OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

All things Rugby

Whether you can or can't actually vote IRL, In, or Out

In
248
60%
Out
167
40%
 
Total votes: 415

User avatar
theo
Posts: 13023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by theo »

Jake wrote:
theo wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:
theo wrote:DAC - for your interest this is the more up to date ONS numbers on the UK Population. Interesting reading if nothing else. Just realised i posted the older version.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... on/mar2017
Not that it matters. On one page the ONS state it's because of ageing, on another it's because of Net immigration, ah well.
I think sums it up best..
The population pyramid (Figure 2) shows the age and sex of the population. Several events have affected the structure of the population in 2015:

there are a larger number of 68 year olds due to the spike in births after the end of World War 2
the effects of the 1960s' baby boom can be seen in the larger number of people in their mid-40s to mid-50s and the children of the baby boomers can be seen in the higher number of people in their 20s
low fertility in the 1970s and early 2000s can be seen in lower populations of people in their late 30s and early teens
the group aged 20 to 35 in 2015 has increased in size when compared with 2005, when they were aged 10 to 25; such a change can only have been generated by adding to the population through immigration
I wonder why this is the case?
In between the baby boomers and their children having children I expect.

It's pretty stark in the demographics...
Image
bimboman
Posts: 75428
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Tell you what, take the components above and pull them apart, with your predictions and remedies. I am happy to engage in proper debate.

Because whichever way you cut it, we are as a nation a shitload poorer.
Ok, the bulk of your perceived loss of wealth 25% was in FX losses, I will run with your figure although it's very high.

You'd only lose 25% of wealth if all of your wealth was subject to comparison to a secondary currency, now to a degree much of our activity is susceptible to foreign exchange rates, however that activity is mainly spending on food, petrol and energy, and possibly if rich enough holidays. Howmmuchnas a % of your net wealth do people spend on those things ? 40% of our food is imported and we spend 10% of earnings 1% of wealth on food so our spending power is reduced our wealth by a much smaller metric.

Again I'll be massively generous:

25% of 10% of earnings. Or 2.5% of earnings, or 0.25% of wealth.

Petrol , again a big spend 5% of earnings, though the price of fuel is mostly tax and internal costs: but again 30% of fuel is made more expensive by 25%.

Or 30% of 5% of earning 0r 1.5% of spending or 0.15% of wealth.

Holidays 10% of earnings up by 25% som2.5% of earnings or .25% of wealth.

Shall we accept that most people's wealth is in their properties ? In this case the 25% fx loss is a gain in asset prices. Let's not bother working it out but we are less than 1% of wealth and 6% of spending power.

3% inflation is actually 2.7% currently, the BOE mandated target is 2%, we are running .7% hot, now we would have to accept that much of that is food costs (which we have already accounted for).


7% pay rise, now we would one have to accept that 7% pay rises with 2.7% inflation would be normal, we hen have to see what % of our wealth is from earnings ? Let's say 0.7%

1.4%.

So I'd wager (and massively accepting 25% currency loss) that we are 0.25+o.25+o.15+0.07+0.7 or nearly 1% .....

Quite different from 35.
bimboman
Posts: 75428
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Jake wrote:
NickC wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:
I'm not sure what is more worrying ..... DAC thinking that £100 is 35% more than £65 or his belief that Brexit will stop inward migration to the UK, most of which comes from former colonies as opposed to the EU
I was being facetious, however, I am not 35% "poorer in every way" Where did I say Brexit will stop inward migration?
If people in the UK were '25% poorer in every way' the country would be on its knees begging to the IMF.

Nonsense figures.
If we were audited by KMPG tomorrow as a company is, we'd be bust.

The world currency is USD.

I have a house in W12 (OK it's got a mortgage but not a huge one).

I would be daft to value it in £ as any buyer would almost certainly be non British and if I sold it I'd want to take the money overseas.

It was worth, factually, on Jan 15th 2016, $4.4m
It is worth, factually today, $3.6m

Maybe not quite 25% but c. 21%.

Crikey, your house is worth more not less if it's in London and sterling falls. By the way if your really valuing your life in USD I'd advise you buying some currency options.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Jake »

@bimboman

Not quoting your post for clarity.

If I liquidate my assets now, and move to NZ, which is something I'm seriously considering I am 19% worse off than early 2016.

Fact.
bimboman
Posts: 75428
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Jake wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:
Jake wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:In what way does Jake's house price example equate to me being poorer?
I'll you a very simple e.g.

