Brexit as a whole is trolling by the likes of Rupert Murdoch having spiraled completely out of control.

Is this not what the PM said?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Proud day for the UK. Taking back your sovereignty and freeing the UK from German hegemony. America is much better partner for the UK and it is time to kick out the immigrants from the EU. .

This guy is obviously a troll.

Or this Einstein

vrbarreto wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Proud day for the UK. Taking back your sovereignty and freeing the UK from German hegemony. America is much better partner for the UK and it is time to kick out the immigrants from the EU. .

Ha ha you're so funny... And us immigrants aren't going anywhere... Presumably you're not a native American so I suppose you're a descendent of an immigrant?

You think:

"And that is why we will ensure we can control immigration to Britain from Europe.
We will continue to attract the brightest and the best to work or study in Britain – indeed openness to international talent must remain one of this country's most distinctive assets – but that process must be managed properly so that our immigration system serves the national interest."

or

"It's not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important though that is. Many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom's place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world."

All those Pakis, Indians, Afghans in the UK came of course thanks to the EU.

Hard Brexit, good. Let us (the EU) not be unfriendly to the UK, but no banking passport and no BS about being half in half out the customs union.

seahawk wrote:

vrbarreto wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Proud day for the UK. Taking back your sovereignty and freeing the UK from German hegemony. America is much better partner for the UK and it is time to kick out the immigrants from the EU. .

Ha ha you're so funny... And us immigrants aren't going anywhere... Presumably you're not a native American so I suppose you're a descendent of an immigrant?

You think:

"And that is why we will ensure we can control immigration to Britain from Europe.
We will continue to attract the brightest and the best to work or study in Britain – indeed openness to international talent must remain one of this country's most distinctive assets – but that process must be managed properly so that our immigration system serves the national interest."

or

"It's not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important though that is. Many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom's place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world."

What does any of this have to do with your desire to kick all immigrants out of the EU?

Aesma wrote:

All those Pakis, Indians, Afghans in the UK came of course thanks to the EU.

Hard Brexit, good. Let us (the EU) not be unfriendly to the UK, but no banking passport and no BS about being half in half out the customs union.

Not...sure....if......serious....

Of course Pakistanis (not the racial slur 'Pakis') and Indians mostly came in the 60's along with the Caribbeans as they were wanted to do jobs a lot of Brits were not willing to do. Nothing to do with the EU.

Afghanis mostly came as refugees

I also think you'll find a decent portion of Britain didn't want to leave the EU and we're being sold down the river by Theresa May and her disreputable ilk.

Aesma wrote:

All those Pakis, Indians, Afghans in the UK came of course thanks to the EU.

Hard Brexit, good. Let us (the EU) not be unfriendly to the UK, but no banking passport and no BS about being half in half out the customs union.

Racist much?


That is a derogatory comment towards peoples of Pakistani origin.

Aesma wrote:

All those Pakis, Indians, Afghans in the UK came of course thanks to the EU.

Letting your progressive pro EU mask slip there buddy.

But then again, the French have always been much more bigoted about non-whites than we have. That's why Le Pen will do so well this year.

vrbarreto wrote:

seahawk wrote:

vrbarreto wrote:

Ha ha you're so funny... And us immigrants aren't going anywhere... Presumably you're not a native American so I suppose you're a descendent of an immigrant?

You think:

"And that is why we will ensure we can control immigration to Britain from Europe.
We will continue to attract the brightest and the best to work or study in Britain – indeed openness to international talent must remain one of this country's most distinctive assets – but that process must be managed properly so that our immigration system serves the national interest."

or

"It's not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important though that is. Many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom's place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world."

What does any of this have to do with your desire to kick all immigrants out of the EU?

All immigrants from the EU you mean? She said solutions for the people currently living in the EU will be found, but I think she makes it also quite clear that in future persons from the EU will only be allowed in, if they either have money or if hired by a British firm and have a high qualification.

