When is remoaning not remoaning?!

[Oldjohnw]

Back to Nissan and leaving the EU. It wasn't, by the way, remainders who started and then went on about Nissan leaving the UK in the event of brexit.

It was the head of Nissan.

[Ben@Forest]

Back to Nissan and leaving the EU. It wasn't, by the way, remainders who started and then went on about Nissan leaving the UK in the event of brexit.

It was the head of Nissan.

I have no idea of the history of comments made by the any Nissan executive (whether based here or in Japan) relating to Brexit but why wouldn't they comment on it? Especially since they're bound to have had persistent questions from the media about it. What else can they do?

They did close their Barcelona assembly plant and two other Spanish parts-making facilities last year. It meant the loss of 3,200 direct and 20,000 indirect jobs. I have no doubt the Spanish media will have questioned Nissan long and hard about that too - and they will have had to answer those enquiries.

[Tangled Metal]

It seems to me that the whole Brexit situation has become about point scoring from either side and not about what could be done to make it work better. I'm not meaning on forums I mean in the wider community and especially political parties. Strange idea but perhaps it's better to foster a positive outlook and look to making the future better. Or we can circle the trucks and fight the same battles over and over again. Which is the better way?

I don't believe that the way it's operating at the moment has anything to do with how people see it.
What you're seeing here is people trying to justify the way they voted, it has no effect on the wider operation of brexit - that's down to our politicians implementing our wishes in ways that suit them.

A positive outlook requires things to be positive about and at the moment it's all bad news.
People being clobbered with VAT and import duties. Erosion of food, work and environmental standards. Folk who have trouble spending the winter overseas. Over 90% of our EU based financial trading (and the tax receipt implications) moved abroad - it's a fairly endless list.

So all that's really required to foster this warm fuzzy feeling is for brexitears to tell us what's good - and for me personally knowing someone has a decent fishmonger or that another person didn't like the idea of living under "the boot" of the EU aren't good reasons.

How it's operating now has more to do with entrenched positions and both negotiating teams trying to win. What if both sides could have accepted the vote and worked out the best option for both sides. I don't believe that's happened. Point scoring and red lines on all sides. Very little cooperation.

Then there's the endless online discussions of which this corner if cuk seems to enjoy. Endless point making / scoring. Endless repetitions of the same discussions with slight variations in the way they're put. Renowned! supporter of brexit! All monikers aimed at the other side like a weapon in name form. You're having a dig and defining your membership of a certain side in the debate. No positivity anywhere.

I firmly believe that both consequences of the 2016 plebiscite could have been turned into something positive. Perhaps with time there will be a positive outcome. There's certainly respected economic bodies that have published their views on the British economy in a longer timescale than one, two or more parliamentary cycles. A few predict the UK economy will recover and surpass our European economic match that is France. One I've seen has UK brexit economy GDP growth is such that it overhauls France by a significant margin. Indeed a few place membership of the EU as a kind of limiting factor in some economies within it IIRC.

Whatever the case where we're at now isn't where we'll get to. Import and export issues are issues for both sides. I know this because the company I work with exports about 75% or more of its output. Another company on our estate is possibly more export orientated. Many are also importers of EU goods and from further afield too. There's too much at stake for all sides to have this mess for long. I reckon it won't be that long before the EU with the help of the UK government comes up with one of its fudges. Greece into the eurozone, indeed I believe even Germany didn't meet all the criteria to join the eurozone perhaps even now. They're good at finding a fudged solution to issues at least partly of their making.

[kwackers]

How it's operating now has more to do with entrenched positions and both negotiating teams trying to win. What if both sides could have accepted the vote and worked out the best option for both sides. I don't believe that's happened. Point scoring and red lines on all sides. Very little cooperation.

Could both sides have done better, undoubtedly.
But whatever you think the EU has a fairly rigid set of rules regarding competition and we simply didn't want to play by them.
It seems that all the "they need us more than we need them" nonsense was so pervasive even our own government believed it.
It's that simple.

