Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Thanks for those links. As far as I can see, the first one shows that three out of the four models are diesels, so I don't think that quite warrants the

Of course it does, its another example of simplistic, broad-brush ignorance. It is not a 'diesel SUV' any more than a Cayenne or a Range Rover or XC90 are.

Perhaps you will kindly furnish the split between the number of sales of the petrol and diesel models. I would expect that most sales are for diesels and it is them that have experienced the recent fall in sales.

No idea, it wasn't my point. I would assume its circa 70-80% derv.

As for the second link, it appears that it is a good thing that your graph didn't show the European sales for 2018, as they fell fairly substantially for 9 of the 11 months shown.

The website didn't provide these, it was not an intentional omission. My assumption was that the numbers were not finalised. Assume you are aware that car sales in general are significantly down for 2018?

Up to November 2018, the sales were 23542 down compared to the year before, so even if this last December matched the sales for December 2017, which is extremely unlikely given that most other months sales were down in 2018, there would still be a drop in sales of around 28%. If the sales for December dropped in line with some other months, the end result could be a drop by a third. Indeed, sales for September, October and November 2018, were lower than in the equivalent months in 2015.

 

Presumably the decision on the X Trail will be influenced quite strongly by the most recent figures, the rising sales trend up to 2017 having come to an abrupt halt last year.

See my previous point.

https://europe.autonews.com/sales-market/european-sales-fall-8-no-sign-rebound

Thanks for those links. As far as I can see, the first one shows that three out of the four models are diesels, so I don't think that quite warrants the

 

Perhaps you will kindly furnish the split between the number of sales of the petrol and diesel models. I would expect that most sales are for diesels and it is them that have experienced the recent fall in sales.

 

As for the second link, it appears that it is a good thing that your graph didn't show the European sales for 2018, as they fell fairly substantially for 9 of the 11 months shown.

 

Up to November 2018, the sales were 23542 down compared to the year before, so even if this last December matched the sales for December 2017, which is extremely unlikely given that most other months sales were down in 2018, there would still be a drop in sales of around 28%. If the sales for December dropped in line with some other months, the end result could be a drop by a third. Indeed, sales for September, October and November 2018, were lower than in the equivalent months in 2015.

 

Presumably the decision on the X Trail will be influenced quite strongly by the most recent figures, the rising sales trend up to 2017 having come to an abrupt halt last year.

Maybe you should stay up to date Wes?

"Nissan to discontinue diesel engines in its line-up in Europe. A Nissan spokesperson confirmed a media report from Japan, saying the carmaker would no longer include diesel variants in its new models". The new X Trail which will no longer be built in Sunderland was a new model.

https://www.electrive.com/2018/05/07/no-more-diesel-sales-in-europe-says-nissan/

While it's mildly entertaining witnessing Jihadi John's meltdown (yet again), can anyone enlighten me on the point he's failing to make?

He appears to be quoting a government minister, all the way back in 2016, making vague and non-credible promises long before the withdrawal agreement was reached (and breached) - and we haven't even started yet on the supposed trade agreement - about tariff access which was still years away from being worked out.

All I see is a great blob of upset and rage, but no discernible argument.

Of course it does, its another example of simplistic, broad-brush ignorance. It is not a 'diesel SUV' any more than a Cayenne or a Range Rover or XC90 are.

 

The X Trail is not a Diesel SUV? What am I missing here? Even Nissan describe it as an SUV diesel. I can show you several other car site links that do too.

No idea, it wasn't my point. I would assume its circa 70-80% derv.

 

So it is mainly a diesel range then. As I said.

 

The website didn't provide these, it was not an intentional omission. My assumption was that the numbers were not finalised. Assume you are aware that car sales in general are significantly down for 2018?

The graph didn't show the 2018 figures presumably because the December figures were not available at the time. As you and I both know that car sales are significantly down for 2018, it is a bit disingenuous linking to the graph selectively showing that upward sales trend to prove some sort of point against me, wasn't it?

