Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Wes Tender]

• I see no mandate in existence that would allow government to deliberately damage our economy, and therefore the welfare of the many millions of your fellow citizens it supports. The possibility of such a (irrational) mandate being achieved was sabotaged by the venal and deeply dishonest manner 'Vote Leave' chose to conduct themselves during last year's referendum campaign. Had the British people been honestly made aware of the adverse economic consequences they would likely face in the event of our estrangement from the EU Single Market, then I believe the referendum outcome may well have been reversed. Indeed, this seems highly likely I think.

 

The way that you express this is ridiculous and typical of your posts on this subject. Of course the Government is not deliberately setting out to damage the economy by leaving the EU and you really ought to accept that in the same way that history proved that we benefited from not joining the Eurozone, there is a good chance that we will also benefit from leaving the EU. Also typically, you rabbit on about the dishonesty of the Leave campaign, insinuating that the Remain campaign was a model of probity. It wasn't. The electorate was made painfully aware of the consequences of our leaving the EU. It was called project fear and yet they still gave the government the biggest mandate in our history to proceed.

 

• The notion that we can somehow mitigate the damage to our trading economy that will inevitably follow the introduction of a new tariff regime with the EU, by forming new trade deals with more distant nations, is dangerously speculative at best, illusionary at worse.

 

Of course we can mitigate much of the loss of trade from the EU with increased trade with the rest of the World. Tariffs will suit no one and as I alluded to in my post, even if initially the EU wishes to apply them, it will quickly become clear that it will harm many of their most powerful companies.

 

• As our economy surely requires a good degree of access to the EU Single Market - still nearly HALF our total exports - some kind of 'Norway' or 'Switzerland' style associate relationship with the EU will have to be agreed. I see no realistic alternative to this given the economic reality of our situation. The exact terms of this arrangement would obviously be subject to negotiation. However, it is quite clear that some manner of compromise over the key immigration issue will have to be agreed with the EU27.

 

As I already said, the uncontrolled movement of peoples from the EU is not acceptable, which would rule out a Switzerland or Norway solution. There is already considerable pressure on the EU to reform the free movement of peoples, the situation having been exacerbated by mass migrations from the former Iron Curtain countries and economic migration from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, on top of the refugees from Syria. If we cannot negotiate a trade arrangement with the EU that does not include free movement of peoples, then we will have to go down the WTO route.

 

• I suspect that at around half the nation would broadly agree with the above sentiments. So pressing ahead with the hard-line policy you and your fellow euro-sceptics would doubtless favour, while ignoring every other point of view, risks ripping this nation asunder. I put it to you that this would be a bad thing would it not?

 

The nation is divided right down the middle over this issue anyway, but the majority electoral decision is to leave the EU. What would be the bad thing, would be to ignore the will of the majority, would it not?

 

My position has always been that before Article 50 has been triggered and negotiations begin, it is far too early to make assumptions about the outcome. All this pessimistic bluster about how badly things might turn out, is no doubt comforting to you, so that you have the prospect of having been proven to be right, but the majority of the predictions from your so called experts of the immediate repercussions of a post Brexit vote which you were so keen to support, have been proven to be so much hot air.

[buctootim]

The nation is divided right down the middle over this issue anyway, but the majority electoral decision is to leave the EU. What would be the bad thing, would be to ignore the will of the majority, would it not?

 

My position has always been that before Article 50 has been triggered and negotiations begin, it is far too early to make assumptions about the outcome. All this pessimistic bluster about how badly things might turn out, is no doubt comforting to you, so that you have the prospect of having been proven to be right, but the majority of the predictions from your so called experts of the immediate repercussions of a post Brexit vote which you were so keen to support, have been proven to be so much hot air.

Article 50 has to be triggered, that is the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. After that though everything is dependent on how negotiations go, and they won't necessarily end in leaving.

 

Imo there should be a referendum on the terms of the deal but failing that a free vote in Parliament. Every and any option is possible, from staying with current arrangements to hard Brexit - but hard Brexit is the least likely.

Edited 7 January, 2017 by buctootim

[aintforever]

• I see no mandate in existence that would allow government to deliberately damage our economy, and therefore the welfare of the many millions of your fellow citizens it supports. The possibility of such a (irrational) mandate being achieved was sabotaged by the venal and deeply dishonest manner 'Vote Leave' chose to conduct themselves during last year's referendum campaign. Had the British people been honestly made aware of the adverse economic consequences they would likely face in the event of our estrangement from the EU Single Market, then I believe the referendum outcome may well have been reversed. Indeed, this seems highly likely I think.

 

Did you have your head up your own arse all last June or something? All we heard day after day after day was the BBC ramming the possible negative effects on the economy down out throats. So called independent experts being wheeled out by the remain camp telling us lies about how the economy will collapse the day after the vote. If anything the economic effects were egagerated so everyone knew what they were voting for.

[Batman]

Did you have your head up your own arse all last June or something? All we heard day after day after day was the BBC ramming the possible negative effects on the economy down out throats. So called independent experts being wheeled out by the remain camp telling us lies about how the economy will collapse the day after the vote. If anything the economic effects were egagerated so everyone knew what they were voting for.

