Re: Brexit discussion
 

The man is a fool and even more he is a liar....

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Re: Brexit discussion
 

For the benefit of Remoaners, this is a big picture not the big picture :monkey:.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Where would you spend the membership fee once we leave because that's what is happening, Mr K, we are leaving, so where should the money go?

Boris suggests most of it should go on the NHS, the membership fee needs to be spent on something. I am not sure what is wrong in him writing an article that was probably written before yesterday's events, hardly fair to blame that event on him.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

It falls down with the figure for a start. We don't give £350m net to the EU. It's been explained many times but the cloth head has repeated it. He's either very stupid (most likely) or he thinks the British public is.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

And so Boris' campaign for leadership begins in earnest.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Whatever it is that we 'save' on EU 'subs' the NHS could happily swallow all of it and still want more. That's the reality.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Well his last one did not go well.;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

There's a non-trivial chance we'll end up with a leadership contest between Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Rather than rousing diatribes in the Telegraph perhaps Boris can point us to his manifest achievements in his current position. Given it's so obvious that the UK will thrive he could also pursue the release of the impact assessment of leaving the EEA on over 50 sectors of the UK economy that has been done by DExEU.

When he's done with that releasing the Treasury's analysis of economic benefits of future FTAs outside the EU would be good.

It's not like either of these undermine our negotiating position. The EU is apparently a massive bureaucracy so no doubt will have conducted its own analyses. They will, however, better inform the people, although I'm not convinced the public being well-informed is desirable to either Johnson or Rees-Mogg.

Pretty depressing when a couple of populist lightweights, born into the upper class, both happy to deal with the great political issue of our time through misdirection at best and blatant lies at worst are the front-runners for Prime Minister.

On the up side, however, perhaps those on the left that've bought into Jeremy Corbyn's view of a socialist paradise outside of the neo-liberal grasp of the EU might be woken up by both Johnson and Rees-Mogg's enthusiasm for tax cuts and deregulation.

Then again, pigs might fly. People on both extremes on these issues and the political spectrum are absurdly emotionally invested to the total exclusion of facts and evidence.

---------- Post added at 13:10 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------

A reasonable dissection of some of Boris' nonsense is here.

There are an awful lot of things the EU could be criticised for. In his usual fashion of not bothering to do his homework and waffling to conceal his laziness and lack of interest in details and, well, facts, Boris elects to re-run the referendum campaign with many of the same falsehoods.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Mogg, has already ruled himself out and I think may have purposely ruled himself out by putting it out there about his staunch catholic beliefs on abortion and gay marriage.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Can't see many people wishing to rule themselves in for now to be honest. There's too much scope for career ending damage.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

How come?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

He's not stupid but you're right he thinks we are, for a start he thinks we're dumb enough not to have seen through his act after all this time

Re: Brexit discussion
 

There are various books and videos available I'm sure....:erm:;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

A couple of articles discussing what Johnson may be up to.

https://goo.gl/msZiSA

<Snip>

https://goo.gl/ys4heF

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The Chair of the UK Statistics Authority took a moment to remind Boris Johnson that the figure he loves to quote is, as he well knows, misrepresenting official statistics at best.

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov....ons-to-the-eu/

Re: Brexit discussion
 

He definitely gives the impression of thinking the British public are fools. David Davis's unpublished report on 50 industries post-Brexit apparently suggests that any income saved from the EU fees will be spent on unemployment benefits so Boris shouldn't pretend there is a saving!

---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

Is Boris up to his old Vote Leave tricks? It certainly looks like it.
https://www.ft.com/content/8acfb174-...4-932067fbf946

Re: Brexit discussion
 

But as was proven with Blair, people like actors.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Voters are attracted to charismatic personalities like Blair and BoJo. It's human nature.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

And that old backstabber Michael Gove has firmly put his support behind Boris's £350 million quote.;)

---------- Post added at 05:31 ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 ----------

Very swallow if you want my opinion Andrew as although l was not a fan of Maggie at least she did not string a web of lies and deceit unless some modern politicians.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Lies and deceit are not the monopoly of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove although they are maybe more blatant than their predecessors. I rate Thatcher as a PM but cover-ups over the miners and Hillsborough tarnish her reputation for honesty.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If this is indicative of the impact study DeExEU have done into 50+ sectors of the UK economy it's not hard to see why HMG don't want to release it.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2017/09/13.jpg

Very, very few people now think that leaving the EU is a good thing fiscally for the country in the short or medium term, even moving to EEA/EFTA terms, even worse for WTO, obviously long term predictions are very fluid, and the economy is a massive influence on elections. A government pursuing policies that it, itself, thinks will weaken the economy is not a big vote winner.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If I was Theresa May, I would ban that report as it would give a very powerful argument to remain in the EU which in turn would give a very powerful argument not to vote Conservative at the next election.

Whilst I'm resigned to leaving the EU with its consequences of inflation, higher unemployment, less money to spend on areas like the Police, armed forces and NHS, I'm not sure that the rest of the country is.


Great excerpt on how the UKGovernment is not preparing for a no-deal scenario which from a negotiating viewpoint it makes sense to do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41271028

Re: Brexit discussion
 

How do you KNOW this is going to happen?

By KNOW I mean concrete knowledge not one of the many potentials.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

He doesn't, he's just bought into project fear despit it having been debunked so far.

Meanwhile in the real world:

Source

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I am sure we can all pick on one data point and claim an entire raft of things have been debunked.