I think things will get better, but I don't think the world works in a way that makes trying to make it on your own any more a good thing.
We did better in the EU back in the day when it potentially could, why we should do better in an era when it doesn't is a bit of a mystery to me.

In the meantime I notice the governments own figures have just put the cost of trade with the EU at £7.5 billion.
So much for the extra cash for the NHS. Perhaps we should take money from the NHS to make up the shortfall. Rough with the smooth and all that...

[francovendee]

How it's operating now has more to do with entrenched positions and both negotiating teams trying to win. What if both sides could have accepted the vote and worked out the best option for both sides. I don't believe that's happened. Point scoring and red lines on all sides. Very little cooperation.

Could both sides have done better, undoubtedly.
But whatever you think the EU has a fairly rigid set of rules regarding competition and we simply didn't want to play by them.
It seems that all the "they need us more than we need them" nonsense was so pervasive even our own government believed it.
It's that simple.

I think things will get better, but I don't think the world works in a way that makes trying to make it on your own any more a good thing.
We did better in the EU back in the day when it potentially could, why we should do better in an era when it doesn't is a bit of a mystery to me.

In the meantime I notice the governments own figures have just put the cost of trade with the EU at £7.5 billion.
So much for the extra cash for the NHS. Perhaps we should take money from the NHS to make up the shortfall. Rough with the smooth and all that...

I know the argument to leave wasn't just about trade, if it was then what more did the UK want?
The figure varies but the UK has been placed as the sixth richest and this was whilst working within the 'confines' of the EU.
I'm not going to re-run the Brexit thread but there was more to it than borders and making our own rules.

[Oldjohnw]

He has some odd ideas when he says he will pay into the EU tax system, which doesn't exist. He said he thought he would get a bigger market. He already had the world's biggest market on the doorstep.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dApp_Other

[Ben@Forest]

I know the argument to leave wasn't just about trade, if it was then what more did the UK want?
The figure varies but the UK has been placed as the sixth richest and this was whilst working within the 'confines' of the EU.
I'm not going to re-run the Brexit thread but there was more to it than borders and making our own rules.

Sixth richest by what measure? Per capita l don't think the UK was the sixth richest in the EU - Luxembourg was and is the richest and it still is not a net contributor to the EU - because of the amount of EU funding it gets to host EU bodies there. And of course its a global tax haven - though I'm sure that comment will open doors to comments on UK tax chicanery....

[kwackers]

I know the argument to leave wasn't just about trade, if it was then what more did the UK want?
The figure varies but the UK has been placed as the sixth richest and this was whilst working within the 'confines' of the EU.
I'm not going to re-run the Brexit thread but there was more to it than borders and making our own rules.

Sixth richest by what measure? Per capita l don't think the UK was the sixth richest in the EU - Luxembourg was and is the richest and it still is not a net contributor to the EU - because of the amount of EU funding it gets to host EU bodies there. And of course its a global tax haven - though I'm sure that comment will open doors to comments on UK tax chicanery....

I think if you measure it properly rather than in $$$'s then the UK is way down the list.
It's a while since I looked but I think we were in the 30's somewhere.

[Oldjohnw]

Dollars or pounds, if per capita as opposed to GDP, we are #25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

#9 by GDP

[merseymouth]

Hi, Maybe we should play by the same rules as the E.U. do? "Do as we say, not do as we do!".
Protectionism is at the core, even if done in breach of their own code of conduct!
I propose a blockade of he Irish Republic, do as we are done by! MM

[PDQ Mobile]

I know the argument to leave wasn't just about trade, if it was then what more did the UK want?
The figure varies but the UK has been placed as the sixth richest and this was whilst working within the 'confines' of the EU.
I'm not going to re-run the Brexit thread but there was more to it than borders and making our own rules.

Sixth richest by what measure? Per capita l don't think the UK was the sixth richest in the EU - Luxembourg was and is the richest and it still is not a net contributor to the EU - because of the amount of EU funding it gets to host EU bodies there. And of course its a global tax haven - though I'm sure that comment will open doors to comments on UK tax chicanery....

