|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 14, 2023 18:24:50 GMT
All-out Tory civil war erupts! 'Gloves are off' as Remainers plot to hand power to EUSSR Story by Millie Cooke - Political Reporter • 5h ago The Conservative Party is on the brink of an all-out civil war as the UK edges closer to a deal with the EUSSR on Northern Ireland. The European Research Group (ERG), a powerful group of backbench Tory MPs, is said to be furious over reports that the Government is considering handing power to the European courts. The Government is reportedly preparing to accept a role for the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in policing the Northern Ireland Protocol, which would be seen as a post-Brexit betrayal by many on the right of the party.
link |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2023 18:40:08 GMT
What is the EUSSE?
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 14, 2023 20:47:38 GMT
They act as though it will solve Britain's domestic issues in an instant. After the GFC in 2008, the UK still lagged in returning to pre-GFC levels in 2013 and the UK was a fully paid up member of the famed Single Market. Lot of good that did the UK economy. pah! Returning back to that status quo will probably only ensure one thing, no strikes for better pay because all the cheap labour will come flooding back in pushing wages down again. I note that, although qualified, you have accepted that it will solve Britain's issues. I agree, rejoining will not solve them instantly. Immediately would be the better word. GFC is not comparable to Brexit. GFC is global; Brexit is regional. GFC is global banking and finance; Brexit is regional trading arrangement. Returning to that status quo is the perfect scenario because that status quo gave us all the advantages over other EU countries -- opt out of Eurozone, the Euro, Schengen, rebates, exclusion from the commitment to further political integration and ever-closer union. But that perfect scenario is also poses the biggest question: Will the EU accept the UK with all the opt outs intact? Brexit isn't comparable to the GFC quite right. Brexit isn't comparable to a global pandemic either. The GFC and Coronavirus are comparable. That is what I was referring to. The UK still lagged by five years after the GFC to get back to pre-GFC levels while it was inside the EU. The same is happening now with the UK economy. Brexit or no Brexit there's been no change in the bounceabackability of the UK's economy. Therefore, your prophecy of Britain's issues being solved "immediately" on return to EU are a fallacy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2023 22:37:34 GMT
I note that, although qualified, you have accepted that it will solve Britain's issues. I agree, rejoining will not solve them instantly. Immediately would be the better word. GFC is not comparable to Brexit. GFC is global; Brexit is regional. GFC is global banking and finance; Brexit is regional trading arrangement. Returning to that status quo is the perfect scenario because that status quo gave us all the advantages over other EU countries -- opt out of Eurozone, the Euro, Schengen, rebates, exclusion from the commitment to further political integration and ever-closer union. But that perfect scenario is also poses the biggest question: Will the EU accept the UK with all the opt outs intact? Brexit isn't comparable to the GFC quite right. Brexit isn't comparable to a global pandemic either. The GFC and Coronavirus are comparable. That is what I was referring to. The UK still lagged by five years after the GFC to get back to pre-GFC levels while it was inside the EU. The same is happening now with the UK economy. Brexit or no Brexit there's been no change in the bounceabackability of the UK's economy. Therefore, your prophecy of Britain's issues being solved "immediately" on return to EU are a fallacy. If the UK had been outside the EU when the GFC happened, our economy would still be languishing below pre-GFC level today -- with no end in sight. Imagine: financial services, decimated by the GFC; then add in the damage caused by Brexit such as reduced investment, reduced current account, reduced trading, non existent service industry, banks migrating to the EU, no fishing industry, no farming, no international influence or gravitas to command beneficial trading arrangements and many more -- it is a horrendous scenario. Huge economic problems were brought about by Brexit. So, get rid of Brexit and you get rid of the problems it caused. Hence, immediate resolution. It can be and it is as simple and as linear as that. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 14, 2023 23:23:07 GMT