It's fair to say the concerns were overblown, as were the upsides presented by the leave campaigns. The official government prediction is that Brexit will not free up any money for the treasury, in fiscal year 2019/20 even if we contribute nothing to the EU budget the treasury will be out of pocket.

Likewise the talk of mass unemployment hasn't happened.

What has happened seems to be a much less extreme version of the remain campaign's forecast so far.

Sterling is running on expectation of an interest rate rise right now. Besides, we have all been told it was massively over-valued and needed the devaluation to benefit our exporters?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Of course it's going to happen outside the EU and everything inside will be just perfect - no inflation, no unemployment, no cuts to services, no right wing extremism, no migration crisis, no bank bailouts... :rolleyes:

;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Putting the EU Haters to one side for the moment, I am guessing that most of the Leave voters wanted to leave the EU for reasons they would regard as in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Of course there are zealots who would leave at any cost and would be content to suffer personal financial loss if that is what is required ... the "Brexit Martyrs" that Vince Cable alluded to. The vast majority would differ from this position I suspect and would not be happy to see their standard of living & personal prosperity drop in the medium/long term post Brexit.

It is this likelihood, made more likely by the current bungling of the Article 50 process, that will, I feel, lead to a very bizarre electoral landscape in a couple of years time.

The Leavers that were promised a rosy EU-free future may well turn to Labour if they see their Brexit "ruined" by the Tories. Yes, they will be attempts to blame "Traitors", "Remoaners", etc. but most will see through this. Brexit could directly lead to a Corbyn government .. slightly ironic, right?

The Leave promise was put to the electorate with no planning, no time and no skill. So the chances of it playing out as hoped look smaller as the days go by. If time, skill and planning was put into Brexit before the vote, the outcome could and would have been very different.

"It will be fine, stop moaning" I hear .. Well, Faith & Belief will only take you so far. At some point you will have to face reality .. and the reality does not look too good at the moment.

So when there are reasoned arguments and articles illustrating why Brexit will be a net-negative in terms of national & personal prosperity, please don't just reply with platitudes, post reasoned arguments supported by evidence.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

:tu:

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------

... and with regard to Boris's supposedly heinous crime according to Sir Jeremy Heywood:

https://order-order.com/2017/09/20/n...boris-blunder/

Odd how there's been little in the main stream media about what BJ actually wrote as opposed to how a senior civil servant chose to represent it eh? I wonder why...

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Curious Johnson mentioned any numbers to be honest.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2017/09/13.jpg

---------- Post added at 15:40 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

It was David Norgrove who took Johnson to task. He does not have statutory powers to comment on what the opposition say and do, his job is to regulate the government. Source: a barrister who doesn't appear to have an axe to grind.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2017/09/18.jpg
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2017/09/19.jpg
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2017/09/20.jpg

Official statistics.

Regardless of whether you buy the OBR's forecasts or not, and given they are the Government's official figures Johnson should, the use of the gross figure whether referring to new spending or to 'taking back control' is a misuse of statistics. The Treasury never lose control of the abatement.

---------- Post added at 15:47 ---------- Previous post was at 15:40 ----------

Dominic Cummings is scathing of the manner in which the Conservatives have implemented Brexit so far.

He is right, too. They could scarcely have handled it much worse if they tried.

My biggest fear in all this was that they would make a total mess of it. Not against it in principle, though I would far, far prefer we'd rejoin EFTA, but they are incompetently bumbling through for the international audience while spending their time on demagoguery at home.

We should bin Article 50 right now, and set about leaving the EU via a mutual treaty. No time limit pressures, plenty of time to properly and soberly analyse our options, and to put the systems in place to ensure that we can smoothly transition and in turn prosper on exit day.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

He actually said: "Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week.

“It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS, provided we use that cash injection to modernise and make the most of new technology."

You'll notice that he didn't say that we would give the NHS £350 million a week.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Can't the government just increase NHS funding by £350 million a week and end this.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Doesn't matter. We wouldn't be taking back control of 'roughly' £350m per week unless a 30% margin of error is considered acceptable. I'm quite aware of Boris's heavy use of equivocation.

One of the most interesting things about this whole affair for me is how many people are cheering the government's strategy on even while one of the people most directly involved in making it happen is saying the manner in which it's being done is a disaster. It's unforced error after unforced error and it's really not good for the UK. They need to get their act together immediately.

---------- Post added at 16:38 ---------- Previous post was at 16:36 ----------

They will be, it's needed to do something even close to keeping pace with the population's demand for healthcare.

It just probably won't, for a while at least, come from any savings made due to leaving the EU.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If only you'd stop remoaning...

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The obstacle in doing what you mention is the admission of culpability. No politician in power is going to admit to the passengers that the name of the ship they are on is called the Titanic :)

Even if they did admit the course we are on is the wrong one, who, in the current government, has the political foresight and instinct to oust May and set us on a more synergistic EU exit ..

BTW, for some reason, the aforementioned Vote Leave Campaign Chief is now saying some very strange things:

Vote Leave Campaign Chief Dominic Cummings Admits Leaving The EU Could ‘Be An Error’

Re: Brexit discussion
 

That may be what the report says but not whet he actually said which was.

(my bold)

Source: The article you linked to.

