Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

Brexit - Deal or No Deal?

  • Deal

    Votes: 18 22.5%
  • No Deal

    Votes: 40 50.0%
  • Call in the Donald

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Call in Noel Edmonds

    Votes: 4 5.0%
  • I don't care anymore

    Votes: 17 21.3%

  • Total voters
    80

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Doesn't sound all that different to the Commission/Council (one per country) and the Parliament (numbers allocated more-or-less proportionally, except slightly adjusted in favour of the smaller countries)? Anyway, going back to the original argument, this all seems a very technical and theoretical reason to object to the EU.
But the difference is the breakdown of the nation state within that election, rather than pooling the votes of a nation state (or state in the US) and creating larger blocs where countries (and large cities) can hold sway. It's a different idea to bring a measure of top to bottom accountability to a particularly undemocratic organisation.

Who says? Brexiters often make claims like this, but does the EU really seek the end of the nation state? I think that claim is pretty far-fetched.
Unified tax policy and the potential of the Army - both entirely logical constructs with a single currency and lack of internal border - but seek to remove the decision making of the national state. Look at getting NATO members to commit to spending money!

I see no reason to think it does, no. Do you know of any EU mechanism that does limit economic growth, or trade with other countries - and can you explain how it works? And, perhaps more importantly, why? I don't see any logical reason why the EU would want to restrict the economies of its members, or why anyone sane would agree to it.
I only ask does being in the EU restrict our ability to do trade with places like India?

I don't really know what you mean by that. As we are not in the Euro, how are we affected by "the docile southern European economies"?
Because they have, in part, depressed economies who have limited spending power and high unemployment. Prolonged recessions affect prosperity.
 
Unified tax policy and the potential of the Army - both entirely logical constructs with a single currency and lack of internal border - but seek to remove the decision making of the national state.
As I understand it, the EU only insists on unified tax policy where it is necessary to provide a level playing field for the single market (e.g. VAT) and I suspect that you are overstating the extent and impact. So we can't put punitive VAT rates on things that we can only import. But I'm not an expert.

The "EU Army" is nothing of the sort. It's not even a formal EU policy and every nation would have a veto on any such move. It's the laziest kind of Brexit bogeyman, not much more than a slogan, and it doesn't bear serious scrutiny. The proposal, as I understand it, is for increased co-operation between existing military forces, and it's a big fat Brexit lie that our brave British boys are going to end up fighting for Brussels. Nothing more than unexamined pseudo-patriotic rabble-rousing intended to raise the blood of the sort of people that get offended by tabloid nonsense about poppies every November.

Look at getting NATO members to commit to spending money!
What's that got to do with the EU?

I only ask does being in the EU restrict our ability to do trade with places like India?
Not as far as I'm aware. What makes you think it does? What would the EU gain from restricting the UK's trade with India?

Because they have, in part, depressed economies who have limited spending power and high unemployment. Prolonged recessions affect prosperity.
Much of that is due to a) long-term internal failures and lax management of national economies, and b) worldwide factors like the 2008 crash. Besides, it's profoundly unscientific to pick out the underperforming EU members, ignore any flourishing ones, and thereby declare that EU membership is a recipe for economic failure. If the claim under discussion was that "EU membership is inevitably an economic panacea", then it would be a valid argument, but otherwise this negative cherry-picking of the data is intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
As I understand it, the EU only insists on unified tax policy where it is necessary to provide a level playing field for the single market (e.g. VAT) and I suspect that you are overstating the extent and impact. So we can't put punitive VAT rates on things that we can only import. But I'm not an expert.

The "EU Army" is nothing of the sort. It's not even a formal EU policy and every nation would have a veto on any such move. It's the laziest kind of Brexit bogeyman, not much more than a slogan, and it doesn't bear serious scrutiny. The proposal, as I understand it, is for increased co-operation between existing military forces, and it's a big fat Brexit lie that our brave British boys are going to end up fighting for Brussels. Nothing more than unexamined pseudo-patriotic rabble-rousing intended to raise the blood of the sort of people that get offended by tabloid nonsense about poppies every November.
As I said, they are both logical constructs. Unifying tax or VAT will make the playing field more level, but assumes all economies are equal. I can see why they would consider it. The flip side is it further restricts countries ability to be flexible on local taxation.
What's that got to do with the EU?
In terms of getting people to spend the money they agreed to! Germany have been negligent in that regard. So demanding they spend, x, y or z will be tricky to implement.