 

See my previous point.

https://europe.autonews.com/sales-market/european-sales-fall-8-no-sign-rebound

The link shows Nissan sales dropped 28%, which I had already worked out.

Maybe you should stay up to date Wes?

"Nissan to discontinue diesel engines in its line-up in Europe. A Nissan spokesperson confirmed a media report from Japan, saying the carmaker would no longer include diesel variants in its new models". The new X Trail which will no longer be built in Sunderland was a new model.

https://www.electrive.com/2018/05/07/no-more-diesel-sales-in-europe-says-nissan/

I'm well up to date thanks, Timmy. I think that what you should do, is to read back to the link I posted discussing Nissan deciding to cease production of the X Trail in Sunderland.

It was Plastic who went off on a tangent about whether the X Trail was an SUV diesel or not and the graph and sales figures that he linked to which sought to mislead on the sales, as they were incomplete and didn't show the full 2018 decline. It was only on his last link that he finally posted a link to a site showing the true picture on European for Nissan and all other makes of car sales.

The X Trail is not a Diesel SUV?

Not only, and apparently not at all for the 'new' model. So yes, that's correct.

So it is mainly a diesel range then. As I said.

I was commenting on the tabloid fantasist JHB that you linked to. Direct quotes were demonstrably untrue, as I... erm... demonstrated.

it is a bit disingenuous linking to the graph selectively showing that upward sales trend to prove some sort of point against me, wasn't it?

I give up, go and listen to the JHB video you posted.

I'm well up to date thanks, Timmy. I think that what you should do, is to read back to the link I posted discussing Nissan deciding to cease production of the X Trail in Sunderland.

 

It was Plastic who went off on a tangent about whether the X Trail was an SUV diesel or not and the graph and sales figures that he linked to which sought to mislead on the sales, as they were incomplete and didn't show the full 2018 decline. It was only on his last link that he finally posted a link to a site showing the true picture on European for Nissan and all other makes of car sales.

So to be clear. The reason investment in the British car industry has slumped 90% since 2015 is nothing to do with Brexit. The reason Landrover has moved production of the Discovery to Slovakia is nothing to do with Brexit. The cancellation of the X Trail build at Sunderland is nothing to do with Brexit. The decline in UK car production since the referendum is nothing to do with Brexit. Anybody from the car industry who says it is is lying.

Really? When did the Government deliver the promised deal? Last I heard they were still negotiating with 5 weeks to go.

Clarke to make a statement to the Commons at 5:00 PM, about the illegal state aid offered to Nissan, which is now going to be withdrawn. Jeez, this sounds like British Leyland...

I was posting about the Nissan deal and you are posting about the "Brexit deal". Back on ignore for being terminally stupid, pal...

You think they're separate and I'm the stupid one?

Two car crashes (pardon the pun) for the price of one. Gripping stuff lads

You think they're separate and I'm the stupid one?

The last post, dumbass:

U.K. Business Secretary Greg Clark wrote a letter to Japanese carmaker Nissan, pledging that the company would "remain competitive" after Britain's exit from the European Union, the Times reported today. Nissan announced Thursday it would invest in its Sunderland plant in north-eastern England to build two new car models.

The letter came after Nissan's CEO Carlos Ghosn said the investment would depend on guarantees by the U.K. government that the carmaker would not suffer losses after Brexit. “You can have commitments of compensation in case you have something negative,” Ghosn had said. Clark's letter was understood by Nissan as a promise that the company would not bear the cost of potential tariff barriers if the U.K. leaves the EU without securing a free trade deal, according to the Times.

I've been driving an electric Golf for the last six months and take it from me. Electric motors won't take over...

The last post, dumbass:

That would cost c£4.5bn pa in subsidies. Still saying there is no connection to the Brexit deal? Have you read the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures? Are you ever anything more than totally clueless?