I do agree the Government appears to be making a pigs ear of it ATM but things may be in progress that we have no knowledge of. Only time will tell.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

It does matter because people are running around getting their panties in a twist because they think that Boris said that we would give the NHS £350 million. He didn't say that.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Correct and certain sections of the media are doing very little to confirm that because they're either pro-EU, anti-Tory and/or quite like stirring up a furore they can then fill their air time/pages with.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------

Quite and it's hardly surprising that anti-Brexit portions of the media including the BBC should choose to present it so. They rarely occupy themselves with what's going wrong in the EU or the latest one-sided nonsense Juncker spouts. They seize on mostly manufactured speculation about sackings and resignations then exaggerate it as the PM's in trouble, how long can she last, has Boris blown it, will he mount a leadership campaign, blah blah blah. It's as pathetic as it is sad that the likes of the BBC should be scraping this barrel.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Yes, his comment may as well have said " In an alternative reality the UK would be making all the decisions being stronger than Germany"

or

"The EU would never exist"

or

"The UK didn't join"

It's all the same thing as his comment.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

They can do whatever turns them on and complain about whatever they wish.

What matters is he was pulled up for misusing official statistics a full year and more after the campaign he fronted was pulled up for the exact same thing with the exact same statistic.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:15 ----------

Ya.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41331152
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41251914
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-po...ments-41229031
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40877721

---------- Post added at 20:22 ---------- Previous post was at 20:17 ----------

Indeed they may, though if the Government don't see fit to keep us informed we can only work on what we're aware of.

We can only go by what official committees say regarding customs IT systems that won't be able to handle WTO trade with the EU, or that zero preparation has been made to beef up customs on the ports that handle the most EU trade, or that the Irish PM doesn't see a way forward.

Going by the statements from various EU leaders and the EU apparatus itself it seems they aren't aware of these things that are in progress either, and given this is supposed to be a negotiation you'd hope they'd be aware of them.

Perhaps if the Government stopped treating us like mushrooms, keeping us in the dark and feeding us demagoguery, we'd all have a better idea how things are going.

Hopefully tomorrow will make things clearer for us. If it's another 'Brexit means Brexit, cake and eating it' speech it's a waste of time and the taxpayer's money sending her out there.

---------- Post added at 20:28 ---------- Previous post was at 20:22 ----------

Forgive me if my comprehension is lacking here, but isn't he saying, albeit in a verbose way, that in his opinion leaving could be an error?

He's saying it's possible it will be an error. That he said it could be an error is exactly the same, written differently.

In some possible branches of the future I will wake up tomorrow morning. So I could wake up tomorrow morning.

He didn't definitively say it wouldn't be an error, so he said it could be an error. In fact he quite explicitly said that it's possible it'll be an error, and he's absolutely right. It's also possible it'll be the correct move.

---------- Post added at 20:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------


Not strange at all.

He's not a politician and his campaign is over, so he has no need to be a demagogue anymore, and he's an intelligent man that doesn't have an almost religious devotion to the UK leaving the EU, so he's happy to entertain that it could go wrong.

He is powered by a desire to upend the normal political order, not any particular visceral hatred of the EU, or personal ambition. His writing in general makes interesting reading. I don't agree with all of it but it's certainly interesting.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

It's also possible you won't wake up tomorrow. Does that mean that you won't?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

This was pushed by The (Brexit-Supporting) Telegraph who not only published Boris' article but accompanied it with several editorials praising it, criticising May and saying he should make a leadership challenge. I get there is almost nothing that won't be blamed on the BBC but this was quite literally The Telegraph's story.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Your arguments as to why we are not facing a poorer post-Brexit future seems to be based solely on pedantry.

Give us some evidence on how David Davis is going to deliver a prosperous post-Brexit future. We don't don't want Hope and Faith, give us some worked examples on how the current Government strategy is going to give my children a better future than they would have had before this madness.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Seriously there are virtually no categoric definites in this whole process.

Neither side really has a clue how it will pan out and continually trying to claim the supposed higher ground with (un) educated analysiis is achieving nothing.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

So Brexiters voted for something that they don't have a clue how it will turn out ? Just hoping, against all odds ? Hell of a gamble and so far it isn't looking good.

Our Government can't even agree with itself let alone 27 other countries. The PM and chancellor hearts aren't really in it, they campaigned for remain after all, they can see the disaster unfolding, just a matter of damage limitation and how they can wangle it best for their own careers. As for Boris, he's certifiably mad. All these characters will be ok whatever. They are protected by wealth. The rest of the British public will suffer badly.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

A typically Mr K post, riddled with false misery. :rolleyes:

I know what I voted brexit for and it looks better than the crap we would certainly endure remaining in a corrupt entity. Especially with Mr Drunken Junckers wish to have a U.S.E (United States of Europe). Pfftt, no thankyou!

I don't know what odds you're seeing, but I see fantastic odds. A much bigger trading bloc, i.e rest of the World. The fact we CAN still trade with the EU and don't have to pay an extortionate membership fee and are not restricted to do trade with who the hell we want, but EU has it's forecast to have a shrinking market, how to remedy this, leave it and do trade with a much bigger market.

Anyway, around and around we go...... must be GROUNDHOG DAY!

Re: Brexit discussion
 

A typical Mick post, riddled with blinkered vision, seeing only what he likes to see ! The EU is doing very well atm, we're not really.

I'd rather a United States of Europe than us becoming another state of the USA which seems to be the alternative. We've more in common both economically and geographically with the EU. We'll get a poor deal from the US, they don't need us and we desperately need them, not good terms for striking a deal with 'America First' Trump.

But you're right it is Groundhog day. 10 years time come back and tell me how great it gone for yourself and family since EU exit... Until then we'll have to agree to disagree ;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The EU is doing well ? LMFAO :rofl:

Tell that to Greece, with HUGE youth unemployment. :rolleyes:

Tell that to Italy, whose sick of the influx of immigrants arriving on their shores and other member states being told to take in their quota, with some refusing to do so!

