John West:
Happy New Year!
And how old was that bit of yes minister, Buzzer
A shame we cant wish them a happy new year, eh !! Harvey
Buzzer:
John West:
Happy New Year!And how old was that bit of yes minister, Buzzer
Show in March 1981 according to Mr Google
John West:
Buzzer:
John West:
Happy New Year!And how old was that bit of yes minister, Buzzer
Show in March 1981 according to Mr Google
They were joking about the EU 38 years ago then nearly as long as we have been entangled with the corrupt organisation, and they could see it way back then, Buzzer
HRS asked me to post this:
Checking That Website Under ‘Our Mission’ it clearly states: Most of the founders of this initiative voted for the UK to leave the EU
whisperingsmith:
Checking That Website Under ‘Our Mission’ it clearly states: Most of the founders of this initiative voted for the UK to leave the EU
And nowt wrong with that in itself surely?
An honest start from them, not pretending to be neutral observers. They say it’s largely self funded too, so kudos to anyone committed enough to do that.
The content seems to bear some looking at too, I’d say.
Too late at night for me though…
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
Just an observation from afar over the last few years and months.I tend to listen to a mix of Irish(RTE(state)and Newstalk(private)) and British(BBC) radio stations.
Genuinely,there is,and has consistently being, far more coverage over the whole Brexit issue on this side of the water.
Manchester Uniteds managerial woes a few weeks ago taking priority over various government votes and statements at the same time.
From a long time back,our government has being looking at sites for border crossings,and recruitment of customs officers.
Regardless of ones political beliefs,surely any government should have certain priorities.Your lot seem to be sitting on their hands and opposition don`t seem to come up with a credible plan.(not an alternative,-a plan).
gazzer:
HRS asked me to post this:
Thanks Mate,
You must tell me how to do that, cheers Harvey
whisperingsmith:
Checking That Website Under ‘Our Mission’ it clearly states: Most of the founders of this initiative voted for the UK to leave the EU
While the remainers’ mission is obviously relying on their own biased self affirmative bs to try to make the case for reversing the decision and having voted for remain.You know stuff like paying billions and being ruled by people like Juncker and co,for the privilege of paying billions more for the net import bill,is supposedly good for us.Or that creating a Federal hybrid of a bigger version of the former Yugoslav Federation and a German dominated 4th Reich is the best future for Europe.
HRS:
gazzer:
HRS asked me to post this:Thanks Mate,
You must tell me how to do that, cheers Harvey
“Most exporters are already used to Union Customs Code (UCC) export processes, and HMRC has issued guidelines for ‘no-deal’ trading with the EU. The EU has established customs systems (already used on the Swiss border, for example), and new technology is available to trace and identify cargoes”
" Example: most goods crossing the Swiss borders use established customs systems (TRANSIT and TRACE systems) to drive through customs without stopping and without any monitoring at the border."
Those statements seem to contradict previous posts on this thread and the Euro driving thread. And driving through a border quickly merely to go to an inland clearance depot…
" .Given the same level of EU imports after 29 March 2019 as currently, the level of physical checks that will be required on EU imports is unlikely to increase"
Really? WTO rules require all WTO countries to be treated equally. The EU must be treated the same as all other countries. Surely EU checks are low now so must increase?
“No ‘hard border’ in Northern Ireland”.
So long as there IS a hard border between NI & UK mainland, yes. Not about to happen.
“Physical checks that are needed can be conducted away from the border, as they already are in many countries.”
Of course. But no matter where they are carried out it costs time & money and needs space.
“Most engineering firms will be little affected (hence why heads of firms like Dyson, JCB and Northern Ireland’s Wrightbus support Brexit).”
So, some firms are for Brexit, but Deloitte suggests 75% of major firms in the UK are pessimistic about Brexit.
uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita … KKBN1JR29G
“Car companies can withstand 10% tariffs on sales into the EU and 4.5% tariffs on components from the EU since they have benefited from a 15% depreciation in sterling.”
How does that arithmetic work?
A lower pound surely means imported components cost 15% more even before tariffs are added? Can’t have exchange rates applied one way only.
And how many car makers have said they’re ok with a 10% tariff on sales?
Looking at the tone of the article it seems no need for worry. No extra paperwork or checks, but still points to thousands of extra customs personnel both sides of the new borders. We can bet ordinary citizens will be footing the bill soon.