Not as far as I'm aware. Why do you think it does? What would the EU gain from restricting the UK's trade with India?
I never said it did or didn't. Just asking a theoretical question that you don't have answer for - but that's ok. It was a good chance to ask a Europhile a question.

Much of that is due to a) long-term internal failures and lax management of national economics, and b) worldwide factors like the 2008 crash. It's profoundly unscientific to pick out the underperforming EU members, ignore any flourishing ones, and thereby declare that EU membership is a recipe for economic failure. If the claim under discussion was that "EU membership is inevitably an economic panacea", then it would be a valid argument, but otherwise this negative cherry-picking of the data is intellectually dishonest.
My point is, is the economic growth potential limited in the EU by southern European economies? Further, does the understandable pull factor of freedom of movement (not offering a good/bad POV on it) mean that the young people with skills move elsewhere, enriching the growing economies, further limiting their native economies recession? And then also attract investment to the skilled economies?
 
As I said, they are both logical constructs. Unifying tax or VAT will make the playing field more level, but assumes all economies are equal.
I don't think it does "assume all economies are equal". It just stops us putting 40% VAT on oranges, or removing VAT from English apples, if we were in a trade war with Spain. I don't think it's a big deal.

The flip side is it further restricts countries ability to be flexible on local taxation.
Accepted. But most of the claims about EU interference in UK tax that I've checked out (e.g. "we can't abolish the tampon tax") turn out to be cobblers (or at least massive over-simplifications).

In terms of getting people to spend the money they agreed to! Germany have been negligent in that regard. So demanding they spend, x, y or z will be tricky to implement.
Most of the allegations about Germany's lack of support for NATO seem to come from Donald Trump, so excuse me if I don't take them terribly seriously. Germany refutes the claims.

I never said it did or didn't. Just asking a theoretical question that you don't have answer for - but that's ok. It was a good chance to ask a Europhile a question.
Who says I'm a Europhile? And why ask a rhetorical question if you're not trying to suggest that the scenario you're asking about actually exists?

My point is, is the economic growth potential limited in the EU by southern European economies?
I don't see why it should be, but I don't really know what you're getting at here. The Italian economy (or whatever) "is what it is", to coin a phrase. If it performs poorly, that impacts on the EU's bottom line, but that doesn't mean it inevitably drags other economies in the EU down to the same level (particularly those, like us, that are outside the Euro). It's a bit like saying "Are Portsmouth's promotion hopes limited by Plymouth's poor performances?"

The single market isn't compulsory or restrictive: EU countries can trade with whoever they like, they aren't forced to conduct a specific proportion of their trade with other EU countries, and EU membership doesn't prevent them from trading elsewhere. EU membership gives us advantages when we do choose to trade with Italy, but it doesn't mean we have to, or that we rely on them for our own success. Besides, if Italian trade is important to our economy, then a weak Italian economy hurts us whether we're inside the EU or outside.

Further, does the understandable pull factor of freedom of movement (not offering a good/bad POV on it) mean that the young people with skills move elsewhere, enriching the growing economies, further limiting their native economies recession? And then also attract investment to the skilled economies?
Possibly. But many Brexiters argue for a points-based immigration system that does this in spades. And the most frequent Brexit objection to immigration is not that we are depriving other nations of their brightest and best, but that we have no control over FOM and we have to accept lots of unskilled labourers pulling down the wages of our lowest-paid (which is a dubious proposition, incidentally). Or that people earn money here and send it back home. That's pretty much the opposite narrative to yours. (This is one of many mutually contradictory Brexit arguments: we're simultaneously depriving weaker nations of their talent, while also callously ignoring the plight of their unemployed youth, and also lumbering ourselves with their unskilled labour and feckless ne'er-do-wells. It doesn't really add up.)
 
Last edited:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45991267

Downing Street has reassured fans of Strictly Come Dancing that the show not is at risk from Brexit, following claims by Sir Vince Cable.