Tell that to Poland who are just about fed up of being told what to do by the EU.

There is absolutely nothing blinkered about seeing a better future outside the EU. We do not need to be in a special bloc to do trade with it and as I said it is a shrinking market. Better to do trade a much bigger one, the world. So you open up your eyes, because I'm not the blinkered one here!

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Agreed, Mick. There are some who don't seem to mind financially supporting a huge bureaucracy that spends so much of our money recklessly and moving all the time in the wrong direction.

I don't want any more of this nonsense. I want us to get our economy back on an even keel, making decisions in line with the wishes of the people of this country, investing in the right things and developing our trade with the rest of the world, which is what we do best as a country.

I am so fed up with all this negative rubbish that some people are spouting about our future prospects. A negative outlook generally means you will achieve little in this life, which you will spend taking orders from others and simply complaining about life. Positivity opens doors and encourages solutions that will change lives.

Not all remainers are negative of course - the positive ones have re-considered their approach and are working on ways to deliver what the British voters have said they want. They realise the futility of constantly bemoaning the fact that the Brexiteers won and they are throwing everything into making it work.

The serial complainers, in the meantime, will ultimately be left behind, which is probably the same feeling they have experienced a few times before....and will again, I'm afraid.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

:clap: Could not agree more or have said it any better.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Nope. Just that I could. Which is exactly the point. I've no idea what you're trying to say with this. The guy was simply stating a fact, a pretty self-evident one, that you don't need to be a logician to grasp, and the headline accurately summarised it.

---------- Post added at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

All the stuff above aside what are people expecting from Theresa May tomorrow in Florence?

---------- Post added at 10:35 ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 ----------

True, as of right now that seems to be the direction, but although time is running out there is still time for a reboot of the whole thing, and for them to get a grip.

From what I've read business is desperately looking for something concrete from tomorrow's speech.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...in-loses-jobs/

Is one example. There are others from other sectors all over the place though.

She absolutely has to nail this. 'Brexit means Brexit and we're going to make a success of it' isn't going to cut it.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I had hoped that I was going to finish my life in uninteresting times. I guess everyone else got bored with that idea..;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I'm afraid a major, major problem is that making decisions in line with the wishes of the people doesn't necessary go alongside getting the economy back on an even keel, investing in the right things or developing global trade.

One of the most unpopular policies from the last election was intended to get the economy back on an even keel and people rarely vote for tax rises or spending cuts.

As far as what we do best goes the world is very, very different from the pre-EEC days, the UK economy is very, very different and what our trade partners want from us is very, very different.

It's also debatable whether the will of the people as it stands now is pro-globalisation.

Are you in favour of the UK going along the lines of Singapore, would you prefer the UK to become more of a social democracy, or do you envisage it remaining roughly as it is in terms of the balance between state and private sector, and the level of regulation?

The words sound great, what is your vision to achieve them?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

We all know that austerity measures have been unpopular, but they have succeeded in reducing our deficit by about three quarters. This was necessary, because until that deficit is eliminated, the interest we are paying on that colossal sum will continue to increase. It would have been better to have continued with Osbourne's original plan for that reason, but the Government bowed to public pressure and eased off, which means of course that there will be even more debt to repay by the time the deficit is eliminated.

I do not disagree that much has changed since pre-EEC days, but the principles of free trade are still there, in fact many tariffs that used to be imposed have been eliminated or reduced. The EU has restricted our ability to trade freely and make new deals and these shackles will be removed when we get out.

The public voted to leave the EU. That also means leaving the Common Market and the Customs Union, because unless we do this, we cannot control immigration and we cannot make our own trade deals. That would contradict the logic of leaving and this half way house would be a shocking disappointment and a disaster for this country.

All this talk about a Singapore type country emerging from all this is hype and complete overkill. The reason the Government has unleashed the potential of such an arrangement is to bring the EU to its senses sooner rather than later in the negotiation. We would only have that outcome if the EU folded its arms and refused to negotiate. But the point is, they will negotiate, because it is in our joint interests to do so. We are only in the posturing stage at the moment, and after the German elections, we can look forward to Angela Merkel taking a firm steer on these negotiations which will result in a sensible outcome.

The thing that many remainers can't get their heads around is that a deal with the EU is by far the most likely outcome and that Britain will benefit both from being able to trade on reasonable terms with the EU and make its own trade deals while at the same time controlling immigration and making our own laws.

The thought of Britain behaving a la Singapore right on their doorstep frightens the EU to death because that would introduce huge unwelcome competition that obviously they wouldn't want. They would also be putting their own economies at risk and increasing unemployment if the EU introduced tariffs to reduce their trade with us.

This is why David Davis has a permanent grin on his face. Unless the EU is completely bonkers, he knows they will capitulate eventually. If Canada can do a trade deal without suffering huge EU encumbrancies, and other countries all over the world can also do so without trade deals, then so can we.

The only real question that remains, stripping away all the hype, is how long the transition period will be (and this depends on the result of the negotiation because until we know what is agreed, we don't know what the length of that period will be) and the price of the divorce bill. And that will be based on legal obligations and a fair price to get a good settlement.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Here's a piece from Iain Martin, a journalist who certainly supports Brexit but who, like Dominic Cummings, is alarmed by the way the Government is going about implementing it.

Paywalled.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...bf4cc0cc72404c

Other than politicians engaging in demagoguery, the odd journalist, and random people online who seem to take criticism of the process personally and the words of people like Nigel Farage as gospel, I'm not aware of anyone who thinks the UK leaving the EU abruptly in 2019 without any kind of transitional arrangements and going straight to WTO is a good idea.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

That includes the Government and the EU itself, which is why there will be a deal that includes a transitional period of about 2 years, during which we will continue making contributions to the EU.

