The Brexit aftermath thread

[dribbles]

So you want the EU start doing propaganda....which every right-wing government in Europe will start saying the moment the EU as a whole takes a decision that a single country doesn't like.

EU is in a tough position. Every single government, even those that are public anti EU, are actually pro-EU because they kind of know the benefits of this Union. Sure they may rally against the EU to win the elections but they still really like the EU moneeeey.

It's up to the member states to defend the EU honestly and defend it well. David Cameron defense was so shit that it felt like he was part of the leave campaign sometimes .

That's all good for those who get EU money, but the UK never gets any EU money. So for the UK quite obviously there is absolutely nothing to like about the EU = brexit.

[dribbles]

this is a lie

No it is not, the EU for the UK is like a fruit machine. You put a large amount in and get a small percentage back and is a total waste of money. It is our money to start with.

So much ignorance that even politics lecturers at Oxford University don't get it. So yours is excused...

https://twitter.com/oxforddiplomat/s...63942405033986

[Slant]

So you want the EU start doing propaganda....which every right-wing government in Europe will start saying the moment the EU as a whole takes a decision that a single country doesn't like.

EU is in a tough position. Every single government, even those that are public anti EU, are actually pro-EU because they kind of know the benefits of this Union. Sure they may rally against the EU to win the elections but they still really like the EU moneeeey.

It's up to the member states to defend the EU honestly and defend it well. David Cameron defense was so shit that it felt like he was part of the leave campaign sometimes .

Informing the public about what you're doing isn't propaganda.

- - - Updated - - -

No it is not, the EU for the UK is like a fruit machine. You put a large amount in and get a small percentage back and is a total waste of money. It is our money to start with.

So much ignorance that even politics lecturers at Oxford University don't get it. So yours is excused...

https://twitter.com/oxforddiplomat/s...63942405033986

You have a history of deceiving and lying, but not understanding the tweet that you posted is new... it's directly contradicting what you said in the previous post.

[dribbles]

You have a history of deceiving and lying, but not understanding the tweet that you posted is new... it's directly contradicting what you said in the previous post.

Where's the contradiction? I understand that tweet fully.

The EU gives the UK no money at all. The UK gives the EU shedloads...are you disputing that?

[Crispin]

Where's the contradiction? I understand that tweet fully.

The EU gives the UK no money at all. The UK gives the EU shedloads...are you disputing that?

I love how your understanding of the EU is at such a basic level. I bet all you get is "we give them 3, they give us 1! wtf?"

And here's a hint, notice what she writes about her departments funding, it's a part you at the very least should be capable of understanding.

[Crispin]

But her deparment funding could be covered by the local budget. I think it is posted later that it will be up to 2020 so yes, there is uncertainty past that point but it is up to the UK to fund it further on.
I honestly don't think direct funding should be seen as the argument for universities doing better without Brexit. Other concerns are much more valid like:
indirect funding by a multitude of European students electing to study there (and pay far more than in similar European universities that accept foreign students)
data access to a far larger population pool which will be compromised by Brexit and harm research
how attractive they might continue to be after Brexit when freedom to work there for EU professors and researchers will be somewhat diminished
This at the same time that many European universities, particularly in France, are making a significant effort to teach courses in English. Because yes, that is the real advantage of the US and UK when it comes to education and attracting foreign talent; the fact that most anyone at that level of education will be fluent in English and thus feel comfortable in an english speaking country.

I agree, and the issues go far beyond just funding. But dribbles can't go beyond his "we give 3 and get 1 = minus 2.. screw the EU" thinking, which is why pointing out that their funding is in jeopardy might be a concept he understands.

[Slant]

Where's the contradiction? I understand that tweet fully.

The EU gives the UK no money at all. The UK gives the EU shedloads...are you disputing that?

I'm saying the Tweet you quoted described one of the many benefits of the EU, academic funding. Apparently you seem to think that's the UK paying. It's not, it's the EU.

But... apparently words have no meaning for you.

In other news... a wonderful summary from the House of Lords. What a refreshing contrast to the House of Commons, having someone speak in a moderate voice without being interrupted every two sentences.

[dribbles]

I'm saying the Tweet you quoted described one of the many benefits of the EU, academic funding. Apparently you seem to think that's the UK paying. It's not, it's the EU.

But... apparently words have no meaning for you.

I notice what she doesn't write which is of more concern and you are making the same mistake. Her department receives £1 back out of the £3 of our original UK foreign aid money that we send to the EU. (glad you get that bit) . Imagine how well funded she would be if instead of sending £3 to the EU first, we cut them out = brexit, and send the £3 direct to her.

