keano77

"Except the EU won't negotiate this until the divorce bill is agreed ..." True. But as I've said before, any agreement on the divorce bill ought to be conditional. Not one cent to the EU until a trade deal acceptable to the UK Parliament is agreed.

Agree it's as clear as mud Loz. I see Farage tweeted Newsnight tonight to say it's a betrayal of Brexit. Hopefully it will become clearer in the next few days when people analyse this 'discussion document'. I suspect the proposal means to address the following: 1. As the UK already complies with EU customs union requirements it would be bloody minded of the EU to cause huge customs clearance disruption immediately post-Brexit. All our manufacturing and production processes meet EU requirements. This will not change overnight. 2. It strives to avoid a cliff edge for business. 3. Goes some way to assure the Republic of Ireland about border and trade fears 4. Seeks a temporary seemless non-tariff trading arrangement while allowing the UK to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world. What the EU will make of it remains to be seen. A version of this exists with the EU and Turkey so it's not unprecedented.

How many quotes have you had? Not an expert but can't see why a bit of render will destroy bricks. I suspect the company doesn't want to chip it off properly.

I'm waiting for the call from our negotiating team red devil. You'll understand I can't say too much at the moment because of EU spies.

There's lots to think through red devil which raises bigger questions than Brexit, such as the effectiveness of Western Capitalism itself with the rise of China as an industrial giant. That's a separate thread in itself.

It's too early to say whether young people have had their future stolen from them. We all need to wait and see what deal we agree with the EU, or none at all. The second stage is once a deal is agreed, or not, this country needs to put in place structures to attract businesses to our shores and enable people to go out and thrive. Logically this means low taxes so workers can spend more to benefit the economy. There are big implications here for state spending of course.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The apparent post-Thatcher prosperity didn't last > long, did it? Lawson's North Sea oil fuelled > giveaway budgets of tax cuts and interest rate > suppression created an illusion of prosperity > which came crashing down in the 1991 recession. > The economy of the 90s recovered off the back of > worldwide and particularly US prosperity, fuelled > in large part by the dotcom bubble, which again > crashed into recession in the second half of the > decade. Thatcher's deregulation of the financial > industry was directly responsible for the credit > crunch recession in the 00s. Not exactly a record > of unalloyed, or indeed undeniable, prosperity. Which I suppose substantiates my point above to Alan Medic's link. The oldies have seen all these prophesies of 'economic disaster' before, have taken a hit, got on with it and bounced back. One more little hiccough like Brexit is just something to take it your stride.

All good points JoeLeg. The last thing young people want to hear is some monty python-esque we lived in a cardboard box description of the bad old days.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > > > Many of you will remember a certain Maggie > > Thatcher who, inspired by ideas on monetarism, > > market forces and a smaller state, closed and > let > > many important industries die natural deaths in > > the 70s/80s. Regardless of your views on old > 'milk > > snatcher' it is undeniable that the country was > > better off in subsequent years and there is an > > element of 'get on your bike' to find the > > opportunities available post-Brexit. > > OK I'll bite: under Thatcher unemployment rose to > record levels, manufacturing declined from over > 20% of GDP to below 10%, public spending was cut > by 15%, the pay gap between men and women > increased, interest rates rose to a record 17% and > there were a record number of home repossessions, > industrial action levels were higher in the early > 80s than in the winter of discontent, and the > number of people living in poverty as measured by > the Institute for Fiscal Studies (below 60% of > median income) rose from 13.4% to 22.2% on her > watch. So I think we have a different definition > of the word "undeniable." I agree with all that rendel. I said in subsequent years. Most economists agree that the clear out and relaxing of restrictions on businesses (and crushing of union power) paved the way for the economic boom of the 90s and beyond. (That's of course if we believe so called experts any more).

Steady on red devil. When I first came to London I rented dodgy bedsits which cost a fortune relatively. Two gas rings. Shared loo down the landing. Racing to get the Evening News and Standard at 5pm to flick through the jobs section then down to smelly phone kiosks with a fist full of coins to try and arrange interviews. No discounted bus and tube travel in those days. Now my son, like most students, is at university in self-contained student accommodation with en-suite, an iPhone in his pocket, travel pass and an allowance - all paid for by parents. When I see bleeding heart millennials on telly saying their lives are ruined when they haven't even started it makes me laugh. The baby boomers you so snobbily dismiss have dressed our snowflakes in designer clothes, paid for extra-curricular activities, school trips, treated them to foreign holidays, bought them the latest technical gizmos, funded their proms as they 'graduate' from secondary education, the 'gap yar', and college rent and living expenses. And if there's any money left from what the baby boomers scrimped and saved after Old age care fees the millennials will inherit that and probably squander it on fast cars or exotic holidays. Yes University fees are a big worry but blame Clegg and Vince Cable for that. If people were silly enough to vote for the Lib Dems don't come crying to me. So get a grip red devil 😀