Incidentally, you asked also about the type of Government I envisaged once we leave the EU. I found that surprising, as surely this will be determined by the voters at General Elections.

However, I do think that a Conservative Government under strong leadership would be best placed to make a success of Brexit. I am beginning to have doubts about whether Theresa May is up to it, given everything that's happened, but I think she deserves a chance to redeem herself after that disastrous election campaign.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

A number of people have said that austerity was a mistake and actually prolonged the period of time it took to reduce the deficit. It barely budged until austerity was loosened and more spent on investment.

That's one that's been done to death so won't revisit.

Ditto.

I'm afraid a study simulating various Brexit scenarios indicated that the UK dropping to WTO terms would have a marginal impact on Germany, an even more marginal one relative to a comprehensive FTA, and far more of an impact on the UK.

It is of course in their interests to negotiate, however it's also in our interests to present a realistic position which, so far, we haven't. Friday may change this. Angela Merkel doesn't control the negotiations, and cannot unilaterally change the negotiating position. A deal requires consensus and to change the negotiating parameters requires much the same.

As of right now it's debatable what the most likely course of events is. The majority view across the political spectrum seems to be that we're heading for WTO.

There is no way the UK will behave a la Singapore. Any government that tried would be voted out extremely rapidly. Singapore's tax burden is less than half ours, and they have the public services and social security safety net to match that low taxation.

Indeed we can, however I'm not sure about use of capitulation as a turn of phrase and I always considered that permanent grin on DD's face to be wind. A CETA-like FTA wouldn't actually resolve many of the problems of the WTO model for us, it would not soothe the concerns of business and, so far, very little progress has been made on either side. A game of chicken suits no-one - we would lose more - so Friday is important in putting aside the demagoguery, ceasing playing politics to wag the dog and presenting a way forward.

There's no need for any capitulation; there's every need for co-operation.

It's interesting your statements seem to hinge on the assumption that the EU's behaviour will be guided purely by economic considerations. I believe many criticisms of the EU focused on its behaviour not being guided purely by economic considerations, and certainly the cases made for the UK to leave the EU were not guided by economic considerations. Let's hope that, for the first time in this affair, such considerations take precedence over politics, emotions, and vague abstract notions.

While most of the EU aren't extremists like Juncker there are, much as here, a number of people in places of power that will not act pragmatically.

This article from CBC Canada is interesting. In fact, most of the more interesting articles are produced not in the UK or Europe but by third nations in my experience.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Capitulation means backing down, and in this case, agreeing to what is common sense. We all know that there's not much of that quality at the EU Commission, which is why our Government is going over their heads to speak to EU countries, who will have a much more pragmatic approach. Almost certainly, Angela Merkel will take the lead as the largest economy, and she will inject some sense into the proceedings. Expect her influence being felt after the German elections. Barnier and Junker are a joke, best ignored.

David Davis is supremely confident that there will be an outbreak of common sense before long, and the longer it takes for the EU to see the light, the more stupid they are going to look.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Sadly these people refuse to accept that. They can't accept they're ever wrong or out of touch. They've never made any mistakes, any problems within the EU can only be solved by more of the same. They've created for themselves their own little cloud cuckoo land empire from which they and their ilk singlemindedly go about the business of leading the EU down the garden path to disaster. They hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. Their arrogance is as astonishing as their intransigence and quite why anyone with any common sense would have any faith in that vision is beyond me. It's telling that in spite of all the problems the EU faces the usual suspects only ever have time to talk the UK down, rubbish our own side and suck up, without question, the usual Brussels propaganda like suckling pigs at the teat. The only questions they have are for their own government which is doing what the majority who voted at the referendum demanded and they dare to call their constant attempts to derail the process democracy.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I would like Old Boy to expand on his answers to these interesting questions, if he has time.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I am not advocating the Singapore option for our trading arrangements, but a low tax economy would certainly be an attractive option for Britain if the EU refused to agree to an amicable arrangement with the UK.

As for the balance between the public and private sector, I think we should apply whatever is most efficient. Some things are best done in the private sector, some in the public sector. I really think we pay far too much attention to which sector is providing the service. Some would have the public sector doing everything, just for the sake of it.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Many thanks, Old Boy. The issue I envisage is that 80% of our exports are services, we're not a manufacturing country like Germany or Poland although that's not to undermine the likes of Vauxhall and Nissan to specific parts of the country (Wirral, Sunderland).

The issues are:
- Services are delivered locally due to time zone constraints, travel, cultural differences etc.
- The delivery of services to the EU (our largest services market with 400m customers) is dependent upon common standards. The Swiss and Norwegians get this and are EEA members ie rule-takers and budget contributors not rule-makers. Why should we expect a better deal than Switzerland, one of the richest countries in the world?
- Developing countries in the Middle East which might substitute for some of the European market are quite protectionist and don't necessarily share our values in the way that European countries do.
- The EU has been the most successful body at concluding trade deals. It's not holding us back. Which significant opportunities are we being denied that leaving the EU will open up?

---------- Post added at 23:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:40 ----------

Interesting poll 52% of the country wants to remain in the EU.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7960226.html

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Absolute cobblers and irrelevant. Sample data and poll numbers are with margin of error. For a start they have not indicated how they conducted the poll and what areas they targeted for votes.