Who would suffer and who would gain in that scenario, the lesser funded EU or the greater funded Oxford University lecturer? As Theresa May would say, simples.

[Slant]

I notice what she doesn't write which is of more concern and you are making the same mistake. Her department receives £1 back out of the £3 of our original UK foreign aid money that we send to the EU. (glad you get that bit) . Imagine how well funded she would be if instead of sending £3 to the EU first, we cut them out = brexit, and send the £3 direct to her.

Who would suffer and who would gain in that scenario, the lesser funded EU or the greater funded Oxford University lecturer? As Theresa May would say, simples.

Ridiculous. We are a national asset now. Oxford has been bolstered by EU funding for decades, attracting phenomenal researchers who were awarded EU based scholarships (well over 1/3 of my PhD class were on them). Our Department funding is to be massively reduced & so will output.

That is the quote. She said a third of her department researchers were funded by EU funds. She doesn't say she'd be getting that money from the UK. She said explicitely that her department is to be massively reduced. That is the opposite of what you're saying. You promise her to equalize the lack of EU funding. Where do you take that from? Your fantasy?

[dribbles]

That is the quote. She said a third of her department researchers were funded by EU funds. She doesn't say she'd be getting that money from the UK. She said explicitely that her department is to be massively reduced. That is the opposite of what you're saying. You promise her to equalize the lack of EU funding. Where do you take that from? Your fantasy?

The EU doesn't have any funds other than those that are provided for out of the UK foreign aid budget, amongst a few other contributing nations. She is not funded by EU money, they have none of their own except for our donations, she is currently funded by UK money. And will continue to be to a greater extent beyond brexit.

[Slant]

The EU doesn't have any funds other than those that are provided for out of the UK foreign aid budget, amongst a few other contributing nations. She is not funded by EU money, they have none of their own except for our donations, she is currently funded by UK money. And will continue to be to a greater extent beyond brexit.

She just told you that a third of her department is funded by EU money. And now you turn around and say the EU has no funds and she's snot funded by the EU? And despite her saying her department is going to be massively reduced, you say it's going to be funded to a greater extent? Where do you take this from? It's surely not from her Tweet, which directly contradicts everything you just said.

In other... more sane news:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47408789

The EU has rejected calls for an agreement to protect UK and EU expats' rights, if there is a no-deal Brexit.

- - - Updated - - -

And here's the new trade deal with the US that Brexiteers are hoping for:

https://www.ft.com/content/09bfe7ca-...b-2c7f526ca5d0

US takes tough line with UK on post-Brexit trade talks James Politi March 01, 2019

The Trump administration has taken an aggressive posture towards the UK on post-Brexit trade talks, demanding greater access to the UK market for its agricultural products and guarantees that London would not manipulate its currency.

The office of the US trade representative, led by Robert Lighthizer, on Thursday released its “negotiating objectives” for a possible trade agreement with the UK, suggesting Britain is unlikely to get softer treatment than other US allies.

In the 18-page document, Mr Lighthizer’s office said it was seeking “comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK” through the reduction or elimination of tariffs, a request that has already soured Washington’s trade relations with the EU.

Furthermore, the US is looking for the UK to remove “unwarranted barriers” related to “sanitary and physiosanitary” standards in the farm industry. For years US agricultural groups have complained that European countries have unnecessarily limited American exports of meat and grains based on fears they are unsafe for consumers.

Access to the British agricultural market could end up being the most politically sensitive request made by the Trump administration. The EU has said it was not willing to include agriculture in its own trade negotiations with the US, given that it could trigger a big public backlash in a wide range of member states.

Other demands could also be highly problematic for London. On currency, the US wants to “ensure that the UK avoids manipulating exchange rates in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage”. Currency matters have traditionally been excluded from trade negotiations, but the Trump administration has injected them into talks, including with China and Japan.

Another provision that could raise eyebrows would constrain the UK’s ability to secure a trade deal with a “non-market economy” — such as China — by creating a “mechanism to ensure transparency and take appropriate action”. This could allow the US to ditch its trade deal with the UK if it does not like the terms of any agreement London strikes with Beijing.

The tough US demands are only an opening gambit, but they highlight the difficulties the UK could face in negotiating a trade deal with Washington, in contrast to claims made by leading Brexit proponents that it would be a smooth exercise.

On Thursday a UK government spokesperson said negotiating an “ambitious free trade agreement” with the US was a priority and Washington’s move to publish its objectives “demonstrates their commitment to beginning talks as soon as possible”.

She added: “As part of our open and transparent approach to negotiations, we will publish our own negotiating objectives in due course.”

The US negotiating objectives for the UK deal are similar to the wish lists published in recent months by Mr Lighthizer’s office for talks with the EU and Japan.