Im only quoting what a top exec of one of the major German car manufactrers told an acquaintance. He should know whats happening in that technology.

Top execs told everyone that diesel was the future and that they were clean. I'm only speaking from personal experience and I will be selling the darn thing ASAP and going back to my favourite petrol car. I should never have sold it...

...still, I guess EV's are alright for pottering around, but long journeys over 50 miles, forget it. They only shift the pollution elsewhere. As Germany produces 40% of its electricity using coal, I really think that diesel or petrol cars are more efficient and cleaner, to be honest.

Oh and good luck with disposing of the batteries...

Nissan says 'business reasons' not Brexit are behind Sunderland reversal here.

Nissan says 'business reasons' not Brexit are behind Sunderland reversal here.

That was the Telegraph yesterday. Today its

"Manufacturers may be reluctant to invest in diesel car production in general terms, but economists agree that some factors have made the UK less attractive as an investment destination at the moment. Most obvious is the political uncertainty over Brexit and particularly how a deal might affect the "just-in-time" production models that manufacturers rely on. These demand near-zero friction for parts moving back and forward with the continent.

Complex rules of origin that demand a set amount of a product must derive for a certain location to benefit from the tariff reduction or exemption granted under a trade deal are another major cause for concern. The likely agreement on these issues remains uncertain, as they too depend on the future trading relationship between the UK and EU.

Nissan’s move not to invest or cut back on UK manufacturing capacity is not an isolated case. Airbus has put out increasingly shrill warnings about future investment in UK operations if there is a “no deal” Brexit outcome. Rolls-Royce has relocated certification of jet engines from Derby to Germany to avoid regulatory headaches post-Brexit, while Philips will stop manufacturing in the UK altogether."

Nice to know that Liam Fox has made excellent progress with getting the 'continuity' trade deals agreed and signed off - or at least the 1 with that world trading superpower, Chile.

Top execs told everyone that diesel was the future and that they were clean. I'm only speaking from personal experience and I will be selling the darn thing ASAP and going back to my favourite petrol car. I should never have sold it...

 

...still, I guess EV's are alright for pottering around, but long journeys over 50 miles, forget it. They only shift the pollution elsewhere. As Germany produces 40% of its electricity using coal, I really think that diesel or petrol cars are more efficient and cleaner, to be honest.

https://brexitcentral.com/deal-no-deal-martin-selmayr-told-brexit-select-committee-divorce-bill-39-billion/

Selmayr insists that whether we leave with a Withdrawal Agreement or on WTO terms with no deal, we will still have to pay the EU the £39 billion. I think that he needs to be told in no uncertain terms, that if we leave on WTO terms, technically we do not have to pay them a penny legally, but that we will pay only what we consider to be our reasonable debt for such things as pensions for our people working in the EU and ongoing cooperation in joint projects. If they aren't happy with what we decide to pay, then they can take the matter through the International courts, which will probably take a very considerable time to adjudicate. Regarding the position if we agree a Withdrawal Agreement, we then have to negotiate a FTA with the EU, which could drag on for ages with the current backstop arrangements. In order that the EU has some incentive to progress that deal quickly, half of the £39 billion should be paid on the signing of the Withdrawal Agreement, the other half only when the FTA has been signed.

It is a shame that May and her negotiators have been so incompetent as to offer the £39 billion up front without the strings attached that would make it clear to the likes of Selmayr that we won't be pushed around and are serious about leaving with no deal as a last resort. The implied threat from Selmayr, is that unless we pay their Danegeld, our relationship with the EU will be forever soured. If that is what they want, then let the jumped up little upstart explain that to those EU exporters, especially in Germany and France, for whom we are their major customers.

https://brexitcentral.com/deal-no-deal-martin-selmayr-told-brexit-select-committee-divorce-bill-39-billion/

 