 

Agree

 

I remember when Gove was utterly ridiculed in all formats of the media for telling people to ignore the 'experts' on the economy and their world-ending predictions post Jun 23rd

 

The speakers of doom were everywhere as you say. Bank of England, IMF, EU, Guardian, Independent, The Mirror, Sky, BBC, Channel 4, Labour, Libdems, Green Party, SNP.......even our own Government....hell, Obama tried to 'influence' the vote (appears it was OK for him to try and influence another country.....) using the Economy as a means..

 

To say the public were not made aware is laughable.

[Wes Tender]

Article 50 has to be triggered, that is the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. After that though everything is dependent on how negotiations go, and they won't necessarily end in leaving.

 

Imo there should be a referendum on the terms of the deal but failing that a free vote in Parliament. Every and any option is possible, from staying with current arrangements to hard Brexit - but hard Brexit is the least likely.

 

The will of the people is that we leave the EU. Article 50 is merely the procedure to bring that about. If negotiations result in us not leaving the EU, there will be hell to pay from the electorate at the next election. Negotiating access to the single market and thereby having to accept the four principles is not an option. Having a second referendum on the terms of our negotiations is a nonsense, it would be difficult to establish any sort of consensus on whether the deal went far enough or too far, what people felt about the alternative solutions, what the majority were prepared to accept and what was unacceptable. For example, you would accept a Swiss or Norwegian model, whilst I certainly wouldn't. A bilateral decision such as in the referendum was relatively straightforward, whereas the variety of positions that would need to covered by a referendum on the terms we had negotiated with the EU would be far too complicated.

[Wes Tender]

Did you have your head up your own arse all last June or something? All we heard day after day after day was the BBC ramming the possible negative effects on the economy down out throats. So called independent experts being wheeled out by the remain camp telling us lies about how the economy will collapse the day after the vote. If anything the economic effects were egagerated so everyone knew what they were voting for.

 

Charlie himself posted the dire warnings of those so-called experts on a virtually daily basis. His memory has become very selective in his old age. He's also probably forgotten about the £9 million propaganda leaflet issued to every household by the Government and signed by the Prime Minister, recommending that the best option for our future was to remain a member of the EU. What percentage of votes would have increased the Leave majority had that not been sent?

[Orange]

Of course, it's possible.

 

Which articles are you referring to? Van Reenen's main interest is industrial economics. He is an empiricist: if he comes to the conclusion that immigration has not had a major effect, that conclusion is based on his careful analysis and interpretation of the evidence, not some prior political position.

 

The Brexiter ruse is to conflate the two which is both dangerous and depressing. The worst accusation you can level at an applied economist is bias -and anyone found to be fiddling the numbers or not establishing the robustness of their methods will not survive very long the profession. That's what acadenics care about. The system is not perfect - peer review can lead to subtle pressures to conform. But this is small fry compared to the f**kwit claims being made on this thread.

 

What is the study/you trying to say? That adding over a million (net) to the population each 3 years will not have much of an affect on housing, the job market, public services etc? Bizarre conclusion if so.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Charlie himself posted the dire warnings of those so-called experts on a virtually daily basis ....

 

Says the man who would shamelessly parrot any Bretix propaganda here on a daily basis.

 

As I've said before, I don't think that either official campaign can look back on their actions during the referendum battle with much - if any - sense of pride. On the other hand you (characteristically) seem to see things in more simplistic 'black and white' terms. Ultimately, methinks the outright lies and assorted distortions the 'Vote Leave' campaign told the British people were the more effective set of falsehoods - probably because that set of lies is what more British people chose to believe for some reason. This is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

 

The very fact that you are still peddling the ridiculous old tripe that the EU will back down and grant the UK some privileged degree of access to the Single Market - access that no one else in Europe can achieve - because we are mighty Britain and they need us, betrays just how deeply you misunderstand the reality of our situation.

 

But the referendum campaign is history now and a Tory "one nation" government must find a way of navigating this old country of ours out of the utter mess we now find ourselves in - in one piece preferably. Your favoured solution seems to be to ignore half the nation and press ahead with an extreme euro-sceptic agenda you believe in so. This would hardly do in a dictatorship and is totally unacceptable in any modern democracy.

Edited 7 January, 2017 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[JackFrost]

I wonder how George Osborne's emergency budget is coming along. . .

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I wonder how George Osborne's emergency budget is coming along. . .

 

It is stuck in a box with that £350m we are getting.

[buctootim]

The will of the people is that we leave the EU. Article 50 is merely the procedure to bring that about. If negotiations result in us not leaving the EU, there will be hell to pay from the electorate at the next election.

 

The will of the people six months ago was narrowly to leave. In other years it has fluctuated between fervently pro and radically anti. Who knows what it will be in another two years if asked a different question about an as yet unknown deal. When asked about hard Brexit only 38% of voters supported it. Public opinion changes all the time, most often not based on anything much substantive. Thats assuming the electorate are even asked their opinion. The generally pro EU MPs and Lords may decide not to.

 

Whatever actually transpires will likely be a massive Brexit lite fudge sold as Britain talking tough to the world.

Edited 7 January, 2017 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

Says the man who would shamelessly parrot any Bretix propaganda here on a daily basis.