All true, and specifically this:
Franglais:
Car companies can withstand 10% tariffs on sales into the EU and 4.5% tariffs on components from the EU since they have benefited from a 15% depreciation in sterling."
How does that arithmetic work?
A lower pound surely means imported components cost 15% more even before tariffs are added? Can’t have exchange rates applied one way only.
Why is it some people can’t understand this? A friend here who sold her house and wanted to send €80,000 proceeds to her bank in England, was moaning at the lower exchange rate. She simply couldn’t get her head around the fact that in that direction she was going to be better off. I gave up trying to explain it in the end. 
Franglais:
"Car companies can withstand 10% tariffs on sales into the EU and 4.5% tariffs on components from the EU
Which should read 10 % tariffs on exports to the EU met by 10% tariffs on EU imports why only 4.5% ?.While tariffs are generally based on the finished product not components.Bearing in mind the massive trade inbalance in favour of the EU the obvious result being that firms like Jaguar stand to gain a far bigger market share in the domestic market than any supposed loss in the EU export market.Possibly to the point where the increase in profits created by the higher sales volumes in the domestic market,at the expense of EU imports,would allow discounting prices for export to the point where the 10% tariff on our EU exports can be more than cancelled out.As usual remainers seem selectively deaf and blind to the meaning of words like trade deficit although having their quislings like May and Hammond in power running the show obviously helps them with the continuing sell out of the country in that regard.
Carryfast:
Franglais:
"Car companies can withstand 10% tariffs on sales into the EU and 4.5% tariffs on components from the EUWhich should read 10 % tariffs on exports to the EU met by 10% tariffs on EU imports why only 4.5% ?.While tariffs are generally based on the finished product not components.Bearing in mind the massive trade inbalance in favour of the EU the obvious result being that firms like Jaguar stand to gain a far bigger market share in the domestic market than any supposed loss in the EU export market.Possibly to the point where the increase in profits created by the higher sales volumes in the domestic market,at the expense of EU imports,would allow discounting prices for export to the point where the 10% tariff on our EU exports can be more than cancelled out.As usual remainers seem selectively deaf and blind to the meaning of words like trade deficit although having their quislings like May and Hammond in power running the show obviously helps them with the continuing sell out of the country in that regard.
4.5% is the WTO rate for auto components I think. The quote from briefigsforbrexit seems correct to me.
If Peugeots price increases in the UK by 10% will Jag sales really increase much? Will there not be a bigger effect tother way?
Jag`s costing 10% more in EU?
Franglais:
If Peugeots price increases in the UK by 10% will Jag sales really increase much? Will there not be a bigger effect tother way?
Jag`s costing 10% more in EU?
Strange how you chose a selective apples finished product v oranges component comparison.Or for that matter seem to forget that the Germans also stand to get hit badly in this fight not just the French.Although ironically by your own figures it’s obviously cheaper to buy a Jaguar fitted with a ZF transmission than a Merc or BMW regardless.
In which case how do you make Jaguar’s sales in Euroland more important to it than taking the combined VAG/BMW/Mercedes competition sales market share that it stands to gain here ?.Bearing in mind the 3 series alone obviously outsells any car you wish to compare in the PSA range including Vauxhall in the UK market in addition to the opportunities for hitting the Germans in the VAG Tiguan sector with the F Pace. 
I Find it worrying that reading though all the Brexit Supporting arguments on here there are almost no pragmatic posts.
CF has taken the lead with his 4th or & 7th Reich posts but has anyone got an argument that can demonstrate we will be better off leaving the EU.
I don’t mean any of the Nationalist (Austrian Plumber) Boll**cks but a real (Honest & True) argument we can all relate to?
whisperingsmith:
I Find it worrying that reading though all the Brexit Supporting arguments on here there are almost no pragmatic posts.CF has taken the lead with his 4th or & 7th Reich posts but has anyone got an argument that can demonstrate we will be better off leaving the EU.
I don’t mean any of the Nationalist (Austrian Plumber) Boll**cks but a real (Honest & True) argument we can all relate to?
