[Politics] Brexit

[Brighton Mod]

Which proves what given that these investment decisions would have been made before the vote.

Which proves that these investments were made with the knowledge that the vote may have gone either way, which didn't impact on the investors decision. Britain is a great place to do business, its safe and secure, has regulation, a huge talent pool of educated people, a long history of business and diplomacy, it speaks the business language of the world and is a nodal hub between the US and the far east. Where else would investment want to go, France, Italy, Germany, Greece or Rumania?
Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Google all committing to the Uk,perhaps they have got it wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

More remain disinformation? It was way down the agenda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b082rd7c/bbc-news-at-six-25112016

Yes, you're right. It wasn't the first political story on the news. It was the second.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

why would you want to let people stroll into the country when the vote was to leave the EU, if people like it here just apply for a work Visa AND GIVE SOME CREDENTIALS i'm sure the one's that are needed will get in
regards
DR

 

[Soulman]

I have said it before and I will say it again, it is not aimed at you or most of the posters on here, but there are one or two. In a close referendum, they probably made the difference.

Ok. Fair enough.

 

[Brighton Mod]

Massive debt caused while being in the EU was a result of the financial crisis, the deepest since the great depression 2008-14. EU had nothing to do with it.

And actually would likely be considerably higher outside of the EU with more restrictive immigration controls.

German and French banks are the most exposed to the Greek debt. Angela Merkel very keen to allow a debt relief loan to Greece was faced by stonewall opposition from the Greeks, BECAUSE, they knew that they actually had Merkel over a barrel. The package that Greece received from the EU central bank was 95% paid to those German and French banks who had made easy over the top loans to Greece, Thus the the great subterfuge was that the Greek bail out was actually a German and French Bank bail out with the Greek government receiving only 5% of the money. The Greeks will be back again and they will receive, or rather their creditors will receive EU money again. I think the EU has rather a lot to do with the debt problem and it is nowhere near resolving this issue. Next up will be Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal and anyone of the latest entrants to the EU, its an organisation sinking in debt which will start to become exponentially worse when the UK withdraws from the EU. We're best out of this mess.

 

[Soulman]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-budget-forecasts-factbox-idUKKBN13J1WT[/url]



"The Office for Budget Responsibility accepts the basic point that immigrants tend to improve the country’s finances. A major cut in immigration would mean tax hikes or more spending cuts, the watchdog has said.

This is because migrants tend to be younger and healthier, so they are more likely to be in work and paying taxes and less likely to be retired or to need healthcare.

HMRC recently said that recently arrived EEA nationals paid £3.1bn in income tax and national insurance in 2013/2014. They took out £0.56bn in HMRC benefits."

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eu-immigration

Already put up the OBR previous "mistakes/forecasts" which did not happen.

OBR.........
Robert's own words on the Daily Politics: ''broad assumptions and wait until the fog clears..''
He again admitted there is only a 50% chance of his predictions coming to fruition. How can Hammond build policy on a coin toss?

Budget 2016: Osborne 'has only 50-50 chance' of hitting surplus target............

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I see an unholy alliance of Blair, Clegg, Major and Mandelson are forming a 5th column grouping to try and thwart the referendum result.

Yes of course John Major is coming under flak for suggesting that not everyone who voted Leave voted for deeply considered reasons involving the need to exit the single market and stop free movement. The lovely IDS suggests he is 'absolutely dismissive' of democracy.

Talking of democracy, a question. If it happened that there WAS a second referendum, next week perhaps, offering a simple choice between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit, who do you really think - basing your calculation on the known facts about how people voted in the 23 June referendum - would actually win? I'm not asking you whether you think there should be another referendum and I'm not asking who you would like to win it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

and which race was he prejudicing against exactly ......

There is NO WAY that you have not read PPF's previous posts that are positively dripping with racism and xenophobia. Simple minded...

 

[BigGully]

There is NO WAY that you have not read PPF's previous posts that are positively dripping with racism and xenophobia. Simple minded...

