Brexit deal

[IDM]

No that isn’t it at all..

The reason for having another vote is simple - actually knowing what we are voting for, because at the moment no one can be satisfied with the current situation..

It’s not about overturning the previous vote ad infinitum at all, it’s about a meaningful vote - period.!

[BillyStubbsTears]

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

Depends what Brexit outcome we had. If we have one that significantly cuts our trade with the EU, there is nothing a Left Wing Govt could do to make up the lost income. So, one way or another, the country would have less money to play with.

All other things being equal, I suspect a Corbyn Govt WOULD invest more in national infrastructure than a Tory Govt.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. I asked where did the funding come from before we were in the EU, in answer to a post describing how amazing our new roads, bridges, flood defences etc are thanks to the EU.

Living in Bentley, that made me wonder when our potholes will be filled in, or if it's worth doing that because the roads will only be f**ked again if we have another flood.

This just made me wonder if parts of South Yorkshire, like Doncaster, was still being neglected despite our EU membership. Maybe if we had a government willing to spend the £7.5bn per year saved by leaving the EU on our own infrastructure we'd all benefit.

[drfchound]

No that isn’t it at all..

The reason for having another vote is simple - actually knowing what we are voting for, because at the moment no one can be satisfied with the current situation..

It’s not about overturning the previous vote ad infinitum at all, it’s about a meaningful vote - period.!

It seems to me that Leavers are paranoid about the possibility of a second referendum because of exactly the point you make above IDM.

The first vote was done without the electorate have any idea of what leaving actually means in reality.

[Mr1Croft]

 We should never have had the vote in the first place.

MPs get paid a handsome salary to make these decisions on our behalf. That principle is the perhaps the cornerstone of both our Parliamentary Democracy and Sovereignty Of Parliament.

Any referendum on any issue only seeks to subvert that.

It's ironic really that the people voted for parliamentary sovereignty in a vote that wasn't sovereign.

[RedJ]

And then moan when Parliament exercises its sovereignty.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BST. I asked where did the funding come from before we were in the EU, in answer to a post describing how amazing our new roads, bridges, flood defences etc are thanks to the EU.

Living in Bentley, that made me wonder when our potholes will be filled in, or if it's worth doing that because the roads will only be f**ked again if we have another flood.

This just made me wonder if parts of South Yorkshire, like Doncaster, was still being neglected despite our EU membership. Maybe if we had a government willing to spend the £7.5bn per year saved by leaving the EU on our own infrastructure we'd all benefit.

OK. I'll repeat it again.

Yes we'll save £7.5bn/year, but the MINIMUM we are projected to lose, even with a good deal (for which we'll have to pay a decent slug of that £7.5bn) is £40bn/year. Without a deal, the projection is £160bn/year that we lose.

So there WON'T be a net amount to spend after Brexit. It's just a question of how much worse off we are going to be.

So I think you can put your question to bed. The Govt won't be fixing your potholes if we leave the EU.

[BillyStubbsTears]

On a depressingly serious note, your post BB really brings out the desperate sadness of Brexit.

Folk have genuine frustrations at how they have been treated over decades. And they've responded by voting to make their lives much, much worse. Egged on by a bunch of Kitsons on the right of our politics, who have used those votes as part of their plan to take over the Tory party.

And you wonder why I get so f**king angry about this...

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. Maybe a less negative approach might kerb your anger....

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-economic-cost-of-brexit-is-unavoidable-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-not-worth-it/

[The Red Baron]

Interesting development. That EU Army that Clegg said would never happen...

https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1062433746123739136

The only surprise to me is that they haven't waited until the pesky Brits are out before announcing this.

[wilts rover]

BST. Maybe a less negative approach might kerb your anger....

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-economic-cost-of-brexit-is-unavoidable-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-not-worth-it/

Sorry BB, I don't understand your point? Can you clarify? The link you have given re a less negative approach says this:

It is fine to argue that Brexit is worth the economic damage it implies, that economics is not the most important consideration, or that economic warnings are overblown. What is not acceptable is to deny that there will be any damage at all.

[Bentley Bullet]

Wilts. It says "in a comparative context the IFS estimates that the financial crisis cost the UK economy £300 billion in the decade since 2008. Our modelling implies lost output of between £40 billion and £110 billion by 2030.

Brexit would therefore be substantially less damaging than the financial crisis.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

There is an astonishingly important error in that article. One that you have just repeated (not a criticism of you - you took it in good faith).

They have quoted the aggregated, cumulative economic effect of the Great Financial Crash over a decade (£300bn). And compared that to the ANNUAL loss predicted due to Brexit.

The £40-110bn loss due to a Deal Brexit is not the TOTAL loss that we will suffer over the next decade. It's the ANNUAL loss.

The TOTAL loss is predicted to be somewhere between £200-750bn.

EDIT.
That mistake is almost beyond belief. So I've checked to make sure it's not me getting it wrong.

The report that they quote says clearly and unambiguously, "the estimates imply that no deal would, in the long term lead to a reduction in UK GDP per capita, relative to the baseline of remaining in the EU of 3.5-8.7% of GDP."