 

As I've said before, I don't think that either official campaign can look back on their actions during the referendum battle with much - if any - sense of pride. On the other hand you (characteristically) seem to see things in more simplistic 'black and white' terms. Ultimately, methinks the outright lies and assorted distortions the 'Vote Leave' campaign told the British people were the more effective set of falsehoods - probably because that set of lies is what more British people chose to believe for some reason. This is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

 

The very fact that you are still peddling the ridiculous old tripe that the EU will back down and grant the UK some privileged degree of access to the Single Market - access that no one else in Europe can achieve - because we are mighty Britain and they need us, betrays just how deeply you misunderstand the reality of our situation.

 

But the referendum campaign is history now and a Tory "one nation" government must find a way of navigating this old country of ours out of the utter mess we now find ourselves in - in one piece preferably. Your favoured solution seems to be to ignore half the nation and press ahead with an extreme euro-sceptic agenda you believe in so. This would hardly do in a dictatorship and is totally unacceptable in any modern democracy.

 

It is rather cutely eccentric, your fabrication of another word to describe our exit from the EU. Brexit or even Britex make some sort of sense, but credit must go to you for inventing a nonsense word like Bretix.

 

Good of you though to acknowledge that the Remain campaign was also characterised by much spin and lies too, and it is a matter of opinion as to which side told the biggest porkies. I believe that the reason why the electorate chose to disbelieve the lies told by the Remain campaign, was because they came from people and bodies which ought to have been trustworthy, but which were proven not to be, such as the Treasury and George Osborne and major corporations with vested interests. Once discredited, there was an inclination to question other arguments put forward by them, but as you say, it was indeed a sorry state of affairs having the Chancellor and the Treasury acting in that way.

 

Whether the EU allows us privileged access to the single market or not isn't a stance that I have taken a position on, apart from expressing an opinion that it isn't in their interests to enter a tariff war with us which would encourage us to seek replacement imports from elsewhere. I realise that you are dismissive of our status as one of the major economic powers in the World and that we therefore must have little clout when it comes to negotiating a deal with the EU, but hey, because I take that position, it must be me that misunderstands the situation.

 

Thankfully, a final acknowledgement that the referendum campaign is history, although you continue to want to rake over old coals. As you say, it is now the time for the Government to attempt to negotiate the best possible deal for us, but that must be one that allows us to take back control of our affairs, that being the message that resonated with the electorate. As for your last sentence, I admire the hyperbole where you suggest that if we are forced by the stubborn intransigence of the EU negotiators into a clean Brexit because we cannot accept their terms for access to the single market, that this would be akin to the actions of a dictatorship and undemocratic despite the decision of the referendum that gave the government a mandate to arrange our leaving of the EU. Your argument smacks of irony when you fail to see that when it comes to dictatorships or undemocratic bodies, the EU is far more deserving of those epithets.

[Guided Missile]

So, while the clueless Remainer keyboard warriors continue to spout rubbish about the perceived negative impact of Brexit on our international trade, I think it may be worth me providing the real life benefits of the vote to leave.

The major reason that I voted to leave was that technology I have developed, was being strangled at birth by the EU, very much like that which prevented the benefits of GM crops and fracking from being introduced into the EU, to help provide the UK with cheap food and energy. Specifically, the member state spearheading the banning of a product utilising our technology was Germany. The German government regulator that was obstructing the introduction of this technology, wrote to me demanding to know if I had a supply agreement with Bayer (a massive German corporation) for the major active ingredients we were using in our product.

It was/is apparent that this type of state interference in commercial arrangements is all part of the national protectionism in Germany and France. Anyone with any experience of doing business in the EU, understands the way the major EU corporations can use the myriad of EU regulations to their advantage and lobby the politicians/government to help in this objective. No surprise that politicians and big business liked the EU status quo. Consequently the product was banned in the EU, one that had sales potential for up to £125 million in the EU alone. No wonder the Germans didn't want it to succeed. The Chinese National Chemical Corporation, i.e. the Chinese government are suing the EU over the ban.

The story might appear to be another sob story from a frustrated UK S.M.E. fighting to get UK technology introduced into the EU. It may not turn out too bad for us, after all. Foreseeing the way things were going in the EU and after an approach by a major Australian corporation, we provided access to the technology to them, in the hope that the product could be introduced in this area.

Yesterday, I received an email from the company, stating that the product has been approved for sale in New Zealand and they expect approval in Australia soon. To quote our new partner:

 

Hi John,

We have it registered in New Zealand now, with Australia not far behind. Will you be able to supply us now the UK is leaving the EU and away from all the bureaucratic/red tape garbage?

Cheers Phil

So, needless to say I am flying out to Oz to negotiate a deal and it doesn't really depend any free trade agreement the UK may or may not have with Australia. Like it or not, countries like Australia are our real friends. Germany and France are not.

Screw 'em....

[Sevvy]

So, while the clueless Remainer keyboard warriors continue to spout rubbish about the perceived negative impact of Brexit on our international trade, I think it may be worth me providing the real life benefits of the vote to leave.

The major reason that I voted to leave was that technology I have developed, was being strangled at birth by the EU, very much like that which prevented the benefits of GM crops and fracking from being introduced into the EU, to help provide the UK with cheap food and energy. Specifically, the member state spearheading the banning of a product utilising our technology was Germany. The German government regulator that was obstructing the introduction of this technology, wrote to me demanding to know if I had a supply agreement with Bayer (a massive German corporation) for the major active ingredients we were using in our product.

