Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

adindas

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

@adindas, you said remainers tried to challenge it in court.

I have proven to you this was factually false.

Yet you still fail to admit that what you wrote was fake news, instead trying to shift the focus to whether it was good or bad for remainers.

Why do you keep posting fake news?

And why do you dodge the question when it's exposed as such?

Why do you not admit it was fake news and apologise?

Well, Simple because Gina Miller is a hardcore remoaner. She even use her own money to fund her lawsuit. As everyone rational should know Her main intention for this lawsuit is to use Parliament to overturn the result. Should the remain win did she ever bother to use her own money to overturn the referendum result ??

From brexit point of view remoaners are loser in this instance. A big shame considering parliamentary voting "498 MPs voted for article 50 bill vs 114 MPs voting against article 50 it is a an overwhelming majority of 384 unprecedented more embarrass.

Someone might even say a double loser "lose money do not get what she wanted.

She might become a triple loser if she try to fund a movement for the second referendum.

SouthLondonUser

@adindas, I see you are immune to facts. When your fake news is exposed as such, you try to shift the focus to something else. Farewell, I will not waste any more of my time replying to you.

Is there an "ignore" button on the forum?

adindas

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

@adindas, I see you are immune to facts. When your fake news is exposed as such, you try to shift the focus to something else. Farewell, I will not waste any more of my time replying to you.

Is there an "ignore" button on the forum?

Oh dear ...

Thrugelmir

Perhaps it's the envitable stitch up after hours of horse trading between the power brokers in Brussels. Who gets to represent the Eastern Bloc?

adindas

Brexit nightmare for Varadkar: Irish economy to suffer under no deal - 50,000 jobs at risk

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1145177/Brexit-news-no-deal-Brexit-Ireland-jobs-budget-deficit-Leo-Varadkar-latest

Unlike TM who is the worst negotiator, Dominic Raab as well as JRM knows how to use Ireland for UK negotiation advantage.

Keep in mind EU is not a country the damage of brexit could not equally shared among the EU countries. In the even of no-deal brexit Ireland will suffer the most.

85% of their import/export to the EU depend on the UK port. How could they survive with no-deal brexit. Ireland have the power to veto the final EU agreement. It is up to them to use that power. When Ireland veto the EU final agreement on irish border, it will significantly damage the EU confidence.

With no-deal brexit Varadkar will go.

phillw

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

You cannot force these things, and that is precisely what the eu are trying to do.

No they aren't, you just think that. There is a reason why you think that & it's got nothing to do with the EU, it has to do with your attitude

adindas wrote: »

85% of their import/export to the EU depend on the UK port. How could they survive with no-deal brexit.

The boats will go round britain, we need the eu more than they need us.

movilogo wrote: »

All these hard/soft/medium Brexit terms were introduced by a political class who did not like the result.

No, they were introduced to explain the different options that people have voted for.

Before the referendum there were plenty of leave supporting politicians saying we wouldn't leave the single market, it's pretty clear the leave voting MPs are idiots that don't understand what things mean. If they'd be honest about it then at least the people following them hoping it will magically make their lives better would stand a chance.

westernpromise

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I addressed this here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75999587#Comment_75999587
but my questions were ignored.

Let me try again:

Are you aware of a division on the meaning of Remain which is even remotely comparable to that in the Leave front? I don't mean the bloke down the pub, I mean within the campaign and within prominent Remainers. For example, has Gordon Brown said that Remaining means much stronger integration while Vince Cable has said the opposite?

Of course.

Within the Conservative party, George Osborne is a Remainer who has argued that we should not relinquish access to the single market in return for control over free movement; Anna Soubry of the same party (at the time) is a Remainer who indicated she could vote against the repeal of any of the legislation enacting EU laws. Kenneth Clarke looks "forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a Council Chamber in Europe”; David Cameron in contrast "wanted to allow Britain to discriminate against citizens from other EU countries by excluding them from in-work benefits, unless they had lived in the UK for four years...but is open to alternatives that deliver the desired result of less immigration from the EU." These self evidently are not interchangeable positions, and that's within one party. Nick Clegg, meanwhile, thought in 2012 that "a grand, unilateral repatriation of powers might sound appealing but in reality, it is a false promise, wrapped in a Union Jack", a position irreconcilable to Cameron's.