Fuel Price Jan 1 2016, average unleaded; £1.02
Today: £1.20.

Brent Crude, meanwhile, is precisely the same.

That is 18% alone. Combine that with the fact the currency is devalued the difference is huge.
Fuel at my Sainsbury's is 112.9
If there's one word in the English langauge I'd have thought you'd understand fully, it's 'average'.

It's also unlikely that Brent crude was used to make it.
bimboman
Posts: 75428
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Jake wrote:@bimboman

Not quoting your post for clarity.

If I liquidate my assets now, and move to NZ, which is something I'm seriously considering I am 19% worse off than early 2016.

Fact.

Great, so 35 has become 19 if and only if you move to NZ. Have you thought that NZ has done well ?
User avatar
Leinster in London
Posts: 6235
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Leinster in London »

bimboman wrote:
Jake wrote:
NickC wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:
I'm not sure what is more worrying ..... DAC thinking that £100 is 35% more than £65 or his belief that Brexit will stop inward migration to the UK, most of which comes from former colonies as opposed to the EU
I was being facetious, however, I am not 35% "poorer in every way" Where did I say Brexit will stop inward migration?
If people in the UK were '25% poorer in every way' the country would be on its knees begging to the IMF.

Nonsense figures.
If we were audited by KMPG tomorrow as a company is, we'd be bust.

The world currency is USD.

I have a house in W12 (OK it's got a mortgage but not a huge one).

I would be daft to value it in £ as any buyer would almost certainly be non British and if I sold it I'd want to take the money overseas.

It was worth, factually, on Jan 15th 2016, $4.4m
It is worth, factually today, $3.6m

Maybe not quite 25% but c. 21%.

Crikey, your house is worth more not less if it's in London and sterling falls. By the way if your really valuing your life in USD I'd advise you buying some currency options.
no, it was $4.4M and now $3.xM
bimboman
Posts: 75428
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

theo wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:Theo,
The number of people living in the country is projected to rise from 64.6 million in mid-2014 to 74.3 million in 2039. More than two-thirds of the increase will be the result of assumed net migration and the indirect impact of people arriving on the birth rate,
I don't think anyone is denying that the UK population is growing but it is not all down to migration as your quote makes clear. A falling death rate, a growing birth rate and net migration all contribute.

Plus 10m over 25 years is hardly a major stretch.

It's more like 20 years, do you think we have 20% more doctors surgeries for example. 20% more roads ? 20% more school places ?

While I'm a fan you have to accept its pressured public services.
DAC2016
Posts: 3891
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by DAC2016 »

That was an interesting afternoon by bored standards.
User avatar
Rocketz
Posts: 5873
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: United States of Europe

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Rocketz »

What an utter c*nt
Image
User avatar
Pommie_Barsteward77
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Pommie_Barsteward77 »

Rocketz wrote:What an utter c*nt
Image
Takes one to know one.
User avatar
Rocketz
Posts: 5873
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: United States of Europe

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Rocketz »

Pommie_Barsteward77 wrote:
Rocketz wrote:What an utter c*nt
Image
Takes one to know one.
You wordsmith you
bimboman
Posts: 75428
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Rocketz wrote:What an utter c*nt
Image

What on Earth now ? Getting along with the British population rather than being aloof an issue for you ?
Santa
Posts: 11275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Santa »

If the pound goes up tomorrow against the dollar, given the value of my house I wouldn't have to work for the rest of the year!!!!!! 8)
User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 27511
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

bimboman wrote:
Rocketz wrote:What an utter c*nt
Image

What on Earth now ? Getting along with the British population rather than being aloof an issue for you ?
Have you not heard of the boer war?
iarmhiman
Posts: 46736
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by iarmhiman »

Santa wrote:If the pound goes up tomorrow against the dollar, given the value of my house I wouldn't have to work for the rest of the year!!!!!! 8)
Have you it rented out?
User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 27511
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

London_Lurker wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:
Lets be honest. Not that many people really thinks immigration is a big problem for the country as a whole
I firmly believe it's been a massive problem for the NHS and could help see to it's death. Even my ex, who is so Corbynite it hurts, believes the same.
Then why does it function so well where I live (zone 2 South London, very high immigration rates, I've been here my whole life)?

I've never had to wait even a week for GP access, my wife is expecting our first child and its all been fine.

The statistics don't show that cash resources are being showered on my area compared to what we put into the UK's kitty.