:eek::ROFLMAO:
Leave doesn't have a complete monopoly on daft arguments, but to be charitable I guess Cable was (patronisingly) trying to engage with fans of Strictly, and there's a grain of truth in it - many of the dancers (apparently) come from the EU and their right to work here may disappear after Brexit. Unimportant in the case of dancers on a light-entertainment TV programme, rather more important in fields like medicine and science.

Mind you, as this Remainer would rather support Swindon than watch a second of drivel like Strictly, this one isn't a deal-breaker for me ;)
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Most of the allegations about Germany's lack of support for NATO seem to come from Donald Trump, so excuse me if I don't take them terribly seriously. Germany refutes the claims.
They are mandated to pay a certain percentage of GDP on defence, and they've been rather niggardly in doing it. The UK are one of the few countries that do it, even when it seems that isn't enough to keep the lights on for our armed forces. Some sort of irony in there.
Who says I'm a Europhile? And why ask a rhetorical question if you're not trying to suggest that the scenario you're asking about actually exists?
You are strident defender of the EU. And don't answer the question, there is no need to! It's not compulsory
I don't see why it should be, but I don't really know what you're getting at here. The Italian economy (or whatever) "is what it is", to coin a phrase. If it performs poorly, that impacts on the EU's bottom line, but that doesn't mean it inevitably drags other economies in the EU down to the same level (particularly those, like us, that are outside the Euro). It's a bit like saying "Are Portsmouth's promotion hopes limited by Plymouth's poor performances?"
Not getting at anything per se. Just asked a question. See above.

The single market isn't compulsory or restrictive: EU countries can trade with whoever they like, they aren't forced to conduct a specific proportion of their trade with other EU countries, and EU membership doesn't prevent them from trading elsewhere. EU membership gives us advantages when we do choose to trade with Italy, but it doesn't mean we have to, or that we rely on them for our own success. Besides, if Italian trade is important to our economy, then a weak Italian economy hurts us whether we're inside the EU or outside.
The single market is compulsory to be a member of the EU - same as freedom of movement. It's one the basic tenets of the whole thing. While it doesn't prevent outside trade, the inbuilt protectionism means it makes it prohibitive to shop elsewhere.

[/QUOTE]
Possibly. But many Brexiters argue for a points-based immigration system that does this in spades. And the most frequent Brexit objection to immigration is not that we are depriving other nations of their brightest and best, but that we have no control over FOM and we have to accept lots of unskilled labourers pulling down the wages of our lowest-paid (which is a dubious proposition, incidentally). Or that people earn money here and send it back home. That's pretty much the opposite narrative to yours. (This is one of many mutually contradictory Brexit arguments: we're simultaneously depriving weaker nations of their talent, while also callously ignoring the plight of their unemployed youth, and also lumbering ourselves with their unskilled labour and feckless ne'er-do-wells. It doesn't really add up.)[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
It's not my opinion, just a view I put forth. Hypothetically, do highly skilled northern European economies actually serve the EU well? Or would it be better for the EUs prosperity and long term health for freedom of movement to be limited so countries can retain their talent? How can Italy or Romania retain their best when they can move to Germany and the UK, and earn more money? Does it also not serve the northern European economies that money is sent out of their national borders?
 
You are strident defender of the EU.
I'm not, actually, though yes, I voted Remain (because I could see lots of risks in leaving, and few benefits, and the ensuing mess has not changed my mind). I think there's lots wrong with the EU. But I'll happily admit to being a strident opponent of one-sided bullshit, and there's a lot of that in the Brexit debate, mostly (but not exclusively) from one side.

Not getting at anything per se. Just asked a question.
Hmm. So if I said "Is Nigel Farage a lying toerag?" you'd assume I was just innocently asking a question, and not implying that Nigel Farage was a lying toerag? Hard to swallow, I'm afraid.

While it doesn't prevent outside trade, the inbuilt protectionism means it makes it prohibitive to shop elsewhere.
That's a strange point of view. "We've set up a mutual system that saves us money, but that's unfair because we should be obliged to pay more to someone else outside it."

It's not my opinion, just a view I put forth.
I'm not sure I appreciate the distinction. In answer to your question, I don't know. You seem to be arguing that the UK and other northern European countries should sacrifice their own success for the benefit of other, weaker EU countries. It's a noble sentiment but it's an unusual one for a Brexiter.
 