Selmayr insists that whether we leave with a Withdrawal Agreement or on WTO terms with no deal, we will still have to pay the EU the £39 billion. I think that he needs to be told in no uncertain terms, that if we leave on WTO terms, technically we do not have to pay them a penny legally, but that we will pay only what we consider to be our reasonable debt for such things as pensions for our people working in the EU and ongoing cooperation in joint projects. If they aren't happy with what we decide to pay, then they can take the matter through the International courts, which will probably take a very considerable time to adjudicate. Regarding the position if we agree a Withdrawal Agreement, we then have to negotiate a FTA with the EU, which could drag on for ages with the current backstop arrangements. In order that the EU has some incentive to progress that deal quickly, half of the £39 billion should be paid on the signing of the Withdrawal Agreement, the other half only when the FTA has been signed.

 

.

And how badly undermined would our integrity be in the eyes of other countries when we try to negotiate treaties or trade agreements with them ?

The question isn't why Nissan is moving the X-Trail production to Japan, but why they aren't moving it to somewhere else in the EU, following the free trade agreement the EU was trumpeting last week. Well, to address specific sensitivities in the 28-member trading bloc, the EU said motor vehicle tariffs would be lowered in stages during a seven-year transition period, before being eliminated. What that means is that Germany didn't want the Japanese having free access to the EU, so the tariff on cars from Japan is not 0%. It was 10% but will now be 9.2% from this month and will eventually be 0% in 2032, 13 years away.

As I said before, we have idiots negotiating for the UK and the EU have snakes doing theirs.

https://brexitcentral.com/deal-no-deal-martin-selmayr-told-brexit-select-committee-divorce-bill-39-billion/

 

Selmayr insists that whether we leave with a Withdrawal Agreement or on WTO terms with no deal, we will still have to pay the EU the £39 billion. I think that he needs to be told in no uncertain terms, that if we leave on WTO terms, technically we do not have to pay them a penny legally, but that we will pay only what we consider to be our reasonable debt for such things as pensions for our people working in the EU and ongoing cooperation in joint projects. If they aren't happy with what we decide to pay, then they can take the matter through the International courts, which will probably take a very considerable time to adjudicate. Regarding the position if we agree a Withdrawal Agreement, we then have to negotiate a FTA with the EU, which could drag on for ages with the current backstop arrangements. In order that the EU has some incentive to progress that deal quickly, half of the £39 billion should be paid on the signing of the Withdrawal Agreement, the other half only when the FTA has been signed.

 

It is a shame that May and her negotiators have been so incompetent as to offer the £39 billion up front without the strings attached that would make it clear to the likes of Selmayr that we won't be pushed around and are serious about leaving with no deal as a last resort. The implied threat from Selmayr, is that unless we pay their Danegeld, our relationship with the EU will be forever soured. If that is what they want, then let the jumped up little upstart explain that to those EU exporters, especially in Germany and France, for whom we are their major customers.

Why are you so aggressive Wes

Selmayr is not an upstart he is the Secretary General of the EU and is explaining in plain English that if we want to leave the EU with no free movement no single market no customs union no hard border in Ireland the deal negotiated by May with the backstop she asked for is the best and only deal available.

Pretty simple really

Why are you so aggressive Wes

 

Selmayr is not an upstart he is the Secretary General of the EU and is explaining in plain English that if we want to leave the EU with no free movement no single market no customs union no hard border in Ireland the deal negotiated by May with the backstop she asked for is the best and only deal available.

 

Pretty simple really

Yes, it is quite simple; the EU is made up of at least 3 countries that we beat in WW2, and several others that we helped liberate. The ingrates should back down and give us what we deserve.

The question isn't why Nissan is moving the X-Trail production to Japan, but why they aren't moving it to somewhere else in the EU, following the free trade agreement the EU was trumpeting last week. Well, to address specific sensitivities in the 28-member trading bloc, the EU said motor vehicle tariffs would be lowered in stages during a seven-year transition period, before being eliminated. What that means is that Germany didn't want the Japanese having free access to the EU, so the tariff on cars from Japan is not 0%. It was 10% but will now be 9.2% from this month and will eventually be 0% in 2032, 13 years away.