No I havent noticed, he is sometimes brutal, I suspect mostly toungue in cheek and at times with an underlying element of truth, any views on immigration that doesnt fit with yours are usually quickly tainted with claims of racism and xenophobic, thats the point really, when many times it clearly isnt.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

No I havent noticed, he is sometimes brutal, I suspect mostly toungue in cheek and at times with an underlying element of truth, any views on immigration that doesnt fit with yours are usually quickly tainted with claims of racism and xenophobic, thats the point really, when many times it clearly isnt.

No, he is clearly a racist simpleton.

 

[studio150]

. Where else would investment want to go,
Jaguar Land Rover, committing to the Uk,perhaps they have got it wrong, but I doubt it.

Europe if tariffs imposed between EU and UK, as they can investment in the EU and move their goods freely within the EU
JLR committed to the UK? Perhaps you should look up their interview with Sky News last week when they stated they would relocate if a hard Brexit was the outcome

 

[Baldseagull]

Oh but I can hear what he is saying, the difference is I understand it

Out of the customs union, a new global leader in free trade, ending the regulatory burden that comes with being members of the single market, but trade with the EU internal market through new bilateral treaties, free to open up our markets to developing nations by giving free tariffs to nations inside Africa and Asia and elsewhere, the benefits of no more Common Fisheries Policy and Common Agricultural Policy, the return of supremacy of UK law and no need to be bound by The ECJ, the body that regulates the single market after we scrap The European Communities Act.

It’s the view echoed by T May when she says we will seek the
“best possible access”

I understand fully all these things he has been saying…..the real question is why do you believe he means the opposite to what he says.

Yep, heard all that too, but what about the free movement of people bit? Because he has also said that leaving the EU does not necessarily mean no free movement of people. It is also a fact that no nation other than tiny Liechtenstein has all that without free movement. The economic argument that he has put forward has never included the situation where we do not have at least the access that Switzerland has, which by the way, would still knock a third off our financial services exports and see sections of aviation and other industries relocate to the EU.
If Theresa May says she will be seeking the best possible access, she can have it, no problem, we just have to maintain the free movement of people.

 

[5ways]

Bearing in mind that negotiations can only start after Article 50 has been invoked, no there can't be anything 'on the table'.


Yes, of course we will negotiate one. Good of you to suggest it though - we probably hadn't thought of that before!


No. That's a 'No', with a 'N' and an 'O'. Difficult concept for some remainers it would seem.............

Why rule it out? We're leaving the EU, fine. Doesn't mean you can get everything a Brexiteer would want.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Yes of course John Major is coming under flak for suggesting that not everyone who voted Leave voted for deeply considered reasons involving the need to exit the single market and stop free movement. The lovely IDS suggests he is 'absolutely dismissive' of democracy.

Talking of democracy, a question. If it happened that there WAS a second referendum, next week perhaps, offering a simple choice between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit, who do you really think - basing your calculation on the known facts about how people voted in the 23 June referendum - would actually win? I'm not asking you whether you think there should be another referendum and I'm not asking who you would like to win it.

I thought it was more his 'tyranny of the majority' comments whereas what he and the others seem to prefer is the tyranny of the minority/establishment.

It depends on what you mean by Hard/Soft Brexit. If Soft Brexit means same access to the single market = having same free movement = same primacy of ECJ plus significant payments still going to Brussels then the Hard Brexit would win even if that meant reverting to WTO rules. With an increased majority vote. Mainly because a second referendum would inevitably be even more vitriolic and divisive and end up being about respecting the original vote.

I expect we will end up with a middle ground Brexit more weighted to the Leave side (rightly so). Considerable access to the single market /99% Tariff free, restricted movement. As I have said many times no side can afford an acrimonious divorce.

Predict many on both sides will say 'we' were sold out though.

Also some interesting findings here - https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/11/17/brexit-briefing/

 

[GT49er]

Why rule it out? We're leaving the EU, fine. Doesn't mean you can get everything a Brexiteer would want.

Glad you recognise that we're leaving- something some of your fellow remainers have difficulty understanding!

The terms are still to be negotiated - and won't be until after Article 50 has been triggered - but the one near certainty is that neither side will get everything they want. But 'no' to free movement in exchange for free trade is certainly one of our (by which I mean leavers) main requirements.

