Brexit and Future of UK : Discussions
- Thread starter Vergennes
- Start date
A second Brexit vote is unlikely, but a Scottish referendum is possible. So is an Irish referendum.
Lol.. There is no human right law against seizing land without compensation by a government. Lots of governments have confiscated land without compansation. Can you give me a source for that so called law?
Zimbabwe had a great harvest in the last few years. The problem is many of the new farmers prefer non edible agricultural products like Tobacco (60% of agricultural output) Cotton (10% agricultural output ) etc. That along with high inflation caused increase in food price.
I don't understand what they hope to achieve with a second referendum. Article 50 has already been triggered. It cannot be untriggered. All it would achieve is paralyze the country during the time the referendum is organized while the clock is ticking. They should focus on building consensus for a consistent negotiating position, instead of having the hard and soft Brexiters fighting among themselves and resulting in no-deal becoming the most probable outcome.
I think we can do a mutually beneficial trade deal. We have similar living standards and income, so why not?
And all the ones that have done it did it illegally, hence why Zimbabwe got sanctions.
So bad land management and governance.
They should just have a no deal Brexit and go from there. A deal really isn't as important as people are making out.
This is what I really don't understand, it makes no sense whatsoever. 40% of UK exports go to the EU, but 63% of Scottish exports go to the UK and only 16% go to the EU. The UK gives the EU 0.7% of GDP per year. The UK gives Scotland an amount equal to 9-10% of their GDP per year. Scotland only pays a per population share of UK debt, rather than what they actually accrued. Scotland can borrow money at UK rates. If you start from the premise that the UK leaving the EU is a bad idea, then Scotland leaving the UK is a positively demented idea.
Alex Salmond little blue book, which outlined the economy of an independent Scotland was full of garbage figures but even it was based on a $113/bbl oil price, which has barely been a reality for a cumulative 12 months in the whole of history (adjusted for inflation).
Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart
Hard Brexiteers want a no-deal. Soft Brexiteers are in la la land, thinking everything will go back to normal with the Chequers deal. Then there are some clowns who want free movement of goods, but no free movement of people.
I'm putting my money on a Canada style FTA.
Almost correct. Genuine Brexiteers at this stage want a no deal. Remainers are in la la land and want to try obstruct everything at every stage in the proceedings in the hope they can undo Brexit. Career politicians are backing the Chequers deal to pacify existing export businesses and the all the aforementioned.
An FTA would be pointless. The EU has that main non-tariff barriers that there would be nothing 'free' about a free trade deal. In fact the sheer volume of their NTBs highlights what a protectionist entity they really are.
There are a lot of clowns in Europe who want that, a majority in fact, which is why the EU is so utterly opposed to giving it. The EU is about using free movement of goods and services to force upon nations a whole load of dictatorial crap they don't want. This is their raison d'etre remember. It simply wouldn't do to give the majority what they want, that would be too much like democracy.
But it isn't really the free movement of people per se that is the problem. Nobody actually minds people crossing a border to go to work, or go on holiday. It's the freedom of residence that's the problem. Freedom of residence costs the host nation money in lots of ways:
Need to expand public services;
Need to expand infrastructure;
Need to pay benefits;
Need to subsidise foreign students;
Need to keep foreign criminals in prison (plus cost/effect of the crime itself);
Other socio-economic effects like undercutting the minimum wage, lowering of wages, slave labour putting genuine businesses under etc.;
Oh yeah, did I mention the re-distribution of terrorists... I mean asylum seekers?
The you have the non-reciprocal nature of the above. A Polish person in the UK enjoys far more benefits than a British person in Poland. The net flow of migration between the two is also a long way from zero. A Polish person can work in the UK while their child stays in Poland. The UK still has to pay child benefits at UK living cost levels. A country like Poland gets money from the UK via the EU and via remittances, whilst the UK pays for the cost of keeping their citizens, students and criminals. It's like a babysitter paying the parents of the child they're babysitting. And whilst I've singled out Poland, you could insert Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia and a whole host of others in the above description and it still holds.
Then we move on the the socialisation within the EU. If free movement of goods (and people?) is supposed to be beneficial all round, why the hell does Britain have to pay £11bn/year net, whereas Poland receives about that amount each year? Why do some nations pay more? How is that fair?
Why can't countries make their own bilateral trade deals with non-EU members where they want?
Why do businesses not exporting to the EU still get lumbered with the cost of EU regulations?
Why not lets just have free movement of goods and services and free movement of people for tourism and going to work, without the freedom of residence and all the other crap that nobody really wants?
I mean seriously, the EU forces people to pay for stuff they don't want, which also costs them even more in turn and then wonders why they make people's blood boil. It's really not the UK being unreasonable here.
