Life After Brexit

[Kendhni]

Wow
All that and yet the very first opportunity that the public got to have a say on the way successive governments had taken us, they voted by majority to leave.
Go figure !

He also failed to answer why, after making such a success of the common market, they still decided to pursue closer political union and create the Euro and allow entry to every other TD&H in Europe.

I did say that I didn't think was going to be able to make it simple enough for you to understand.

[Manoverboard]

Wow
All that and yet the very first opportunity that the public got to have a say on the way successive governments had taken us, they voted by majority to leave.
Go figure !

He also failed to answer why, after making such a success of the common market, they still decided to pursue closer political union and create the Euro and allow entry to every other TD&H in Europe.

I told you that earlier ... to gain control over the huge oil fields in the former Soviet bloc Countries

[barney]

Fact check alert

Well, so far, after December 20

we will have taken back sovereignty (not shared sovereignty as is required under the EU)

I am finally glad to see that at least one brexiteer has not been totally brain washed about this 'taking back sovereignty'. As with any treaty, including the EU and ALL the trade agreements that the UK will need in the future, there will be a need for the sharing of sovereignty. The question people should be asking, is how much sovereignty will Johnson be willing to surrender to get a trade agreement with the US.

If we were not sovereign we would not have been able to leave the EU. Compare this with Scotland, who has to ask parliament if it can hold a referendum, because the UK parliament is sovereign over the union.

we will be able to make our own laws (more importantly, not have laws imposed upon us by the EU)

Is this myth still being pedalled? I refer you to an exchange between David Davies and Ken Clarke (I am guessing both know a lot more than either of us)
DD: [usual rant about taking back sovereignty and having laws forced upon us]
KC: Can you name me one of these laws forced upon this house?
DD: [various sounds and grunts]
KC: Just one
DD: There isn't one, but it is the principle

This is the same David Davies who was described by his peers as lazy, arrogant and incompetent (3 virtues he continually exhibited during his time as negotiator). He cowered behind the words project fear for much of his brexit campaigning and then realised on day 1, when he was sent home with his tail between his legs, that when the EU said out-means-out they actually meant that the UK had to leave and was not going to be allowed 'have its cake and eat it' in 'the easiest of negotiations'

we will have increased NHS spending - The £20.5 billion NHS England spending increase is the largest five year increase since the mid-2000s

A very misleading and mis-representation of the truth. In recognition of 70 years of the NHS, Teresa May said she would give an additional £20.5bn to the NHS for the period up to 2023 (?) - i.e. about £4bn per year. This was an increase in spending but at the same time the NHS had been tasked to make savings of £20bn prior to 2020 ... so arguably it was just getting back the money it had saved. Also £8bn of this money had already been promised.

However I have still not seen any attempt at Johnson giving the NHS the £350million per week he promised he would (increased spending due to COVID does not count - not the tens of millions that Johnson and his government gave to friends, family and party faithful to manufacture PPE and other equipment that ultimately was not required - cronyism at its worst.

would you like to add any other remainer myths ?

I can't add to something that has not yet been started - please provide one honest myth.

What about a federal EU ? - not true says the ardent remainer
What about https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-need ... und-chief/
Oh !
Forgot about the Hamilton moment already ?
Common debt is the first step to federalism.

Wow shocker ... countries borrowed to get through coronavirus and it will have to be paid back ... I am glad the UK did not have to do that .... oh .... wait a minute ... it did. It can't even remember how many hundreds of billions it has borrowed and now has to pay back. Maybe if you keep repeating your made up 'fact' about 'federalism' you will reprogram enough brexiteers to believe it.

A good attempt at a Jack Staff response
Well done

[Kendhni]

Wow
All that and yet the very first opportunity that the public got to have a say on the way successive governments had taken us, they voted by majority to leave.
Go figure !

The bit I am go figuring is that when we were a member of the EU we spent less than 1% of GDP on membership and in return got a verifiable tangible benefit of about 8% of GDP.

Now we see that brexiteer incompetence to date has cost the country £150+bn and we still do not know what brexit means. The government is too busy back pedaling from the WA that they signed up to after forcing it through the HoC denying those that asked the opportunity to scrutinse it and carry out due diligence. The same arrogant brexiteers that sneered at those asking to carry out due diligence (e.g. Ian Smith) are now throwing their toys about like babies - they signed it so this is 100% down to brexiteer incompetence.