Sorry I thought it was only a diminutive not derogatory. No racism on my part. I'm very concerned about sharia courts, though.

seahawk wrote:

vrbarreto wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You think:

"And that is why we will ensure we can control immigration to Britain from Europe.
We will continue to attract the brightest and the best to work or study in Britain – indeed openness to international talent must remain one of this country's most distinctive assets – but that process must be managed properly so that our immigration system serves the national interest."

or

"It's not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important though that is. Many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom's place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world."

What does any of this have to do with your desire to kick all immigrants out of the EU?

All immigrants from the EU you mean? She said solutions for the people currently living in the EU will be found, but I think she makes it also quite clear that in future persons from the EU will only be allowed in, if they either have money or if hired by a British firm and have a high qualification.

Still don't see what that has anything to do with your quote of "America is much better partner for the UK and it is time to kick out the immigrants from the EU. "

I just worded it wrong. I meant immigrants from the EU in the UK.

seahawk wrote:

I just worded it wrong. I meant immigrants from the EU in the UK.

Presumably start with Farage's wife?

And YOU ARE the t-shirt bloke!!!

seahawk wrote:

I just worded it wrong. I meant immigrants from the EU in the UK.

and since turnabout is fair play, we kick out the Uk people from the continent, unless of course they qualify for a work visa anyways. And the UK NHS gets to pay for all those pensioners again.They just have to come at 15 pounds a pop per week, and the whole Brexit savings are gone. And with the way the pound is going, many of them probably can´t even afford living in Spain anymore.

Just like with the common market, there is absolutely no way that UK citizens will enjoy freedom of movement and EU citizens don´t.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I just worded it wrong. I meant immigrants from the EU in the UK.

and since turnabout is fair play, we kick out the Uk people from the continent, unless of course they qualify for a work visa anyways. And the UK NHS gets to pay for all those pensioners again.They just have to come at 15 pounds a pop per week, and the whole Brexit savings are gone. And with the way the pound is going, many of them probably can´t even afford living in Spain anymore.

Just like with the common market, there is absolutely no way that UK citizens will enjoy freedom of movement and EU citizens don´t.

best regards
Thomas

There is always hope:

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

vrbarreto wrote:

There is always hope:

of course there is. They just have to grand freedom of movement to all EU citizens, and then they can keep freedom of movement for themselves.

best regards
Thomas

The Wee Krankie north of the border has just threatened another independence referendum..... She should hold one every year, one day the rest of the UK may strike it lucky!

She really is a one trick pony.

I believe Theresa May has played a blinder....

The EU negotiating strategy was based on the UK wanting to keep access to the single market, etc, etc. They've just found out their hand of cards is worthless. As it's going to be near impossible to sign a deal with the EU in the next two years anyway - too many national and regional parliaments are going to have to agree to it - hard Brexit was always the most likely option.

May's default position is basically what we're going to end up with - hard Brexit with no formal agreement in March 2019. Smart politics.


Theresa May will negotiate up to the deadline - if nothing else to make the EU look unreasonable. She was all sweet reasonableness yesterday with her 12 points. Expect more of the same over the next 2 years.

But that's the public pronouncements. Privately, May is showing signs of being the iron fist inside the velvet glove. I can see her dusting down Maggie's handbag and putting it to good use in the negotiations.

The end result will be hard Brexit as the 27 nations of the EU couldn't agree on what biscuits to have for their morning coffee break inside two years, let alone sign off on a deal with the UK.

Dano1977 wrote:

The EU negotiating strategy was based on the UK wanting to keep access to the single market, etc, etc.
.

you got that wrong. The UK government deluded itself into believing that they can get access to the common market without having to accept EU Immigrants. After about half a year of the EU making clear that the common market is a all-or-nothing deal, the UK government finally came to terms with reality.

The UK has thrown half a year of negotiating time away for no good reason at all.

