Brexit deal

[drfchound]

Ok but if MPs are elected to represent their constituents why would they support no deal at any cost to them.
Surely it would end their careers when it was seen how they had supported something so catastrophic.
After all, post Brexit life has to go on.

It depends what you mean represent their constituents. Do you think an MP should be their constituents puppet or their agent? A lot of Brexiters bang on with a ridiculous theory about how an MP should vote in Parliament according to how their constituency voted in the referendum.

There will be leavers and remainers in all areas, whatever way the final vote ended up.
There will be businesses which will suffer in all areas too if BST Is right with his assumptions.
Any MP who is responsible for bringing deprivation to his constituency by supporting a no deal Brexit (and therefore the reason for businesses closing down or leaving the country) would never get re elected.

We also live in an electoral system that means many 'blindly' vote for the Party and not necessarily the MP.

I am very aware of that, living in Doncaster.

[drfchound]

Ok but if MPs are elected to represent their constituents why would they support no deal at any cost to them.
Surely it would end their careers when it was seen how they had supported something so catastrophic.
After all, post Brexit life has to go on.

It depends what you mean represent their constituents. Do you think an MP should be their constituents puppet or their agent? A lot of Brexiters bang on with a ridiculous theory about how an MP should vote in Parliament according to how their constituency voted in the referendum.

There will be leavers and remainers in all areas, whatever way the final vote ended up.
There will be businesses which will suffer in all areas too if BST Is right with his assumptions.
Any MP who is responsible for bringing deprivation to his constituency by supporting a no deal Brexit (and therefore the reason for businesses closing down or leaving the country) would never get re elected.

Any MP who votes for any form of Brexit are doing that though, aren't they...?

Well not according to financial experts and statisticians who tell us that (allegedly) we are far better off leaving with a deal of some kind.
So I am told.

[drfchound]

Hound

I'll emphasise again. They aren't MY assumptions. They are the predictions of people whose careers are predicated on getting these predictions broadly right. I'm trusting their professional judgement. That seems to me to be a more sensible approach than trusting Jacob Rees-Mogg's opinion.

BST

I am not suggesting that you have done the calculations or that they are your figures.
I know that you are the messenger bringing that information to the forum.
I just say that you are telling me, well, because you are.

For the record, I am totally against no deal and in truth , totally against leaving the EU.

The thing I have been trying to get across is that us, the public, have been fed so many tales about what is best and what is happening that we don’t know what is for the best.

Even on this forum, people who reckon that they know what is happening, contradict each other.

[DonnyOsmond]

Theresa May lost by a landslide and will be putting her deal back out for another vote with minor amendments but she vehemently refuses to consider a PV which only lost by 4%. That logic.

[GazLaz]

The more the debate goes on the more it highlights the vote was not fit for purpose. The amount of thought that went in to the whole thing prior to the referendum must have been somewhere around zero. Well, I suppose those pulling the strings thought the leave option was never in danger of winning!

[Boomstick]

It's not an argument, it's just the way it is.
If parliament can't agree on a deal, then we leave without one. It's the default position we are in. 

The current shit show is just parliament trying to agree on a deal.

It's deal or no deal,
It isn't deal, 2nd referendum, or remain

So if the deal parliament eventually agrees is not what leave wanted, it’s not democratic to potentially change our minds with another vote.??

Where did I say that?

And to answer your question,
NO

[Jonathan]

I saw this taken from a Twitter thread recently. Makes for a good read in explaining how we got to where we are....

David Cameron made a promise he didn't think he'd have to keep to have a referendum he didn't think he would lose. Boris Johnson decided to back the side he didn't believe in because he didn't think it would win. Then Gove, who said he wouldn't run, did, and Boris who said he would run, said he wouldn't, and Theresa May who didn't vote for Brexit got the job of making it happen.

She called the election she said she wouldn't and lost the majority David Cameron hadn't expected to win in the first place. She triggered Article 50 when we didn't need to and said we would talk about trade at the same time as the divorce deal, and the EU said they wouldn't so we didn't. People thought she wouldn't get the divorce settled but she did, but only by agreeing to separate arrangements for Northern Ireland when she had promised the DUP she wouldn't.