I am also then trying to figure out is how come we are now being told that the new institutions and agreements and infrastructure will cost us about £13bn per year (lower end of the estimate scale) with zero verifiable tangible benefit .... oh wait a minute, my mistake, we have a continuity deal with Japan which has an estimated benefit of maybe 0.07% of GDP (and it will be interesting to see what the real detail is). And I suppose we mustn't forget a possible trade deal with America which could be worth an enormous 0.16% of GDP over 15 years ... wow, we only need another 34 such deals and we might actually break even.

I am actually glad that finally the government has something tangible to show for brexit, it is just a shame that we did not have to leave to get the same deal and it is of such little additional value.

[Kendhni]

Fact check alert

Well, so far, after December 20

we will have taken back sovereignty (not shared sovereignty as is required under the EU)

I am finally glad to see that at least one brexiteer has not been totally brain washed about this 'taking back sovereignty'. As with any treaty, including the EU and ALL the trade agreements that the UK will need in the future, there will be a need for the sharing of sovereignty. The question people should be asking, is how much sovereignty will Johnson be willing to surrender to get a trade agreement with the US.

If we were not sovereign we would not have been able to leave the EU. Compare this with Scotland, who has to ask parliament if it can hold a referendum, because the UK parliament is sovereign over the union.

we will be able to make our own laws (more importantly, not have laws imposed upon us by the EU)

Is this myth still being pedalled? I refer you to an exchange between David Davies and Ken Clarke (I am guessing both know a lot more than either of us)
DD: [usual rant about taking back sovereignty and having laws forced upon us]
KC: Can you name me one of these laws forced upon this house?
DD: [various sounds and grunts]
KC: Just one
DD: There isn't one, but it is the principle

This is the same David Davies who was described by his peers as lazy, arrogant and incompetent (3 virtues he continually exhibited during his time as negotiator). He cowered behind the words project fear for much of his brexit campaigning and then realised on day 1, when he was sent home with his tail between his legs, that when the EU said out-means-out they actually meant that the UK had to leave and was not going to be allowed 'have its cake and eat it' in 'the easiest of negotiations'

we will have increased NHS spending - The £20.5 billion NHS England spending increase is the largest five year increase since the mid-2000s

A very misleading and mis-representation of the truth. In recognition of 70 years of the NHS, Teresa May said she would give an additional £20.5bn to the NHS for the period up to 2023 (?) - i.e. about £4bn per year. This was an increase in spending but at the same time the NHS had been tasked to make savings of £20bn prior to 2020 ... so arguably it was just getting back the money it had saved. Also £8bn of this money had already been promised.

However I have still not seen any attempt at Johnson giving the NHS the £350million per week he promised he would (increased spending due to COVID does not count - not the tens of millions that Johnson and his government gave to friends, family and party faithful to manufacture PPE and other equipment that ultimately was not required - cronyism at its worst.

would you like to add any other remainer myths ?

I can't add to something that has not yet been started - please provide one honest myth.

What about a federal EU ? - not true says the ardent remainer
What about https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-need ... und-chief/
Oh !
Forgot about the Hamilton moment already ?
Common debt is the first step to federalism.

Wow shocker ... countries borrowed to get through coronavirus and it will have to be paid back ... I am glad the UK did not have to do that .... oh .... wait a minute ... it did. It can't even remember how many hundreds of billions it has borrowed and now has to pay back. Maybe if you keep repeating your made up 'fact' about 'federalism' you will reprogram enough brexiteers to believe it.

A good attempt at a Jack Staff response
Well done

Exactly the sort of response I would expect from someone who knows they have been out gunned and well and truly 'pwned'

[Manoverboard]

Whatever .... guess what, we are still going to leave the EU

[Mervyn and Trish]

I can't say I approve of changing the withdrawal agreement unilaterally. But I do understand it. At every step of the way the EU has dragged its heels on negotiations by hiding behind the Irish backstop issue. Yet all it needs to do to make that and the proposed variation irrelevant is to get on in good faith and agree a simple free trade deal.

[barney]

Fact check alert


I am finally glad to see that at least one brexiteer has not been totally brain washed about this 'taking back sovereignty'. As with any treaty, including the EU and ALL the trade agreements that the UK will need in the future, there will be a need for the sharing of sovereignty. The question people should be asking, is how much sovereignty will Johnson be willing to surrender to get a trade agreement with the US.