I simply don't recognise this problem, I really think that problems elsewhere (like Sunderland as you mentioned) are probably because they can't get the human resources. I've only been to Sunderland once but it felt very old, not somewhere I would want to live if I worked for the NHS. It felt like the sort of place you left at 18 and didn't come back. I'm very happy to be corrected on this because I don't know the city well.
It's a couple of weeks wait for a GP here outside of Cambridge :)

A serious issue for the working class is that their kids haven't been able to access trade apprenticeships due to immigration, as soon as companies realised they could get unlimited ready trained workers they stopped training apprentices. There is a whole generation of building tradesmen missing, and there were a lot of middle aged guys thrown on the scrap heap because they weren't quick enough or willing to work weekends etc.
User avatar
croyals
Posts: 7886
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by croyals »

Rocketz wrote:What an utter c*nt
Image
What a bizarre comment. He's reaching out to minority voters and wearing the appropriate headwear for their temple. I honestly don't get what you're getting at.
Santa
Posts: 11275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Santa »

Mahoney wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:I don't know what we have or haven't costed.
David Davis told us we haven't: Brexit: David Davis admits Government has done no economic assessment of the UK crashing out of EU without deal
A5D5E5 wrote:If we don't know our [insert jargon phrase of choice] then we are fucked anyway.
We know what it is - Article 50 spells it out, it's all the treaties ceasing to apply instantly in 23 months time. Apparently we haven't worked out what that would cost us so we don't know what deal we would consider better or worse than that. They have worked out what it will cost them so they do know what deal they would consider better or worse than that.
A5D5E5 wrote:If they know our [jargon] is crap then we are fucked anyway.
They do.
A5D5E5 wrote:We have to pretend that we have one as there is only potential upside from pretending that we do.
As far as I can see that amounts to pretending to wear clothes when standing stark naked in front of people in the hope you can persuade them to think their eyes aren't working, and despite them already knowing that's your plan. I suppose that is potential upside, but the potential strikes me as small.

I strongly suspect that these negotiations are going to consist of the EU presenting a deal which they have already worked out is better for us than no deal, patiently explaining that fact to us, and that they are happy to walk away with no deal if we really don't want it, and our government repeatedly banging into this reality, occasionally trying the "we'll walk away, we really mean it!" gambit and getting a reply of OK, we can cope with that, off you go, before eventually accepting what they are given with some twiddles around the edge to salve egos. At which point having a large majority so you can force the unpleasant medicine through parliament, and 3 years left before you have to answer to the people for it, might be quite nice. Someone expecting things to go like this might almost be best advised to have an election now.

('m reminded of the early days of US independence when they had a huge and prolonged recession as a result of losing the favourable trading terms they had as part of the Empire - it was 35 years before per capita income levels recovered to 1770 levels, and 60 years before they overtook them. Afterwards of course they went great guns; but the people who chose to leave, i.e. you and me, were long dead by then, as were most of their children. Nice for our grandchildren, perhaps. If we lived on a gigantic resource rich continent populated by people vastly technologically behind us we could steal it from.)
To modelling.

And the most foundational and immutable assumption to make here is the the UK is leaving the EU.

Given that, they did not need to model the impact of the WTO rules to determine that that was likely to be with worst possible outcome because it just is the worst possible outcome by default* unless they agree to some arrangement on worse than WTO rules. They could therefore declare it as the 'no deal' position because it was stating the obvious.

I would expect them to do some modelling to understand the potential impact of different arrangements of tariffs and I would expect them to model the impact of the WTO scenario at some point but it doesn't have to be in place right now.

* Assumption: is there a worse possible outcome? If so, what would that be?
User avatar
HurricaneWasp
Posts: 3264
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:19 pm
Location: A Dreaming Spire

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by HurricaneWasp »

croyals wrote:
Rocketz wrote:What an utter c*nt
Image
What a bizarre comment. He's reaching out to minority voters and wearing the appropriate headwear for their temple. I honestly don't get what you're getting at.
Can't dislike the Sikhs :thumbup:
Santa
Posts: 11275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Santa »

Santa wrote:
Mahoney wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:I don't know what we have or haven't costed.
David Davis told us we haven't: Brexit: David Davis admits Government has done no economic assessment of the UK crashing out of EU without deal
A5D5E5 wrote:If we don't know our [insert jargon phrase of choice] then we are fucked anyway.
We know what it is - Article 50 spells it out, it's all the treaties ceasing to apply instantly in 23 months time. Apparently we haven't worked out what that would cost us so we don't know what deal we would consider better or worse than that. They have worked out what it will cost them so they do know what deal they would consider better or worse than that.
A5D5E5 wrote:If they know our [jargon] is crap then we are fucked anyway.
They do.
A5D5E5 wrote:We have to pretend that we have one as there is only potential upside from pretending that we do.
As far as I can see that amounts to pretending to wear clothes when standing stark naked in front of people in the hope you can persuade them to think their eyes aren't working, and despite them already knowing that's your plan. I suppose that is potential upside, but the potential strikes me as small.