Boris Johnson who hadn't left then wished that he had and did, but it was a bit late for that. Dominic Raab become the new Brexit secretary. People thought Theresa May wouldn't get a withdrawal agreement negotiated, but once she had they wished that she hadn't, because hardly anybody liked it whether they wanted to leave or not.

Jacob Rees-Mogg kept threatening a vote of no confidence in her but not enough people were confident enough people would not have confidence in her to confidently call a no confidence vote.

Dominic Raab said he hadn't really been Brexit Secretary either and resigned, and somebody else took the job but it probably isn't worth remembering who they are as they're not really doing the job either.

Then she said she would call a vote and didn't, that she wouldn't release some legal advice but had to, that she would get some concessions but didn't, and got cross that Juncker was calling her nebulous when he wasn't but probably should have been.

At some point Jacob Rees Mogg and others called a vote of no confidence in her, which she won by promising to leave, so she can stay. But they said she had really lost it and should go, at the same time as saying that people who voted Leave knew what they were voting for which they couldn't possibly have because we still don't know now, and that we should leave the vote to Leave vote alone but have no confidence in the no confidence vote which won by more.

The government also argued in court against us being able to say we didn't want to leave after all but it turned out we could. She named a date for the vote on her agreement which nobody expected to pass, while pretending that no deal (which nobody in the right mind wants) is still possible, and that we can't have a second referendum because having a democratic vote is undemocratic.

So there you have it, Brexit explained.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Ok but if MPs are elected to represent their constituents why would they support no deal at any cost to them.
Surely it would end their careers when it was seen how they had supported something so catastrophic.
After all, post Brexit life has to go on.

It depends what you mean represent their constituents. Do you think an MP should be their constituents puppet or their agent? A lot of Brexiters bang on with a ridiculous theory about how an MP should vote in Parliament according to how their constituency voted in the referendum.

There will be leavers and remainers in all areas, whatever way the final vote ended up.
There will be businesses which will suffer in all areas too if BST Is right with his assumptions.
Any MP who is responsible for bringing deprivation to his constituency by supporting a no deal Brexit (and therefore the reason for businesses closing down or leaving the country) would never get re elected.

Any MP who votes for any form of Brexit are doing that though, aren't they...?

Well not according to financial experts and statisticians who tell us that (allegedly) we are far better off leaving with a deal of some kind.
So I am told.

We're not better off leaving with a deal than remaining.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I saw this taken from a Twitter thread recently. Makes for a good read in explaining how we got to where we are....

David Cameron made a promise he didn't think he'd have to keep to have a referendum he didn't think he would lose. Boris Johnson decided to back the side he didn't believe in because he didn't think it would win. Then Gove, who said he wouldn't run, did, and Boris who said he would run, said he wouldn't, and Theresa May who didn't vote for Brexit got the job of making it happen.

She called the election she said she wouldn't and lost the majority David Cameron hadn't expected to win in the first place. She triggered Article 50 when we didn't need to and said we would talk about trade at the same time as the divorce deal, and the EU said they wouldn't so we didn't. People thought she wouldn't get the divorce settled but she did, but only by agreeing to separate arrangements for Northern Ireland when she had promised the DUP she wouldn't.

Boris Johnson who hadn't left then wished that he had and did, but it was a bit late for that. Dominic Raab become the new Brexit secretary. People thought Theresa May wouldn't get a withdrawal agreement negotiated, but once she had they wished that she hadn't, because hardly anybody liked it whether they wanted to leave or not.

Jacob Rees-Mogg kept threatening a vote of no confidence in her but not enough people were confident enough people would not have confidence in her to confidently call a no confidence vote.

Dominic Raab said he hadn't really been Brexit Secretary either and resigned, and somebody else took the job but it probably isn't worth remembering who they are as they're not really doing the job either.

Then she said she would call a vote and didn't, that she wouldn't release some legal advice but had to, that she would get some concessions but didn't, and got cross that Juncker was calling her nebulous when he wasn't but probably should have been.

At some point Jacob Rees Mogg and others called a vote of no confidence in her, which she won by promising to leave, so she can stay. But they said she had really lost it and should go, at the same time as saying that people who voted Leave knew what they were voting for which they couldn't possibly have because we still don't know now, and that we should leave the vote to Leave vote alone but have no confidence in the no confidence vote which won by more.

