So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[woolley]

@ Pongo

Then why are the EU so keen on their "divorce settlement" that they are afraid to discuss future trading arrangements before it is set. They could just create some money. Oh wait. They've done that to destruction haven't they? Take a look at the PIGS.

I get so depressed by people telling me how rubbish we are. We cannot afford to survive without the EU (although somehow we are a net contributor to the budget). Britain is such a terrible place (although people from across the world will die in the attempt to immigrate). We are terrible at feeding ourselves and would eat nothing but cabbage gruel and boiled beef without the EU (although many of the tastes we have adopted are from way beyond the EU and, in truth, people had started to travel and import different, varied cuisine before we joined the EEC). We cannot make anything or cannot exist outside the EU and modern life would grind to a halt (although we are a rich country with the 5th largest economy in the world which will get bigger). We don't make stuff because we take advantage of "globalisation" slave labour elsewhere in the world.

Thank goodness Blair and his liberal mates never managed to get the UK into the euro. It means that when the final collapse happens we won't be a part of it to the same extent.

Being part of the EU has not made Britain a better place. Judging from the comments here it has stripped many people of any national self-confidence in Britain to do anything, and that is not an accidental by-product incidentally, it was a founding goal of the European project. As for empire immigration; many consequences, some good, some bad.

[woolley]

12 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

Of course it's nonsense as is the reciprocal situation of 'everything was fine until we joined'. 'How did we manage etc etc' seems to be going down those lines.

Regulation of nearly everything now is considerably more complex than it was in the 70s. This is the main reason which you cannot simply be a trading partner as in 'I voted for the Common market only' etc. (Yeah we know YOU didn't woolley....)

Worldwide markets will of course sell to us in the future based on the requirements of that biggest single trading block (yep the EU) but the idea that the 21st century UK can operate on its own rules totally unconnected with the EU is not going to happen.

Countries seem to manage to trade with each other, and the EU for that matter, without being a part of the EU. Regulation is a red herring. It can be addressed perfectly well between territories on a bilateral or even multilateral basis. It does not need a supranational bureacracy with pretensions to a superstate to arbitrate and issue dictat.

[pongo]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

Regulation is a red herring. It can be addressed perfectly well between territories on a bilateral or even multilateral basis. It does not need a supranational bureacracy

That clearly isn't true given that almost everything which happens internationally connected with trade and how it works is ultimately also regulated internationally eg by the OECD, WTO, G7 or by UN organisations such as, for example, the IMO.

I can see Brexit Britain ending up like the IOM with people wondering why goods and services other people take for granted cost twice as much or are simply unavailable. Because the sort of people who hate joining in got their own way.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

Regulation is a red herring

No...... it may be in your line of work and life but having worked in a highly regulated industry it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to start again with each country.

It will be initially easy as what is agreed with each member state is commonly the same starting point. The same initially applies to states outside the EU that presently an agreement with the EU. Copy that and all will be fine to start with but only because of commonality caused by your despised EU. 

A business dealing with multiple EU countries will in the future have to reach agreement with each and every one. That will be very hard work.

True sovereignty is now unattainable in a modern high tech world. You might make your own laws but if they go against EU regulation, they may still have an indirect say. Just like the Court of Human Rights having had power over the IOM in its past despite it not being a member state.

All this grief and no sign of anything that might be better apart from all the espousals based on nothing much more than blind faith.

 

[woolley]

11 minutes ago, pongo said:

That clearly isn't true given that almost everything which happens internationally connected with trade and how it works is ultimately also regulated internationally eg by the OECD, WTO, G7 or by UN organisations such as, for example, the IMO.

I can see Brexit Britain ending up like the IOM with people wondering why goods and services other people take for granted cost twice as much or are simply unavailable. Because the sort of people who hate joining in got their own way.

UK is a member of those organisation without them impinging on sovereignty. No comparison at all. EU interferes at every level. Trade will prevail over bureaucracy every time.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

Trade will prevail over bureaucracy every time.

Again no.... you can create a situation where trade is just not worth the hassle. 

[woolley]

1 minute ago, ballaughbiker said:

 

A business dealing with multiple EU countries will in the future have to reach agreement with each and every one. That will be very hard work.

 

No it won't. It will deal with the EU. Until it folds anyway. But you don't need the EU for a European free trade area and that is what will happen in the end post EU.

[woolley]

1 minute ago, ballaughbiker said:

Again no.... you can create a situation where trade is just not worth the hassle. 

Yes. But that is not in anyone's interest.

[ballaughbiker]

It might (blind faith again) but no commonality in regulation could be a significant stumbling block. Non- commonality in VAT rules will also be interesting in a chinese way.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

Yes. But that is not in anyone's interest

Everyone still goes for the lower hanging fruit. We are voluntarily putting ourselves outside common regulation and that will not be beneficial.....to us.

Edited September 7, 2017 by ballaughbiker

[pongo]

50 minutes ago, woolley said:

UK is a member of those organisation without them impinging on sovereignty.

Regulation and code agreed internationally end up having to be written into British law and regulation. It's little different.

Brexit is about Britain being diffident and chippy, never wanting to properly join in.

Edited September 7, 2017 by pongo

[pongo]

49 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

Non- commonality in VAT rules will also be interesting in a chinese way.

One potential positive of Brexit is that VAT could gradually be abolished completely. It's a very poor way of taxing people since it typically disproportionately affects those on lower incomes.

Edited September 7, 2017 by pongo

[ballaughbiker]

I agree that VAT is a divisive tax but I very much doubt that we shall see it go but as you say that may be a positive of brexit. I am desperately looking for more....

[manxman1980]

The argument in favour of Brexit is not helped by dimbulbs like this caller; 

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/leave-voters-remarkable-advice-to-james-obrien/ 

[RIchard Britten]

10 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

The argument in favour of Brexit is not helped by dimbulbs like this caller; 

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/leave-voters-remarkable-advice-to-james-obrien/ 

How to get behind Brexit: Wash your clothes by hand.

Ladies and Gentleman...the people who voted for Brexit.  (Slow clap)