If we were not sovereign we would not have been able to leave the EU. Compare this with Scotland, who has to ask parliament if it can hold a referendum, because the UK parliament is sovereign over the union.

Is this myth still being pedalled? I refer you to an exchange between David Davies and Ken Clarke (I am guessing both know a lot more than either of us)
DD: [usual rant about taking back sovereignty and having laws forced upon us]
KC: Can you name me one of these laws forced upon this house?
DD: [various sounds and grunts]
KC: Just one
DD: There isn't one, but it is the principle

This is the same David Davies who was described by his peers as lazy, arrogant and incompetent (3 virtues he continually exhibited during his time as negotiator). He cowered behind the words project fear for much of his brexit campaigning and then realised on day 1, when he was sent home with his tail between his legs, that when the EU said out-means-out they actually meant that the UK had to leave and was not going to be allowed 'have its cake and eat it' in 'the easiest of negotiations'


A very misleading and mis-representation of the truth. In recognition of 70 years of the NHS, Teresa May said she would give an additional £20.5bn to the NHS for the period up to 2023 (?) - i.e. about £4bn per year. This was an increase in spending but at the same time the NHS had been tasked to make savings of £20bn prior to 2020 ... so arguably it was just getting back the money it had saved. Also £8bn of this money had already been promised.

However I have still not seen any attempt at Johnson giving the NHS the £350million per week he promised he would (increased spending due to COVID does not count - not the tens of millions that Johnson and his government gave to friends, family and party faithful to manufacture PPE and other equipment that ultimately was not required - cronyism at its worst.


I can't add to something that has not yet been started - please provide one honest myth.


Wow shocker ... countries borrowed to get through coronavirus and it will have to be paid back ... I am glad the UK did not have to do that .... oh .... wait a minute ... it did. It can't even remember how many hundreds of billions it has borrowed and now has to pay back. Maybe if you keep repeating your made up 'fact' about 'federalism' you will reprogram enough brexiteers to believe it.

A good attempt at a Jack Staff response
Well done

Exactly the sort of response I would expect from someone who knows they have been out gunned and well and truly 'pwned'

Outgunned ??
More like bored into submission

[barney]

" Maybe if you keep repeating your made up 'fact' about 'federalism' you will reprogram enough brexiteers to believe it."

Doh !

https://www.thenewfederalist.eu/claudia ... en?lang=fr

Last year .
A very inconvenient truth.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Interesting she can't understand what the UK wants. In a sentence I'd say distance from everything she wants for the EU!

[barney]

That continue to say that Merv.
It’s plain as the nose on your face.

[Kendhni]

A good attempt at a Jack Staff response
Well done

Exactly the sort of response I would expect from someone who knows they have been out gunned and well and truly 'pwned'

Outgunned ??
More like bored into submission

I was wrong - that probably is the best you have got.

[barney]

Funny how it’s gone full circle from TM desperate for a trade deal to the EU desperate for a trade deal.
That Irish minister on tv this morning was nearly in tears.
The balance of power had totally changed with a change in U.K. attitudes.

[screwy]

The least we say about TMs handling of Brexit the better.....in fact the least we say about TM..!

Sorry OL.

[Kendhni]

The least we say about TMs handling of Brexit the better.....in fact the least we say about TM..!

Sorry OL.

It can't have been that bad since the final WA was basically the May agreement with a few tweaks and one surrender of sovereignty to part of the UK by Johnson. In fact, once those minor amendments to the wording were made the government denied the HoC the ability to scrutinise and read the final document, sneering and jeering at anyone that asked to. We then had a general election during which the WA (aka Johnsons 'oven ready' deal) was put head-to-head against 'no deal' and the overwhelming majority (95%) of those that voted for either the WA or no deal, voted for the WA and rejected 'no deal'.

It is up to the government to deliver what the people voted for which is the WA, that the May/Johnson governments negotiated, that Johnson's government denied due diligence, Johnson' government signed, and Johnson's government put to the people. Anything else will be a total failure on the part of the Johnson government and shows that the word of the British government is worthless and it lacks any integrity - not a good footing for much needed future negotiations.

At the minute the immense bad faith being shown by the British government is going down very poorly, internationally.