She was all sweet reasonableness yesterday with her 12 points.

Yeah, she really said a lot for not really saying anything. Aside of uttering some shibboleths, she pretty much just keeps saying silly things or she is just flat out lying to her citizens.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

The EU negotiating strategy was based on the UK wanting to keep access to the single market, etc, etc.
.

you got that wrong. The UK government deluded itself into believing that they can get access to the common market without having to accept EU Immigrants. After about half a year of the EU making clear that the common market is a all-or-nothing deal, the UK government finally came to terms with reality.

The UK has thrown half a year of negotiating time away for no good reason at all.

She was all sweet reasonableness yesterday with her 12 points.

Yeah, she really said a lot for not really saying anything. Aside of uttering some shibboleths, she pretty much just keeps saying silly things or she is just flat out lying to her citizens.

best regards
Thomas

How have we thrown anything away?

It's up to the UK Govt to trigger Article 50 - Until Article 50 is triggered no negotiations can take place. No time has been wasted.

Seeings it's up to the UK Govt to start Article 50 - Whats wrong with putting your house in order and getting things ready, instead of just jumping straight in....


We've seen what happens when no plans are in place,when Germany invites the refugees to come - but hardly gives neighbouring fellow EU countries time to get their act together so they can handle the mass exodus.

Dano1977 wrote:

It's up to the UK Govt to trigger Article 50 - Until Article 50 is triggered no negotiations can take place. No time has been wasted..

No one in the EU, aside of the UK government, plans to give two years after Article 50 is triggered, but rather roughly 2 years after the referendum. The time could have been used for useful work.
She will already have to get on her knees to get some of the time back she wasted.

best regards
Thomas

vrbarreto wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I just worded it wrong. I meant immigrants from the EU in the UK.

Presumably start with Farage's wife?

And YOU ARE the t-shirt bloke!!!

So is Miss May, then.

tommy1808 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

It's up to the UK Govt to trigger Article 50 - Until Article 50 is triggered no negotiations can take place. No time has been wasted..

No one in the EU, aside of the UK government, plans to give two years after Article 50 is triggered, but rather roughly 2 years after the referendum. The time could have been used for useful work.
She will already have to get on her knees to get some of the time back she wasted.

Actually, article 50 stipulates the ax is going to fall two years after the exit has been triggered by the official declaration, so Britain can and likely will draw out the negotiations and their enjoyment of all membership benefits to the last day, meaning March 2019 if the declaration is indeed happening this March.

The EU side have been ready to negotiate for months by now, but I guess the UK side have not been ready to declare before dealing with the domestic debate, previous statements notwithstanding.

seahawk wrote:

vrbarreto wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I just worded it wrong. I meant immigrants from the EU in the UK.

Presumably start with Farage's wife?

And YOU ARE the t-shirt bloke!!!

So is Miss May, then.

She may be a LIDL version of Thatcher but nowhere has she said that European Citizens living in the UK are going to be 'sent back'.

Utterly ridiculous..

She also did not say they can stay as long as they want.

Klaus wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Actually, article 50 stipulates the ax is going to fall two years after the exit has been triggered by the official declaration, so Britain can and likely will draw out the negotiations and their enjoyment of all membership benefits to the last day, meaning March 2019 if the declaration is indeed happening this March.

Yup, they are out two years after article 50, unless all members states agree on extension, if a treaty is in place or not. But that doesn´t have any bearing on the willingness to negotiate beyond two years after the referendum. And other EU members have made sufficiently clear that they see no reason to let the UK draw out the effective negotiating time, and a single nation saying "no" is enough to stop negotiations whenever they chose. Malta has the UK by the balls for a change.....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Actually, article 50 stipulates the ax is going to fall two years after the exit has been triggered by the official declaration, so Britain can and likely will draw out the negotiations and their enjoyment of all membership benefits to the last day, meaning March 2019 if the declaration is indeed happening this March.

