I think that the forum took a slide to the left the moment the mods decided not to allow posters to post pictures for every sentence they made. That scared away the likes who read the Daily mail
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
There's really nothing to look forward to that. I doubt there's 1 country in the world who deals with the very continent it's part of on purely WTO terms. That's something quite damaging especially to the UK whose supply lines are so integrated with those of the EU. Real time supply lines risk to be damaged, with the manufacturing industry going out of the window. Same thing can be said about the farming industry.
The EU is bigger, it has more trade deals and it afford the luxury of time at its side.
What it says? (can't read it, it's blocked)
"Moving to an EU free trade deal and striking new free trade agreements with the US, Australia and New Zealand has an estimated negative impact on the UK economy of 1.4% in the UKTPO results - equivalent to £28bn, or £1,000 per household." Source.
"No deal optimists continually argue that falling back on World Trade Organization (WTO) terms minimises the threat no deal poses to the UK... [These] points overestimate the constraints WTO rules would place on the EU and fail to take account of the EU’s laws in the event of no deal.
"Even if the UK did – eventually – get a ruling in its favour, the WTO would not be able to force the EU to give preference to the UK. The only remedy would be to allow the UK to apply punitive tariffs, adding to trade restrictions not removing them." Source.
I do so wish that posters of whatever persuasion would cease inferring that the continent of Europe begins and ends with the EU. Folks are getting sloppier and sloppier with their arguments whichever side of the fence they sit.
Google the headline, you can read it via clicking in SERPS. Key para:
"Classic trade negotiations are win-win games. The negotiations that start on Monday will be different. Both sides have framed their objectives in terms of regulation, not of trade. The UK seeks maximum regulatory independence. The EU wants to prevent it on grounds of competition. If you take the politics out, it is not hard to construct a technical compromise. But there is no deal imaginable that would allow both sides to declare victory in terms of their stated goals. They have turned it into a zero-sum game.
"Also consider another unusual aspect of this negotiation. The UK may be the smaller country, but it can secure its chief negotiating goal of regulatory independence unilaterally by walking out. The EU cannot do the same.
"British businesses are not going to stop Mr Johnson just as the German carmakers will not stop the EU."
It doesn't matter... until it does: iPhone alone accounts for $15billion of the US trade deficit with China.
If you remove all EU, EEA and countries under ECJ influence out of Europe then there aren't many other countries left
At least have the brass to call them Brexit Balls!
Government Told We Can Live Without Farming and Fishing
Politically it always has been heading for this, ever since the famous (or should it be infamous) "No deal is better than a bad deal" statement, the die had been cast!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I know a whole bunch of people that voted leave that didn’t do so based on Farage, Boris or Foreigners. Intelligent people. My company is probably 70% Leave. It’s a progressive, liberal conservative workplace that most would love to work for.
Upper Middle-Class folks and beyond will see their own existence enhanced by Brexit. Many care about themselves more than wider society.
I don’t like their politics but it’s not a vote from a point of stupidity or racism.
Jesus Christ Paul, you are genuinely infuriating to talk to on this topic and this is from someone who is technically on the same side as you.
How is it not quite getting into your head why some of those of Indian and Pakistani descent voted to leave? You don't have to agree with the reason but you are still banging on about it as if it hasn't been explained to you in excruciating detail.
Are you genuinely so desperate to try to prove your point that you cannot even comprehend that you're wrong on this?
You are talking from a position of extreme privilege on this. A white Brit who moved to another white European country under the auspices of the EU.
I can tell you as someone who isn't originally from these shores and whose wife is half Egyptian that my route to Europe and indeed her Egyptian side's route to Europe vs her Dutch side is infinitely different. You cannot seem to accept that. You cannot seem to accept that the opportunities for employment are completely different for non Europeans. That one of her nephews came to work in the UK in tech and had to go through an incredibly laborious process just to be allowed into the country, get his visa sponsored etc. None of his European colleagues had to do this. This was the same for his brother who works in Germany. None of his European colleagues had to do the same.
I am genuinely wondering how you cannot see this? Are you so enthralled by the EU that you cannot admit a single fault? Secretly don't care because 'they're not Europeans'? What is it?
