Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Which ones do you disagree with?
All of them.
This is another good one: "The former Prime Minister also tried to claim the UK could manage its immigration policy while inside the EU. Why are 'Remain' campaigners insisting we start to control immigration in any Brexit deal then? Because we cannot control EU immigration now, proving Cameron was lying"
I wouldn't say massively, but as of 2019 this is no longer true anyway despite the UK having been in a state of uncertainty for three years now.
(shrugs) It seems you are not really aware of what's going on.
Somewhat different to companies deserting the UK, but regardless I can only laugh at this. Do you have any idea of the size of the UK finance industry? The people being moved constitute less than 1% of the total people employed and similarly the assets are a small fraction of the total.
£1trillion is just the start, and I don't call 7k job losses….- just as the tip of the iceberg - trivial.
Re UK manufacturing, everything is looking worse.
And other Brexit related company failures appear inevitable..
2 Sep 2019 09:36
UK factory PMI hits seven-year low
Newsflash: Britain’s factory sector is shrinking at its fastest rate in seven years, as the Brexit crisis hurts the UK economy.
Data firm Markit reports that new orders tumbled last month, with activity sliding at its fastest pace since 2012.
Steep reductions in new orders were seen across the consumer, intermediate and investment goods industries, driving output down across the sector.
Business confidence has also cratered, hitting its lowest level since Markit began tracking it in 2012.
Markit’s UK manufacturing PMI, based on interviews with factory bosses across the UK, fell to just 47.4 - weaker than the 48.4 expected, and deeper into contraction (anything below 50 shows the sector shrank).
"Only one in five companies ready for EU trade under no-deal
Survey shows majority have not completed basic customs paperwork"https://amp.ft.com/content/a064869a-d96 ... 216ebe1f17
"UK investment faces most sustained slump in 17 years thanks to Brexit uncertainty"
^ British Chamber of Commerce.
Still feeling 'confident' about Brexit?
It was true at the time it was written and hardly anybody predicted the general slowdown that followed which also means that it cannot be predominantly attributed to Brexit.
But it can partially be attributed to it.
As above, this is no longer the case for the current year.
Does not matter, we should follow long term trends, not temporal rebounds.
I won't prove something I haven't claimed.
Very well, please prove this then:
"These are perfectly good arguments, although I agree that there are many more, starting with the question why the UK would want to remain in a union which seemingly desires to economically annex one of its constituent nations
The case for leaving the EU is quite simple. The EU is designed to absorb its members into an ever closer political union by creating a supranational structure whose institutions are by definition superior to those of the member states, exemplified today by the EC and the ECJ. It's an experiment that tries to peacefully unify an entire continent, consisting of a diverse set of nation states some of which have existed in their current form for centuries, into a single political entity, something which has never succeeded without violence and oppression.
Untrue. There are many unions...the US being one of them. It's quite successful from what people say..
Then there's the Russian Federation (despite Putin et al), unless you think it's better to have complete balkanisation and sectarian wars all over the world of course?
The EU works well as a confederation with many unifying organisations. It's better than what came before.
Is it perfect? No, but let's not hope for balkanisation and complete isolationism.
There can be problems with 'annexation' (your phrase) and equally, its counterpart which is total isolation and protectionism; both are damaging.
This is important to note because it means that the EU is the radical and risky proposition and those who oppose it are the moderates who just want the UK to be a normal nation state like the overwhelming majority of countries around the world.
No it's not radical or risky, it works as intended and as it was laid out originally.
It works as expected from the first referendum. The full pamphlet explaining the EU was available in every newsagent, and a condensed pamphlet was sent to every home.
The majority voted for it; almost as many as voted to leave in 2016, shy of about 30k.
If a privileged trading relationship, which benefits both sides, is only possible via subordination to EU institutions it ought to be rejected, as the world has a perfectly good model to organise trade cooperation that doesn't involve being a member of what is committed to becoming a superstate. As such, joining the EU, and equally important signing up to later treaties without the consent of the public, was a historic mistake which has now simply been corrected.
So opt outs are just made up?
As for supporting "no deal", I know quite a few people in the UK who do support it now mainly because of what they consider the unwillingness of both, the EU and the previous UK government/pro-EU establishment in the UK, to properly terminate membership. If they are unable to negotiate a normal trade relationship, something which is eminently possible and exists around the world, then it has to be "no deal". So as far as I can tell, almost all leavers would prefer a cooperative relationship with the EU, but in the face of blatant obstruction they are prepared to just leave as well. It's the only sensible position in my view.
The blatant obstruction comes largely (but not entirely) from the UK side, when idiotic politicians play political football with NI.
I have no reason to believe that Johnson doesn't want a deal as long as the terms are reasonable. As above, the only sensible position is to go ahead and just leave if that's not possible.
Of course he doesn't want a deal, he's barely spent any time in Brussels.
He is backed by 8.6 billion hedge funders as skinster pointed out.
That's not what he said. He wouldn't commit to it before he had seen the details of the legislation.
So the statement is from 2012, and UKIP had actually changed its policy by 2014? Shocking. I still don't see the problem with this by the way. I believe that Switzerland's healthcare system works along those lines.
They believe the same nonsense, despite their lies about being new, all cuddly and old laboury.
And since you seem to be unaware that politicians make u-turns all the time, let me present to you something truly outrageous. I recommend you watch some of the dozens of videos this Twitter account has compiled, starting with this:
So what? I don't support those guys and gals either.
In fact, Chuka Ummuna is particularly bad.
You can be sure that people speculated in a similar way before the UK joined the EU and, in fact, in the run up to any major policy change.
They're billionaires, crooks and philanderers who'd sell their own grandmas.
I've never heard German spoken in a Northern Irish accent.