 

As I said before, we have idiots negotiating for the UK and the EU have snakes doing theirs.

How did you get from a transition period of seven years to phase out tariffs to 2032? Asking in all seriousness.

And how badly undermined would our integrity be in the eyes of other countries when we try to negotiate treaties or trade agreements with them ?

Our integrity will be enhanced, as we will be seen to have done everything to get a mutually beneficial deal with the EU, but ultimately the EU's intransigence meant that with regret we could not come to a mutually beneficial agreement with them. It is the EU's integrity that will be undermined, as they will be seen to have acted in a vindictive manner in order to punish us for daring to leave their protectionist racket. Most of the Anglosphere countries will not be in the least bit bothered, as most of them feel that we have let the EU trample all over us in these negotiations and will be sympathetic to the patience and calmness we showed throughout.

Ultimately though, we will be perfectly happy trading on WTO terms, and any trade agreements with other countries will be based on the mutual benefits that will accrue to both parties, rather than on whether we allowed ourselves to be humiliated by the EU over financial reparations which were of dubious legality at the very least.

Our integrity will be enhanced, as we will be seen to have done everything to get a mutually beneficial deal with the EU, but ultimately the EU's intransigence meant that with regret we could not come to a mutually beneficial agreement with them. It is the EU's integrity that will be undermined, as they will be seen to have acted in a vindictive manner in order to punish us for daring to leave their protectionist racket. Most of the Anglosphere countries will not be in the least bit bothered, as most of them feel that we have let the EU trample all over us in these negotiations and will be sympathetic to the patience and calmness we showed throughout.

 

Ultimately though, we will be perfectly happy trading on WTO terms, and any trade agreements with other countries will be based on the mutual benefits that will accrue to both parties, rather than on whether we allowed ourselves to be humiliated by the EU over financial reparations which were of dubious legality at the very least.

Les. Can I have what you’ve been taking pal?

NEW: Ministers’ private concern over US Congress siding with Dublin. Specifically Cabinet sources point to impact on any US-UK trade deal should UK be seen to renege on commitments to Dublin.

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1092718256933273600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Our integrity will be enhanced, as we will be seen to have done everything to get a mutually beneficial deal with the EU, but ultimately the EU's intransigence meant that with regret we could not come to a mutually beneficial agreement with them. It is the EU's integrity that will be undermined, as they will be seen to have acted in a vindictive manner in order to punish us for daring to leave their protectionist racket. Most of the Anglosphere countries will not be in the least bit bothered, as most of them feel that we have let the EU trample all over us in these negotiations and will be sympathetic to the patience and calmness we showed throughout.

 

Ultimately though, we will be perfectly happy trading on WTO terms, and any trade agreements with other countries will be based on the mutual benefits that will accrue to both parties, rather than on whether we allowed ourselves to be humiliated by the EU over financial reparations which were of dubious legality at the very least.

You have absolutely no idea if we will be perfectly happy trading on WTO terms as you are just some bloke with very right wing views with little idea of how the UK functions within the EU and have little indepth knowledge of WTO.

If it is so great why are most if not all Nations trying to involved in trade deals.

Also if it is so great why have successive Governments not pushed for leaving the EU and moving to WTO.

Probably because it is pants especially as we are currently in the EU which is the most respected Trade block in World with trade deals to most of the largest trading nations on the planet

Why are you so aggressive Wes?

I think it's a consequence of all the bile and rhetoric from the usual brexit evangelists.

They have learned well from Trump - Never defend your position, simply attack the opposition's position.

Our integrity will be enhanced, as we will be seen to have done everything to get a mutually beneficial deal with the EU, but ultimately the EU's intransigence meant that with regret we could not come to a mutually beneficial agreement with them. It is the EU's integrity that will be undermined, as they will be seen to have acted in a vindictive manner in order to punish us for daring to leave their protectionist racket. Most of the Anglosphere countries will not be in the least bit bothered, as most of them feel that we have let the EU trample all over us in these negotiations and will be sympathetic to the patience and calmness we showed throughout.