On industrial goods, the US said it was aiming for “comprehensive duty-free access” and stronger “disciplines to address non-tariff barriers” from the UK.

In digital trade, which is rapidly expanding, the US wants “secure commitments not to impose customs duties on digital products”, such as software, music, video and ebooks, and “non-discriminatory treatment” of content.

In commercial partnerships, the US is asking the UK to “discourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel”.

Jesus Christ... you were saying the EU was mean to you? I'm looking forward to the trade rape the US will be doing with the UK.

[dribbles]

She just told you that a third of her department is funded by EU money. And now you turn around and say the EU has no funds and she's snot funded by the EU? And despite her saying her department is going to be massively reduced, you say it's going to be funded to a greater extent? Where do you take this from? It's surely not from her Tweet, which directly contradicts everything you just said.

In other... more sane news:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47408789

The EU exists, like a street beggar, only due to UK (and German + a few others, I give you that) charity donations. It has no money of its own without a few nations bunging a load in the empty tin it shakes. The EU funds nothing in contributor nations. And it funds nothing in nations that receive money from it. Those contributing nations with their charity donations to the EU, that it then redistributes, do.

How don't you, and her, get this basic fact?

The EU is a cost paid for by the few for the many. Brexit is the UK opting out of this. That university lecturer would only suffer were she not in Oxford but in Bucharest, say.

[Iliena]

Where's the contradiction? I understand that tweet fully.

The EU gives the UK no money at all. The UK gives the EU shedloads...are you disputing that?

Try looking beyond the end of your nose it might help.

[Slant]

The EU exists, like a street beggar, only due to UK (and German + a few others, I give you that) charity donations. It has no money of its own without a few nations bunging a load in the empty tin it shakes. The EU funds nothing in contributor nations. And it funds nothing in nations that receive money from it. Those contributing nations with their charity donations to the EU, that it then redistributes, do.

How don't you, and her, get this basic fact?

The EU is a cost paid for by the few for the many. Brexit is the UK opting out of this. That university lecturer would only suffer were she not in Oxford but in Bucharest, say.

EU funds come from countries that greatly benefit from trade deals negotiated by the EU on their behalf. As such, it pools resources and redirects them into places like Oxford, as in this case. What you're not getting is that FACTUALLY her department is going to be reduced without the EU. That you think it's stupid and the world doesn't understand your fantasy doesn't mean she's lying. Just means that the world still hasn't rearranged itself to work like the fantasy in your head. Never will, actually.

In the meantime... your economy does this:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKCN1QI46F

LONDON - British factories slashed jobs in February and braced for Brexit by stockpiling goods at the fastest pace seen in any Group of Seven country since records started in the early 1990s, a survey showed on Friday.

This is happening right now. How can you still deny it?

Spoke to our logistics manager yesterday, he told me to prepare our customers for massive delays in products out of the UK due to customs. This is on top of paying additional import tax. This is reality, Dribs. It is happening. British companies already have a bad reputation over here, this will lead to cancellation of orders, I can promise you this.

[dribbles]

EU funds come from countries that greatly benefit from trade deals negotiated by the EU on their behalf. As such, it pools resources and redirects them into places like Oxford, as in this case. What you're not getting is that FACTUALLY her department is going to be reduced without the EU. That you think it's stupid and the world doesn't understand your fantasy doesn't mean she's lying. Just means that the world still hasn't rearranged itself to work like the fantasy in your head. Never will, actually.

In the meantime... your economy does this:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKCN1QI46F



This is happening right now. How can you still deny it?

So we agree EU funds (the £3) come from the UK and then it sends (the £1) back to the UK, with conditions, keeping £2 for itself?

I feel we are getting somewhere here.

So unless the UK, amongst others, sends that £3 in the first place the EU has nothing. You get that?

Are you trying to divert the discussion away from this on to the UK economy? If so I'll drop this in here...

Comparing GDP Q4 2018 with Q4 2017:
US +3.1%
Canada (Q3) + 2.1%
UK + 1.3%
France + 0.9%
Germany +0.6%
Italy +0.1%
Japan 0%

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1101408090270896128

[Slant]

So we agree EU funds (the £3) come from the UK and then it sends (the £1) back to the UK, with conditions, keeping £2 for itself?

I feel we are getting somewhere here.

So unless the UK, amongst others, sends that £3 in the first place the EU has nothing. You get that?

Are you trying to divert the discussion away from this on to the UK economy? If so I'll drop this in here...