Strange but no surprise you’ve gone for the 4th Reich description.While ‘forgetting’ about the example of the former Yugoslavia and two world wars kicked off by the German Federation assuming that Federalism supposedly means ‘peace’ in Europe and the billions paid in net contributions for the privilege of having to pay billions more to fill the black hole resulting from the trade deficit.Or the over supply of the labour market by low wage expectation labour resulting in under employment of the domestic labour force,stagnating wage levels and reduced tax revenues and more demand for social provision and housing.Or for that matter the conditions imposed on us by the ECHR and ECJ regarding non EU immigration policy among other issues like fishing rights etc etc.
Obviously all a price worth paying for any committed Soviet style or Champagne Socialist EU Federalist.
I suppose it depends in what context you mean “better off”, and over what timescale. Whatever happens after March 29th, there will be big changes, challenges and opportunities. Some companies and individuals will no doubt suffer financially, some will gain and others won’t see much difference. But “better off” shouldn’t just be measured in monetary terms, or be looked at just in the short term. The country as a whole needs to get itself into a positive frame of mind, accept that things are going to change, and grasp whatever opportunities are presented by leaving. We’ve seen the dilution of our self-determination and the decimation our manufacturing capacity, along with the transfer of many of our key companies into Foreign ownership over the last four decades - admittedly not all as a direct consequence of EU membership, but the EU Superstate ambition is still not yet fully realised. I wonder how much “better off” we in Britain would be if that day is allowed to come? Everyone will have their own opinion, and we’re all entitled to that, and no doubt there will always be differences of opinion. Only time will tell.
fodenway:
I suppose it depends in what context you mean “better off”, and over what timescale. Whatever happens after March 29th, there will be big changes, challenges and opportunities. Some companies and individuals will no doubt suffer financially, some will gain and others won’t see much difference. But “better off” shouldn’t just be measured in monetary terms, or be looked at just in the short term. The country as a whole needs to get itself into a positive frame of mind, accept that things are going to change, and grasp whatever opportunities are presented by leaving. We’ve seen the dilution of our self-determination and the decimation our manufacturing capacity, along with the transfer of many of our key companies into Foreign ownership over the last four decades - admittedly not all as a direct consequence of EU membership, but the EU Superstate ambition is still not yet fully realised. I wonder how much “better off” we in Britain would be if that day is allowed to come? Everyone will have their own opinion, and we’re all entitled to that, and no doubt there will always be differences of opinion. Only time will tell.
The advocates of staying-in just will not shut up about money, money, money. Probably because that is all that matters to them, but money is not everything - as is so well put in Fodenway’s argument. There is so much more to Brexit than this constant: “Oh Lord, death and destruction, we will be worse off, the world will end for us”. No it won’t, when we come out from hiding behind behind mummy EU’s skirts and face up to the world, we will realise the bogey man is not going to get us. At the moment about the only thing we as a nation have a pride in is our armed forces, we have the opportunity to regain a pride in ourselves. We are going to do what we want and not what a bunch of foreigners want to push us around to do for their benefit. We can do this - and we will.
cav551:
fodenway:
I suppose it depends in what context you mean “better off”, and over what timescale. Whatever happens after March 29th, there will be big changes, challenges and opportunities. Some companies and individuals will no doubt suffer financially, some will gain and others won’t see much difference. But “better off” shouldn’t just be measured in monetary terms, or be looked at just in the short term. The country as a whole needs to get itself into a positive frame of mind, accept that things are going to change, and grasp whatever opportunities are presented by leaving. We’ve seen the dilution of our self-determination and the decimation our manufacturing capacity, along with the transfer of many of our key companies into Foreign ownership over the last four decades - admittedly not all as a direct consequence of EU membership, but the EU Superstate ambition is still not yet fully realised. I wonder how much “better off” we in Britain would be if that day is allowed to come? Everyone will have their own opinion, and we’re all entitled to that, and no doubt there will always be differences of opinion. Only time will tell.The advocates of staying-in just will not shut up about money, money, money. Probably because that is all that matters to them, but money is not everything - as is so well put in Fodenway’s argument. There is so much more to Brexit than this constant: “Oh Lord, death and destruction, we will be worse off, the world will end for us”. No it won’t, when we come out from hiding behind behind mummy EU’s skirts and face up to the world, we will realise the bogey man is not going to get us. At the moment about the only thing we as a nation have a pride in is our armed forces, we have the opportunity to regain a pride in ourselves. We are going to do what we want and not what a bunch of foreigners want to push us around to do for their benefit. We can do this - and we will.
Two excellent posts 