May on the way??

[Fosse69]

9 minutes ago, TheSage said:

As some of us have been saying for months and months, only to get shouted down by the "Leave means Leave" crowd, regardless of the economic cost.

The Japanese also said today that they were concerned about their 1000 factories in the UK if there wasn't a sensible deal. You can't just walk away and forget about the consequences when business after business is telling you to think very carefully.

Life is not as simple as it was thought.

[Heatwave]

9 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

 

Oblivious to the danger then.

Not at all - I was agreeing with you.

[geosname]

2 hours ago, TheSage said:

As some of us have been saying for months and months, only to get shouted down by the "Leave means Leave" crowd, regardless of the economic cost.

The Japanese also said today that they were concerned about their 1000 factories in the UK if there wasn't a sensible deal. You can't just walk away and forget about the consequences when business after business is telling you to think very carefully.

The situation is that both sides made clear what leaving meant from their perspective,  good and bad, the vote was to leave... what else can it mean?

Neither side can now say.. oh well leaving doesn't mean blah blah blah... they both made it clear what leaving entailed. It's not reasonable to now say we can leave and stay in the customs union for example.

I said at the beginning of the brexit discussion that it would cause serious political problems... and here is the fruit of the poisonous tree... whoever is elected or becomes PM may have the will to leave but I doubt they have the support and it's unlikely they will have the support to remain, so here we sit in limbo, which in itself is damaging with its uncertainty.

Answers?... I have none... whether we leave or remain we will suffer damage... financial and political.

The decision to leave was the wrong decision but just taking the decision again won't stop the problem growing, it won't make it any easier for the politicians, the people or the country.

[Regal Beagle]

10 hours ago, TheSage said:

As some of us have been saying for months and months, only to get shouted down by the "Leave means Leave" crowd, regardless of the economic cost.

The Japanese also said today that they were concerned about their 1000 factories in the UK if there wasn't a sensible deal. You can't just walk away and forget about the consequences when business after business is telling you to think very carefully.

Are you in favour of increasing corporation tax?

What about the main Brexit concerns? We keep ignoring them on this forum but how do you solve people's concerns about immigration and sovereignty?

Nevermind Japan's concerns, this is about how we as British people want to be governed.

 

[TheSage]

I agree with much of that geo though I'm fairly sure if we turn back the clock 3-4 years we'd find that virtually no-one was talking of a No Deal. The messages and promises were very mixed. Some, yes, talked about leaving the whole lot - single market, customs union, etc. - but others talked about not leaving all of those things and it was vital to be part of the free trade area still and on an on.           

No Deal only raised its ugly head once May could not get her deal through and it became apparent that leaving was at risk. So the ERG and others jumped on this bandwagon of No Deal without thinking of the consequences in a rational and sensible way, or risk not leaving at all.

The worry of course is that, as Gordon Brown said the other day, the Tories have now morphed into the Conservative and Brexit party not the Conservative and Unionist party and seem hell bent on matching Farage step for step. The opposition don't know whether or not to twist or turn and many voters now I think are becoming apathetic to the whole shaboodle and just want to change the record and move on to equally pressing domestic matters.

But you are right. We'll probably still have this thread in ten years time when the Vale have new owners, are a league one team, and the manager is Tom Pope!

[TheSage]

I'm not sure why corporation tax has appeared in a PM/Brexit thread but it's low as it is, one of the lowest in Europe, so I see no reason to reduce it further and if it has to go up so be it. Why should the poorest people in our society bear the brunt of austerity? I'm 100% in favour of companies like Amazon and Starbucks paying their way. If we hounded these big corporations and made them pay what they really owe then we'd be many billions to the good.

I don't think anyone has been lying awake worried sick about sovereignty since 1973. Shared sovereignty is a good thing as I've said before. I'm glad we share it with NATO and the UN. 

Immigration is a worry in some quarters. I've accepted that. It has a cultural impact and in some parts of the country has affected the balance of the population. But most people who talk about immigration are largely talking about Asia so leaving the EU won't help that one iota and May even said that if we restrict EU immigration the slack will get taken up from elsewhere. Immigration can be a wonderfully enriching thing and without it our NHS, for example, would close down tomorrow.