It doesn't help that you're so often wrong and then refuse to even budge. I started writing a reply to your last message and then decided against it as I was wasting too much time discussing a topic with someone who is speaking with total authority despite not having all of the facts and still maintaining that they're right. Even when I give you a government link about the trade deals that are going to stick post the transition period (after you'd falsely claimed otherwise), you carried on, unrelenting and wrong.
Its extraordinary. And it is equally as annoying as the Brexit crowd with their bendy bananas, Turkish migrants and their various other BS about the EU and Europe.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...t-level-brexit-ons-figures-work-a9362531.html
And right on cue, non EU immigration rises to the highest level since they started recording it in the 70s. Driven mostly by increases in students, especially from India and China, who will be able to benefit from the reintroduction of a leeway period post graduation to find a job in the UK.
Perhaps those I spoke to of Indian origin knew what they were voting for then?
Last edited:
Unsurprising. We either sign a light deal which won't add much to the economy. Or we sign a full on, all encompassing deal, which opens up the NHS and other institutions and lowers our food and environmental standards.
Both are shit options which are worse than staying in the EU for me.
I am wrong on what - Indian and Pakistanis (I'm not talking about people in the UK on work visas and nor are you - people who have UK citizenship who voted against Europeans moving to the UK because their relation can't get a job in the Uk despite as you say non-EU immigration has been increasing relentlessly but at the same time the UK government have been trying to reduce overall immigration.
One minute there are too many immigrants taking up school and hospital places, living on benefits and the next minute they're taking all the jobs. Then it's supposed to be a fairer system and now non-Eu citizens are voting against EU citizens, sounds a bit like discrimination to me. You still don't get my point.
And yet again I will repeat that the list of agreements you listed are the agreements the EU have which have been extended by the UK till the end of the transition period where they could so they would not lapse when the UK left on 31 January 2020. The Uk have no agreements in place for the end of the transition period, why do you insist. For a start they couldn't legally do so.
So I am wrong about discrimination and wrong about the agreements - yet again , no I am not.
Other than less than 5% of society who may benefit from Brexit, I'd be interested to know how exactly they think they would benefit - unless you work for a firm of hedge-funders.
Now that the pound has lost another couple of cents with the revelation of how marvelous a US FTA would (not) be if everything went to perfection.
Yes that is exactly who I am talking about. Those Indians and Pakistanis initially came here on work visas. They often have family that would like to come here as well. They have cultural ties to their countries where many of them want more to come. How is this so difficult?
You're literally reeling off silly talking point after another, jumping from one thing to the next. 'Oh they're taking all the jobs, oh they're all on benefits'. When have I referenced these arguments at all?
You can't seem to accept or understand that people may...bear with me with a minute here, may have voted for Brexit for different reasons? That yes, there are people who voted for it because they hate brown people and hate immigrants. And that those people may also be saying things about too many immigrants. Can you accept or understand that this isn't the argument put forward by those Indian/Pakistani origin people that I have been referencing?
It is genuinely hilarious to me that you can't even bring yourself to admit that an Indian or a Ghanian is not currently on an equal footing when it comes to applying for a job in Europe as an EU citizen.
Ah yes, discrimination against the poor, white European by the browns. Classic.
No. You're wrong. Again. You literally haven't even bothered to read the material I linked for you. Here's more:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842
The following deals are expected to take effect at the end of the transition period, according to the Department for International Trade:
- Kosovo (£8m of trade in 2018)
- Jordan (£448m in 2018)
- Morocco (£2.5bn in 2018)
- Georgia (£123m in 2018)
- Southern African nations (£10.2bn in 2018)
- Tunisia (£542m in 2018)
- Lebanon (£762m in 2018)
- South Korea (£14.8bn in 2018)
- Central America (£1.1bn in 2018)
- Andean countries (£3.4bn in 2018)
- Caribbean countries (£3.7bn in 2018)
- Pacific Islands (£163m in 2018)
- Liechtenstein (£146m in 2018)
- Israel (£4.2bn in 2018)
- Palestinian Authority (£41m in 2018)
- Switzerland (£32.4bn in 2018)
- The Faroe Islands (£252m in 2018)
- Eastern and Southern Africa (£2bn in 2018)
- Chile (£2bn in 2018)
Do you see how this fits in exactly with the link I sent you before? Where the government neatly divided it into deals which will take effect after the transition period and deals which are still being negotiated?
