Brexit the positive thread

[Saintslass]

The power of positivity!

 

I bet on the negative thread (if it was still open) someone would of made a thing of Number 10, the Americans and the Canadians all having to clarify various statements the disgraced Liam Fox made yesterday.  I wouldn't say that sort of thing on the positive thread though, as its way too negative.  All I'm saying is that someone would of said it over there.

Canada and the US both have dual interests: keeping us sweet and keeping the EU sweet.  What they say in public and what goes on behind closed doors will be two totally different things, as is usually the case in diplomacy.  Fox, meanwhile, needs to learn quickly how to say as little as possible in public.

[GeordieSaint]

Canada and the US both have dual interests: keeping us sweet and keeping the EU sweet. What they say in public and what goes on behind closed doors will be two totally different things, as is usually the case in diplomacy. Fox, meanwhile, needs to learn quickly how to say as little as possible in public.

Do you know that for certain? Has any Americans said that or is it an assumption? Would be interesting to read such comments.

[Griff9of13]

Our leaders don't know what Brexit means – and some of their ideas are laughable, which is good.

[Martyn Sadler]

Our leaders don't know what Brexit means – and some of their ideas are laughable, which is good.

 

Then let me explain.

 

Brexit essentially means three things.

 

1. Laws made by the UK Parliament are sovereign.

 

2. The UK can negotiate its own trade deals.

 

3. The UK will control its own borders as it sees fit.

 

In complying with those principles there's a lot of detail to fit in, and there is likely to be a significant debate about what those details should comprise, both within the government and, I hope, within the opposition.

 

But ultimately the meaning of Brexit is quite clear, even if it's too complicated for James O'Brien to understand.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Then let me explain.

 

Brexit essentially means three things.

 

1. Laws made by the UK Parliament are sovereign.

 

2. The UK can negotiate its own trade deals.

 

3. The UK will control its own borders as it sees fit.

 

In complying with those principles there's a lot of detail to fit in, and there is likely to be a significant debate about what those details should comprise, both within the government and, I hope, within the opposition.

 

But ultimately the meaning of Brexit is quite clear, even if it's too complicated for James O'Brien to understand.

 

 

But brexit doesn't mean those 3 things.  You might want it to, you might desire all 3 as the outcome, but depending on the negotiations, you might not get any of them?

[Martyn Sadler]

But brexit doesn't mean those 3 things.  You might want it to, you might desire all 3 as the outcome, but depending on the negotiations, you might not get any of them?

 

In that case it wouldn't be Brexit.

 

If we are going to leave the EU, those three elements are the natural consequence.

 

We can make agreements that impinge on the details of how those elements operate, but that will be for a UK government to decide.

[Bedford Roughyed]

In that case it wouldn't be Brexit.

 

If we are going to leave the EU, those three elements are the natural consequence.

 

We can make agreements that impinge on the details of how those elements operate, but that will be for a UK government to decide.

 

Brexit means leave the EU.  Thats it.  We can leave the EU and not have those 3 things (norweigian model for example).

[Griff9of13]

Then let me explain.

Brexit essentially means three things.

1. Laws made by the UK Parliament are sovereign.

2. The UK can negotiate its own trade deals.

3. The UK will control its own borders as it sees fit.

In complying with those principles there's a lot of detail to fit in, and there is likely to be a significant debate about what those details should comprise, both within the government and, I hope, within the opposition.

But ultimately the meaning of Brexit is quite clear, even if it's too complicated for James O'Brien to understand.

Yours is a nice, succinct definition. But it remains yours, not our governments one.

If this was to be the official definition of brexit then the leave campaign should have been using it from the beginning rather than brexit being all things to all people.

Until the government come up with a definition similar to the one above the whole process of leaving is going to be very messy, because until there is a clear objective it's almost impossible to construct a plan and a negotiating position. It's my belief that this lack of a clear objective and plan is what lies beneath the decision to stall the triggering of article 50. Which under the circumstances is no bad thing.

[Martyn Sadler]

Yours is a nice, succinct definition. But it remains yours, not our governments one.

If this was to be the official definition of brexit then the leave campaign should have been using it from the beginning rather than brexit being all things to all people.

Until the government come up with a definition similar to the one above the whole process of leaving is going to be very messy, because until there is a clear objective it's almost impossible to construct a plan and a negotiating position. It's my belief that this lack of a clear objective and plan is what lies beneath the decision to stall the triggering of article 50. Which under the circumstances is no bad thing.

 

You make some very sensible points.

 

I agree that the definition of Brexit should be far more explicit than it seems to have been and that the government was unprepared for the outcome of the referendum.

[Trojan]

You make some very sensible points.

 

I agree that the definition of Brexit should be far more explicit than it seems to have been and that the government was unprepared for the outcome of the referendum.

Isn't that why Farage has got out now before the consequences of his "triumph" are fully realised.  In other words before the chickens come home to roost.

[Bearman]

We sold more goods to the rest of the world last year than we did you the "single market" £151 bn to £134 bn.