I strongly suspect that these negotiations are going to consist of the EU presenting a deal which they have already worked out is better for us than no deal, patiently explaining that fact to us, and that they are happy to walk away with no deal if we really don't want it, and our government repeatedly banging into this reality, occasionally trying the "we'll walk away, we really mean it!" gambit and getting a reply of OK, we can cope with that, off you go, before eventually accepting what they are given with some twiddles around the edge to salve egos. At which point having a large majority so you can force the unpleasant medicine through parliament, and 3 years left before you have to answer to the people for it, might be quite nice. Someone expecting things to go like this might almost be best advised to have an election now.

('m reminded of the early days of US independence when they had a huge and prolonged recession as a result of losing the favourable trading terms they had as part of the Empire - it was 35 years before per capita income levels recovered to 1770 levels, and 60 years before they overtook them. Afterwards of course they went great guns; but the people who chose to leave, i.e. you and me, were long dead by then, as were most of their children. Nice for our grandchildren, perhaps. If we lived on a gigantic resource rich continent populated by people vastly technologically behind us we could steal it from.)
To modelling.

And the most foundational and immutable assumption to make here is the the UK is leaving the EU.

Given that, they did not need to model the impact of the WTO rules to determine that that was likely to be with worst possible outcome because it just is the worst possible outcome by default* unless they agree to some arrangement on worse than WTO rules. They could therefore declare it as the 'no deal' position because it was stating the obvious.

I would expect them to do some modelling to understand the potential impact of different arrangements of tariffs and I would expect them to model the impact of the WTO scenario at some point but it doesn't have to be in place right now.

* Assumption: is there a worse possible outcome? If so, what would that be?
Just to give a little more flavour to this, as AB12345 says the threat to walk away is Negotiation 101. The walk away option - the no deal option - is therefore whatever would be the default position. That is quite clearly WTO rules. They didn't have to model the potential impact to know that.
bimboman
Posts: 75428
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Assumption: is there a worse possible outcome? If so, what would that be?
No MRAs and a direct attack on the city could make it very sticky.
User avatar
merry!
Posts: 7632
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: emmerdale

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by merry! »

Last Line wrote:http://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage- ... s-10881232

Nice video at the top - Nigel calls Juncker a cunt in all but name.
:thumbup:
User avatar
paneer
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by paneer »

Whos still thinking the EU are all over this? :lol:
Santa
Posts: 11275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Santa »

bimboman wrote:
Assumption: is there a worse possible outcome? If so, what would that be?
No MRAs and a direct attack on the city could make it very sticky.
That probably goes to the extent of what should be modelled, which is a slightly different issue. Should strategy or behaviour be included or should it just be the direct impact assuming everything else stays the same? The more subjectivity and scenario that is included the more uncertain the model becomes.
C69
Posts: 42428
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by C69 »

HurricaneWasp wrote:
croyals wrote:
Rocketz wrote:What an utter c*nt
Image
What a bizarre comment. He's reaching out to minority voters and wearing the appropriate headwear for their temple. I honestly don't get what you're getting at.
Can't dislike the Sikhs :thumbup:
Indeed a great bunch of lads as the Irish might say :thumbup:
Got to know a few in Coventry when I was up there for a few days and they were truly remarkable people, they love their Whisky.
Bloody hell do they love their whisky :lol: Howver Boris was an utter twat for mentioning it in a temple.
User avatar
paneer
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by paneer »

c69 wrote:
HurricaneWasp wrote:
croyals wrote:
Rocketz wrote:What an utter c*nt
Image
What a bizarre comment. He's reaching out to minority voters and wearing the appropriate headwear for their temple. I honestly don't get what you're getting at.
Can't dislike the Sikhs :thumbup:
Indeed a great bunch of lads as the Irish might say :thumbup:
Got to know a few in Coventry when I was up there for a few days and they were truly remarkable people, they love their Whisky.
Bloody hell do they love their whisky :lol: Howver Boris was an utter twat for mentioning it in a temple.
They are hardly sikhs
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

bimboman wrote:
Jake wrote:@bimboman

Not quoting your post for clarity.