Yes Alan, I've read it thanks. I suppose it depends on what is meant by damage. It strikes me that the older people mentioned in the statistics are more optimistic, not fearing short term unemployment for family members on the basis things will be better in the long term. They've known the ups and downs of economic cycles in ways the younger workers have not experienced and survived to tell the tale. Many of you will remember a certain Maggie Thatcher who, inspired by ideas on monetarism, market forces and a smaller state, closed and let many important industries die natural deaths in the 70s/80s. Regardless of your views on old 'milk snatcher' it is undeniable that the country was better off in subsequent years and there is an element of 'get on your bike' to find the opportunities available post-Brexit. Having said that, I suspect the period of Thatcherism unleashed forces that have festered (communities decimated etc for the grater good) that played a large part in the vote to leave.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem May has is that there's enough votes > in both the hardcore Leave and Remain factions in > the Commons to scupper the plans if they move too > far in either direction, so everything has got try > and appeal to both sides. > > Unless a lot of compromise is reached and both > sides are willing to find a way through then it's > going to be very difficult. I agree. Both Brexiters and Remainers want what's best for the country. It seems very simple to me - money is the crux of the matter. Britain leaves, who'll cover the shortfall? France? Good luck with that. Germany? Sorry, we're propping up this whole shaky edifice. Why do you think money (divorce settlement) is so important to the EU at this early stage of the negotiations? Simple, Britain will pay it's debts. Britain will also pay a bit more but you will not see 1 cent until we get a trade deal with you that is satisfactory for our parliament to vote for. What's problematic with that? (Edited to add: has Vince Cable lost it?)

heath81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > more often than not this is the outcome of many > political or religious debates, people pushing > their own views down the throats of others!! I think you are absolutely correct heath81. I was disappointed with Alan Medic's post earlier. He posted a NY Times link. I thought I'll click on this (unusual for me), it might be an objective view from across the pond, or at least a different perspective. Sadly, it's written by our own Jenny Russell, from the (London) Times, that well known remainer. So, nothing new in the article and remainer Alan posts a link that agrees with his views. Nothing new here folks, move along. Loz, "The country is sick of low living standards, and polls show that people are fed up with austerity cuts to public spending. Voters wanted and expected Brexit to make them richer." Correct. Cannot disagree with this part. As for your second paragraph yes, it might takes years to improve the lot of the less fortunate. What's wrong with that. JoeLeg, it would be nice to bring a different perspective to many of the ideas expressed on this thread but it appears I'm verging on trolling (ie, disagreeing with the majority) so I'm going to adopt a lower profile and let the sewing circle reassure themselves. 🙂

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > > > > > Our dry civil servants asked the EU team the > > question - can Hansel just get off the Eurostar > > and demand the right to enter Britain because > his > > parents worked here once as EU Citizens? > > > > No matter how much thumbing through those > pristine > > files you saw in the photograph the EU team > > couldn't answer that question and will have to > > liaise internally to formulate a response. > > Are you serious? Would you like to say what your > source is for this? > > I suppose it hasn't occurred to you the only > people who could answer that question are the UK > authorities, as they will be making the rules up. Sorry Alan, I've searched high and low for the original source of our negotiation team's question (without my embellishments) but I can't find it. I think it's behind a paywall. So I can't substantiate that point

Oh yes, thanks for reminding me red devil. I started looking for the source earlier but as you can see I've got a bit carried away on this thread today. I thought it was written by a Sky News correspondent but can't seem to go back to around 17th/18th July on that site. Alternatively I might have read it on the Telegraph before it went behind its Premium firewall. I'll keep searching and get back to Alan.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If there's a video of Stephen Hawking on YouTube > lecturing on black holes, then it's an > authoritative source. You're clearly enjoying > yourself but no need to troll absolutely every > comment. Actually Rendel do you regard this as trolling? I thought I was just in a minority here as a brexiteer

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If there's a video of Stephen Hawking on YouTube > lecturing on black holes, then it's an > authoritative source. You're clearly enjoying > yourself but no need to troll absolutely every > comment. The authoritative source would be Stephen Hawking

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > malumbu Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > We will be able to go to the butchers counter > > and > > > ask for chlorine washed chicken though... > But > > > perhaps not red smarties. > > > > > > Make a change from Salmonella and campylobacter > > and will save the NHS a fortune treating > > I don't think you know what you're talking about > here. The EU is not anti chlorinated chicken in itself (it recognises it's safe). It worries it is a quick fix for failings elsewhere in the chain and this is why it's banned. Whether it tastes different or not I don't know (I've probably eaten it in the US). I can't imagine it's like swallowing water in a swimming pool.

You're not seriously citing YouTube as an authoritative source? This sewing circle is getting worse

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We will be able to go to the butchers counter and > ask for chlorine washed chicken though... But > perhaps not red smarties. Make a change from Salmonella and campylobacter and will save the NHS a fortune treating tummy bugs

Precisely. Can you imagine a situation where you were told you can only buy your cakes from particular cakeshops? Perish the thought

That's what you do with cake red devil, you eat it

There are a lot of positive things about the EU that I agree with blah blah, that's why I would be happy to cherry pick

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And according to the latest polls is now more than > half. > > "When the facts change I change my mind. What do > you do, sir?" J.M.Keynes And the moon is made of green cheese Rendel

It's called tough love and is character building (and was less than half)