 

Ultimately though, we will be perfectly happy trading on WTO terms, and any trade agreements with other countries will be based on the mutual benefits that will accrue to both parties, rather than on whether we allowed ourselves to be humiliated by the EU over financial reparations which were of dubious legality at the very least.

**** me, he's not joking is he?

**** me, he's not joking is he?

His head’s gone.

**** me, he's not joking is he?

I'm afraid he isn't, and that is the tragedy.

This £39bn (or thereabouts) is money that we are due to pay or have agreed to pay. This is politics here, not international law. If you think that we can walk away without settling up what the 'other side' thinks is due to them then I suggest you try that at your local restaurant and see if you ever eat there again.

We shall have to pay this money and pay it we shall one way or another. if we don't pay it directly then we shall pay it through tariffs or embargoes. And don't expect any preferential trade deals soon with any other countries. Besides, the longer we stay in the Single Market then the longer we shall benefit from the extra tax revenues that arise from it. These are usually put at around £20bn a year which should cover several years of paying down the £39bn or so.

I have this vision of, somewhere in Brussels, the EU equivalents of Wes T and GM posting vitriolic b0ll0x about their side taking the hardest line and screwing the UK for the worst possible, ( from the UK perspective ), and most abrupt of cliff-edge 'crash out' Brexits, just to teach us a lesson.

You have absolutely no idea if we will be perfectly happy trading on WTO terms as you are just some bloke with very right wing views with little idea of how the UK functions within the EU and have little indepth knowledge of WTO.

 

If it is so great why are most if not all Nations trying to involved in trade deals.

 

Also if it is so great why have successive Governments not pushed for leaving the EU and moving to WTO.

 

Probably because it is pants especially as we are currently in the EU which is the most respected Trade block in World with trade deals to most of the largest trading nations on the planet

Many of our companies already trade around the World on WTO terms and do so very successfully without any undue worries or concerns. It isn't the calamity that project fear likes to project, especially if we chose to drop tariffs on pretty well everything. And of course many countries also trade only on WTO terms quite happily.

Regarding the rest of your whataboutery, it is all irrelevant to what I said. Do yourself a favour and read it again, so you don't make yourself look a fool.

A mutually beneficial trade deal with the EU is the optimal option, but if that deal is not available, the negotiating wisdom is that no deal is better than a bad deal, which our current negotiation most certainly is. No deal = WTO, until the EU comes to their senses. Had we been an independent third country currently seeking to join the EU as the 5th biggest economy right on their doorstep, they would be falling over themselves to offer us a good deal. So why shouldn't that deal be good enough for them to offer us now?

Whilst singing the praises of this most respected trade bloc in the World, you fail to recognise why we chose to leave it. Fine for Canada, South Korea, now Japan and the like to have FTA with the EU, but then they don't have to accept the four freedoms, the primacy of the ECJ, the inability to trade with other countries and the large payments into the EU slush fund for the privilege. I'd be perfectly happy with a Canada +++ deal.

Did I say anywhere that other groups of countries weren't forming their own trading blocs? Once free of the Customs Union, we will be free to join, or indeed to form, our own Trading blocs.

These largest trading nations on the planet; presumably you are talking of the likes of USA, China, India? I'm sure that they are all reaping the benefits of their FTAs with the EU.

This £39bn (or thereabouts) is money that we are due to pay or have agreed to pay. This is politics here, not international law. If you think that we can walk away without settling up what the 'other side' thinks is due to them then I suggest you try that at your local restaurant and see if you ever eat there again.

Another one who doesn't read what I wrote properly.

I think that he needs to be told in no uncertain terms, that if we leave on WTO terms, technically we do not have to pay them a penny legally, but that we will pay only what we consider to be our reasonable debt for such things as pensions for our people working in the EU and ongoing cooperation in joint projects.