Poll after poll shows that these polls cannot be relied upon. These same polls that said Theresa May would have still got a majority in June snap election. These same polls that said Hillary Clinton would become President of the United States.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

... and so it continues. The usual nonsense trying to undermine a perfectly clear and legitimate referendum outcome by those who claim to be interested in democracy but who do so only when it yields what they want. When they don't get their way rather than accepting the outcome as so many of them claim to be doing, they beaver away trying to delay, complicate and eventually overturn it by any means they can. That's their agenda. These people are only interested in one thing and make no mistake, that will mean not only remaining in the EU but ensuring measures are put in place to effectively prevent us ever leaving. That's how desperate, duplicitous and despicable these people are.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

So what's the best outcome in your opinion? Hard Brexit, no trade deal? I think most people accept the result of the referendum but the question posed was 'in' or 'out'. There is no clear definition of what 'out' is. The ultimate hard Brexit would be sever all ties - legal, structural, regulatory but even then, we would need to negotiate with the WTO to set tariff schedules which then would involve negotiating with all WTO members.

Saying everything is going to be alright isn't enough. People want assurance that we will be better off with hard facts, not political platitudes

Re: Brexit discussion
 

In the short term we will not be better off the prosperity from exiting the EU won't come for possibly a decade depending on what trade deals are currently being worked on. In terms of what out meant, to everyone i know who voted in the referendum out meant completely disengaged from the EU and only a trade deal connecting us to the EU. Right now both sides of the negotiating table are pretty lousy and both are approaching the negotiations with unreasonable ideas, the EU's side is trying hard to look as though there isn't an element of punishing the UK for leaving when the rhetoric of some eurocrats clearly shows that's an aspect for them and on the UK side we have a government that has to abide by the referendum but doesn't really want too leading to no clear direction or proper handling of important issues.

It's a mess but it's a mess created by both sides there is no one side being better then the other and right now the only thing this has done is further cemented the publics low opinion of politicians.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

... and when have I said that then eh? :rolleyes:

When has anyone seriously said that it's all bad in the EU and it'll be perfect without it?

If Cameron had got reasonable concessions the vote would have gone the other way. He didn't and the reason for that is purely the intransigence of the other side would would not compromise on their core values and objectives. That was known before we voted and that's the reason we got the outcome we did IMHO. By the way that's just an opinion - I can't produce facts to back it up any more than David Davis can produce facts which prove what life outside the EU will be like. Are you seriously suggesting that people didn't know that and need another chance just to be sure? If we'd voted to stay in what proof was there of how the EU would turn out, whether the Greece crisis wouldn't erupt, whether the Italian banks wouldn't implode and take us with them? You can't prove what the future holds but you can decide that you don't like the past and present sufficiently to decide to change course and that's what people did in 2016. In life that's all we have. Like it or lump it.

Everything isn't going to be alright but the belief of those who voted to leave clearly was that what they knew about being in the EU wasn't enough to stop them voting for an outcome that could never be clear in advance because it's never been done before. They accepted that fact and made their decision based on it.

In your world the truth is we'd never be able to leave the EU because in order to do so our government would have to be equipped with a crystal ball the output of which was cast iron proof of something which the majority feel would be better. How's that going to be done then? Even if it were done there'd be those for whom a better economy for example wouldn't make up for not being part of a singe state or vice versa, how would that ever be reconciled? Being better off isn't just about extra cash in your pocket, it's about things like the right to determine your own future, it's about being able to pick and choose who you allow to live/work in your country, it's about being able to say we don't want to be in a single European state governed by Brussels bureaucrats, it's about being able to deal with other countries as we see fit and on terms we decide.

We can go over this again and again but the result was to leave not to stay half in or half out. The electorate knew what that meant and voted accordingly. Time to move on and get on with it but if you want proof of anything I'm afraid not even Juncker can give you that.

The best outcome in my opinion would be for the UK to get out and run its own affairs with as much co-operation as possible with the EU. We cannot be isolated from them or they from us. That ought to be possible and the UK seems to be being quite reasonable in putting forward suggestions only to have the other side refuse to talk until... That for me sums up the EU sadly, it's being run by people whose own ideology clouds everything else they say and do and that's why the EU is seeing a rise in right wing extremism etc. Anyone who thinks that's gone away with the outcome of the French election by the way needs to think again. It's only going to get worse and that's yet another reason for us to get out.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I really do not understand your confusion.

Yes, the question was indeed 'in or out'.

Given we voted out, we must leave the EU, the Common Market and the Customs Union in order that leaving the EU as set out can be achieved.

Therefore, the choice now is between a negotiated Brexit with a GB/EU deal, or a so-called hard Brexit with no deal. Which it will be will be determined through the negotiations, and Theresa May has pledged to get the best deal for Britain.

So where is the confusion, exactly? No-one can say more with any credibility, because we are in negotiations.

It seems to me the real confusion arises because so many people don't seem to know what a negotiation is. I'm sure that a lot of people think it is a 'demand' which must be accepted without question!

---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ----------

It's not the mess you think it is. It's a negotiation. Being the first stage of the negotiation, it's posturing time. The serious bits come later.

There is no basis for your claim that it will take a decade before we achieve increased prosperity from leaving the EU, although it is good to see that you recognise that increased prosperity will result. But we will not lose at all if Theresa May succeeds in getting a trade deal with the EU, and this is what most Remainers don't seem to want to take into account.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

:tu:

I think most of them know full well but won't miss an opportunity to paint what is common to all serious negotiations as flawed UK strategy and use it to further their aim to overturn the referendum outcome. It's perfectly evident that they don't and never will accept the outcome so they'll carry on raising whatever objections they can simply in order to get what they want.