Yup, they are out two years after article 50, unless all members states agree on extension, if a treaty is in place or not. But that doesn´t have any bearing on the willingness to negotiate beyond two years after the referendum. And other EU members have made sufficiently clear that they see no reason to let the UK draw out the effective negotiating time, and a single nation saying "no" is enough to stop negotiations whenever they chose. Malta has the UK by the balls for a change.....

best regards
Thomas

Yes, and the UK will revert to WTO trade conditions, as she stipulated she would be happy to do.

The head of the World Trade Organisation has vowed to ensure Britain will not face a trade "vacuum or a disruption", however tough its exit from the European Union.

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-n ... s-10632803

So judging by this table at the amount of goods sold to Britain from the EU, who's interest is it really to go to WTO tade conditions?

Dano1977 wrote:

Yes, and the UK will revert to WTO trade conditions, as she stipulated she would be happy to do.

Of course they will. They are a member after all. Which by the way makes the whole import tariff as a negotiating tool irrelevant, since the UK is not free to set those.

So judging by this table at the amount of goods sold to Britain from the EU, who's interest is it really to go to WTO tade conditions?

You do know that the buyer pays the tariff, right?

best regards
Thomas

The amoiunt of trade will most likely stay in these numbers. Aldi and Lidl will be there, as they do trade in other non EU countries as well. What will Change is the facilitation of the trade. The UK will have border controls again, either handle the customs clearance at Inland borders like Airports or at ports of entries. Some importers may hav permssion to clear on premises, hauling the inand part with a t2 document.
For the logistics, that is going back into the dark Ages. EU goods right now zip through in all directions, exporters just send the control sheet showing what was sold from VAT#DE.. to VAT#GB......
This additional paper and physical work will add to the costs of handling at the expense of the British consumer, the exporting companies and at the net expsense of Jobs. The UK industry will simply becoming less competetive.

Nobody told this to the British voters when the Referendum was called. Adding to the lies that were told by Farage, Johnson & Co....

Don't forget the Trump factor. The WTO is toothless now, in two years it might not even exist anymore.

Also do not Forget that the internal market also means free movement of Services. This will be severely disrupted.

Buying wings for Airbus planes or buying engines has worked in the past and won't change so much. But everything which is connected to services is SEVERELY affected.

tommy1808 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Yes, and the UK will revert to WTO trade conditions, as she stipulated she would be happy to do.

Of course they will. They are a member after all. Which by the way makes the whole import tariff as a negotiating tool irrelevant, since the UK is not free to set those.

So judging by this table at the amount of goods sold to Britain from the EU, who's interest is it really to go to WTO tade conditions?

You do know that the buyer pays the tariff, right?

best regards
Thomas

Yep.

Tariffs give a price advantage to locally-produced goods over similar goods which are imported

I find it especially funny that the UK seems to believe that they can enter various free trade agreements. Does anybody believe that for example they can have one with the US and one with EU, which would in the end mean that the UK would effectively create a free trade agreement between the EU and the US. Neither the EU nor the US will agree to the idea, that you could buy products from the EU, ship them to the UK and then freely ship them to the US or vice versa.

Dano1977 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Yes, and the UK will revert to WTO trade conditions, as she stipulated she would be happy to do.

Of course they will. They are a member after all. Which by the way makes the whole import tariff as a negotiating tool irrelevant, since the UK is not free to set those.

So judging by this table at the amount of goods sold to Britain from the EU, who's interest is it really to go to WTO tade conditions?

You do know that the buyer pays the tariff, right?

best regards
Thomas

Yep.

Tariffs give a price advantage to locally-produced goods over similar goods which are imported

A relative price advantage.. Potentially quite inflationary though seeing we import a lot of foodstuff.

seahawk wrote:

that you could buy products from the EU, ship them to the UK and then freely ship them to the US or vice versa.