Money. com puts the UK at 13. (In Europe)
And Ireland at 2!
https://moneyinc.com/richest-countries- ... re%20items

Luxembourg at number 1 has a population of some 600,000.
It has a well educated and mostly tri or multi lingual population right in the centre of Europe.
It has invested heavily in it's infrastructure etc to make it a competitive and efficient place to do business. And its geographical position make it ideal as a meeting point for many of the big boys of the EU.
It, as a full EU member, will abide by any legislation relating to tax havens either in force or pending.
(As a Schengen member anyone in the EU can go and live and work there!)
It's wealth is quite well distributed amongst the majority of its population. Living standards are high.

Contrast that to the practically monoglot UK.
Where wealth is far, far less evenly distributed, infrastructure has been terribly neglected for years and tax havens for those that benefit from such things are deliberately kept out of sight and mind of the majority.

Yet there are, as you rightly suggest, a great many of those tax havens, operating solely for the benefit of a select few.
Isle of Man, Channels, British Virgin, Cayman and more. It's a bloody litany.

Our contributions to the EU were negotiated, not simply levied.
Perhaps you should take it up with poor and incompetent UK negotiators if you feel we payed too much. ((An undecided and monetarily shrewd colleague did a back of envelope calculation before he decided on his Referendum vote , he came up with a penny a day per head of UK population. I thought that excellent value.))

So little Luxembourg receives more than it payed in, because it offers a great well organized modern venue and probably great value for money.
Not because of disparity in grant levels.

The figures we were given for the far larger UK economy at the time of the Referendum were always very difficult to fully interpret.
We received back, in the form of grants etc, a great deal of money.

Indeed forestry, conservation and agriculture were enormous "beneficiaries".
They were also, in my limited experience, riddled with nepotism and outright corruption.
Some of the worst I know about.

Not from the EU side I swiftly add.
But rather from the policing of such schemes by the UK based authorities.
Some of it verged into criminal abuse of funds, by to name a couple the CCW and local National Parks.
So I hope all your £100s of thousands of grant money, that you mentioned earlier was used as it was intended.

Kwacker's upthread figures for the likely hit on the UK economy make sobering reading.
Especially in the light of what at the time of the Referendum were put forward as outright savings.

[kwackers]

Hi, Maybe we should play by the same rules as the E.U. do? "Do as we say, not do as we do!".
Protectionism is at the core, even if done in breach of their own code of conduct!
I propose a blockade of he Irish Republic, do as we are done by! MM

If we play by the same rules then we can throw away the stuff we've just signed and go back to the way we were.
I thought you didn't want that?

If you want to play by different rules then you make an agreement and sign it. Which we've done.
If you don't like the agreement the problem is with *your* negotiators not the other party who'll always push for the best deal for them.

I don't understand what your issue is.
There's nothing clever going on, just the same old stuff that's existed forever.
You decide on a trade deal with some country/trading block and you work out how it's going to work to *both* parties satisfaction and sign that deal.
It's a game and as with all games the more cards you hold the better your bargaining power.

But you understood this right from the start yes???

[merseymouth]

Hello again, Before we decided to put the U.K.'s membership of the E.U. to the electorate, who then voted leave, too many E.U. states paid less the correct compliance with the rules of the club, with self interested protectionist policies! We tried to change the system so all would work for a level playing field, we failed to get action, so the wrong doing continued.
So the E.U. members kept on working to the same work arounds that existed in the E.E.C., where the rules mirrored they way they currently work.
Such practises were legal under those rules, but such practises were made unlawful un the E.U. treaties. No level playing field in reality!
The electorate of the U.K. voted in favour of E.E.C. membership, but successive governments took us in the morphed body that became the E.U., never put to the electorate!
So, understand me clearly -If it was still the E.E.C. then I personally would be happy to be a member, but it isn't the E.E.C., it is the Superstate which is not to my taste.
If the council of the E.U. can't keep compliant with its own rules & regs it is a sham!
Alliances are acceptable, submission to being ruled by unlawful practises is not. I didn't move the goal posts Major & Blair did, wonder what they got instead of the yacht that Ted Heath got? TTFN MM