We all know that much of the UK's GDP growth has been based on large scale immigration which is unsustainable. This has come at great cost to ordinary working people who've seen their wages depressed, their services come under pressure and the neighbourhoods change out of all recognition. Leaving the EU isn't like taking another job in the same building/same hours/same commuting etc. but with a 20% increase in salary. Being better off isn't just about cash and any increase in prosperity might take time to happen but that's life and when we voted we all knew perfectly well what life in the EU meant.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

My confusion is that I really don't understand the UK Governments position and what they want - there is no clear message from the Government where the Chancellor, Trade Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Minister for DExEU all seem to be saying different things. It doesn't instill confidence to be honest.

Maybe there's a clear position behind the curtain in negotiations that is being kept from the public that we're not being told about. Who knows? The EU negotiating team don't seem to know either.

Whether we lose out with a deal with the EU or not surely depends on the deal. Without knowing what the result of the negotiations are, no one can say if we will be better or worse off for sure but the second you put friction in to international trade, you will increase costs

Re: Brexit discussion
 

PM's Florence speech done. EEA / Single Market / Customs Union excluded as options. Transition period where existing rules apply for 2 years, so leaving EU end of March 2019, remaining in EEA in all but name until 2021.

Nigel Farage and Aaron Banks are furious. Sky just interviewed a couple of people in Sunderland. One irate about the money, they expected it all to be coming back home, very strange given no-one believed 'that' bus, the other more pragmatic about it.

She's basically just kicked the can down the road. Still no clearer on what we actually want, just what we don't want. I'm not convinced this is going to settle the nerves of business at all, if anything it may give them more time to carry out contingency plans. Those hoping the UK would remain in the CU have had it made very clear to them that's not on the table.

EDIT: Incidentally, asking for an 'implementation period' when we still have no idea what we're implementing just makes it abundantly clear A50 was triggered prematurely for the wrong reasons.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Spot on. In particular, your point about companies carrying out their contingency plans. They will be able to negotiate better relocation deals for offices as they won't be under such time pressures. Manufacturing can be relocated when model ranges etc come to a natural end. Given that we have been quite willing to see many top British companies sold overseas, they won't have too many qualms about relocating their businesses.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

A 2 year extension? During which time we pretend we're not in the EU but are in all but name. Sounds as though she really doesn't want to leave at all. Don't blame her, the more delay the more time for us to see sense.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Definitely kicking the can down the road here. It’s getting close to the next election cycle though. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a further ‘kick’ to ask for a mandate to complete the Brexit process

Re: Brexit discussion
 

You're not going to get a clear indication of what HMG wants or expects to get in the middle of a negotiation with the EU any more than we're going to get the bottom line on what they want and would compromise on. That's not how anyone astute negotiates.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I think we should let the EU have what they want or risk it all for what's in a mystery box.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2017/09/23.jpg

Re: Brexit discussion
 

lol

Like the EU 'brotherhood of nations' isn't a mystery box... ;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I thought you guys were arguing for a transition period rather than a 'hard Brexit'!

Theresa can't do anything right for some, it seems, even if she gives them exactly what they've asked for!

Given that we won't know the outcome of the negotiations until a deal is struck, it makes perfect sense to have a two year transitional period so we can put all the new arrangements in place.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Correct for them it'll never be enough or right whatever she does. Therein lies the proof of the mentality of these people. I can see why they love the EU so much because they behave just like the blinkered, dogma obsessed Eurocrats who're responsible for so much of what's wrong in the EU and very little of what's right.

Many of these people want two things, to stay within the EU and to destroy May/the Tories and that accounts for why they can never give any credit when it's due.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Osem can't read this of course, but this is more for the wider audience, fact checking the man is fun regardless.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brex...ted-kingdom_en

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Thankfully some practical common sense has prevailed as there was not much up to yesterday.

---------- Post added at 11:26 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------

Personally l just don't think she is up to the job as we have her and Corbyn as the opposition leader and they are IMHO both absolutely useless.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I'm not going to speak for Mr K, however for the first time in a while the right tone was struck.

That said, all was very vague. We're still very light on details. A few concessions were made to the EU and it's very clear the UK still hasn't settled on what we actually want.

Those most upset over the speech seem to be those who've been listening to Boris and those at the extremes of the leave campaigns who were under the impression it would be easy and that no deal was a viable option on the table.

At the extremes I probably have to include the man in charge of DExEU given his statements from the middle of 2016.

---------- Post added at 11:44 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------

This is a tricky one.

Theresa May is hard to read on this one. She's strongly against immigration, so wants out of FoM, however she and the Party have an awful lot of influential people bending their ear. She has also seen the various impact assessments that the Government see fit to deny us, which implies their contents isn't good.

She was a waste of space as Home Secretary for the most part. An ideologue who was ineffective at most things bar cutting services. Someone who preferred to spend time getting publicity for standing up to the ECJ and ECtHR than actually getting her job done.

The request for a 2 year extension is simply required. The UK falling out of the EU onto WTO terms would harm the UK economy profoundly according to most commentators, so remaining in the SM/CU until such a deal can be put in place is important. I also note it was mentioned as 'about' 2 years. This is likely extraordinarily optimistic if we are to get the kind of trade deal the UK needs, but has been left open-ended.