You can not legally do that. Tariffs are charged based on the country of origin and the local tax rules.
You can buy components in China, rework and add local content in Germany, ship to Poland, add some polish value add and export the end product to the USA. And have real fun with the export, because Polish customs may consider it a Polish product under Polish rules, and refuse to sign the export papers with the declaration Germany, despite the product being German under german rules and, when that is sorted out, have US customs insist that it is a Chinese product. That it isn't a Chinese product under chinese, german or Polish rules doesn't matter.

Best regards
Thomas

That is what I meant, yet the talk make is sound like that would work.

Dano1977 wrote:

Tariffs give a price advantage to locally-produced goods over similar goods which are imported

That's an illusion to a large degree, since most domestic manufacturers depend on imported parts and materials and those will become more expensive and more complicated to import, too. Foreign manufacturers may still have the edge because they have to deal with all those complications only once, for their finished product.

And since they're selling that same product all across the EU as well, they've got the advantage of scale which a smaller british competitor doesn't have. So for the actually interesting parts of the economy you will see hardly any advantage – just rising prices both because of the slipping Pound and because of the re-established complications of foreign imports where you've had easy and efficient access to the Common Market before.

An economy basd on locally produced components, protected by tarrifs may still have wrked in the 1950/60s. No longer oday when communication and logistics make it possible to build cars or anything else for the world market at a few Locations. Fords and opel/Vauxhall cars are build in the UK and Germany alike but from components brought in from all over the world. Design and development Centers are no longer for a local markets for for global markets. ZThat maks goods and Services cheaper.
An iPhone wholly build in the USA would cost $1600 and not the 600 you can buy it for today Even with Mr. T's famous 35% duty it would cost a bit more than half. That figure woul even by higher for a smaller market like the UK.Exiting a single market with still almost 500 Million consumers makes the UK industry less competetive and the Country less attractive for Investments. Why should US companies settle in the UK where they are shut off from that 500 Mio People market? Lower taxes do not Offset the many dis-advantages that step will bring.

I'm pretty sure some certain major EU players aren't all that competitive either.

Reuters :

Two of Europe's biggest banks warned on Wednesday that they could each move about 1,000 jobs out of London as they prepare for expected disruption caused by Britain's exit from the European Union.

UBS Chairman Axel Weber said that about 1,000 of the Swiss bank's 5,000 employees in London could be affected by Brexit, while HSBC Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver said his bank will relocate staff responsible for generating around a fifth of its UK-based trading revenue to Paris.

Germany's Handelsblatt newspaper also reported that Goldman Sachs is considering halving its London workforce to 3,000 and moving key operations to New York and continental Europe, particularly Frankfurt, where it could move up to 1,000 staff.

Aesma wrote:

Reuters :

Two of Europe's biggest banks warned on Wednesday that they could each move about 1,000 jobs out of London as they prepare for expected disruption caused by Britain's exit from the European Union.

UBS Chairman Axel Weber said that about 1,000 of the Swiss bank's 5,000 employees in London could be affected by Brexit, while HSBC Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver said his bank will relocate staff responsible for generating around a fifth of its UK-based trading revenue to Paris.

Germany's Handelsblatt newspaper also reported that Goldman Sachs is considering halving its London workforce to 3,000 and moving key operations to New York and continental Europe, particularly Frankfurt, where it could move up to 1,000 staff.

That's peanuts. I mean, some 3,000 London bankers can be seen without magnifying glass, but...

They are in London because London is a major financial service center - to do business easily with the major UK banks. They will of course scale back as London loses its position as a major financial service provider for large EU companies.

The major UK problem in this respect is that London loses its position as major EU banking center making 50,000 or 100,000 bankers in UK banks redundant.

Well, not all will be made redundant. The large UK banks will of course do their best to stay large. That means moving business to the Continent, likely mostly Paris and Frankfurt, including moving some senior key staff.

The "small" scale back of non-UK banks in London is totally a consequence of UK banks scaling massively back in the UK.