[barney]

I’d imagine that most countries falling over themselves to secure a trade agreement with the very substantive U.K. market will not be overly concerned.
Even the USA making noises at the moment will see the sense in securing a deal with a huge economy like ours.
As I said before, smoke and mirrors.
The only people who seem overly concerned are the anti democrats and a couple of old has beens looking for a few press inches.
My prediction is that it will be carried with a massive majority.
Watch tomorrow.

[Kendhni]

I’d imagine that most countries falling over themselves to secure a trade agreement with the very substantive U.K. market will not be overly concerned.

I think you over estimate the amount of clout that the UK will have.

Even the USA making noises at the moment will see the sense in securing a deal with a huge economy like ours.

On its terms which have been available to read on the Whitehouse site for many months - and they do not make good reading for the UK. We have already seen our surrender monkey of a PM caving into American pressure in relation to Huawei 5G (after he assured people he would not and that Huawei were safe, because our boffins had told him so) ... so much for taking back sovereignty.

You also have to remember that the ROI pulls a lot of weight in America.

As I said before, smoke and mirrors.
The only people who seem overly concerned are the anti democrats and a couple of old has beens looking for a few press inches.

On this we can agree, the anti democrats still pushing for a no deal need to accept that the people have voted and they voted overwhelmingly for the 'oven ready' WA proposed by Johnson. The fact that the buffoons leading the brexit camp couldn't even be bothered to read it and are now throwing their toys around like babies, makes me wonder what else these incompetent fools have they missed and will miss as we move forward.

My prediction is that it will be carried with a massive majority.
Watch tomorrow.

Very possible, but then what? Unilaterally amending a contract (not to worry a signed international agreement) means we are back to square one - more brexiteer incompetence and floundering about, stalling and wasting time.

[towny44]

On this we can agree, the anti democrats still pushing for a no deal need to accept that the people have voted and they voted overwhelmingly for the 'oven ready' WA proposed by Johnson. The fact that the buffoons leading the brexit camp couldn't even be bothered to read it and are now throwing their toys around like babies, makes me wonder what else these incompetent fools have they missed and will miss as we move forward.

My prediction is that it will be carried with a massive majority.
Watch tomorrow.

Very possible, but then what? Unilaterally amending a contract (not to worry a signed international agreement) means we are back to square one - more brexiteer incompetence and floundering about, stalling and wasting time.

That of course is your opinion, like a lot of others I voted for BJ's oven ready deal to leave the EU at the end of Jan 2020. Whether we leave with a deal or no deal always depended on how flexible the EU would be in the trade negotiations, and like most others I was happy to leave the govt to decide the strategy. Your assumptions of how people voted appear to me to be totally based on your remain philosophy, and just about as flawed.

[oldbluefox]

That of course is your opinion, like a lot of others I voted for BJ's oven ready deal to leave the EU at the end of Jan 2020. Whether we leave with a deal or no deal always depended on how flexible the EU would be in the trade negotiations, and like most others I was happy to leave the govt to decide the strategy. Your assumptions of how people voted appear to me to be totally based on your remain philosophy, and just about as flawed.

Couldn't have put it better myself towny.

[Mervyn and Trish]

What people voted overwhelmingly against was the Lib Dems who wanted to remain and Labour who didn't know what they wanted.

[barney]

I can only assume that those who seriously opposed Brexit voted Libdem.
That highlights what a tiny minority they are.
I am not a Tory and certainly no fan of Johnson but I do admire his tough stance.
I wouldn’t even have agreed the WA personally and taken us out with no treaties or agreements.
Then , as a fully independent country, negotiate the future arrangements with the Eu should they require it.
If not, then just get on with things as a normal country.

My SiL has told me that part of the reason that they are obsessed with this alleged level playing field is because they have got wind that the U.K. will use tariffs from Volkswagen for example to subsidise and offset the tariff on Nissan the other way.
That is, use tariffs from European businesses to pay back for U.K. companies and still be quids in.
Three k on every import car will go a long way.
It will also massively suppress the market so win/win.

[Kendhni]

I can only assume that those who seriously opposed Brexit voted Libdem.
That highlights what a tiny minority they are.

Making something up in your own mind does not make it true

I am not a Tory and certainly no fan of Johnson but I do admire his tough stance.

Like when it took him less than 72hours to surrender sovereignty to the part of the UK; or how caved in and kow towed to American demands in relation to Huawei; or how he announced his red line date for negotiations only 7 days after the EU told him that there would be no more extensions; or how he squealed triumphantly about a Japanese deal that is heavily in favour of Japan and is virtually identical (possibly worse) to what we would have got as an EU member ... such low standards for 'tough'.