The government also argued in court against us being able to say we didn't want to leave after all but it turned out we could. She named a date for the vote on her agreement which nobody expected to pass, while pretending that no deal (which nobody in the right mind wants) is still possible, and that we can't have a second referendum because having a democratic vote is undemocratic.

So there you have it, Brexit explained.

That'll be on a future tea towel.

[Donnywolf]

Mopping up BST stains ?
Absolute belter Jonathan !

[BillyStubbsTears]

Funny isn't it, how opinions change once folk have been duped into voting the right way.

https://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY

[SydneyRover]

You would think the Confederation of British Industry might know their way around subjects such as tariffs, trade, economies of scale etc. For myself and many others it was a bird in the hand, look after the customer you have and they will come back, much easier than trying to find a new one.


''North-east England will be hit hardest by no-deal Brexit, says CBI''

''Josh Hardie, the deputy director general of the CBI, said: “The projected impact on the UK economy would be devastating and, while business will do all it can to reduce some of the worst aspects, a no-deal scenario is unmanageable.”

''While the north-east would see the biggest proportional impact, the CBI said that the biggest reduction in economic output by value would come in London. GVA would be about 6% lower by 2034, the lowest of any region, but the scale of the capital’s economy means the value lost would be about £40bn.''

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/22/north-east-england-will-be-hit-hardest-by-no-deal-brexit-says-cbi

[Glyn_Wigley]

You would think the Confederation of British Industry might know their way around subjects such as tariffs, trade, economies of scale etc. For myself and many others it was a bird in the hand, look after the customer you have and they will come back, much easier than trying to find a new one.

When I visited businesses to verify their import and export declarations, I would say only about 1 in 100 had someone working there who knew anything about it. The usual procedure was to just pay a shipping agent to do it for them...and assume it would get done right. Which most of the time it wasn't, because shipping agents will do and say anything just to get stuff through Customs. But, of course, the responsibility for the crap decalrations the shipping agents made is that of the business that hires them...who know nothing about it so couldn't check what the shipping agents were doing in their name.

And that was even without them being able to spot when a shipping agent was ripping them off directly! Charges for use of a deferment account being a favourite.

[DonnyOsmond]

You would think the Confederation of British Industry might know their way around subjects such as tariffs, trade, economies of scale etc. For myself and many others it was a bird in the hand, look after the customer you have and they will come back, much easier than trying to find a new one.


''North-east England will be hit hardest by no-deal Brexit, says CBI''

''Josh Hardie, the deputy director general of the CBI, said: “The projected impact on the UK economy would be devastating and, while business will do all it can to reduce some of the worst aspects, a no-deal scenario is unmanageable.”

''While the north-east would see the biggest proportional impact, the CBI said that the biggest reduction in economic output by value would come in London. GVA would be about 6% lower by 2034, the lowest of any region, but the scale of the capital’s economy means the value lost would be about £40bn.''

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/22/north-east-england-will-be-hit-hardest-by-no-deal-brexit-says-cbi

For an area like Doncaster the EU funding is vital, we get f all from the government.

[DonnyOsmond]

Caroline Lucas speaking at a People’s Vote event: “The government hasn’t put 3,500 troops on standby to hand out Union Jack flags to no-deal Brexit supporters. They’re on standby to prepare for a collapse of law and order.”


Caroline Lucas is brilliant. She should be PM.

[Pancho Regan]

Leave=Goodbye. What more is there to say?

I think the phrase "Brexit means Brexit", which the PM repeated ad nauseam in the early days of her Premiership, will go down in history as one of the most meaningless and unhelpful utterances in this whole shambolic affair.

 

[drfchound]

I saw this taken from a Twitter thread recently. Makes for a good read in explaining how we got to where we are....

David Cameron made a promise he didn't think he'd have to keep to have a referendum he didn't think he would lose. Boris Johnson decided to back the side he didn't believe in because he didn't think it would win. Then Gove, who said he wouldn't run, did, and Boris who said he would run, said he wouldn't, and Theresa May who didn't vote for Brexit got the job of making it happen.

She called the election she said she wouldn't and lost the majority David Cameron hadn't expected to win in the first place. She triggered Article 50 when we didn't need to and said we would talk about trade at the same time as the divorce deal, and the EU said they wouldn't so we didn't. People thought she wouldn't get the divorce settled but she did, but only by agreeing to separate arrangements for Northern Ireland when she had promised the DUP she wouldn't.

