Different stories, different endings.https://news.sky.com/story/barclays-prepares-to-trigger-190bn-no-deal-brexit-plan-11622383
More Project Fear I suppose?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...-foreign-investment-europe-uk-IBM-london-news
Different stories, different endings.https://news.sky.com/story/barclays-prepares-to-trigger-190bn-no-deal-brexit-plan-11622383
More Project Fear I suppose?
Different stories, different endings.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...-foreign-investment-europe-uk-IBM-london-news
I am well aware of the rules of staying in the customs union , which is why Labours suggestion to stay in doesn’t stack up. I’m suggesting we reach a deal to stay close , but not in , allowing the EU access to our market whilst we have access to theirs, it may mean limited tariffs on both sides. This would also mean we can also make deals with other countries.Right ignoring the first sentence, we totally agree here. Absolutely.
So if we all want tariff-free trade, that means we must stay in the Customs Union (which nearly every prominent Brexiter was in favour of pre-Referendum by the way). How else do we obtain tariff-free trade without that? Problem is, to stay in the Customs Union will mean that we need regulatory alignment - we need to accept their standards and laws but will have no say in making them. It will almost certainly mean accepting freedom of movement as it currently is as well.
Which all begs the question... what's the bloody point in leaving? We would still have to abide by most EU Law, we'd still have the same EU-immigration status. We almost certainly wouldn't be allowed to make trade deals with other countries - as you guys have said, giving us a good deal and allowing us to do that would encourage other countries to do the same.
It's like staying but giving us less power over our own laws, which is the irony. I just can't see it. I don't understand the benefit.
I am well aware of the rules of staying in the customs union , which is why Labours suggestion to stay in doesn’t stack up. I’m suggesting we reach a deal to stay close , but not in , allowing the EU access to our market whilst we have access to theirs, it may mean limited tariffs on both sides. This would also mean we can also make deals with other countries.
.We’re going round and round Rob, the Irish are insisting if there’s a hard Brexit there won’t be a hard border , but if we want a soft Brexit there will have to be a backstop to avoid a hard border, that’s what doesn’t add up.Yeah that's the dream scenario of course, but how is that done? How do you only stay partly in without a border? If you're only partly in then some things would need checks. If you want Ireland to stay border-free then I'm afraid that means being in balls deep so to speak.
We’re going round and round Rob, the Irish are insisting if there’s a hard Brexit there won’t be a hard border , but if we want a soft Brexit there will have to be a backstop to avoid a hard border, that’s what doesn’t add up.
Well actually it does they will say anything to try to keep us from having a soft, or as I call it , a reasonable Brexit.
But according to you guys, we were unable to do so anyway because of the EU. So why is it one rule for us and another rule for the rest of them? This stuff about EU law meaning we cannot nationalise business is just pure nonsense. And if you Google it, it is debunked time and time again.
We’re going round and round Rob, the Irish are insisting if there’s a hard Brexit there won’t be a hard border , but if we want a soft Brexit there will have to be a backstop to avoid a hard border, that’s what doesn’t add up.
Well actually it does they will say anything to try to keep us from having a soft, or as I call it , a reasonable Brexit.
The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise."
You posted that. nationalised industry works in the best interests of society not competitors and rivals fella. Look at the state of our trains??? profit goes to shareholders rather than benefit tax payers and society.
You can have a nationalised asset that still competes with rivals. In fact it's more likely to win contracts if it is under no obligation to make a profit.
I said I would not comment but there is a humorous element to this. No profit? Communism.
So you have finally conceded the point that the state cannot take universal control of utilities. You want devolved ownership. I move onto rail (again) where the state runs the elements that require the most resources to support them, lose money, make no profit but private enterprise takes the cream.
That devolved ownership loses the socio economic benefit of state ownership.
Where did I mention 'universal control' of utilities? Or do you just read what you want to read?
And if a state-owned company competed for contracts, won them on the basis that they don't actually need to deliver a profit, how on earth does that equal communism? Going by that logic, anything that is ever state-subsidised automatically equals communism! Laughable! I'm really beginning to think you're a troll because that is ridiculous.
I hope you guys have never got on a subsidised bus to Ashton Gate. You communist bastards!
So if nothing is or even can be nationalised, and if nationalisation is 'communism', then what on earth are you moaning about?!
You can have a nationalised asset that still competes with rivals. In fact it's more likely to win contracts if it is under no obligation to make a profit.
I always feel that we pay in one hell of a lot of money into the EU but seem to get very little out from it.....The amount of projects across Spain that I've seen have been built using EU funds..Barcelona was practically run down until funds were made available (Olympics era) .....I don't see too many projects in this country benefiting in the same way. I'm sure there has been, but all I see are rules and regulations that tend to restrict businesses trying to be successful.. Just my simple view!!!
why cant we run our water on our own? gas? electricity? trains? why must rivals be involved?