The EU is big on the freedom of things that are not free but expects others to pick up the bill and pay them a tribute on top of that.
Last edited:
Almost correct. Genuine Brexiteers at this stage want a no deal. Remainers are in la la land and want to try obstruct everything at every stage in the proceedings in the hope they can undo Brexit. Career politicians are backing the Chequers deal to pacify existing export businesses and the all the aforementioned.
An FTA would be pointless. The EU has that main non-tariff barriers that there would be nothing 'free' about a free trade deal. In fact the sheer volume of their NTBs highlights what a protectionist entity they really are.
There are a lot of clowns in Europe who want that, a majority in fact, which is why the EU is so utterly opposed to giving it. The EU is about using free movement of goods and services to force upon nations a whole load of dictatorial crap they don't want. This is their raison d'etre remember. It simply wouldn't do to give the majority what they want, that would be too much like democracy.
But it isn't really the free movement of people per se that is the problem. Nobody actually minds people crossing a border to go to work, or go on holiday. It's the freedom of residence that's the problem. Freedom of residence costs the host nation money in lots of ways:
Need to expand public services;
Need to expand infrastructure;
Need to pay benefits;
Need to subsidise foreign students;
Need to keep foreign criminals in prison (plus cost/effect of the crime itself);
Other socio-economic effects like undercutting the minimum wage, lowering of wages, slave labour putting genuine businesses under etc.;
Oh yeah, did I mention the re-distribution of terrorists... I mean asylum seekers?
The you have the non-reciprocal nature of the above. A Polish person in the UK enjoys far more benefits than a British person in Poland. The net flow of migration between the two is also a long way from zero. A Polish person can work in the UK while their child stays in Poland. The UK still has to pay child benefits at UK living cost levels. A country like Poland gets money from the UK via the EU and via remittances, whilst the UK pays for the cost of keeping their citizens, students and criminals. It's like a babysitter paying the parents of the child they're babysitting. And whilst I've singled out Poland, you could insert Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia and a whole host of others in the above description and it still holds.
Then we move on the the socialisation within the EU. If free movement of goods (and people?) is supposed to be beneficial all round, why the hell does Britain have to pay £11bn/year net, whereas Poland receives about that amount each year? Why do some nations pay more? How is that fair?
Why can't countries make their own bilateral trade deals with non-EU members where they want?
Why do businesses not exporting to the EU still get lumbered with the cost of EU regulations?
Why not lets just have free movement of goods and services and free movement of people for tourism and going to work, without the freedom of residence and all the other crap that nobody really wants?
I mean seriously, the EU forces people to pay for stuff they don't want, which also costs them even more in turn and then wonders why they make people's blood boil. It's really not the UK being unreasonable here.
The EU is big on the freedom of things that are not free but expects others to pick up the bill and pay them a tribute on top of that.
With free movement of people, richer countries get access to the markets of the poor countries, and poor countries get to work in the rich countries. It's quid pro quo.
Market is a tool to trade between multiple producers, not between poor and producers. Poor people take charity while people with resource exchange their goods for some other goods in a market. No one needs market of people who can't pay from their own pockets.
The poor people work in rich countries, take the rich countries' money and then give it back to rich countries in return for the resources of the rich countries. At the end of the day, the poor countries exchange their labour for goods from rich countries. This is useful only if the quality of labour is high enough to warrant the outsiders to work. If the rich country has lot of unemployed or underemployed, there is no reason to allow others except in political or security related deals.
How? The markets of the poor countries are worth next to nothing, and even less when all its citizens are fleeing to live in richer countries. And working their markets is only something that even applies to multinational companies not anybody else. That's not quid pro quo, that's a few extra quid for multinationals whilst everyone else gets robbed blind.
You have your land back. The Falklands was never Argentina's in the first place, the British discovered and set foot on it first. Argentinians only found out it was there because the Spanish Empire put some of them on it.
What land do we still have that belongs to India?
The official reasoning for Zimbabwe sanctions is human right violation and anti-democratic practice, not land seizure. Again, there is no international law preventing land seizing by a sovereign government. It is completely governed by that bnation's internal laws.
Government cannot dictate farmers about which crop they should farm. Bad governance, yes. Revolutionaries are good at war, but sucks at ruling. Mugabe is a successful military leader but a terrible ruler just like Mao.
No India is not. The only territory that India claim and not in Indian control is parts of former princely state of Jammu & Kashmir.
UN court is hearing a case about the UK's ethnic cleansing of Chagossians and legal status of Island.
UK used secret threats to keep Chagos Islands, court hears
I claim both maldives and diego garcia as Indian extension of Lakshadweep. But, Diego Garcia can't be claimed without claiming Maldives. So, as of now, India will not make noise