Trade agreements that have been signed
Agreements with the following countries and trading blocs are expected to take effect when existing EU trade agreements no longer apply to the UK, from 1 January 2021.
Trade agreements still in discussion
The following agreements are still under discussion with countries where there are existing EU trade agreements in place.
If an agreement is not reached by 31 December 2020, trade with other WTO members will take place on WTO terms.
Can you see how they're using different words here? And how they're specifically saying if we don't agree a deal, we will go to WTO terms for the latter group?
What is it you're struggling to differentiate here?
Also, I didn't say this? Why do you constantly invent straw men?
I linked you hard, statistical proof that this year, in our year of transition from the EU, non EU immigration is at the highest level since the 1970s, when they started recording it. I didn't say anything about a relentless increase, year on year.
Much of this rise has come from students, especially from China and India.
This has been concomitant with sharp drop in EU migration to the UK.
This is coupled with the government reintroducing a 2 year visa for international students who studied in the UK, stupidly taken away by May.
So more Indians are now studying here. They're going to be allowed to stay here for 2 years post graduation to find a job. Many international students develop a life in the country they study in, at least temporarily.
Can you see where I'm going with this.....
I didn't say I didn't understand the reasons why they voted.. you still have not got my point .. tell me a reason why people voted for Brexit that didn't involve foreigners and yes all different coloured people can be discriminatry and so you're telling me that Indians and Pakistania or whatever voted to leave because of EU citizens may take their jobs , brilliant.
Yes I did read the article the first time and my point still stands, . Furthermore the UK could sign no new agreements until they left, ie as from the 1st February 2020
The Uk's own website continues to refer to the EU agreement and the following:
The Withdrawal Agreement sets out how the UK is able to continue to be covered by EU-third country trade agreements until 31 December 2020.
The EU has issued a notification to third countries outlining this approach.
From 1 January 2021, it is expected an arrangement will be in place prior to the UK-Andean countries agreement taking effect.
Where's the UK's agreement?
Yes I know that the UK will revert to WTO terms for those they don't have a FTA with. So even if these agreements were signed they have voted to leave to have the same thing but worse.
So at the end of the day, why did people vote Brexit, that isn't discriminatory , that makes sense and will provide a benefit to the said person who voted for it. That's all I'm asking.
Remember that this isn't affecting me personally and is only from an interest point of view where I see it as one of the more crazy things any country could do.
You’re daft if you think in short term, narrow principles like that.
I'm thinkng over short, medium and long term - which is why I said what is their vision of post-Brexit Britain that is going to be to their benefit ( hoping for something reasonably coherent here).
Paul, you appear to have missed a few news cycles over the past few years or something, because this is just incorrect. The UK was given permission to negotiate and sign trade deals that would come into effect at the end of the transition, and it has done so.
For example, here's a summary of the one with South Korea: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/summary-of-uk-south-korea-trade-agreement
The reason it says 'expected to' is because it leaves open the possibility for the transition period to be extended. If you read the actual text of the FTA, it literally says it takes effect when the EU FTA ceases to apply to the UK (i.e. at the end of the transition period).
From the FT at the time of the deal (21 August 2019):
If you still don't believe either the UK or Korean governments, the BBC or the Financial Times that this FTA takes effect after the end of the transition period, you can see the full agreement here for yourself: https://assets.publishing.service.g...1988/UK_Korea_Free_Trade_Agreement_v1.pt1.pdf
@Paul the Wolf, when people on your own side start pointing out you are not correct, its time to close the lappy.