Boris Johnson who hadn't left then wished that he had and did, but it was a bit late for that. Dominic Raab become the new Brexit secretary. People thought Theresa May wouldn't get a withdrawal agreement negotiated, but once she had they wished that she hadn't, because hardly anybody liked it whether they wanted to leave or not.

Jacob Rees-Mogg kept threatening a vote of no confidence in her but not enough people were confident enough people would not have confidence in her to confidently call a no confidence vote.

Dominic Raab said he hadn't really been Brexit Secretary either and resigned, and somebody else took the job but it probably isn't worth remembering who they are as they're not really doing the job either.

Then she said she would call a vote and didn't, that she wouldn't release some legal advice but had to, that she would get some concessions but didn't, and got cross that Juncker was calling her nebulous when he wasn't but probably should have been.

At some point Jacob Rees Mogg and others called a vote of no confidence in her, which she won by promising to leave, so she can stay. But they said she had really lost it and should go, at the same time as saying that people who voted Leave knew what they were voting for which they couldn't possibly have because we still don't know now, and that we should leave the vote to Leave vote alone but have no confidence in the no confidence vote which won by more.

The government also argued in court against us being able to say we didn't want to leave after all but it turned out we could. She named a date for the vote on her agreement which nobody expected to pass, while pretending that no deal (which nobody in the right mind wants) is still possible, and that we can't have a second referendum because having a democratic vote is undemocratic.

So there you have it, Brexit explained.

That'll be on a future tea towel.

Now that made me laugh BST.

[drfchound]

Ok but if MPs are elected to represent their constituents why would they support no deal at any cost to them.
Surely it would end their careers when it was seen how they had supported something so catastrophic.
After all, post Brexit life has to go on.

It depends what you mean represent their constituents. Do you think an MP should be their constituents puppet or their agent? A lot of Brexiters bang on with a ridiculous theory about how an MP should vote in Parliament according to how their constituency voted in the referendum.

There will be leavers and remainers in all areas, whatever way the final vote ended up.
There will be businesses which will suffer in all areas too if BST Is right with his assumptions.
Any MP who is responsible for bringing deprivation to his constituency by supporting a no deal Brexit (and therefore the reason for businesses closing down or leaving the country) would never get re elected.

Any MP who votes for any form of Brexit are doing that though, aren't they...?

Well not according to financial experts and statisticians who tell us that (allegedly) we are far better off leaving with a deal of some kind.
So I am told.

We're not better off leaving with a deal than remaining.

I don’t often agree with you Glyn, but on this point, I do.

[Filo]

Caroline Lucas speaking at a People’s Vote event: “The government hasn’t put 3,500 troops on standby to hand out Union Jack flags to no-deal Brexit supporters. They’re on standby to prepare for a collapse of law and order.”


Caroline Lucas is brilliant. She should be PM.

Yes, the Government are prepared to turn the guns on their own people, the kind of stuff Russia does

[ravenrover]

What amazes me is every time we nip off for a few days around the UK,  is the number of projects that have "with monies funded by the EU" on a plaque ie new roads, bridges, flood defences, parkland etc.  On leaving the EU will there be any more said projects if so where will the funding come from?

[drfchound]

What amazes me is every time we nip off for a few days around the UK,  is the number of projects that have "with monies funded by the EU" on a plaque ie new roads, bridges, flood defences, parkland etc.  On leaving the EU will there be any more said projects if so where will the funding come from?

It’s obvious isn’t it.........from the £350million pounds a week we have been paying to the EU.

[Bentley Bullet]

What amazes me is every time we nip off for a few days around the UK,  is the number of projects that have "with monies funded by the EU" on a plaque ie new roads, bridges, flood defences, parkland etc.  On leaving the EU will there be any more said projects if so where will the funding come from?

Where did funding come from before we were in the EU?

[BillyStubbsTears]

What amazes me is every time we nip off for a few days around the UK,  is the number of projects that have "with monies funded by the EU" on a plaque ie new roads, bridges, flood defences, parkland etc.  On leaving the EU will there be any more said projects if so where will the funding come from?

Where did funding come from before we were in the EU?

It didn't. Thatcher's Govt were ideologically against state funding of infrastructre. They wanted the Market to decide where shit got built.