If you and the other EU luvvies on here think that we should pay the EU whatever they ask for, you must be disappointed that we aren't agreeing to the original £100 billion that they fantasised about demanding. If you all believe that we should pay the same £39 billion regardless of whether we get a deal, no deal, or a bad deal, then you are all bonkers. Of course the £39 billion is a political payment rather than one due by international law, but much of it is a goodwill gesture to smooth the way for a decent FTA. If Selmayr wishes to insult us by demanding that we pay it regardless of whether we get a FTA or not, then he will have to face the consequences of us playing hardball with it, and recognising that they are desperate for it, using it as a bargaining chip, (which we should have done in the first place).

Our integrity will be enhanced, as we will be seen to have done everything to get a mutually beneficial deal with the EU

You mean how we spent 2 years negotiating a withdrawal agreement and then with a couple of months to go we changed our minds about fundamental things we'd already agreed? Yeah we will definitely come out of that really well.

Many of our companies already trade around the World on WTO terms and do so very successfully without any undue worries or concerns. It isn't the calamity that project fear likes to project, especially if we chose to drop tariffs on pretty well everything. And of course many countries also trade only on WTO terms quite happily.

 

Regarding the rest of your whataboutery, it is all irrelevant to what I said. Do yourself a favour and read it again, so you don't make yourself look a fool.

 

A mutually beneficial trade deal with the EU is the optimal option, but if that deal is not available, the negotiating wisdom is that no deal is better than a bad deal, which our current negotiation most certainly is. No deal = WTO, until the EU comes to their senses. Had we been an independent third country currently seeking to join the EU as the 5th biggest economy right on their doorstep, they would be falling over themselves to offer us a good deal. So why shouldn't that deal be good enough for them to offer us now?

 

Whilst singing the praises of this most respected trade bloc in the World, you fail to recognise why we chose to leave it. Fine for Canada, South Korea, now Japan and the like to have FTA with the EU, but then they don't have to accept the four freedoms, the primacy of the ECJ, the inability to trade with other countries and the large payments into the EU slush fund for the privilege. I'd be perfectly happy with a Canada +++ deal.

 

Did I say anywhere that other groups of countries weren't forming their own trading blocs? Once free of the Customs Union, we will be free to join, or indeed to form, our own Trading blocs.

 

These largest trading nations on the planet; presumably you are talking of the likes of USA, China, India? I'm sure that they are all reaping the benefits of their FTAs with the EU.

Les - I know your trick is to run away and bury your head in the sand when pressed on your points. But why do you repeat pony that has already been soundly demolished on here?

His head’s gone.

This is not just about 'opinions' now, this is someone with dangerous delusional thoughts - he seems to be one step away from a fully blown sociopath. How many of these can we tick for him:

- Having an oversized ego.

- Lying and exhibiting manipulative behavior.

- Exhibiting a lack of empathy.

- Showing a lack of remorse or shame.

- Staying eerily calm in scary or dangerous situations.

- Behaving irresponsibly or with extreme impulsivity.

- Having few friends.

- Being charming--but only superfically.

- Living by the "pleasure principle."

- Showing disregard for societal norms.

Definitely at 7 out of 10 - not sure if he has any friends (I would certainly guess not), or if he lives by the "pleasure principle". Definitely doesn't seem to be charming.

This is not just about 'opinions' now, this is someone with dangerous delusional thoughts - he seems to be one step away from a fully blown sociopath. How many of these can we tick for him:

 

- Having an oversized ego.

- Lying and exhibiting manipulative behavior.

- Exhibiting a lack of empathy.

- Showing a lack of remorse or shame.

- Staying eerily calm in scary or dangerous situations.

- Behaving irresponsibly or with extreme impulsivity.

- Having few friends.

- Being charming--but only superfically.

- Living by the "pleasure principle."

- Showing disregard for societal norms.