The number one concern has to be the economy. If these 1000 Japanese firms move to the continent or downsize or all our car plants shut then it will adversely affect our economy and money for the welfare state will be hit. You can't trash the economy and pretend to be acting for the good of the people. We have to have a measured, sensible Brexit or not at all.

It goes back to the original binary question which was daft because there are so many complex machinations and it isn't black or white. It's like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?". You can't answer that question with a yes/no response. It has to be qualified. 

 

[mr.hobblesworth]

My wife pulled a face like that when I said I was taking her away for surprise night out and she realised we were on our way to the Johnston's Paint Trophy game at Morecambe.

[geosname]

2 hours ago, TheSage said:

I agree with much of that geo though I'm fairly sure if we turn back the clock 3-4 years we'd find that virtually no-one was talking of a No Deal. The messages and promises were very mixed. Some, yes, talked about leaving the whole lot - single market, customs union, etc. - but others talked about not leaving all of those things and it was vital to be part of the free trade area still and on an on.           

No Deal only raised its ugly head once May could not get her deal through and it became apparent that leaving was at risk. So the ERG and others jumped on this bandwagon of No Deal without thinking of the consequences in a rational and sensible way, or risk not leaving at all.

The worry of course is that, as Gordon Brown said the other day, the Tories have now morphed into the Conservative and Brexit party not the Conservative and Unionist party and seem hell bent on matching Farage step for step. The opposition don't know whether or not to twist or turn and many voters now I think are becoming apathetic to the whole shaboodle and just want to change the record and move on to equally pressing domestic matters.

But you are right. We'll probably still have this thread in ten years time when the Vale have new owners, are a league one team, and the manager is Tom Pope!

It's a dogs dinner everyone is trying to regurgitate mate, but they can't get the taste out of their mouths...... sadly some are doing an Oliver without knowing what they want more of.

[Jacko51]

10 hours ago, geosname said:

 

Neither side can now say.. oh well leaving doesn't mean blah blah blah... they both made it clear what leaving entailed. It's not reasonable to now say we can leave and stay in the customs union for example.

That is the whole point, geo.  No one made clear what leaving entailed.  I've posted this before but it's worth repeating. 

 

[Regal Beagle]

35 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

That is the whole point, geo.  No one made clear what leaving entailed.  I've posted this before but it's worth repeating. 

 

Almost all taken out of context which was  - Brexit first, we must leave, but if we can stay in the single market and achieve brexit then it would be a good thing. Unfortunately we now know that we cannot stay in the single market and achieve brexit.

 

2 hours ago, TheSage said:

I'm not sure why corporation tax has appeared in a PM/Brexit thread but it's low as it is, one of the lowest in Europe, so I see no reason to reduce it further and if it has to go up so be it. Why should the poorest people in our society bear the brunt of austerity? I'm 100% in favour of companies like Amazon and Starbucks paying their way. If we hounded these big corporations and made them pay what they really owe then we'd be many billions to the good. 

I don't think anyone has been lying awake worried sick about sovereignty since 1973. Shared sovereignty is a good thing as I've said before. I'm glad we share it with NATO and the UN.  

Immigration is a worry in some quarters. I've accepted that. It has a cultural impact and in some parts of the country has affected the balance of the population. But most people who talk about immigration are largely talking about Asia so leaving the EU won't help that one iota and May even said that if we restrict EU immigration the slack will get taken up from elsewhere. Immigration can be a wonderfully enriching thing and without it our NHS, for example, would close down tomorrow.

The number one concern has to be the economy. If these 1000 Japanese firms move to the continent or downsize or all our car plants shut then it will adversely affect our economy and money for the welfare state will be hit. You can't trash the economy and pretend to be acting for the good of the people. We have to have a measured, sensible Brexit or not at all.

It goes back to the original binary question which was daft because there are so many complex machinations and it isn't black or white. It's like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?". You can't answer that question with a yes/no response. It has to be qualified.  