[Ben@Forest]

I know the argument to leave wasn't just about trade, if it was then what more did the UK want?
The figure varies but the UK has been placed as the sixth richest and this was whilst working within the 'confines' of the EU.
I'm not going to re-run the Brexit thread but there was more to it than borders and making our own rules.

Sixth richest by what measure? Per capita l don't think the UK was the sixth richest in the EU - Luxembourg was and is the richest and it still is not a net contributor to the EU - because of the amount of EU funding it gets to host EU bodies there. And of course its a global tax haven - though I'm sure that comment will open doors to comments on UK tax chicanery....

The figures we were given for the far larger UK economy at the time of the Referendum were always very difficult to fully interpret.
We received back, in the form of grants etc, a great deal of money.

Indeed forestry, conservation and agriculture were enormous "beneficiaries".
They were also, in my limited experience, riddled with nepotism and outright corruption.
Some of the worst I know about.

Not from the EU side I swiftly add.
But rather from the policing of such schemes by the UK based authorities.
Some of it verged into criminal abuse of funds, by to name a couple the CCW and local National Parks.
So I hope all your £100s of thousands of grant money, that you mentioned earlier was used as it was intended.

Well forestry, conservation and agriculture is what I've been working in for a quarter of a century. The UK has not been a better a beneficiary out the CAP than other comparable-sized countries. By all analyses from EU documents, commentators and academic papers about the CAP the country that has always done best out of it is France. Since the early 2000s has also received less because the money has been weighted towards the less developed eastern European countries. I have also not heard of any significant nepotism or outright corruption - though the paperwork or computer systems, both through the EU's and UK's fault have been chaotic at times.

I've never heard about criminal abuse of funds by the CCW or National Parks. If it's true it has completely passed me. If you have evidence I'd like to see it. Otherwise what you are writing is completely libellous.

[Ben@Forest]

I know the argument to leave wasn't just about trade, if it was then what more did the UK want?
The figure varies but the UK has been placed as the sixth richest and this was whilst working within the 'confines' of the EU.
I'm not going to re-run the Brexit thread but there was more to it than borders and making our own rules.

Sixth richest by what measure? Per capita l don't think the UK was the sixth richest in the EU - Luxembourg was and is the richest and it still is not a net contributor to the EU - because of the amount of EU funding it gets to host EU bodies there. And of course its a global tax haven - though I'm sure that comment will open doors to comments on UK tax chicanery....

The figures we were given for the far larger UK economy at the time of the Referendum were always very difficult to fully interpret.
We received back, in the form of grants etc, a great deal of money.

Indeed forestry, conservation and agriculture were enormous "beneficiaries".
They were also, in my limited experience, riddled with nepotism and outright corruption.
Some of the worst I know about.

Not from the EU side I swiftly add.
But rather from the policing of such schemes by the UK based authorities.
Some of it verged into criminal abuse of funds, by to name a couple the CCW and local National Parks.
So I hope all your £100s of thousands of grant money, that you mentioned earlier was used as it was intended.

Well forestry, conservation and agriculture is what I've been working in for a quarter of a century. The UK has not been a better beneficiary out the CAP than other comparable-sized countries. By all analyses from EU documents, commentators and academic papers about the CAP the country that has always done best out of it is France. Since the early 2000s we have also received less because the money has been weighted towards the less developed eastern European countries. I have also not heard of any significant nepotism or outright corruption - though the paperwork or computer systems, both through the EU's and UK's fault have been chaotic at times.

I've never heard about criminal abuse of funds by the CCW or National Parks. If it's true it has completely passed me. If you have evidence I'd like to see it. Otherwise what you are writing is completely libellous.