In practice, both the Market AND what Govt infrastructure spend there was went predominantly where the obvious return was going to be. London and the South East
M25
Dartford Bridge
Channel Tunnel
HS1
Second Severn crossing
Electrification of train lines terminating at London.
Stansted Airport.
Heathrow Terminals 4 and 5.
Gatwick North Terminal

What infrastructure spend went to the North was predominantly spent around Manchester as the big economic hub.
Manchester Airport T3
M60

There was EU funding available for regional development, but it required UK Govt to match some of the funding. Thatcher's Govt didn't do that.

That's the reason that by the mid-1990s, South Yorkshire was ranked as one of the poorest 10% of regions in the EU. On a par with Sicily and rural Portugal. That's what lead to a big investment from the EU through the Objective One fund for the poorest EU regions, in things like Donny Airport and the link road, Frenchgate Centre, Donny College.

The ERG, the ones who make Thatcher look like a Corbynista, want you to believe that when we leave the EU, the British Govt will invest in areas like South Yorkshire. Frankly, at the risk of sounding condescending, anyone f**king thick enough to believe that deserves what they get.

[Bentley Bullet]

That's just the Thatcher era you're talking about. I'm talking about before we were in the EU in general, not just the 80's.

[BillyStubbsTears]

We had an entirely different philosophical approach to Govt spending in those days.

Between 1945 and the late 70s, we had Govts of both colours who bought into the idea that Governments needed to spend on infrastructure, and spread that spending around the country.

So Governments paid for the motorway network. For the Humber, Severn and Forth Bridges. For the development of airports at Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Glasgow, East Midlands, Leeds etc, etc.

By the late 70s, that culture had changed. Funding was predominantly expected to come from the Market and the Market is always going to spend money on projects that maximise its rate and speed or return. That has predominantly continued to this day, with the EU acting as a safety net to pump money into infrastructure in poor areas (like ours) which the Market on its own would not touch.

So the answer to your question is that before we joined the EEC, our own Govt predominantly paid for our infrastructure. But if we leave the EU and keep a right wing Govt in power, we won't revert back to that position.

[Bentley Bullet]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So it's our own governments inadequacies that makes paying out £13 billion quid to the EU to get £4 billion back worthwhile?

[ravenrover]

Thanks BST, my thoughts too but do you think there will definitely be a change with a left wing government?

[Boomstick]

"have a people's vote, to thwart the people's vote, once another people's vote overturns the first people's, - no more people's votes"

A remainers version of democracy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I might have guessed that was a leading question into another hamster wheel argument. You're trotting out a tired and very out of date argument BB. Once again, it leaves me thinking you prefer arguing than advancing the level of understanding.

But, since you raise it...big deep breath. Aaaannndddd...here we go.

1) Your figures don't include other income that the UK gets, such as R&D funding from the EU. That was about £1.5bn in 2017. So, yes, we DO pay something like £7.5bn net to the EU.

2) A bit of perspective. That is about 0.3% of our GDP.

3) All the richer countries in the EU pay in more than they get back.

4) One of the reasons for that is that more money is invested in poorer areas of the EU (like South Yorkshire) to raise their economic potential.

5) The reasons for that are three-fold. Economic, because if the poor regions get richer, they will be the next generations consumers of your goods. Security, because if you have very rich countries, cheek by jowl with very poor countries, that leads to serious frictions. Moral because...well, I should really have to explain that one.

6) If you like, you can think of that 0.3% of GDP being our membership fee. The fee that buys us access to thinks like the CU and SM.

7) The mean of the economic projections of the effect of leaving the SM and CU and not getting a very, very good free trade agreement indicate that by the late 2020s, our GDP will be down by 8%. So the 0.3% seems like a decent deal.


So, yes, if you want to argue from a very perverse position, you could make a case that we could save ourselves £7.5bn per year by leaving the EU, and spend that on our own infrastructure. But a) you'd need a Govt that was prepared to spend that on infrastructure, and hopefully not purely on London infrastructure and b) you'd need an economic plan to replace the £160bn per year that we're projected to lose because of leaving the EU.

And before you ask, if we get a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU, to reduce the economic losses that we'll suffer, we would need to keep paying into the EU pot as a membership fee.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BS.

Aye. Of course. Because if the British people in 2019 have a different understanding of the situation and as a result, come to a different conclusion than they did in 2016, that would be awful for democracy wouldn't it?