There is also the distinction between what Remainers assert versus what the EU actually does, which bespeaks a fundamental misunderstanding, charitably, about the EU's aims. For example, the EU has just appointed as successor to Juncker someone who thinks the EU should undermine NATO by having an EU army. In November 2018 Macron called for the creation of a European army. UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, a Remainer (https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/06/michael-fallon-im-a-eurosceptic-conservative-and-remainer-why-i-believe-our-security-and-prosperity-are-safer-in-europe.html) has said Britain will veto a European army. If we remain, are we going to be part of that? What is the unanimous Remain view of the EU army? I have heard absolutely no "official Remain" comment on this.

There are other obvious fault lines in the Remain worldview. There is the schism between those Remainers who want a second referendum (Lib Dem), those who don't (Labour), and those who want to ignore the first one as well (also Labour and many Conservative). Then there are those Remainers who think the previous referendum result means there has to be another Joxit referendum, and those Remainers who don't.

There are the 500-odd MPs who voted to implement Article 50 but who then voted against any implementation of Article 50. Arithmetically these must include several hundred Remainers who disagreed not only with other Remainers, but with themselves.

Or are you aware of u-turns in prominent remainers which are even remotely comparable to those of the Brexiters? Has, I don't know, Clegg gone from saying closer union to the opposite, or viceversa?

Sure. Tony Blair stood on a platform to leave the EU in 1983. He's now a Remainer. May was a Remainer in 2016 who as PM then advocated Brexit in 2017. Here's a particularly funny article by a Remain campaigner who literally argues that 'Angela Merkel’s comment that this accord “contributes to the creation of a European army” is just "Brexiters’ scaremongering about a European army": https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/25/brexiters-european-army-myths-franco-german
I've included doublethink, but do you need me to go on? Nobody's claims can be taken seriously when they say that an accord whose signatories say will contribute to the creation of a European army will not contribute to the creation of a European army.

Or will you repeat what other Brexiters wrote a couple of days ago, i.e. how dare I demand answers?

I refer you to my previous comment in which I observed that accusing people who call you on your bull5hit of being Leavers (or Remainers if you are a Leaver) does nothing for your case. Elsewhere I have repeatedly asked Leavers what happens to farmers facing 41% tariffs in a no-deal Brexit, or what would they do about Northern Ireland, or how would we get a trade deal with the EU if we waltz off without paying, to which the answer is likewise always "You're a Remainer".

Er, no, I just have this habit of presenting the advocates of something with the obvious objections to it. Neither side answered these questions properly 3 years ago and none has done so since. If someone asks you a question to which you have no persuasive (or any) answer, and all you have is whataboutery, look into yourself.

SouthLondonUser

The Financial Times has an interesting article on VAT and the Irish border. It's behind a paywall, so I'll summarise.

An Ikea bed costs roughly the same in Belfast and Dublin, at current exchange rates.

Post-Brexit, unless there is a specific deal on VAT, too, someone from NI could drive to Dublin, buy the bed, and claim VAT back at the border - perfectly legal, since a non-EU resident would be exporting goods outside the EU.

The UK has said it will not charge its VAT on personal imports
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/650459/customs_bill_white_paper_web.pdf

This means inviting this kind of activity. It would also mean a death sentence for most NI retailers.

How would the Ireland and the EU react? No one knows.

But it's clear the matter is very complicated. Too bad the next British Pm doesn't do details, right?

westernpromise

cogito wrote: »

Let’s be exact about this. He was fined €30000 for insider dealing which most of us would think is fraud. Or shall we just call him a convicted criminal instead? Is that fake news?

Insider dealing under the Market Abuse Regulation is prohibited but it is at the discretion of the national competent authority whether to pursue it civilly or criminally. In the former case the decision is on balance of probabilities, a lower bar accompanied by lesser sanctions: fine, bar from trading, etc. If pursued criminally the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, but if proven then the sentences can include prison time as well as fines.

I don't know in which country the offence was committed, but these are offences that bespeak a lack of personal integrity. It is to the discredit of the institutions concerned that they don't mind having individuals of bad character in influential positions. It's also hypocritical because nobody with the same background would be allowed to be appointed to any similar position in a regulated entity such as a bank, under the same laws that these two flouted.

adindas

phillw wrote: »

The boats will go round britain, we need the eu more than they need us.

People know who Varadkar is. If they could do that easily without increasing the cost they would have done that by now.

To substitute 85% of the port you rely on for your export import in a very short time is unthinkable with a headline deficit in the region of 0.5 percent to -1.5 percent of GDP.

“Under the disorderly Brexit scenario, this could involve a headline deficit in the region of 0.5 percent to -1.5 percent of GDP for the next year, depending on the magnitude of the economic shock.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1145177/Brexit-news-no-deal-Brexit-Ireland-jobs-budget-deficit-Leo-Varadkar-latest