... what? He's wanting to re-nationalize stuff, which is the opposite. The Tories are the ones who want to sell everything off for bargain basement prices to their friends. What's Corbyn been threatening to give away?

He has already said he would not use the nuclear deterrent, do you think Putin would think twice if he thought he could get away with attacking us with Corbyn in, he needs to look strong

He's being realistic; the nuclear deterrent isn't actually a deterrent because the only time we'd ever use it is too late. I honestly doubt that it has any bearing in Putins decisions not to attack Europe. If anything it makes Glasgow the primary target.

When we are out of the eu we can cooperate with other countries, trade with other countries, but we can also finally put ourselves first.

We had representatives to make sure our wishes were covered, but unfortunately we hired people who don't do the job.

Arklight

Cakeguts wrote: »

a) The result means we are leaving the EU.

b) We know what it means. It means that the UK won't be ruled from Brussels.

c) They don't need to do this it was a choice of votes. There is no need to convince anyone that they voted the wrong way and the only people who try to do this are the Remainers.



Why do leavers have to convince you? They have every right to vote for something that doesn't suit you without having to explain to you why they did it.



All I hear from Remainers is that the Leave voters got it wrong.



Followed by Leaving will damage our children's futures when research shows that UK young people wouldn't choose to work in another EU country they prefer an English speaking one outside the EU.

The UK isn't ruled by Brussels. Meanwhile, although we are aware you would love to detach the moorings, weigh the anchor and physically sail the British Isles off into the Atlantic towards America, you can't actually do that.

Europe is our biggest trading partner by an enormous margin at £350 billion per year. Over four times larger than our next biggest non EU partner, the United States.

That's a lot of peoples' jobs, livelihoods and mortgages. Now exactly what is going to happen after we politically "leave" a continent that we've spent decades harmonising with and that houses the country in which we live?

It's not that hard a question. Or maybe it is. Because none of you, your flag wavers, your cheerleaders, your foot stampers, your leaders, you or your spokespeople can respond with an answer in two years of trying.

kabayiri

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I was answering a few questions, and Argentina seem to think Corbyn is an idiot. What is wrong with putting British first, it's about time we put our own interests first, after all that is what the Germans are doing with the euro.

There's a Britain first position and a London first position.

It's simplified, sure, but in essence it's true.

Here we have Sadiq Khan planning to do his own bit of negotiating with the EU :
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/23/sadiq-khan-eu-labour-brexit

I just don't see how anything has changed to resolve the split in British politics, and another referendum will be even more divisive and bitter than the last.

Opening the selection to the public risks the politicians losing the small amount of control they have now.

Moby

From May's statement yesterday it seems that her plan is to keep us in a legally binding customs 'arrangement' with the EU on a temporary basis until a trade deal is finalised.
Does anyone know what the difference is between this and a Customs Union?
How can she ask MP's to sign off on a trade deal the detail of which hasn't been agreed?