. . .So, get rid of Brexit and you get rid of the problems it caused. Hence, immediate resolution. It can be and it is as simple and as linear as that. Way way too simplistic To just rejoin without a democratic mandate would be lunacy To just rejoin without getting the same terms as were on offer in June 2016 would be dumb dumb dumb To just expect rejoining would magically unpick all the damage done through uncertainty and actual decisions taken since 2016 would be to say the least wildly optimistic. Then there's that EU-Japan trade deal that's a done deal but we'd have been able to block etc etc |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 14, 2023 23:44:36 GMT
Ann Widdecombe tears apart Remainer Heseltine for 'completely wrong' Brexit argument Story by Katie Harris • 1h ago Ann Widdecombe tonight tore apart Lord Heseltine for claiming Britain has had almost seven years to reap Brexit benefits. The arch-Remainer raged that the UK has had since the 2016 referendum to capitalise on its departure from the EUSSR. But Brexiteer Ms Widdecombe argued that the UK has only had two years as the transition period did not come to a close until the end of 2020. In a clash on TalkTV, Lord Heseltine said: "The referendum was in 2016, nearly seven years ago." He added that Brexit voters were "sold a pack of lies". The former Tory deputy prime minister said: "The greatest evidence of that is six years later when the Brexiteers have been in charge, we have not seen any of the benefits we were told we would get and that's because they were all fiction." But Ms Widdecombe disagreed with Lord Heseltine over the timeline. The ex-Conservative minister and Brexit Party MEP said: "With all due respect for Lord Heseltine, he's just got this one completely wrong. We have not had six years, we have only been legally out for two." 
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 15, 2023 0:03:29 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 0:35:23 GMT
. . .So, get rid of Brexit and you get rid of the problems it caused. Hence, immediate resolution. It can be and it is as simple and as linear as that. Way way too simplistic To just rejoin without a democratic mandate would be lunacy To just rejoin without getting the same terms as were on offer in June 2016 would be dumb dumb dumb To just expect rejoining would magically unpick all the damage done through uncertainty and actual decisions taken since 2016 would be to say the least wildly optimistic. Then there's that EU-Japan trade deal that's a done deal but we'd have been able to block etc etc My remarks are within the context set by poster Steppenwolf buccaneer as follows: "Returning back to that status quo will probably ensure only one thing ......"
I'm sure you will realise that the status quo -- that status quo -- mentioned refers to pre June 2016. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 0:36:45 GMT
He's the poster asking you what the EUSSE is. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 15, 2023 3:21:06 GMT
He's the poster asking you what the EUSSE is. A typo Kim... |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 15, 2023 7:44:24 GMT
I don't think that the idea here is to rejoin the EU - that would be an obvious sell-out and would be met with the most massive backlash. In any case, it would bankrupt the UK because we'd have to join the euro which would be disastrous.
As I said before I think the plan is to prevent the UK from repealing any EU laws by making the "retained EU law" bill subject to parliamentary vote (instead of govt vote). This would effectively mean that no EU laws could be scrapped and therefore we won't be able to take any advantage of Brexit. And the coup de grace will be that our (now Remainer govt) will sign an agreement with the EU to "dynamic realignment" with EU laws (the Labour party would also do this on day 1 if they won the next GE).