 

Definitely at 7 out of 10 - not sure if he has any friends (I would certainly guess not), or if he lives by the "pleasure principle". Definitely doesn't seem to be charming.

I just think he's had his pants pulled down and he's too proud to admit it. Rather than get angry with himself or those who've tricked him, he's been forced to lash out at the rest of us.

I just think he's had his pants pulled down and he's too proud to admit it. Rather than get angry with himself or those who've tricked him, he's been forced to lash out at the rest of us.

So I was at a Rotary Ball a fortnight ago and I was having a long conversation with an owner of a Construction firm in the Camberley area. We started talking about his fishing boat that he's just had imported over from the US, and we started talking about where he tends to do his sea-fishing, and the potential conflicts Brexit would cause. Now this guy is a self-made, multi-millionaire, who has an amazing amount of confidence in what he says and does.

He starts talking through the fact that he voted to leave, the reason for it etc. He then, completely of his own accord, admits that he made a big mistake in the way he voted, and if he could have his vote again would be voting to stay. His reasons for staying were due to muliple factors - the fact that he believed what he was told by the leave campaign and was "****ing duped like a mug", and his workforce - he's happy to sponsor those from the EU for Visa's if they need it - but it's more due to the upheaval and worry it's causing a lot of his employees, and the human toll it seems to be having. I have to say I have so much respect for the fact that he admitted this.

In other news, I have been invited fishing with him once he's into his new moorings (he's moving from Southsea to Port Solent for some reason).

This is not just about 'opinions' now, this is someone with dangerous delusional thoughts - he seems to be one step away from a fully blown sociopath. How many of these can we tick for him:

 

- Having an oversized ego.

- Lying and exhibiting manipulative behavior.

- Exhibiting a lack of empathy.

- Showing a lack of remorse or shame.

- Staying eerily calm in scary or dangerous situations.

- Behaving irresponsibly or with extreme impulsivity.

- Having few friends.

- Being charming--but only superfically.

- Living by the "pleasure principle."

- Showing disregard for societal norms.

 

Definitely at 7 out of 10 - not sure if he has any friends (I would certainly guess not), or if he lives by the "pleasure principle". Definitely doesn't seem to be charming.

I think that you've been reading "Psychology for Dummies" and not being able to comprehend it very well.

I think that you've been reading "Psychology for Dummies" and not being able to comprehend it very well.

Mate, I'm just trying to help you out - there's no need to be so ungrateful.

I'm happy to admit I'm not that into psychology - like you with Economics, Law and Politics - you just seem to fit the profile.

Mate, I'm just trying to help you out - there's no need to be so ungrateful.

 

I'm happy to admit I'm not that into psychology - like you with Economics, Law and Politics - you just seem to fit the profile.

Frankly, I think that you have much more to worry about psychologically than me, what with the way that just because you disagree with somebody's opinions, you are prepared to make the most basely crude and groundless insults against their wife and children. That really is plumbing the depths of what is acceptable and civilised behaviour. Would you be happy for your Rotary chums to know that you were capable of such behaviour?

Frankly, I think that you have much more to worry about psychologically than me, what with the way that just because you disagree with somebody's opinions, you are prepared to make the most basely crude and groundless insults against their wife and children. That really is plumbing the depths of what is acceptable and civilised behaviour. Would you be happy for your Rotary chums to know that you were capable of such behaviour?

I'm not a member of the Rotary, so I really wouldn't care, especially considering I don't remember insulting either your wife or children.

I'm not a member of the Rotary, so I really wouldn't care, especially considering I don't remember insulting either your wife or children.

I remember you throwing insults around like that, to be fair

I remember you throwing insults around like that, to be fair

A class act...

What's the bet that Wes caught his missus noshing off their Romanian gardener?

A class act...

Why's that an insult? She's with Les, so to me that is a massive tradeup. I was complementing her by saying that she could get herself a young Romanian gardener, rather than an old, racist, sociopath.