Comparing GDP Q4 2018 with Q4 2017:
US +3.1%
Canada (Q3) + 2.1%
UK + 1.3%
France + 0.9%
Germany +0.6%
Italy +0.1%
Japan 0%

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1101408090270896128

Your GDP is currently dominated by stockpiling. That boosts the GDP, but it's not investment. It's not saving jobs. You are already in a recession, you just don't want to believe it. The funding the UK provides to the EU is offset to a greater degree by the benefits, the trade agreements, lack of customs checks, facilitation of trade in the EU. You still don't seem to get it. The point here is that the EU isn't a piggy bank scheme of generating money. It doesn't work like that. You don't get to put money in and take money out like in a piggy bank. It's much, much more complicated than that. What you're doing is the imbecile and overly simplistic tit for tat type of economics. It doesn't work like that, mate.

[Breccia]

Donald Trump’s administration has now made it clear just what it will be demanding from the UK in return for a trade deal - and one of those things is that we let big US companies run riot in the NHS.

One demand of the US is that the NHS pay more to US drug companies and that that US drug companies, the very corporations that have caused the opioids crisis in their home countries through reckless marketing and pressure on doctors, get full access to the NHS – long a demand from US mega-lobbyists in the pay of Big Pharma.

-- Labour MP Jo Steven

There's apparently some other language about the US being allowed to sell things in the UK currently defined as waste that could include asbestos, a Trump-approved material like coal and goddam steam.

[ati87]

That's all good for those who get EU money, but the UK never gets any EU money. So for the UK quite obviously there is absolutely nothing to like about the EU = brexit.

You know how thick headed do you have to be that after the whole bus add turned out to be a obvious lie that the benefits of being part of the EU is far greater then the actual cost in Euro's.

You don't need to receive a net benefit in terms of Euro's because the EU is more than just a common free trade agreement.

- - - Updated - - -

Informing the public about what you're doing isn't propaganda.

- - - Updated - - -



You have a history of deceiving and lying, but not understanding the tweet that you posted is new... it's directly contradicting what you said in the previous post.

Just point the argument the right-wing governments in Europe will be using the moment a less populair decision is taken and they need a scapegoat.

- - - Updated - - -

The EU exists, like a street beggar, only due to UK (and German + a few others, I give you that) charity donations. It has no money of its own without a few nations bunging a load in the empty tin it shakes. The EU funds nothing in contributor nations. And it funds nothing in nations that receive money from it. Those contributing nations with their charity donations to the EU, that it then redistributes, do.

How don't you, and her, get this basic fact?

The EU is a cost paid for by the few for the many. Brexit is the UK opting out of this. That university lecturer would only suffer were she not in Oxford but in Bucharest, say.

Your talking about the EU like it's some sort of 3e entity. The EU are it's member states. The political parties in the EU are often the same parties that are active in national politics.

[dribbles]

Your GDP is currently dominated by stockpiling. That boosts the GDP, but it's not investment. It's not saving jobs. You are already in a recession, you just don't want to believe it. The funding the UK provides to the EU is offset to a greater degree by the benefits, the trade agreements, lack of customs checks, facilitation of trade in the EU. You still don't seem to get it. The point here is that the EU isn't a piggy bank scheme of generating money. It doesn't work like that. You don't get to put money in and take money out like in a piggy bank. It's much, much more complicated than that. What you're doing is the imbecile and overly simplistic tit for tat type of economics. It doesn't work like that, mate.

Our economy is doing OK considering the negative impact the EU is having on global trade. The EU is becoming a basket case, with its 15% unemployment and economic contraction. Just released this morning....

Eurozone manufacturing sector contracts in February

"Euro area manufacturing is in its deepest downturn for almost six years, with forward-looking indicators suggesting risks are tilted further to the downside as we move into spring. The downturn is being led by Germany and Italy, but Spain has also now fallen into contraction."

https://www.markiteconomics.com/Surv...7c3c5655216df9

Everywhere else in the world is doing pretty fine...time for the EU to pull its finger out and stop dragging the world down.

[ati87]

Your GDP is currently dominated by stockpiling. That boosts the GDP, but it's not investment. It's not saving jobs. You are already in a recession, you just don't want to believe it. The funding the UK provides to the EU is offset to a greater degree by the benefits, the trade agreements, lack of customs checks, facilitation of trade in the EU. You still don't seem to get it. The point here is that the EU isn't a piggy bank scheme of generating money. It doesn't work like that. You don't get to put money in and take money out like in a piggy bank. It's much, much more complicated than that. What you're doing is the imbecile and overly simplistic tit for tat type of economics. It doesn't work like that, mate.

Isn't this guy also ignoring inflation? Sure a high inflation doens't mean negative growth but when your just throwing out random numbers without context you kind of being two things
1) stupid
2) dishonest
(or both)

Right-wingers can be both