GDP is the amount of economic activity IN ONE YEAR! Our GDP is about £2trn. So they are saying that no deal would result in an economic loss of £70-£174bn PER YEAR. Not summed over a decade.

That is bang in line with what other economists are predicting. And it is absolutely NOT how they mistakenly interpret it in the link you provided.

What they SHOULD have said is that the loss we suffered over a decade due to the Great Financial Crash would be matched by No Deal Brexit every 2-5 years for the foreseeable future.

EDIT2.
The figures for the Deal Brexit are 1.9-5.5% of GDP. Which is where the £40-110bn that you quote come from. But again, that is the loss PER YEAR, not aggregated over a decade.

These are stupendously large losses. At the top end, it's like stripping out our entire NHS budget from the UK economy. Permanently. Even at the low end, it's like losing the entire Defence budget.

EDIT3.
Look at those numbers. Think about what they mean. And then reflect on why Brexit supporting MPs are constantly telling you not to listen to experts.

Because if the experts are remotely accurate, you cannot come to any conclusion other than that Brexit in any form is utter economic lunacy.

[Bentley Bullet]

Well, it says by 2030. If it doesn't mean to say that then it just confirms the vulnerability of the so-called experts.

Here's me trying to cure your rage at the world and all I've done is make matters worse by uncovering the lies of a Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs!

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

YES. It says by 2030, GDP (which is our economic activity per year) will be reduced by that amount.

And I'm not saying the authors have lied. I'm saying they've made a massive mistake in their presentation and interpretation.

And note that they are not economists. An economist would not have made such a bad error of interpretation.  It shows how difficult these issues are to grasp for non-experts.

[i_ateallthepies]

BB, given that your every utterance in the whole of these 42 pages of debate has been largely lame attempts to rubbish the information posted by those who don't like the idea of Brigit (with a revealing focus on one poster in particular), I'm intrigued to know what thought process led you to vote Remain in the first place.

[Bentley Bullet]

Iateallthepies, you obviously haven't read my posts explaining it then. I voted remain because of the potential risks involved in leaving.

However, I feel the need to disassociate myself with the Remain side because of the supercilious and condescending attitude that some of them portray towards Leavers. I'd rather show support for the Leavers.

Not only that, The Leavers won the vote, making us all Leavers. I thought the best way forward was for us all to unite in the process of leaving. I still do.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Strange approach you have to trying to get us to unite BB. Posting bad argument after bad argument after bad argument on issues that are at the core of this process.

See, it looks to me like someone in your position is immaturely trying to have it both ways.

If Brexit is stopped, you can scream about how the Leave supporters have been subjected to condescending and supercilious bullying. If it goes ahead and is a disaster (plot spolier - it will be) you can claim it's the fault of those who never believed in Brexit and didn't unite for the sake of the country.

Since you posted that link, flawed though it is, I assume we can put one of your hobby horses to bed. It concludes, "It is fine to argue that Brexit is worth the economic damage it implies, that economics is not the most important consideration, or that economic warnings are overblown. What is not acceptable is to deny that there will be any damage at all."

So, presumably you are not going to continue with this inane insistence that you can't trust economic projections. Because if you still bleat on about that, why the f**k would you have posted that link?

[Mr1Croft]

I think whenever we start to identify ourselves and each other by how we voted in a secret ballot we begin down a very slippery slope.

[wilts rover]

Thanks for clarifying BB. What I understand you are now saying (please correct me if I am wrong) is that the article you quoted to show a less negative approach to Brexit actually shows how catastrophic Brexit will be?

[wilts rover]

Funnily enough MrCroft there was a piece about that on the radio today. The pollster John Curtice has found that more people are now identifying on how they feel about Brexit.

http://theconversation.com/brexit-identities-how-leave-versus-remain-replaced-conservative-versus-labour-affiliations-of-british-voters-110311

[BillyStubbsTears]

Here's an interesting development.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456

Isn't conspiring with another state to work against the will of Parliament the very definition of treason?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Funnily enough MrCroft there was a piece about that on the radio today. The pollster John Curtice has found that more people are now identifying on how they feel about Brexit.

http://theconversation.com/brexit-identities-how-leave-versus-remain-replaced-conservative-versus-labour-affiliations-of-british-voters-110311

Not surprising given the mixed view of the parties, though labour seem a little more united at the moment.

Interesting point above about ref2, I do wonder what goes on the ballot.....

[Bentley Bullet]

Strange approach you have to trying to get us to unite BB. Posting bad argument after bad argument after bad argument on issues that are at the core of this process.

See, it looks to me like someone in your position is immaturely trying to have it both ways.

If Brexit is stopped, you can scream about how the Leave supporters have been subjected to condescending and supercilious bullying. If it goes ahead and is a disaster (plot spolier - it will be) you can claim it's the fault of those who never believed in Brexit and didn't unite for the sake of the country.

Since you posted that link, flawed though it is, I assume we can put one of your hobby horses to bed. It concludes, "It is fine to argue that Brexit is worth the economic damage it implies, that economics is not the most important consideration, or that economic warnings are overblown. What is not acceptable is to deny that there will be any damage at all."