It was/is apparent that this type of state interference in commercial arrangements is all part of the national protectionism in Germany and France. Anyone with any experience of doing business in the EU, understands the way the major EU corporations can use the myriad of EU regulations to their advantage and lobby the politicians/government to help in this objective. No surprise that politicians and big business liked the EU status quo. Consequently the product was banned in the EU, one that had sales potential for up to £125 million in the EU alone. No wonder the Germans didn't want it to succeed. The Chinese National Chemical Corporation, i.e. the Chinese government are suing the EU over the ban.

The story might appear to be another sob story from a frustrated UK S.M.E. fighting to get UK technology introduced into the EU. It may not turn out too bad for us, after all. Foreseeing the way things were going in the EU and after an approach by a major Australian corporation, we provided access to the technology to them, in the hope that the product could be introduced in this area.

Yesterday, I received an email from the company, stating that the product has been approved for sale in New Zealand and they expect approval in Australia soon. To quote our new partner:

 

 

So, needless to say I am flying out to Oz to negotiate a deal and it doesn't really depend any free trade agreement the UK may or may not have with Australia. Like it or not, countries like Australia are our real friends. Germany and France are not.

Screw 'em....

 

Good luck with your product G.M

[buctootim]

So, while the clueless Remainer keyboard warriors continue to spout rubbish about the perceived negative impact of Brexit on our international trade, I think it may be worth me providing the real life benefits of the vote to leave.

The major reason that I voted to leave was that technology I have developed, was being strangled at birth by the EU, very much like that which prevented the benefits of GM crops and fracking from being introduced into the EU, to help provide the UK with cheap food and energy. Specifically, the member state spearheading the banning of a product utilising our technology was Germany. The German government regulator that was obstructing the introduction of this technology, wrote to me demanding to know if I had a supply agreement with Bayer (a massive German corporation) for the major active ingredients we were using in our product.

It was/is apparent that this type of state interference in commercial arrangements is all part of the national protectionism in Germany and France. Anyone with any experience of doing business in the EU, understands the way the major EU corporations can use the myriad of EU regulations to their advantage and lobby the politicians/government to help in this objective. No surprise that politicians and big business liked the EU status quo. Consequently the product was banned in the EU, one that had sales potential for up to £125 million in the EU alone. No wonder the Germans didn't want it to succeed. The Chinese National Chemical Corporation, i.e. the Chinese government are suing the EU over the ban.

The story might appear to be another sob story from a frustrated UK S.M.E. fighting to get UK technology introduced into the EU. It may not turn out too bad for us, after all. Foreseeing the way things were going in the EU and after an approach by a major Australian corporation, we provided access to the technology to them, in the hope that the product could be introduced in this area.

Yesterday, I received an email from the company, stating that the product has been approved for sale in New Zealand and they expect approval in Australia soon. To quote our new partner:

 

 

So, needless to say I am flying out to Oz to negotiate a deal and it doesn't really depend any free trade agreement the UK may or may not have with Australia. Like it or not, countries like Australia are our real friends. Germany and France are not.

Screw 'em....

 

The EU wouldnt let me import a herbicide from China, just because its damaging to health and water supplies. Boo hoo.

Edited 8 January, 2017 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

**** me , Ken Clarke on Marr. Like a petulant kid throwing nonsense & insults around . Looks like he's after Grocer Heaths longest sulk record

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

**** me , Ken Clarke on Marr. Like a petulant kid throwing nonsense & insults around . Looks like he's after Grocer Heaths longest sulk record

 

Theres got to be an almighty car crash coming. May is talking tough because 60% of Tory voters want hard Brexit - but the majority of those same voters say they arent prepared to be poorer as a result of Brexit. Leaving the single market will make us poorer, at least in the short term if its done before other agreements are in place. I reckon she will get a Caesar stab in the back in two years.

[shurlock]

Clarke was good value. The zealots just don't like hearing the cold, hard facts - that it's time to get their s**t together and start making policy in the real world. Granted, sloganeering in lalaland is much more comforting.

Edited 8 January, 2017 by shurlock

[badgerx16]

.... the benefits of GM crops and fracking from being introduced ....

 

Fracking is dangerous to the environment, and will not produce as much energy independence as it's proponents suggest. Admittedly I'm a bit biased as I live very close to a couple of the test bores. Would you like it under your house ?

[Guided Missile]

Good luck with your product G.M

Cheers! That's the spirit!

[buctootim]

Fracking is dangerous to the environment, and will not produce as much energy independence as it's proponents suggest. Admittedly I'm a bit biased as I live very close to a couple of the test bores. Would you like it under your house ?

 

Its also really expensive. At most locations its only economically viable when oil is above $80 per barrel. We might never see that again.

[Guided Missile]

Its also really expensive. At most locations its only economically viable when oil is above $80 per barrel. We might never see that again.

Total b0ll0x as usual.

 

An article from today's Times here.

 

It promises to be a fracking good year in some parts of America. To understand why, you need to keep four numbers in mind: $100, $25, $50 and $60. The first is the approximate price of a barrel of crude oil in the summer of 2014, the second the price to which it plunged early in 2016, the third its current price after doubling last year, and the last, the price US frackers are expecting in 2017, now that the Opec cartel and fellow-traveller Russia have agreed to rein in output.

 

Fracking technology boosted US oil production to some 9m barrels a day in 2014, right behind Russia’s 10m and Saudi Arabia’s 11m. So the Saudis opened their taps wide to drive prices down and American frackers out of business, in the process preventing the hated Iranians from selling more oil.

 

 

In the event, Iran is back in the markets in a big way, and although more than 110 Canadian and US companies did go under, reducing US crude production by about 1m barrels a day, others survived. And became more efficient. A round of cost-cutting enables frackers operating in the more prolific areas to operate profitably with oil at $40, and others to make good money at $50.

 

I love when you post Tim. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Clarke was good value. The zealots just don't like hearing the cold, hard facts - that it's time to get their s**t together and start making policy in the real world. Granted, sloganeering in lalaland is much more comforting.

 

He was talking pony. One claim " we are leaving continental Europe ". No we're not Ken . Before praising this Europhile civil servant . The one who worked for him and was at one time Cleggys boss.

 

The people who need to get in the real world are remoaning clowns. We're leaving,we're leaving the single market and we're going to be fine. The Michael Fish moment has done for the establishment .

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

Total b0ll0x as usual.

 

An article from today's Times here.

 

 

 

I love when you post Tim. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

We arent in America. ****ing surprising to you I know. Sites here are much smaller and the regulatory hurdles higher.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11006723/fracking-for-Shale-gas-the-dotcom-bubble-of-our-times.html

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/UK-Shale-Gas-GPC1.pdf

Edited 8 January, 2017 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

Sites here are much smaller.

What sites, you clown...?

[Guided Missile]

Fracking is dangerous to the environment, and will not produce as much energy independence as it's proponents suggest. Admittedly I'm a bit biased as I live very close to a couple of the test bores. Would you like it under your house ?

Fracking a mile under my house? I think I would be able to sleep at night, particularly knowing I might be paying less to heat the place. And fracking dangerous to the environment? Give us a break. I bet you and the other lefties were at the front of the demonstrations against pit closures.

[buctootim]

What sites, you clown...?

 

Lol. You're behaving like a smacked puppy because I pointed out your plaintive 'its not fair post' was about you wanting to buy cheap Chinese poison and the EU wouldnt let you.

 

Most of Cuadrilla sites are small and hemmed in by human habitation. Heres some reading for you:

 

Bloomberg estimate it would cost between 47 and 81 pence per therm to extract shale gas in Europe. OIES’ 2010 study “Can Unconventional Gas be a Game Changer in European Markets” said shale extraction would likely be even more expensive, costing between 49 and 102 pence per therm. Ernest & Young in its 2013 report “Shale Gas in Europe: Revolution or evolution?” said it would cost between 53 and 79 pence per therm.

 

Average gas price in 2016 was 32p per therm.

[Guided Missile]

...your plaintive 'its not fair post' was about you wanting to buy cheap Chinese poison and the EU wouldnt let you.

Hilarious...

Tim, learn to read, mate. It normally works better than making sh !t up.

Anyway, it looks like things are warming up in Oz for us and our UK product, developed and manufactured in Hampshire by a Saints fan. By the time your reading skills have improved, it'll be in the papers and I'll be even richer...

[buctootim]

Hilarious...

Tim, learn to read, mate. It normally works better than making sh !t up.

Anyway, it looks like things are warming up in Oz for us and our UK product, developed and manufactured in Hampshire by a Saints fan. By the time your reading skills have improved, it'll be in the papers and I'll be even richer...

 

Whatever happened after your PM when you asked me not to rock the boat because you were about to sell the company for multi millions. Didnt that fairy story pan out either?

 

How much public grant funding have you had for research and how little in terms of sales have you got to show for it? Why is the company still so small it qualifies for submitting abbreviated accounts to Companies House?

Rich? does taking public subsidy for eff all return count as being rich?

Edited 8 January, 2017 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

Whatever happened after your PM when you asked me not to rock the boat because you were about to sell the company for multi millions. Didnt that fairy story pan out either?

 

How much public grant funding have you had for research and how little in terms of sales have you got to show for it? Why is the company still so small it qualifies for submitting abbreviated accounts to Companies House?

Rich? does taking public subsidy for eff all return count as being rich?

I think £987,577 net profit on sales of £4,055,993 for our last accounting period is not too shabby. A lot of people make more than that in a year, but I'm taking a wild guess that a jealous stalker like you, isn't one of them.

 

Anyway, WTF would I want to sell up with returns like that and given the opportunities Brexit will offer us and the many staff we have hired, since receiving the modest research grants, I'd be a fool to consider it.

[badgerx16]

Fracking a mile under my house? I think I would be able to sleep at night, ....

 

It's not the bits underground that are at issue - the chemicals used are poisonous to the water table, and well head fires are not unknown.

[Guided Missile]

It's not the bits underground that are at issue - the chemicals used are poisonous to the water table, and well head fires are not unknown.

The EPA have no problems with the technology. Still, I guess people with your outlook have been around for a while:

 

[badgerx16]

The EPA have no problems with the technology. Still, I guess people with your outlook have been around for a while:

 

/QUOTE]

https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/questions-and-answers-about-epas-hydraulic-fracturing-drinking-water-assessment#main%20findings

"EPA found scientific evidence that activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. As part of the report, EPA identified conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe."

 

"Q: Why did EPA remove “no evidence of widespread, systemic impacts” from the assessment?

..After receiving comments from the SAB, EPA scientists concluded that the sentence could not be quantitatively supported"

Edited 8 January, 2017 by badgerx16

[Lord Duckhunter]

These lefties want us riding around on penny farthings and living like Windy Miller. The lunatic green lobby are more of a threat to the British economy than Brexit ever will be. Millibands act cost the country dearly and these nutters still aren't satisfied

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guided Missile]

"EPA found scientific evidence that activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. As part of the report, EPA identified conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe."

 

"Q: Why did EPA remove “no evidence of widespread, systemic impacts” from the assessment?

..After receiving comments from the SAB, EPA scientists concluded that the sentence could not be quantitatively supported"

Every time you take a sh !t can impact drinking water. That's why we have water treatment plants that prevent the bacterial contamination that is by far the greatest health threat. The biggest polluters of our water resources? Try Thames Water and the rest of the private water companies....

[badgerx16]

Every time you take a sh !t can impact drinking water. That's why we have water treatment plants that prevent the bacterial contamination that is by far the greatest health threat. The biggest polluters of our water resources? Try Thames Water and the rest of the private water companies....

 

So, does the EPA 'have no problems' with fracking ?

[badgerx16]

These lefties want us riding around on penny farthings and living like Windy Miller. The lunatic green lobby are more of a threat to the British economy than Brexit ever will be. Millibands act cost the country dearly and these nutters still aren't satisfied

 

Are you capable of debating, or can you only throw insults around ?

[Guided Missile]

So, does the EPA 'have no problems' with fracking ?

 

Natural gas plays a key role in our nation's clean energy future. The U.S. has vast reserves of natural gas that are commercially viable as a result of advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies enabling greater access to gas in shale formations. Responsible development of America's shale gas resources offers important economic, energy security, and environmental benefits.

EPA is working with states and other key stakeholders to help ensure that natural gas extraction does not come at the expense of public health and the environment. The Agency's focus and obligations under the law are to provide oversight, guidance and, where appropriate, rulemaking that achieve the best possible protections for the air, water and land where Americans live, work and play. The Agency is investing in improving our scientific understanding of hydraulic fracturing, providing regulatory clarity with respect to existing laws, and using existing authorities where appropriate to enhance health and environmental safeguards.

[buctootim]

I think £987,577 net profit on sales of £4,055,993 for our last accounting period is not too shabby. A lot of people make more than that in a year, but I'm taking a wild guess that a jealous stalker like you, isn't one of them.

 

Anyway, WTF would I want to sell up with returns like that and given the opportunities Brexit will offer us and the many staff we have hired, since receiving the modest research grants, I'd be a fool to consider it.

 

You made all that money last year? Wow. Odd that you had to take out a new chattel mortgage then.

[hypochondriac]

This conversation has got really strange. Can we avoid the willy waving about cash and the weirdly personal comments about mortgages, loans and business dealings in Asia? Thanks.

[hutch]

It's not the bits underground that are at issue - the chemicals used are poisonous to the water table, and well head fires are not unknown.

I'm hoping that you're not connected in any way to Friends of the Earth when making spurious allegations like that

[Winnersaint]

Are you capable of debating, or can you only throw insults around ?

 

Surprised though he didn't start his response with "pony", who the f**k talks let alone posts like that on an internet forum? You're right it is just insult after insult, how tiresome. The use of 'lunatic' and 'nutters' to describe people who just have a different viewpoint from him certainly smacks of a right old, insecure 'Mr Angry'. He and other Brexit supporters routinely refer to those who disagree with them as 'remoaners' and bandy the term 'lefties' around as if it is some kind of crime. It is almost like in their eyes people who object to Brexit are committing some kind of treasonous act, or perhaps that's further on down the line when the right wing seize power and can use internet forums to start identifying and picking off political opponents.

[Wes Tender]

Surprised though he didn't start his response with "pony", who the f**k talks let alone posts like that on an internet forum? You're right it is just insult after insult, how tiresome. The use of 'lunatic' and 'nutters' to describe people who just have a different viewpoint from him certainly smacks of a right old, insecure 'Mr Angry'. He and other Brexit supporters routinely refer to those who disagree with them as 'remoaners' and bandy the term 'lefties' around as if it is some kind of crime. It is almost like in their eyes people who object to Brexit are committing some kind of treasonous act, or perhaps that's further on down the line when the right wing seize power and can use internet forums to start identifying and picking off political opponents.

 

I assume that you will be equally scathing about Shurlock's childish name-calling, calling posters names like "Baldrick" and arrogantly dismissing any opinion with a different viewpoint in terms like these:-

 

The zealots just don't like hearing the cold, hard facts - that it's time to get their s**t together and start making policy in the real world. Granted, sloganeering in lalaland is much more comforting.

 

Calling something "a load of pony" is really quite a mild idiom, whereas "who the f*ck" is a bit extreme isn't it, from somebody complaining about the tone of debate.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It is rather cutely eccentric, your fabrication of another word to describe our exit from the EU. Brexit or even Britex make some sort of sense, but credit must go to you for inventing a nonsense word like Bretix.

 

Good of you though to acknowledge that the Remain campaign was also characterised by much spin and lies too, and it is a matter of opinion as to which side told the biggest porkies. I believe that the reason why the electorate chose to disbelieve the lies told by the Remain campaign, was because they came from people and bodies which ought to have been trustworthy, but which were proven not to be, such as the Treasury and George Osborne and major corporations with vested interests. Once discredited, there was an inclination to question other arguments put forward by them, but as you say, it was indeed a sorry state of affairs having the Chancellor and the Treasury acting in that way.

 

Whether the EU allows us privileged access to the single market or not isn't a stance that I have taken a position on, apart from expressing an opinion that it isn't in their interests to enter a tariff war with us which would encourage us to seek replacement imports from elsewhere. I realise that you are dismissive of our status as one of the major economic powers in the World and that we therefore must have little clout when it comes to negotiating a deal with the EU, but hey, because I take that position, it must be me that misunderstands the situation.

 

Thankfully, a final acknowledgement that the referendum campaign is history, although you continue to want to rake over old coals. As you say, it is now the time for the Government to attempt to negotiate the best possible deal for us, but that must be one that allows us to take back control of our affairs, that being the message that resonated with the electorate. As for your last sentence, I admire the hyperbole where you suggest that if we are forced by the stubborn intransigence of the EU negotiators into a clean Brexit because we cannot accept their terms for access to the single market, that this would be akin to the actions of a dictatorship and undemocratic despite the decision of the referendum that gave the government a mandate to arrange our leaving of the EU. Your argument smacks of irony when you fail to see that when it comes to dictatorships or undemocratic bodies, the EU is far more deserving of those epithets.

 

My dear Les, if I'm really to be found 'raking over the old coals' of last year's referendum then there is little room for doubt that I'd soon find you down there at my side me digging away - your various contributions to this thread prove this. As for your (gloriously implausible) claim that you've not taken a position on our future trading status with the EU, I can only say that predicting that the EU27 will grant us some privileged degree of access to the Single Market IS taking some kind of position. There is no reason in either fact or logic to believe such an dangerous assumption - euro sceptic wishful thinking aside that is.

 

Before becoming too overenthusiastic in your criticism of HM Treasury forecasts, even you should really be aware that far and away the most important of all those pre-referendum predictions - i.e. the steep fall in the value of our currency and the resultant rise in UK inflation - has come to pass very much as predicted. That increased inflation effect has of course much further to go. Where the forecasts were wrong perhaps is that consumer confidence has - so far - held up much better than expected. It may be that accurately predicting how people are likely to think about the world in the future is becoming a evermore problematic process for not only economists, but also pollsters, to master for some reason.

 

Be that as it may, how long this vital consumer confidence 'prop' to our economy with last is a matter of speculation. For what it is worth the OBR currently predicts a significant fall in UK GDP growth over the coming years - losing the economy many billions of Pounds. This time even someone as famously 'evidence averse' as you are can't just glibly dismiss this type of warning as more pro-EU propaganda because the referendum is long past now. I recall saying on here before the referendum that leaving the EU would make this nation of ours a poorer place than it would otherwise have been. Unfortunately I've seen nothing over the subsequent six months which leads me to question that unhappy prediction.

Edited 9 January, 2017 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[benjii]

This conversation has got really strange. Can we avoid the willy waving about cash and the weirdly personal comments about mortgages, loans and business dealings in Asia? Thanks.

 

I find those the most interesting parts by a distance.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Calling something "a load of pony" is really quite a mild idiom, whereas "who the f*ck" is a bit extreme isn't it, from somebody complaining about the tone of debate.

 

You don't think that your depicting those who disagree with you as "remoaners" is itself quite childish?

[shurlock]

Shatlock

 

Though I guess it's an improvement on the rather sinister Shylock.

[Wes Tender]

. As for your (gloriously implausible) claim that you've not taken a position on our future trading status with the EU, I can only say that predicting that the EU27 will grant us some privileged degree of access to the Single Market IS taking some kind of position. There is no reason in either fact or logic to believe such an dangerous assumption - euro sceptic wishful thinking aside that is.

 

Before becoming too overenthusiastic in your criticism of HM Treasury forecasts, even you should really be aware that far and away the most important of all those pre-referendum predictions - i.e. the steep fall in the value of our currency and the resultant rise in UK inflation - has come to pass very much as predicted. That increased inflation effect has of course much further to go. Where the forecasts were wrong perhaps is that consumer confidence has - so far - held up much better than expected. It may be that accurately predicting how people are likely to think about the world in the future is becoming a evermore problematic process for not only economists, but also pollsters, to master for some reason.

 

Be that as it may, how long this vital consumer confidence 'prop' to our economy with last is a matter of speculation. For what it is worth the OBR currently predicts a significant fall in UK GDP growth over the coming years - losing the economy many billions of Pounds. This time even someone as famously 'evidence averse' as you are can't just glibly dismiss this type of warning as more pro-EU propaganda because the referendum is long past now. I recall saying on here before the referendum that leaving the EU would make this nation of ours a poorer place than it would otherwise have been. Unfortunately I've seen nothing over the subsequent six months which leads me to question that unhappy prediction.

 

Please take a bit more care to read what is said and how it should be comprehended. Note the use of the word "apart" when you read about the "stance" I take on access to the single market. Also note that I explained that I had expressed an opinion on the subject. Go ahead and argue semantics on the difference between expressing an opinion on something against making a stance on a position if it pleases you to be petty.