If I liquidate my assets now, and move to NZ, which is something I'm seriously considering I am 19% worse off than early 2016.

Fact.

Great, so 35 has become 19 if and only if you move to NZ. Have you thought that NZ has done well ?
It's not the stupid that are the problem.

It's those who know enough about a subject to be dangerous. The arrogance to assume because they have a degree in marketing (or whatever) and conceptualise a subject they are informed. Missing one factor or perspective can change the while picture. The false truths this class of people generate and become socially accepted do the real damage.

At least the stupid form opinions on what they see and feel. They know what's changed in their lives.
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11472
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by A5D5E5 »

Has anyone seen Jake and Globus in the same room at the same time?
bimboman
Posts: 75428
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Santa wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Assumption: is there a worse possible outcome? If so, what would that be?
No MRAs and a direct attack on the city could make it very sticky.
That probably goes to the extent of what should be modelled, which is a slightly different issue. Should strategy or behaviour be included or should it just be the direct impact assuming everything else stays the same? The more subjectivity and scenario that is included the more uncertain the model becomes.

Al bollocks, MRA's are needed for custom clearance , especially the Felixstowe/Rotterdam trade. The city is well quite important .
Santa
Posts: 11275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Santa »

bimboman wrote:
Santa wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Assumption: is there a worse possible outcome? If so, what would that be?
No MRAs and a direct attack on the city could make it very sticky.
That probably goes to the extent of what should be modelled, which is a slightly different issue. Should strategy or behaviour be included or should it just be the direct impact assuming everything else stays the same? The more subjectivity and scenario that is included the more uncertain the model becomes.

Al bollocks, MRA's are needed for custom clearance , especially the Felixstowe/Rotterdam trade. The city is well quite important .
I'm not saying they're not important. My initial point was that you didn't need to model WTO tariffs to know that it was at least close to the default no deal position.

In terms of what to include in the actual models, well I assume they would run a bunch of scenarios to test the relative importance of different things.
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 44320
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by camroc1 »

But, but, but, I thought that no deal was better than a bad deal ?
bimboman
Posts: 75428
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

camroc1 wrote:But, but, but, I thought that no deal was better than a bad deal ?

WTO with MRAs and no divorce payment is better than lots of "deals".
User avatar
paneer
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by paneer »

i'm all for a major falling out with the EU
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 44320
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by camroc1 »

bimboman wrote:
camroc1 wrote:But, but, but, I thought that no deal was better than a bad deal ?

WTO with MRAs and no divorce payment is better than lots of "deals".
How do you know if you haven't modelled 'no deal' ?
User avatar
paneer
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by paneer »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... price.html

more threats from Merkel. She is threatening the lives of the people in the UK. Economic warfare is warfare, all options should be on the table to respond.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

camroc1 wrote:But, but, but, I thought that no deal was better than a bad deal ?
EFTA is shitting itself and is encouraging us to join. A useful barometer to the side of the EU brave front.
Santa
Posts: 11275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Santa »

bimboman wrote:
camroc1 wrote:But, but, but, I thought that no deal was better than a bad deal ?

WTO with MRAs and no divorce payment is better than lots of "deals".
What he cannot understand, despite it being so obvious, is that no deal/WTO = walk away position if the EU are being pillocks.
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 44320
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by camroc1 »

Santa wrote:
bimboman wrote:
camroc1 wrote:But, but, but, I thought that no deal was better than a bad deal ?

WTO with MRAs and no divorce payment is better than lots of "deals".
What he cannot understand, despite it being so obvious, is that no deal/WTO = walk away position if the EU are being pillocks.
It's the default position that happens in 22 months or so, unless the UK and EU agree a FT deal.
Santa
Posts: 11275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Santa »

camroc1 wrote:
Santa wrote:
bimboman wrote:
camroc1 wrote:But, but, but, I thought that no deal was better than a bad deal ?

WTO with MRAs and no divorce payment is better than lots of "deals".
What he cannot understand, despite it being so obvious, is that no deal/WTO = walk away position if the EU are being pillocks.
It's the default position that happens in 22 months or so, unless the UK and EU agree a FT deal.
OK. You're like one of those dolls with a cord in it's back that rotates through 5 different things to say.
Locked