So, presumably you are not going to continue with this inane insistence that you can't trust economic projections. Because if you still bleat on about that, why the f**k would you have posted that link?

.............And there goes a prime example of my last post!

BST. I've never thought of those sort of tactics before. Where did you learn them?

I posted that link to show that not every economic projection arrives at the same conclusion. If they have differing opinions how can they all be right? How on earth can they be trusted if some of them are wrong?

Perhaps we should just wait for you to tell us, eh?

You put up link after link that you select to most fit your argument and expect everyone to treat it as gospel because you've picked it. Anyone else puts a link up that you disagree with is treated with ridicule for patronising such an article, often rubbishing it because it belongs to a news outlet you don't tolerate.

Funny how the Mail and Express can be used when it suits you, but not when it suits your opponents!

That's why only a handful of Leavers get involved with this forum in a political way.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Here's an interesting development.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456

Isn't conspiring with another state to work against the will of Parliament the very definition of treason?

Mr Kawcynski has some interesting employment outside Parliament.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11817/daniel_kawczynski/shrewsbury_and_atcham

”1. Employment and earnings
From 1 February 2018 until further notice, consultant providing general advice to The Electrum Group LLC, a mining group based in the USA. Address: 535 Madison Avenue Floor 12, New York NY 10022. I earn £6,000 gross per month for an expected monthly commitment of 30 hours."

£500/hour to act as a consultant for a mining company.

And of course it's entirely coincidental that mining companies are expected to see their value increase as a result of Brexit because mining stocks are seen as safe in times of economic uncertainty.

https://www.grantthornton.co.uk/insights/brexit-good-news-for-mining/

Hey. BB. Here's a thought. Maybe you should ask HIM to pay to get your pot holes fixed?

[Bentley Bullet]

"Hey. BB. Here's a thought. Maybe you should ask HIM to pay to get your pot holes fixed"?

There's another one appeared outside my house. I'll look into it.

[SydneyRover]

Strange approach you have to trying to get us to unite BB. Posting bad argument after bad argument after bad argument on issues that are at the core of this process.

See, it looks to me like someone in your position is immaturely trying to have it both ways.

If Brexit is stopped, you can scream about how the Leave supporters have been subjected to condescending and supercilious bullying. If it goes ahead and is a disaster (plot spolier - it will be) you can claim it's the fault of those who never believed in Brexit and didn't unite for the sake of the country.

Since you posted that link, flawed though it is, I assume we can put one of your hobby horses to bed. It concludes, "It is fine to argue that Brexit is worth the economic damage it implies, that economics is not the most important consideration, or that economic warnings are overblown. What is not acceptable is to deny that there will be any damage at all."

So, presumably you are not going to continue with this inane insistence that you can't trust economic projections. Because if you still bleat on about that, why the f**k would you have posted that link?

.............And there goes a prime example of my last post!

BST. I've never thought of those sort of tactics before. Where did you learn them?

I posted that link to show that not every economic projection arrives at the same conclusion. If they have differing opinions how can they all be right? How on earth can they be trusted if some of them are wrong?

Perhaps we should just wait for you to tell us, eh?

You put up link after link that you select to most fit your argument and expect everyone to treat it as gospel because you've picked it. Anyone else puts a link up that you disagree with is treated with ridicule for patronising such an article, often rubbishing it because it belongs to a news outlet you don't tolerate.

Funny how the Mail and Express can be used when it suits you, but not when it suits your opponents!

That's why only a handful of Leavers get involved with this forum in a political way.

If you look at the poll at the top of the page it shows there are only a few leavers that actually agree on what sort of leave they want, of the few leavers that do venture here they don't seem able to support their argument with reliable facts and maybe get frustrated at the overwhelming evidence that shows there is not going to be a lot of money around to fix potholes. It would be interesting if some of those that voted in this poll tell us if they think they will get what they want, do they still want what they voted for and do they think they will be better off in any way if they get it.

[SydneyRover]

Are those advocating a hard brexit on board with a hard Irish border?

''No-deal Brexit would mean hard Irish border, EU confirms ''

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/22/no-deal-brexit-would-mean-hard-irish-border-eu-confirms

[Copps is Magic]

Liam Fox must be one of the most dangerous people to our country at the moment. Fuelling the hard-brexit nationalistic rhetoric on the one hand, and doing back door preliminary trade deals that will progressively and systematically erode any form of national democratic sovereignty. And he'll gladly take a no-deal brexit to get there.

If you want post-EU Britain that just acts as a fleeting staging post for global capital and large corporations, here's your man.

[ravenrover]

BST. I asked where did the funding come from before we were in the EU, in answer to a post describing how amazing our new roads, bridges, flood defences etc are thanks to the EU.

Living in Bentley, that made me wonder when our potholes will be filled in, or if it's worth doing that because the roads will only be f**ked again if we have another flood.

This just made me wonder if parts of South Yorkshire, like Doncaster, was still being neglected despite our EU membership. Maybe if we had a government willing to spend the £7.5bn per year saved by leaving the EU on our own infrastructure we'd all benefit.

Want to tell me where I used the word amazing to describe the projects, in my post?