Last edited:

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
I'm not, actually, though yes, I voted Remain (because I could see lots of risks in leaving, and few benefits, and the ensuing mess has not changed my mind). I think there's lots wrong with the EU. But I'll happily admit to being a strident opponent of one-sided bullshit, and there's a lot of that in the Brexit debate, mostly (but not exclusively) from one side.
Both sides made risibly bad comments. And still do. One of the most intellectually stunted debates I've seen.

Hmm. So if I said "Is Nigel Farage a lying toerag?" you'd assume I was just innocently asking a question, and not implying that Nigel Farage was a lying toerag? Hard to swallow, I'm afraid.
If you said I believe Nigel Farage is a lying toe rag, then the ? is implying you are asking a question, rather than stating a fact. My POV anyway. My answer would be he is no better or worse than any other politician, but it's his views that are what some people find most offensive.

That's a strange point of view. "We've set up a mutual system that saves us money, but that's unfair because we should be obliged to pay more to someone else outside it."
Or cease membership of it. Whatever flicks a switch in time.

I'm not sure I appreciate the distinction. In answer to your question, I don't know. You seem to be arguing that the UK and other northern European countries should sacrifice their own success for the benefit of other, weaker EU countries. It's a noble sentiment but it's an unusual one for a Brexiter.
I have an ability to look at things from different points of view. I am prepared to change my mind and opinion - go on an intellectual riff so to speak. Just because I voted for Brexit, it doesn't mean my mind is closed.
 
Nice to see Frau Merkel bailing out, she can see what is coming both at home & across Europe.
On the flip side the UK Budget tap is slightly eased on for the benefit of over 50% of the population.

Simplistic? Probably... however a longer term view beyond the pending "storm" is for nicer waters with sterling tipped to go higher in 2019 (by strategists at UniCredit) who say fair-value in GBP/EUR "could lie as high as 1.33, but beware the prospect of extreme volatility over coming weeks. "
 

Yellow River

Active member
2018-19 shirt sponsor for Jamie Hanson
As one commentator said after Hammond’s budget yesterday “vote for May’s deal or the economy gets it” that is the message to Tory MPs.

Would appear that a remain PrimeMinister and a remain Chancellor are pushing hard for a watered down Chequers deal.
 
So, now we know what the deal looks like. All 585 pages of it.

Still waiting for all the analysts to sift through the details, but on the face of it, it would seem to be an arrangement that makes absolutely noone happy. Far too tied to Europe for the Brexiteers; needlessly giving up our seat at the table for the Remainers.

Don't really know whether to laugh or cry.

Though I do know it makes me livid at certain members of the 'Leave' campaign. Not, to be fair, the likes of Farage and Rees-Mogg, who were always selling a 'proper' Brexit. But the likes of BoJo and Leadsom who were promising a 'Have your cake and eat it' Brexit, that was never, ever on the table.

It's put May in the position of trying to negotiate a middle way. And although I don't have much sympathy because her team has been all over the place for much of the last two years, it probably is true that this isn't far off the best deal she can get if she insists on no border in Ireland, and maintaining constant access to the EU market for British goods and services.

Suspect parliament will vote it down, and then it's likely goodbye to the May government, absolute chaos for a bit, a 1-2 year extension on EU membership and then a period of debate where Britain actually decides what it realistically wants its relationship to Europe to be.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Maybot is unplugged soon. She's managed to pull of the impossible, as Tony says, and please no one with that deal. Ironic after she said no deal is better than a bad deal.

Could be an interesting few weeks.
 
Stitch up................ i think you'll find Brexit will never happen,May has fecked about giving way to anything the EU mafia want.........what will happen is the "deal" will eventually be voted on and remainers will not be happy with it and the leavers will not be happy with it ...... we won't get the option of voting leave with NO DEAL....so we will stay in the EU .............. sabotaged by the remainer elite who got their arses kicked in the referendum they were sooooo sooooo sure they would win.....bollox to the lot of em,the torys will be split and will let in the dreaded Corbyn and his mad sidekick Abbott......and this country of traitors and scabs deserve that lot.....pfffffffft
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom