Re: Brexit Anyone ? (part 3) : Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:45 pm  

It would be amusing if it weren't so tragic, to see the Brexiteers desperately claiming that each new example of capital flight has nothing to do with Brexit - the list of companies continues to grow, and the list of gobshite experts spinning it into something else grows in tandem, with Boris Johnson and JRM recently on record as knowing more about the operation of particular businesses than the people actually running them. It's madness.

Meanwhile, I've just been to the chemist for some meds that I take regularly, to be told that they're not available at the moment; supply chain disruption due to Brexit. Yay - take back control, but not of managing your own chronic symptoms.

Re: Brexit Anyone ? (part 3) : Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:46 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

The crash in sales of diesel cars is well documented, no doubt.
However, having had government assurances that trading conditions post Brexit would be "no worse", which did seem a little optimistic, can you honestly look in the mirror and tell yourself that Brexit played ABSOLUTELY no part in their choice of where to produce the new model, even though their head guy threw Brexit into the mix as to why they had made the change.
Do you think he was paid by project fear, just to mention it ow, was it just something to say.

Some businesses are getting nervous about what lays ahead and we all rely on stability and "certainty" to make forward plans. This goes for Joe public buying a new 3 piece suite or, multinational companies deciding on their next round of investment.
If it was your money (or mine) would you rally be putting you gambling chips on the UK ??, you dont have to answer this one as you may put some of your own Brexit argument out of the window.
By the way, the EU is in a similar position on this as the uncertainty doesnt help them either. Although, if the products that you manufactures were mainly for sale in the EU27, the other side of" la manche" seems a safer option.

Both the EU and UK are hovering above the line in terms of being close to recession and as I pointed out many months ago, the timing of all this, following the deepest recession in almost a century was both ill thought out and reckless. However, as we see from our politician, personal issues seem to be way higher up the list of priorities than the prosperity of The UK.

I refer the honourable member for Wakefield to my reply above.

Re: Brexit Anyone ? (part 3) : Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:27 am  

bren2k wrote:

It would be amusing if it weren't so tragic, to see the Brexiteers desperately claiming that each new example of capital flight has nothing to do with Brexit - the list of companies continues to grow, and the list of gobshite experts spinning it into something else grows in tandem, with Boris Johnson and JRM recently on record as knowing more about the operation of particular businesses than the people actually running them. It's madness.

Meanwhile, I've just been to the chemist for some meds that I take regularly, to be told that they're not available at the moment; supply chain disruption due to Brexit. Yay - take back control, but not of managing your own chronic symptoms.

supply chain disruptions? I very much doubt it.

Re: Brexit Anyone ? (part 3) : Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:10 am  

MGarbutt1986 wrote:

supply chain disruptions? I very much doubt it.

Yeah - the pharmacist is a reyt lying basterd; it's project fear innit.

Re: Brexit Anyone ? (part 3) : Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:14 am  

bren2k wrote:

Yeah - the pharmacist is a reyt lying basterd; it's project fear innit.

so, we haven't left the EU yet, what "supply chain" issues are there?

Re: Brexit Anyone ? (part 3) : Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:31 pm  

I didn't ask him for a full report, but I suspect this explains a lot; you won't like it though, it's a report based on the words of someone who actually knows what they're talking about. For my part, I hope Boris Johnson takes over the running of my pharmacy - he's sure to be able to fix it.

I didn't ask him for a full report, but I suspect this explains a lot; you won't like it though, it's a report based on the words of someone who actually knows what they're talking about. For my part, I hope Boris Johnson takes over the running of my pharmacy - he's sure to be able to fix it.

Re: Brexit Anyone ? (part 3) : Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:33 pm  

bren2k wrote: I didn't ask him for a full report, but I suspect this explains a lot; you won't like it though, it's a report based on the words of someone who actually knows what they're talking about. For my part, I hope Boris Johnson takes over the running of my pharmacy - he's sure to be able to fix it. Hugh Pym, a "journalist" with no agenda at all, honest.

bren2k wrote: I didn't ask him for a full report, but I suspect this explains a lot; you won't like it though, it's a report based on the words of someone who actually knows what they're talking about. For my part, I hope Boris Johnson takes over the running of my pharmacy - he's sure to be able to fix it. Hugh Pym, a "journalist" with no agenda at all, honest.

Re: Brexit Anyone ? (part 3) : Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:36 pm  

MGarbutt1986 wrote:

Hugh Pym, a "journalist" with no agenda at all, honest.

I saw that one coming.

How about:

Simon Dukes, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC), said there were supply shortages for a number of reasons and that "concerns around a no-deal Brexit are likely to exacerbate those ongoing issues.

Another one of those pesky experts, peddling lies based on things he actually knows?

Re: Brexit Anyone ? (part 3) : Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:04 pm  

bren2k wrote:

I saw that one coming.

How about:

Another one of those pesky experts, peddling lies based on things he actually knows?

based on his agenda, perhaps.

Re: Brexit Anyone ? (part 3) : Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:49 pm  

This article is more up MGarbutt1986's street. You've got to tell him what he wants to hear from his 'trusted' sources. https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/0 ... s-nhs-ceo/ But just take note of the main headline and the sub-heading. The former says 'will not', the latter says 'should not'. So, which is it?

This article is more up MGarbutt1986's street. You've got to tell him what he wants to hear from his 'trusted' sources. https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/0 ... s-nhs-ceo/ But just take note of the main headline and the sub-heading. The former says 'will not', the latter says 'should not'. So, which is it?