 

[Baldseagull]

I thought it was more his 'tyranny of the majority' comments whereas what he and the others seem to prefer is the tyranny of the minority/establishment.

It depends on what you mean by Hard/Soft Brexit. If Soft Brexit means same access to the single market = having same free movement = same primacy of ECJ plus significant payments still going to Brussels then the Hard Brexit would win even if that meant reverting to WTO rules. With an increased majority vote. Mainly because a second referendum would inevitably be even more vitriolic and divisive and end up being about respecting the original vote.

I expect we will end up with a middle ground Brexit more weighted to the Leave side (rightly so). Considerable access to the single market /99% Tariff free, restricted movement. As I have said many times no side can afford an acrimonious divorce.

Predict many on both sides will say 'we' were sold out though.

Also some interesting findings here - https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/11/17/brexit-briefing/

When asked a binary question such as leave or remain, when both outcomes leave open the option of negotiations with the EU to alter the circumstances, then using the simple majority to determine what stance to take in negotiations is tyranny. I am certain that if the result had been remain, many of you would at least be calling for negotiation on getting some relief from uncontrolled numbers entering from eastern Europe, and I would be supporting that. For me, I would prefer to be a full member and be asking for the limits we were allowed to apply in the first 7 years to be available to us now, as we did not use them then. But if the only option we have now is leave the single market to get control, it is too big a price to pay. The thing that I think will surprise many of you is the levels of immigration allowed if we do get control, I suspect we will be actively recruiting from overseas in any case and have net migration figures not dissimilar to today.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

no, he is clearly a racist simpleton.

hark at this clown
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

no i havent noticed, he is sometimes brutal, i suspect mostly toungue in cheek and at times with an underlying element of truth, any views on immigration that doesnt fit with yours are usually quickly tainted with claims of racism and xenophobic, thats the point really, when many times it clearly isnt.

you have to pussy foot around with some of the more sensitive souls on here, they just cant face up to a bit of no nonsense truth
regards
DR

 

[JC Footy Genius]

When asked a binary question such as leave or remain, when both outcomes leave open the option of negotiations with the EU to alter the circumstances, then using the simple majority to determine what stance to take in negotiations is tyranny. I am certain that if the result had been remain, many of you would at least be calling for negotiation on getting some relief from uncontrolled numbers entering from eastern Europe, and I would be supporting that. For me, I would prefer to be a full member and be asking for the limits we were allowed to apply in the first 7 years to be available to us now, as we did not use them then. But if the only option we have now is leave the single market to get control, it is too big a price to pay. The thing that I think will surprise many of you is the levels of immigration allowed if we do get control, I suspect we will be actively recruiting from overseas in any case and have net migration figures not dissimilar to today.

Cobblers. When asking a binary question to leave or stay in the EU there is no second prize for the losing side where they get to decide the terms of our leaving which fundamentally negates and undermines the will of the majority. If the result had been reversed I am certain the losing side would have been told to respect the majority view and fully embrace our EU membership. I will not be surprised at the political establishment's ability to fail to deliver what many people continuously vote for.

 

[Brighton Mod]

Europe if tariffs imposed between EU and UK, as they can investment in the EU and move their goods freely within the EU
JLR committed to the UK? Perhaps you should look up their interview with Sky News last week when they stated they would relocate if a hard Brexit was the outcome

If tariffs are imposed on the Uk it would be expected that that the UK would act likewise. I'm sure the executives running BMW, Audi, Porsche, Renault, Citroen etc would not welcome such measures, likewise most of the other EU exporters to the UK. AS the EU exports more to the Uk than the Uk exports to the EU it would be rather a pyrrhic victory for the EU, its not going to happen. As for hard Brexit, not sure what that means, journalistic talk, elite euphemisms terms of the chattering class, would JLR really make an announcement such as yesterday and then go through the huge expense of relocating, especially as their emerging market is in Indai, the US and the far east. Sky News as a source, is not credible as are non of the other channels, read between the lines, don't be reliant on others and draw your own conclusion. Clearly JLR have changed their position on a week.