This basically neuters Brexit and leaves us as a colony of the EU with no voting powers. That's what both Sunak and Starmer are trying to do. THat was the whole purpose of ousting Boris and Truss and imposing Sunak and Hunt on us. It was obvious at the time, as I said.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 15, 2023 8:29:48 GMT
Brexit isn't comparable to the GFC quite right. Brexit isn't comparable to a global pandemic either. The GFC and Coronavirus are comparable. That is what I was referring to. The UK still lagged by five years after the GFC to get back to pre-GFC levels while it was inside the EU. The same is happening now with the UK economy. Brexit or no Brexit there's been no change in the bounceabackability of the UK's economy. Therefore, your prophecy of Britain's issues being solved "immediately" on return to EU are a fallacy. If the UK had been outside the EU when the GFC happened, our economy would still be languishing below pre-GFC level today -- with no end in sight. Imagine: financial services, decimated by the GFC; then add in the damage caused by Brexit such as reduced investment, reduced current account, reduced trading, non existent service industry, banks migrating to the EU, no fishing industry, no farming, no international influence or gravitas to command beneficial trading arrangements and many more -- it is a horrendous scenario. Huge economic problems were brought about by Brexit. So, get rid of Brexit and you get rid of the problems it caused. Hence, immediate resolution. It can be and it is as simple and as linear as that. Do you have any hard evidence that the UK would still be languishing below pre-GFC level today (15 years on!) with no end in sight, or is this just a hyperbole typical of remnants and their projects? I tend to think it's the latter. Where is your evidence that Brexit has reduced all that you say it has? First, you need to demonstrate what Covid and the war in Ukraine has reduced before making these claims. As of yet, you and others have failed to do this. You are saying Brexit has caused all these "huge economic" problems, yet you can't demonstrate this with evidence. It sounds like you are reaching and regurgitating a few soundbites from here and there. There's no real substance though to your arguments. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 17:48:55 GMT
If the UK had been outside the EU when the GFC happened, our economy would still be languishing below pre-GFC level today -- with no end in sight. Imagine: financial services, decimated by the GFC; then add in the damage caused by Brexit such as reduced investment, reduced current account, reduced trading, non existent service industry, banks migrating to the EU, no fishing industry, no farming, no international influence or gravitas to command beneficial trading arrangements and many more -- it is a horrendous scenario. Huge economic problems were brought about by Brexit. So, get rid of Brexit and you get rid of the problems it caused. Hence, immediate resolution. It can be and it is as simple and as linear as that. that the UK would still be languishing below pre-GFC level today (15 years on!) with no end in sight, or is this just a hyperbole typical of remnants and their projects? I tend to think it's the latter. Where is your evidence that Brexit has reduced all that you say it has? First, you need to demonstrate what Covid and the war in Ukraine has reduced before making these claims. As of yet, you and others have failed to do this. You are saying Brexit has caused all these "huge economic" problems, yet you can't demonstrate this with evidence. It sounds like you are reaching and regurgitating a few soundbites from here and there. There's no real substance though to your arguments. You and your hard evidence!  Anyway, No and No to your questions. It is idiotic to ask for hard evidence when the context given is hypothetical. Isn't it? And as far as hypotheses go, what I've given you is perfectly justifiable and highly probable. You want to disprove it? Fine, knock yourself out. I'll even watch you try -- and fail. Now, the other matter: what evidence do you have to prove that Brexit has not reduced all that I say it has? And don't even try to wriggle out of it by throwing the ball back to me. You're the outlier here. The ball is in your court. You're the odd one out so the onus is on you -- not on me or anybody else -- to prove what you have been prattling on about. It's time that you put substance to your empty, meaningless pronouncements. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 17:50:08 GMT
He's the poster asking you what the EUSSE is. A typo Kim... OK. It's Gnome, by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 15, 2023 19:12:38 GMT
You and your hard evidence! Anyway, No and No to your questions. It is idiotic to ask for hard evidence when the context given is hypothetical. Isn't it? And as far as hypotheses go, what I've given you is perfectly justifiable and highly probable. You want to disprove it? Fine, knock yourself out. I'll even watch you try -- and fail. Now, the other matter: what evidence do you have to prove that Brexit has not reduced all that I say it has? And don't even try to wriggle out of it by throwing the ball back to me. You're the outlier here. The ball is in your court. You're the odd one out so the onus is on you -- not on me or anybody else -- to prove what you have been prattling on about. It's time that you put substance to your empty, meaningless pronouncements. So you admit that although you speak as though the UK would still be struggling to return to pre-GFC in 2023 if it weren't in the EU as fact, with your high modality statements, you've just made this up on nothing other than agenda because it isn't perfectly justifiable and highly probable because you have no justification for it other than an agenda. Glad we cleared that up. You are the one claiming Brexit has damaged the economy, not me. The onus is on you to prove that. Now you're trying to handball a claim you've made back to me because you can't prove your claim and have been found wanting. Sorry, Gnome it doesn't work like that. You're making the claim, the onus is on you. |
|
Anyway, No and No to your questions. It is idiotic to ask for hard evidence when the context given is hypothetical. Isn't it? And as far as hypotheses go, what I've given you is perfectly justifiable and highly probable. You want to disprove it? Fine, knock yourself out. I'll even watch you try -- and fail.