 

It appeared because I asked you about it. I asked you about it because I know full well that you would be in favour of taxing companies more. I think that is a contradiction to your strong defence of businesses in the Brexit debate. 95% of businesses don't trade with the EU and so would be totally unaffected by any adversity, in fact it is highly likely that 95% of businesses would benefit from brexit.

And you've simply dismissed the sovereignty and immigration questions there. I didn't ask if they are an issue, I asked how do we solve the concerns that drove the MAJORITY of this country to vote to leave the EU?

It's all very well and good thinking that the economy SHOULD be the main concern, but it simply wasn't 3 years ago and it isn't now. We were lied to about how badly the economy would be affected. We now know that at the most it wont be as bad as any of those lies because the liars keep on revising their lies  downwards. We still voted to leave.

 

Plus, the economy will be better off long term outside of the EU.

 

Oh, and shared sovereignty is not sovereignty.

[geosname]

1 hour ago, Jacko51 said:

That is the whole point, geo.  No one made clear what leaving entailed.  I've posted this before but it's worth repeating. 

 

I was referring to indirect suggestions, inferences  and implications from both sides as to what will/would/can/could/might/might not happen... building pictures of what leave meant to remainers and leavers... even if they were incorrect. 

If you tell people what something isn't the by default build a picture of what it is and vice versa.

I agree no one knows what leave actually means in any detail... at least not beyond the point of leaving... that's partly down to the obtuse nature of the question and the questioner.

[geosname]

56 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Almost all taken out of context which was  - Brexit first, we must leave, but if we can stay in the single market and achieve brexit then it would be a good thing. Unfortunately we now know that we cannot stay in the single market and achieve brexit.

 

It appeared because I asked you about it. I asked you about it because I know full well that you would be in favour of taxing companies more. I think that is a contradiction to your strong defence of businesses in the Brexit debate. 95% of businesses don't trade with the EU and so would be totally unaffected by any adversity, in fact it is highly likely that 95% of businesses would benefit from brexit.

And you've simply dismissed the sovereignty and immigration questions there. I didn't ask if they are an issue, I asked how do we solve the concerns that drove the MAJORITY of this country to vote to leave the EU?

It's all very well and good thinking that the economy SHOULD be the main concern, but it simply wasn't 3 years ago and it isn't now. We were lied to about how badly the economy would be affected. We now know that at the most it wont be as bad as any of those lies because the liars keep on revising their lies  downwards. We still voted to leave.

 

Plus, the economy will be better off long term outside of the EU.

 

Oh, and shared sovereignty is not sovereignty.

I'm not sure about the economy being better off long term until you define long term.

I would suggest 3-5 years to get the pound close to it's position before the referendum and 20 years to stabilise and return the economy to what it was then in comparison to others.... unless others improve in the meantime

[Regal Beagle]

1 hour ago, geosname said:

I'm not sure about the economy being better off long term until you define long term.

I would suggest 3-5 years to get the pound close to it's position before the referendum and 20 years to stabilise and return the economy to what it was then in comparison to others.... unless others improve in the meantime

A couple of years of disruption. I honestly believe that 5 years after we leave we will be in a better place with a much brighter future,  economically speaking.

[geosname]

33 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

A couple of years of disruption. I honestly believe that 5 years after we leave we will be in a better place with a much brighter future,  economically speaking.

I think it will take 5 years to counteract and overturn the breakdown of confidence, the indecision and the inactivity of politicians on both sides.

It will take longer than 5 years to establish trading agreements equivalent to what we had before and any short agreements will come at a heavy cost and detrement to the country as a whole.

Even if we remain it will take some time to return to where we were before this process started..... it won't simply be as it was before.... the expenditure alone will take some time to recoup... and the political fallout will be huge.

[philpvfc]

A no deal wouldn’t have been so bad had the Government prepared for it. I’m organising with suppliers a new run EU lead compliance which is already a month overdue. There has been absolutely no preparation from the Government and it is in a right mess now with a major knock on with businesses throughout the U.K. 

everything seems to be last minute.com