I wouldn’t even have agreed the WA personally and taken us out with no treaties or agreements.

We have never had a referendum that offered no deal' and, in the general election, when the May/Johnson WA was put head-to-head with no deal (offered by Farage's company), the party offering no deal got soundly thrashed with an overwhelming majority voting for the May/Johnson WA. The vote has been had, it is up to this government to deliver its 'oven ready deal' (unless that was just another brexit lie).

If not, then just get on with things as a normal country.

So using the WTO option? The option that was described by the brexit leadership as something that would be an 'unmitigated disaster' that 'no responsible government should allow" and summing up with "The option should be rejected.".

My SiL has told me that part of the reason that they are obsessed with this alleged level playing field is because they have got wind that the U.K. will use tariffs from Volkswagen for example to subsidise and offset the tariff on Nissan the other way.
That is, use tariffs from European businesses to pay back for U.K. companies and still be quids in.
Three k on every import car will go a long way.
It will also massively suppress the market so win/win.

A drunk down the pub once told me that they also have wind.
The level playing field is being asked for for the simple reason they want to trade on a level playing field, that has been made very clear. Why would any trading block, or the UK, allow heavily subsidised goods into their country that might damage their own manufacturing? Both the UK and the EU have been very clear about limitations and impact on subsidised goods - contrary to brexit lies, it is not a one-way street.

[towny44]

We have never had a referendum that offered no deal' and, in the general election, when the May/Johnson WA was put head-to-head with no deal (offered by Farage's company), the party offering no deal got soundly thrashed with an overwhelming majority voting for the May/Johnson WA. The vote has been had, it is up to this government to deliver its 'oven ready deal' (unless that was just another brexit lie).

Ken, I disagree with most of your comments but this one in particular is meaningless. No one ever votes in a general election on just one point, both the Brexit party and the Tories wanted to leave the EU, and even though Nigel stated he would be happy to leave without a deal, the Brexit part was committed to try and achieve a free trade deal if possible. The reason Boris achieved such a stunning victory was because people believed the Tories provided the best option to achieve an acceptable deal, and there is still time.

[barney]

As hard as I look, I simply cannot find any mention of continuous access to Canada or Japan’s National fishing grounds.
There also appears to be much mention of EU interference in a countries policy on how it aids its business.
Hmmm !
Cake and eat it, Ken ?

One minute you think that we are an irrelevant little rock on the periphery of the mighty EU and the next, you say we are serious competition and that they should keep us under their thumb , out of fairness ?

[Kendhni]

We have never had a referendum that offered no deal' and, in the general election, when the May/Johnson WA was put head-to-head with no deal (offered by Farage's company), the party offering no deal got soundly thrashed with an overwhelming majority voting for the May/Johnson WA. The vote has been had, it is up to this government to deliver its 'oven ready deal' (unless that was just another brexit lie).

Ken, I disagree with most of your comments but this one in particular is meaningless. No one ever votes in a general election on just one point, both the Brexit party and the Tories wanted to leave the EU, and even though Nigel stated he would be happy to leave without a deal, the Brexit part was committed to try and achieve a free trade deal if possible. The reason Boris achieved such a stunning victory was because people believed the Tories provided the best option to achieve an acceptable deal, and there is still time.

You bring to the fore the biggest problem with Johnson. The man has built an entire career on being a liar, I now feel that one of the biggest questions we should be asking is whether or not Johnson and his cronies, at the time of the General Election, knew about the problems he is now pointing out, in the May/Johnson WA, but he chose to wilfully lie to the people telling them it was a great 'oven ready' deal.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1303242571691569152
Johnson even fired 21 of his MPs for refusing to sign up the May/Johnson WA. Is it now a case that those 21 were the ones that were correct?
There was no equivocation. no ambiguity, a vote for Johnson was a vote for the WA.

The only alternative is that Johnson and his cronies were crassly incompetent and failed to actually read the deal they negotiated and they signed. Johnson has now started his very own 'project fear' and desperately trying to feed it out to the masses to try to save face. If they are that incompetent on this deal then how can they be trusted with any other deal?

Having read more about the Japan deal I am wondering why brexiteers have not been programmed to complain about that yet since it obviously imposes more restrictions on subsidies than the EU would have.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rCri3X ... x2_fI/view

Not a lot of taking back sovereignty there.