According to a YouGov poll 53% of Scots want to stay in the UK despite Brexit

Our economy grew at more than twice that of Europea and the USA in the second quarter of this year.

The IMF independent watchdog has admitted it got the forecast about the possible damage of Brexit wrong because it was too "Pro_Europe"

[henage]

Isn't that why Farage has got out now before the consequences of his "triumph" are fully realised.  In other words before the chickens come home to roost.

No .

[Jasper]

Two stories from the Telegraph -

 

The UK’s exports have grown at a world-beating pace for the first time in nearly a decade, according to official figures, as businesses rapidly increased the share of goods they sold outside of the European Union.

The success of British firms in repositioning to markets further afield has helped boost overall export growth above the global rate of expansion for the first time since 2006, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Separate figures revealed that the Eurozone economy slowed sharply in the second quarter, growing at just half the pace of the UK over the period, as France and Austria stagnated.   Economists said Eurozone growth could slow further in the third quarter following the UK's decision to leave the EU.

 

The International Monetary Fund’s top staff misled their own board, made a series of calamitous misjudgments in Greece, became euphoric cheerleaders for the euro, ignored warning signs of impending crisis, and collectively failed to grasp an elemental concept of currency theory.  This is the lacerating verdict of the IMF’s top watchdog on the fund’s tangled political role in the Eurozone debt crisis, the most damaging episode in the history of the Bretton Woods institutions.  The report by the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) goes above the head of the managing director, Christine Lagarde. It answers solely to the board of executive directors, and those from Asia and America are clearly incensed at the way European Union insiders are said to have used the fund to rescue their own currency and banking system.

[henage]

Worth saying again . If you produce something that someone wants/needs and you can cover your costs and make a profit your doing ok . If you produce something that no one wants/needs your going to struggle . Europe / Asia/America doesnt really matter - got the product - go for it .

[Saintslass]

But brexit doesn't mean those 3 things.  You might want it to, you might desire all 3 as the outcome, but depending on the negotiations, you might not get any of them?

If the UK does not achieve any of those three things then it hasn't left the EU because if the UK does not control its own borders, does not make its own laws and does not negotiate its own trade deals then there can only be one institution that does do those things for us and that's the EU given that we are presently still in the EU.

 

Leaving the EU means regaining control of borders, governance and trade.  All else falls into place as a result of those three things.  Those three things were the central tenets of the leave campaign and are what were universally understood as leaving the EU.  It is up to the present government to ensure those three things are achieved.

[Trojan]

Worth saying again . If you produce something that someone wants/needs and you can cover your costs and make a profit your doing ok . If you produce something that no one wants/needs your going to struggle . Europe / Asia/America doesnt really matter - got the product - go for it .

But if the country where you want to sell it puts up tariff barriers in order to protect its own industry you won't sell it.  And that's what'll happen in Europe.

[Trojan]

If the UK does not achieve any of those three things then it hasn't left the EU because if the UK does not control its own borders, does not make its own laws and does not negotiate its own trade deals then there can only be one institution that does do those things for us and that's the EU given that we are presently still in the EU.

 

Leaving the EU means regaining control of borders, governance and trade.  All else falls into place as a result of those three things.  Those three things were the central tenets of the leave campaign and are what were universally understood as leaving the EU.  It is up to the present government to ensure those three things are achieved.

Rubbish

[GURNER]

But if the country where you want to sell it puts up tariff barriers in order to protect its own industry you won't sell it.  And that's what'll happen in Europe.

just like EU did to protect the steel industry in uk..............not

[Bedford Roughyed]

Because the UK vetoed tarriff increases.

[henage]

But if the country where you want to sell it puts up tariff barriers in order to protect its own industry you won't sell it.  And that's what'll happen in Europe.

What you say is correct at the moment but due to advances in tech/internet etc people in industry that create jobs etc will find away to work around/with these barriers . The people putting in tariffs/barriers to trade dont create much , just work for themselves . I have a feeling the people in UK industry are prepared to put the work in ,roll up there sleeves and get stuck in !

[gingerjon]

Because the UK vetoed tarriff increases.

 

That's not positive.  Like anything grounded in reality, it has no place on this thread.

[Griff9of13]

Very positive from my point of view: At which step do you think that this whole ‘Brexit’ farce will collapse?

[gingerjon]

Very positive from my point of view: At which step do you think that this whole ‘Brexit’ farce will collapse?

 

I've seen that.

 

But we need to remember that Brexit means Brexit.

 

Snigger.

[JohnM]

We sold more goods to the rest of the world last year than we did you the "single market" £151 bn to £134 bn.

According to a YouGov poll 53% of Scots want to stay in the UK despite Brexit

Our economy grew at more than twice that of Europea and the USA in the second quarter of this year.

The IMF independent watchdog has admitted it got the forecast about the possible damage of Brexit wrong because it was too "Pro_Europe"

And the cost of those sales?

And the margins?

[Derwent]

Seems to me there are some people who would love to see this country fail just so they can say "I told you so".