@Paul the Wolf
Just to clarify, it was agreed that the UK could sign new trade deals ahead of departure back in Theresa May’s time as PM and it was incorporated into the Withdrawal Agreement (Article 129):
Just to clarify, it was agreed that the UK could sign new trade deals ahead of departure back in Theresa May’s time as PM and it was incorporated into the Withdrawal Agreement (Article 129):
This is what I said, they can sign it from 1st February 2020 after the transition period starts - during the transition period, the United Kingdom may negotiate, sign and ratify international agreements
The Korean one seems to be the EU agreement modified slightly signed in August and ratified in October last year, which contradicts the above but I missed that and not clear how that was possible but seems to be the case.
Additionally the WA hadn't been agreed or ratified at the time and the Koreans don't or didn't know what standards or regulations the UK will apply - seems odd but if I'm wrong so be it
Can't be right all the time
There is literally no point. The government website has it all, in black and white, and he still argues otherwise.
Sigh... I honestly... I can't even. This is reminiscent for me when I spent about an hour trying to convince a brexiteer that her voting to leave the EU didn't mean we'd be kicked out of the Euros. When I told her about some of the countries that compete in the Euros (some of whom aren't even physically in Europe, let alone in the EU), she refused to accept she could be wrong, despite the evidence in front of her.
This is what I feel now. By some distance the most strangely frustrating conversation I have ever had online and I have had some superb ones with Trump supporters, brexiters and Sisi supporters.
Firstly, I never said people of all colours can't be bigoted.
Secondly, what? When did I say they don't want Europeans taking their jobs? More strawmen.
I honestly don't know how many more ways I can say this. They already have their jobs. They just wanted future Indians to compete on an equal footing with Europeans. Which now they will be.
The UK' s agreement is within that very same page. And Mike has already pointed out one of those deals to you, which you would have seen had you bothered to read it further, as opposed to trying to score points as an 'impartial observor'.
You're asking me, a remainer, to explain the reasons for why people did something I fundamentally disagree with. Despite this, I gave a list of reasons, some of them related to immigration, some not. Pretty much all of them I personally disagree with (or at least don't think they're worth the price). But they're there.
Whether you choose to even bother accepting them or go down some weird rabbit hole where you spend days bending over backwards trying to prove Europeans and non Europeans are on an equal footing or not in the EU and making up silly straw men arguments is of course your prerogative.
This thread mostly goes round in circles, where you come in, bemoan how stupid the decision was (it is) in a totally un constructive way. Ask questions I don't believe you really want an answer to. Everyone talks about how the UK is about to become Somalia. And we repeat ad infinitum.
For the most part, I don't bother getting involved because I don't have the time and because I'm still partly distraught at what's happening. I foolishly answer a question in good faith and end up in a multi day discussion over whether Indians (or let's say... Syrians...) have the same opportunities to work in the EU as Europeans do or not.
The people applying for a job in the UK voted in the referendum to leave the EU? - not possible -
They are competing at an unfair disadvantage with British and European applicants - how did voters in the UK (British citizens) have an unfair disadvantage with other British citizens or European citzens? No sense if they are already British citizens.
Yes I do understand that their relatives voted to prevent Europeans under the same circumstances coming to the UK so that their relatives might come instead. Another problem with that is that non-EU immigrants were rising long before the referendum and only dipped during May's "hostile environment" but is not related to EU immigration which btw has also risen recently, probably to get in before it's too late. What was the plan for British citizens with the unfair advantage?
I missed the Korean agreement but saw the Iceland/Norway agreement has been cancelled.
As Mike said and I also said the Uk could negotiate, sign and ratify international agreements during the transition period.
The others seemed to have been signed before the WA and PD were signed and thus before the transition period. Some investigation needed.
NO. They did not. Some Indians and Pakistanis, who are now naturalised British citizens, but who are ethnically, culturally, linguistically Indian and Pakistani, voted in the EU to open the door, in the future to allow more Indians and Pakistanis in.
To give a short list, as we've already gone over this but you've brought it up again, having not understood the last time:
- No, it isn't the recent immigrants who voted to leave but those who have been here a while and now hold British nationality
- No, these Indian origin people don't want to kick out Europeans
- Yes, they are now British citizens
- They are not the ones at a disadvantage compared to Europeans. It is prospective arrivals who are at a disadvantage. Which I've already told you I've experienced personally, both myself and with my wife's family, if you could get out of point scoring mode for just one second.
- When they first arrived, they were at a disadvantage.
There is no plan for British citizens with an unfair advantage. Just as there is no plan for France, China, USA, Canada, Italy, Chile or Japan. Pretty much every country, rightly or wrongly, imposes some kind of blocks on immigration and provides an advantage for its own citizens. It is why we don't have free movement across the world. It is why the EU doesn't allow free movement of all 7 billion people and why some of their member states are currently teargassing and trying to drown Syrian refugees.
Also, again false. EU net immigration is at its lowest level for 13 years. Gross arrivals from the EU are lowest since 2013. Though its a wonder any of them would want to get in 'before its too late' if the racist UK and its racist population with its racist government is about to become a wasteland of employee rights?
And yes of course May's policy was scummy. As I said though, net migration from the EU has been rising steadily since 2013 (despite the policy) and gross migration is the highest since the 70s.
So, as I said, whether their reason is stupid or not, they are pretty much getting their wish. That has literally been my point the entire time.
Yes I do understand what you're saying and have all along. I quoted what you wrote but you still ignore what you said originally plus my original question was "a reason not connected with foreigners"
You don't consider Commonwealth citizens at an unfair disadvantage when they got British passports until the UK decided to stop it.
However, EU net immigration rose in the latest figures but yes had been falling since 2015. You missed it, came out a week or so ago.
By the way some of the EU member states or ex-member states were part of the reason the refugees are trying to come in the first place , maybe they could take in some refugees.
Anyway Truss is at the wheel, so you should be in safe hands.
Just because you quote what I wrote, does not mean that you understood it. You have not shown an understanding of it at all.
I have given reasons not connected with foreigners, including the perception of there being less red tape post Brexit, the dislike of supranational bodies overall, some peoples' preference for more local governance and the feeling that, while they could talk to and impact their MP's position on topics, there was absolutely no equivalent in the EU parliament. Some people on the left who feel that the EU absolutely screwed the likes of Greece, Italy and Spain during the financial crash and don't want to be part of what they see as a supranational corporate system. And so on and so forth.
Again, you can disagree with those reasons ( I pretty much do) but I provided more than a few reasons that don't boil down to 'Oh I hate Mariusz or Jorge'.
Jesus christ, again with the making up of strawmen arguments I've literally never uttered. When did I say this? Yes, I would consider that an unfair disadvantage as well. Unlike you, I can bring myself to criticise the place I live in.
Another thing I find funny is that you are talking to me as if I am Mr Middle England and can't seem to adjust your debate style or your discussion points away from that. The commonwealth point seems lifted straight out of a conversation with a little Englander, where you're trying to get one over on them for supporting the commonwealth rather than the EU and want a return to empire. As opposed to you talking to someone who hails from Africa, came to the UK as a refugee and won asylum and am married to a half Egyptian, half Dutch woman. I'm struggling to understand where you think it fits into this conversation?
Yep, I'd love it if the UK took in more refugees. Unsurprising considering I was one! And have worked with refugees, in the UK previously and including quite recently in Greece as well. Would be great if European countries (including the UK) didn't do stuff like fire tear gas at them though and try to sink them too. It would be really really great. It would also be great if, in the first sign of trouble with reorganising these refugees around Europe, South Eastern Europe didn't shut up shop and the UK didn't act like asses and refuse to take their share too.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...t-level-brexit-ons-figures-work-a9362531.html
You'll have to help me with the figures then, this article from 4 days ago said the EU net migration is the lowest its been for 16 years
Thankfully, unlike you Paul, I've never even thought to give any party left of the Labour party my vote so feel no need to defend the buffoons who hold power currently.
With the latest news from Greece the real sadness for me is that those who voted for brexit for ’immigrant’ reasons will be convinced that their stance was correct particularly as without doubt the possibility of up to 4 million refugees entering the EU will present huge problems for some member states. Worrying times.
Seems a logical conclusion to draw.With the latest news from Greece the real sadness for me is that those who voted for brexit for ’immigrant’ reasons will be convinced that their stance was correct particularly as without doubt the possibility of up to 4 million refugees entering the EU will present huge problems for some member states. Worrying times.
Sorry was away yesterday but after a little investigation - all these were signed before the UK left the EU and were just copy and paste efforts substituting UK for EU.
They seemed to be signed in the event that the UK crashed out without a deal and prevent reverting to WTO rules (hope Brexiters are happy with that) and have nothing directly to do with the WA or transition period . Hence the Iceland/Norway deal was cancelled but if no negotiations are completed during the transition period they would come into force when it ended. Believe the UK had to wait for the SA one to be finalised by the EU before they could copy and paste. So the reason I was supposed to be wrong isn't the reason, as I said. Legal expertise needed.
Digging a little deeper into the Korean one as it's the only one of significant amount and seen some views of various trade experts who have reviewed it, as I said it's just copy and paste and intended for the whole EU rather than individual countries which could possibly mean that the UK won't reach the TRQ's to benefit and there are some issues with rules of origin being disputed by the EU, should be interesting. Thus as it is not a bespoke deal for the UK there are due to be talks between the UK and Korea during the transition period for a proper FTA.
Same applies to the others but not all are FTA's but have some elements of trade within them.
More smoke and mirrors and half-truths but seem to have served their purpose.
Now they do actually have to start negotiating by themselves.
On the other points, thanks for the information, but to clarify I did not think you didn't vote remain, nor have I voted communist but had voted for all three major parties in the UK but not during this century and the stats were December not September released on 27 Feb but can't now find but maybe I imagined them but not really important. Some commendable mental gymnastics too.
What are the mental gymnastics you're seeing from me exactly?
Nobody has said that they were new, bespoke agreements. In fact, in the documents themselves, it says that they're just a continuation of the EU trade agreements.
Seeing as you think a failure to sign a trade agreement with the EU will leave the UK without any agreements. And seeing as you think the UK will potentially not be able to sign agreements at all if/ when it drifts away from EU regulatory standards, I'm wondering how you think South Korea manages to maintain FTA with the following economies:
EU
Canada
China
India
USA
Why would the agreement come into play if there was a no deal... And then not be valid later if a no deal happens?
Voted communist? Where on earth has that come from?
I guess we'll see in December and the following few years what happens. And I suppose it will delight you if everything does go wrong. Such is your impartiality on the matter of course.
Edit : Would be good to see those assessments by trade experts too. I'd like to read a bit about the post brexit trade prospects from experts. Thanks.
Last edited:
What are the mental gymnastics you're seeing from me exactly?
Nobody has said that they were new, bespoke agreements. In fact, in the documents themselves, it says that they're just a continuation of the EU trade agreements.
Seeing as you think a failure to sign a trade agreement with the EU will leave the UK without any agreements. And seeing as you think the UK will potentially not be able to sign agreements at all if/ when it drifts away from EU regulatory standards, I'm wondering how you think South Korea manages to maintain FTA with the following economies:
EU
Canada
China
India
USA
Why would the agreement come into play if there was a no deal... And then not be valid later if a no deal happens?
Voted communist? Where on earth has that come from?
I guess we'll see in December and the following few years what happens. And I suppose it will delight you if everything does go wrong. Such is your impartiality on the matter of course.
Communist?
Think you've missed the point again.
Yes we all know they are continuation of EU agreements. And I haven't said any of the rest you said. I said they haven't negotiated any deals yet other than continuity copy and paste agreements which were signed whilst as a member of the EU ie not during the transition period and or in relation to the WA.
What I said was I wanted to know how they managed to do so and maybe some legal expert can advise.
I get the message, don't criticise the UK government.
Covid 19 in the UK will be a preview of life in 2021, particularly in regards to supermarkets being low on stock. Bojo will peddle some mantra like "we survived corona, and we'll survive this!" Any economic downturn can be attributed to the virus and not Brexit. Brexiters will probably say that the economy is doing bad because of corona and it's affecting to all of Europe.
I think this crisis could work out in his favour and spare Boris' blushes.
I think this crisis could work out in his favour and spare Boris' blushes.