If this means a more pragmatic tone going forward this is good for the UK. You can also chill on the negativity a bit. This means we're not even a quarter of the way through the process, and that more sensible voices have prevailed with the ridiculous claims that they need us more than we need them and we can drop onto WTO terms and immediately see our trade burst into the stratosphere have been abandoned. WTO terms would carry a heavy price for the UK, a far less acute one for the EU.

That said, it's worth keeping an open mind on everything for right now. We still have no idea what our actual endgame is.

This is somewhat conspiracy theory, well more than somewhat, but an interesting read: https://veritasetlibertasdeannolxxxi.../2017/05/30/5/

EDIT: Something that was interesting about the speech on more thought is how she wanted to place some responsibility on the EU for making the process a success. I think this is in vain - their opinion on the whole is that it's our mess and we should be the ones fixing it, and that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. Their thoughts on the matter are abundantly clear by those in audience for that speech - British politicians and mostly British journalists. Foreign dignitaries were invited and declined.

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------

Heh. The UK Government is promoting May's speech with paid-for tweets in European languages. Dutch and German I've seen so far.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Spot on.
The EU has published its agreed position in the key areas but the UK is still struggling. It's hard to negotiate with one side that doesn't have an agreed position and that's a stumbling block at the moment. There seems to be more negotiation going on within the Conservative Party on Brexit than going on between the EU and the UK. That's clearly the EU's fault.;)

---------- Post added at 12:18 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------

There certainly seems to be a dearth of political talent at the moment. Bring on the next generation!

Re: Brexit discussion
 

You are not wrong there.

The current PM's lack of vision & understanding is staggering:

Theresa May tells EU leaders they have 'profound responsibility' to next generation to make Brexit deal work

Unbelievable. The "next generation" as she describes them did not want this fiasco in the first place ..

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 ----------

Hang on, are you one of those "usual suspects only ever have time to talk the UK down, rubbish our own side and suck up, without question, the usual Brussels propaganda like suckling pigs at the teat" and also "desperate, duplicitous and despicable" ? :)

He can't see this either :waving:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If we are talking about May and the Government not being able to do right for doing wrong Moody's just downgraded the UK's credit rating, citing inability to keep fiscal control after the unnecessary General Election took their majority away, and today's speech and earlier actions increasing the chances of a 'no deal' outcome.

On the upside the UK outlook is now stable. Our economic outlook is similar to nations with our new rating.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

Proudly.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

For the record, these currently are:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_...ing#/Moody.27s

Re: Brexit discussion
 

A transition period is not a given right. It still has to be negotiated with the EU.
Have the negotiations been unblocked by Theresa May's speech?
From Sky News
http://news.sky.com/story/may-told-c...dlock-11047985

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Not a bad bunch to be in league with economically, actually.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Moody's pulled no punches when it discussed the UK's future relationship with the EU.
https://www.ft.com/content/3ecfa8f2-...4-932067fbf946

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Pulled up incorrectly in this case. :shrug:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The interesting thing about Boris's article is that he apparently wrote it due to a misunderstanding with Theresa May. He felt that Theresa May wanted a Swiss-style deal with ongoing contributions to the EU in order to access the single market. In fact, Theresa May does not want such an arrangement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7959971.html

---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

Best to get the analysis of an unbiased fact-checking service on issues like this.
https://fullfact.org/europe/foreign-...ion-explained/

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Yes it's not rocket science is it but some people insist on twisting the facts and conflating what's been said with what was written on the side of a bus during the campaign, to suit their own agenda. Boris's actual words are there for all to see. Crystal clear.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

A pro-Brexit magazine agrees with you. An impartial fact-checking source disagrees with you.
https://fullfact.org/europe/350-mill...hority-misuse/

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Yes £350m worth of lies again. The bloke is an incompetent clown. Like many of the ultra Brexiters he's too rich for Brexit to have any significant consequences.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Yep agreed. No lies were made.

His words were, let's give most of that "gross" figure. Key word here is gross.

Other key words are "Let's give." It's a suggestion. Not a concrete promise.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Thank you, Andrew, that is helpful.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

and we all know it wasn't a promise because the campaign group had no mandate to make any such promise. That'd be down to the Government the key players in which at that point were heavily in favour of remaining as we all know. None of this will stop the usual suspects claiming it was a promise however as it suits their aims to misrepresent it as such.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The issue in dispute this year differs from what you are defending.
The wording in question was "After leaving the EU, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week."
- The impartial fact-checking service FullFact says this is incorrect.
- The pro-Brexit Spectator magazine owned by the billionaire Barclay Brothers says the statement is correct.
As a footnote and as highlighted earlier, Boris's article was unnecessary as Boris and Theresa actually agree on how a future relationship with the EU should look!

Re: Brexit discussion
 

£350m is our potential liability, given that our contribution liability could be reviewed to our detiment at a future date. Boris makes people believe that he is an incompetent buffoon, but this underestimates him. If you think about it, there is something Churchillian about him.

Please put aside these attitudes towards the rich. Many of them have extraordinary abilities that they can put to good use to help the poor and everyone else. They are, in fact, like you and me because surprisingly, they are also human.

Whether you are talking about £350 million or £250 million, that's still a huge amount of money.

Let's stop splitting hairs and get on with Brexit!

:ninja:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

No it not incorrect, the figure has varied widely over the years and crucially, it would be around 376M in 2022/3, had we stayed in.

The attitude of some remainers is desperation clinging to the 350M figure being banded about and claiming it was a lie by the Vote Leave Campaign. I think it is totally disengenuous for remainers to keep allocating this as a scapegoat in to why Brexiteers voted the way they did. As repeatedly stated at nearly every time this, done to death argument comes up, my intention to vote leave was made years ago.