 

Speaking of assumptions, I won't go over the top and indulge in your favoured rhetoric with hyperbole and describe them as dangerous, but you are very fond of them yourself. These include the assumption that inflation has much further to go, that according to the OBR, there will be a significant fall in our GDP, that we will end up a poorer place than we otherwise would have been, etc.

 

Naively, you believe that just because the referendum is long since in the past, that the credibility of doom and gloom predictions from the likes of the OBR will have increased. You take comfort that because an over valued pound has fallen in value, that everything else that they predict will also come to pass. Of course, the fall in the value of the pound has upsides too, but I'm sure that you will be happy to ignore those. Inflation has increased by a small percentage, so I'll be interested for you to quantify what in your opinion the level will be to justify your claim that it has "much further to go"

 

Yes, consumer confidence has held up much better than expected, as has employment, house prices, inward investment, all things that your so-called experts predicted would suffer immediately following a vote to leave, so an element of aversion to expert opinion, or as I prefer taking it with a pinch of salt, is surely vindicated by events.

 

To counter your last sentence, neither has there been anything at all during the past six months after the referendum to support your contention that we would be a poorer nation having left the EU than we would otherwise have been, so there is no point at all in bringing that up again, especially as we have not yet triggered Article 50. Why son't you wait and see what transpires then, like any other sensible person would?

Edited 9 January, 2017 by Wes Tender

[shurlock]

So May has announced that controlling immigration and ending jurisdiction of European Court of Justice are red lines for negotiations aka Take-Back-Control ®™.

 

Les must be knocking one off to the dambusters theme tune.

 

See the currency markets are also taking the news in their stride - as yet, the £ isn't down against the Turkish lira

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Please take a bit more care to read what is said and how it should be comprehended. Note the use of the word "apart" when you read about the stance I take on access to the single market. Also note that I explained that I had expressed an opinion on the subject. Go ahead and argue semantics on the difference between expressing an opinion on something against making a stance on a position if it pleases you to be petty.

 

Speaking of assumptions, I won't go over the top and indulge in your favoured rhetoric with hyperbole and describe them as dangerous, but you are very fond of them yourself. These include the assumption that inflation has much further to go, that according to the OBR, there will be a significant fall in our GDP, that we will end up a poorer place than we otherwise would have been, etc.

 

Naively, you believe that just because the referendum is long since in the past, that the credibility of doom and gloom predictions from the likes of the OBR will have increased. You take comfort that because an over valued pound has fallen in value, that everything else that they predict will also come to pass. Of course, the fall in the value of the pound has upsides too, but I'm sure that you will be happy to ignore those. Inflation has increased by a small percentage, so I'll be interested for you to quantify what in your opinion the level will be to justify your claim that it has "much further to go"

 

Yes, consumer confidence has held up much better than expected, as has employment, house prices, inward investment, all things that your so-called experts predicted would suffer immediately following a vote to leave, so an element of aversion to expert opinion, or as I prefer taking it with a pinch of salt, is surely vindicated by events.

 

To counter your last sentence, neither has there been anything at all during the past six months after the referendum to support your contention that we would be a poorer nation having left the EU than we would otherwise have been, so there is no point at all in bringing that up again, especially as we have not yet triggered Article 50. Why son't you wait and see what transpires then, like any other sensible person would?

 

Well I always take great care to read your regular little missives addressed to me - the problem with attempting to make any sense of them is that you are so very inconsistent is is becoming increasingly hard to comprehend you. It makes no sense to claim now that you are somehow non committal on the fate of our economy, when the record shows that you have spent much of the last year being anything but non committal on issues related to this debate. Are the advancing years starting to take a heavy toll on your mental faculties I wonder? On the plus side, however incomprehensible, your post was at least immaculately spelt ...

 

I see that you go on to attempt to underplay the true significance of the Pound's fall by stating that our currency was overvalued before the referendum - in your opinion that is. In reality there is very little reason to believe that - in general market forces decide what a currency is truly worth - and I must say this claim would sound more convincing coming from you now had you said this BEFORE the referendum outcome. But I don't recall you claiming that - probably because you were too busy telling anyone who would listen to you that there could be NO possible averse consequences of this nation voting your way. Such a possibility is just incompatible with your world view is it not?

 

While we are on the subject, do please explain why you feel that my repeating on here official OBR inflation and growth forecasts endangers anything as this is something of a mystery?

 

As for my prediction that this nation will become a poorer one directly or indirectly as a result of the referendum decision, I suppose we will indeed just have to wait and see for the final proof of that - although there seems little reason to doubt this at this time. In the meantime, and on a personal note only you understand, I can confirm to you now that I am already distinctly worse off financially due to the referendum. The post referendum BoE's decision to reduce UK interest rates, a move obviously brought about as a consequence of the Stirling crisis, cost me money when my bank decided to half its savings rate as a result. The rise in petrol prices that can be (partially) attributed to the rise in inflation the currency crisis brought about has also taken a small, but nevertheless noticeable, toll.

 

These effects are just the proverbial 'first sparrow of spring' I'm afraid because the real pain is yet to come for many millions of your fellow citizens - not that you care of course.

Edited 9 January, 2017 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE