Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[strichener]

12 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

Not really, the ministers are elected secretaries of state. The HOL is elected by no one.

I don't remember voting for a secretary of state.  Did I miss it?

11 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

 

EU law does indeed have supremacy, it will continue to have supremacy as that is the price to pay for access to the EU market. Regardless of how you want to try and spin Brexit its absolute lunacy to think Brexit is in anyway a good thing.

 

Doing you democracy argument absolutely no favours here. 

[Michael W]

1 hour ago, Bishop Briggs said:

I don't believe that EFTA membership is a condition of joining the EEA. Norway cannot veto Britain joining the EEA post Brexit. 

I wasn't looking to conflate the two, sorry if that wasn't clear. Switzerland  (EFTA) isn't in the EEA, for instance. Not sure how it works the other way around, but I see no reason the UK couldn't be in the EEA if it didn't join EFTA.

There were some concerns from Norway about the UK joining EFTA as its size may change the dynamic of the organisation, which is understandable. 

[RedRob72]

Have they been controlling the amount of immigrants from outside of the EU ?

Clearly not, net migration to the U.K. from outside the EU has been consistently higher over the last 20 years than net migration from within the EU. Another fact conveniently ignored by Brexit supporters spouting the 'taking back control of our borders' mantra!

We've had complete control of who enters (and who doesn't enter) the UK from outside the EU yet the Gov (certainly since 2010) have still missed self imposed immigration targets.

[Bishop Briggs]

17 minutes ago, RedRob72 said:

Clearly not, net migration to the U.K. from outside the EU has been consistently higher over the last 20 years than net migration from within the EU. Another fact conveniently ignored by Brexit supporters spouting the 'taking back control of our borders' mantra!

We've had complete control of who enters (and who doesn't enter) the UK from outside the EU yet the Gov (certainly since 2010) have still missed self imposed immigration targets.

That's an argument for more effective immigration controls, not EU membership. Pro-Brexit commentators have repeatedly criticised Theresa May's poor record on that very issue. Britain has had an open borders policy (under Blair, Brown and Cameron) for the last 20 years. 

[Bishop Briggs]

35 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

You dont get it at all do you? Britain thinks its gonna get complete access to the EU markets without any of the regulations/laws and freedom of movement that it currently has a say over, but that the EU wont impose this on us post brexit? If i was the EU id do the exact same thing.

You are confusing access to EU markets with Membership of the Single Market. All WTO members have access to the Single Market under its rules. The issue whether Britain can negotiate a free trade deal, i.e. no tariffs, with EU.

The recent devaluation of the Pound against the Euro means that, even with tariffs under WTO rules, British goods would be cheaper than before referendum. The markets have factored in the tariffs in already.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, kilbowie2002 said:

You dont get it at all do you? Britain thinks its gonna get complete access to the EU markets without any of the regulations/laws and freedom of movement that it currently has a say over, but that the EU wont impose this on us post brexit? If i was the EU id do the exact same thing.

Oh I get it alright.  Britain will negotiate with the EU over the terms of the exit, nothing will be imposed.  The idea that all this negotiation is going to be a case of taking what the EU is offering is naive in the extreme.  Britain will not have the same trade relationship that it currently has with the EU whilst at the same time it will not have EU policies imposed, that is what the negotiations will determine.  If the EU attempts to take a position that is punitive then the UK can (and most likely would) reject the offer from the EU and revert to WTO rules.  Whilst this will be far from the best outcome for either side, it shows that there are alternatives to being dictated to.

Can I take it that you are distancing yourself from your elected secretaries of states claim?

Edited October 11, 2016 by strichener

[Jambomo]

1 hour ago, Bishop Briggs said:

You are confusing access to EU markets with Membership of the Single Market. All WTO members have access to the Single Market under its rules. The issue whether Britain can negotiate a free trade deal, i.e. no tariffs, with EU.

The recent devaluation of the Pound against the Euro means that, even with tariffs under WTO rules, British goods would be cheaper than before referendum. The markets have factored in the tariffs in already.

Isn't part of the problem that we also have to renegotiate with the WTO as our current membership is partially due to being within the EU? We cannot fall back on WTO access. https://www.monckton.com/brexit-mean-uk-wto/

[Baxter Parp]

[topcat(The most tip top)]

On 08/10/2016 at 14:33, strichener said:

Very aware.  Do you know that the warnings were what would happen if there was a Leave vote and not what would be required when we left.   The actual quote the week before the vote was:

 

That appears to actually be 3 quotes you've copied and pasted from the Daily Express.

I've not found video of the speech so whether they were delivered consecutively or reflect a precise timetable that Osborne was trying to communicate is doubtful but also moot given Osborne's departure.

You seem to be arguing on one hand that the lack of treasury measures on the back of the referendum shows that everything is fine while on the other and using that conclusion  to support the idea that measures by the BoE aren't needed. That lacks internal logic.

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by topcat(The most tip top)

[strichener]

3 hours ago, kilbowie2002 said:

Not really, the ministers are elected secretaries of state. The HOL is elected by no one.

 

9 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

Secretaries of state (with few exceptions in some circumstances) in the UK are elected members of Parliament, at no time did i say they were directly elected as secretary of state.

Your first post would read as elected officers.  There is nothing to prevent the UK Prime Minister from appointing non-elected people to the ministerial roles.

 

[strichener]

10 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

That appears to actually be 3 quotes you've copied and pasted from the Daily Express.

I've not found video of the speech so whether they were delivered consecutively or reflect a precise timetable that Osborne was trying to communicate is doubtful but also moot given Osborne's departure.

You seem to be arguing on one hand that the lack of treasury measures on the back of the referendum shows that everything is fine while on the other and using that conclusion  to support the idea that measures by the BoE aren't needed. That lacks internal logic.

 

It was delivered at Hitachi.  An alternative source for the speech can be found here:  http://www.strongerin.co.uk/leaving_eu_would_spark_deep_spending_cuts_sharp_tax_rises_warn_george_osborne_alistair_darling#AIVfbL003hom9KaI.97

No the lack of treasury measures means that the Remain campaign were just as guilty of spreading scare stories as the Leave campaign.  The actions taken by the BoE is monetary policy not fiscal.  Equating the two is not logical and I content that neither is needed.

Edited October 11, 2016 by strichener

[RedRob72]

That's an argument for more effective immigration controls, not EU membership. Pro-Brexit commentators have repeatedly criticised Theresa May's poor record on that very issue. Britain has had an open borders policy (under Blair, Brown and Cameron) for the last 20 years. 

I'm not claiming it's an argument for or against EU membership, but Brexit leaders certainly played the immigration card throughout the campaign, whilst we continued to receive more entrants from outside the EU through borders that we already have control over. Migrants from the EU will still want to come here as long as there is a demand for their labour.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

thanks for the link

As I'd assumed that was very selective quoting by Mr"Cirius Engineer" in the Express

“As Chancellors, both of us have had to take difficult decisions. And there would be difficult decisions facing our country once again if we quit the EU. Difficult decisions starting next Friday, in the months ahead, and for years to come.

“The impeccably independent Institute for Fiscal Studies says there would be a £30bn black hole in the public finances which we would have to try to fill.

The other quote is a lot further down 

The idea that they were making doomladen predictions about what the situation would be like by October is nonsense. They're talking in terms of years not months

“But any chancellor would have to look at both tax rises and spending cuts to make, in a central scenario, the £30 billion of savings required by 2020.

 How accurate their forecasts turn out to be remains to be seen and largely depend on how much of an arse the tories make of implementing this.

But we know the final section was bang on the money, strangely ignored by the Express.

“They’re driving around the country with that lie painted on their bus and they were at it again yesterday. They know they’ve been rumbled, so they’re telling farmers, universities, towns and cities needing investment in transport that they wouldn’t lose out in terms of funding from Europe. They’ve spent their bogus dividend from quitting the EU ten times over.
“Well let me tell you loud and clear today: it’s fantasy economics. Worse than that, it’s a deceit.
“Don't be taken in.
 

Edited October 11, 2016 by topcat(The most tip top)

[topcat(The most tip top)]

29 minutes ago, strichener said:

It was delivered at Hitachi.  An alternative source for the speech can be found here:  http://www.strongerin.co.uk/leaving_eu_would_spark_deep_spending_cuts_sharp_tax_rises_warn_george_osborne_alistair_darling#AIVfbL003hom9KaI.97

No the lack of treasury measures means that the Remain campaign were just as guilty of spreading scare stories as the Leave campaign.  The actions taken by the BoE is monetary policy not fiscal.  Equating the two is not logical and I content that neither is needed.

Contending that neither is needed is at least logically consistent.

[Bishop Briggs]

26 minutes ago, RedRob72 said:

I'm not claiming it's an argument for or against EU membership, but Brexit leaders certainly played the immigration card throughout the campaign, whilst we continued to receive more entrants from outside the EU through borders that we already have control over. Migrants from the EU will still want to come here as long as there is a demand for their labour.

Of course they will. The key difference is that Britain will have control of its borders and immigration policy, most likely through a work permit system, rather than no control under EU membership. 

The most shrill anti-foreigner noises are coming from pro-Remain campaigners, e.g. Theresa May and Amber Rudd. The prominent Vote Leave campaigners (e.g. Johnson, Davis and Fox) have been arguing that migrants' right to stay is or should be secure.

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, Bishop Briggs said:

That's an argument for more effective immigration controls, not EU membership. Pro-Brexit commentators have repeatedly criticised Theresa May's poor record on that very issue. Britain has had an open borders policy (under Blair, Brown and Cameron) for the last 20 years. 

Yeah that's why migrants are living in an absolute tip constructed on the outskirts of Calais and being killed in the Channel tunnel and in the back of lorries. If only they had heard of Ryanair or Easyjet, then they could take advantage of that fabled "open borders policy" of the UK.

Another day, another set of fantasist claims made by yourself. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Yeah that's why migrants are living in an absolute tip constructed on the outskirts of Calais and being killed in the Channel tunnel and in the back of lorries. If only they had heard of Ryanair or Easyjet, then they could take advantage of that fabled "open borders policy" of the UK.

Another day, another set of fantasist claims made by yourself. 

Telt

[RedRob72]

Of course they will. The key difference is that Britain will have control of its borders and immigration policy, most likely through a work permit system, rather than no control under EU membership. 

The most shrill anti-foreigner noises are coming from pro-Remain campaigners, e.g. Theresa May and Amber Rudd. The prominent Vote Leave campaigners (e.g. Johnson, Davis and Fox) have been arguing that migrants' right to stay is or should be secure.

But that's my point, we already have full control of our border and immigration policies for non-EU applicants, yet still fall short of managing numbers without the proper infrastructure in place to support new migrants in terms of jobs, housing, school places and healthcare provision etc... Leaving the EU isn't going to change that.

[strichener]

thanks for the link

As I'd assumed that was very selective quoting by Mr"Cirius Engineer" in the Express

“As Chancellors, both of us have had to take difficult decisions. And there would be difficult decisions facing our country once again if we quit the EU. Difficult decisions starting next Friday, in the months ahead, and for years to come.

“The impeccably independent Institute for Fiscal Studies says there would be a £30bn black hole in the public finances which we would have to try to fill.

The other quote is a lot further down 

The idea that they were making doomladen predictions about what the situation would be like by October is nonsense. They're talking in terms of years not months

“But any chancellor would have to look at both tax rises and spending cuts to make, in a central scenario, the £30 billion of savings required by 2020.

 How accurate their forecasts turn out to be remains to be seen and largely depend on how much of an arse the tories make of implementing this.

But we know the final section was bang on the money, strangely ignored by the Express.

“They’re driving around the country with that lie painted on their bus and they were at it again yesterday. They know they’ve been rumbled, so they’re telling farmers, universities, towns and cities needing investment in transport that they wouldn’t lose out in terms of funding from Europe. They’ve spent their bogus dividend from quitting the EU ten times over.
“Well let me tell you loud and clear today: it’s fantasy economics. Worse than that, it’s a deceit.
“Don't be taken in.
 

If they were talking in terms of years, then why use the term "emergency budget". There was already an autumn spending review planned and a budget takes place every year. The only logical conclusion was that this was to happen after the vote to leave. The impeccably independent IFS has been lambasted by politicians of all shades when the narrative doesn't fit and fawned over when it does.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

If they were talking in terms of years, then why use the term "emergency budget". There was already an autumn spending review planned and a budget takes place every year. The only logical conclusion was that this was to happen after the vote to leave. The impeccably independent IFS has been lambasted by politicians of all shades when the narrative doesn't fit and fawned over when it does.

The context for the "Emergency Budget" is "If we quit the EU"

We haven't yet.

It was widely assumed at the time that a leave vote would lead directly to prime minister Boris starting the process immediately. An assumption that turned out to be wrong but you can hardly blame the remain side for the brexiteers being a shambles with no plan to deal with the result going their way.