Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BigH on January 16, 2022, 05:52:30 pm
-
Forget all the nonsense about lower taxation, new freedoms, trading deals, control over immigration and the rest.
The burning question is when are we going to get proper light bulbs back? I thought this was as much a priority as blue passports and pint glasses with crowns on but unless I'm missing something it's not happened yet. Why?
I could forgive most of the rest of it but this...
-
We got to scrap the EU clean water initive so we could fill up our rivers and beaches with sewage again. What more do you want? Some people are never happy...
-
Job vacancies in the banking sector in London have risen sharply since 2016, The pack of lies about 100000 jobs being lost in the sector bandied about by remainer's before the 2016 vote has been exposed as just that, a pack of lies.
-
Job vacancies in the banking sector in London have risen sharply since 2016, The pack of lies about 100000 jobs being lost in the sector bandied about by remainer's before the 2016 vote has been exposed as just that, a pack of lies.
Great only 7500 jobs in the London finance industry lost since Brexit. Amazing!!
Oh and if you read the article things aren’t likely to stay quite that rosey.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-01-17/london-bankers-your-jobs-and-bonuses-look-safe-for-now
-
Forget all the nonsense about lower taxation, new freedoms, trading deals, control over immigration and the rest.
The burning question is when are we going to get proper light bulbs back? I thought this was as much a priority as blue passports and pint glasses with crowns on but unless I'm missing something it's not happened yet. Why?
I could forgive most of the rest of it but this...
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/european-markets-fall-ftse-dax-cac-as-uk-wage-growth-wiped-out-by-inflation-094416773.html
Do all dividends pay this well?
-
Hey we are not the only country feeling inflation check out Germany!
-
Hey we are not the only country feeling inflation check out Germany!
So is your point that neither side benefited from Brexit?
-
Aidan.
That's the thing with the Brexit Death Cult. It doesn't matter if we don't do well, as long as the other side loses.
-
Sorry state of affairs isn’t it?
-
Billy, the biggest difference has been the build up of ill feeling by the EU towards this country, that they have made public by stating the obvious on numerous occasions and openly saying also publicly that we must suffer to stop other nations from following our lead in leaving.
It is not the people of the EU that want a trade war, or the people of the UK wanting the same.
But they are entrenching the British people that would come out in any further vote about rejoining, in fact like me who voted to stay in in 2016, a lot of them and I wouldn't give them the smell off my backside in any future negotiations, and the first thing we should do is cancel all the thousand troops we are sending over there to the Ukraine. Let them look after themselves, they have lived long enough on the backs of mainly the USA and partly off us.
Its time to treat them the same way they like to and have us and give them a big F*** OFF pill.
-
Billy, the biggest difference has been the build up of ill feeling by the EU towards this country, that they have made public by stating the obvious on numerous occasions and openly saying also publicly that we must suffer to stop other nations from following our lead in leaving.
It is not the people of the EU that want a trade war, or the people of the UK wanting the same.
But they are entrenching the British people that would come out in any further vote about rejoining, in fact like me who voted to stay in in 2016, a lot of them and I wouldn't give them the smell off my backside in any future negotiations, and the first thing we should do is cancel all the thousand troops we are sending over there to the Ukraine. Let them look after themselves, they have lived long enough on the backs of mainly the USA and partly off us.
Its time to treat them the same way they like to and have us and give them a big F*** OFF pill.
Was brexit a party or a work do?
-
It could be a wake for the likes of you Syd.
-
Or another sleep for yourself selby
-
Better than crying for six years like you, get over it we are out of wipes.
-
Still not drinking then?
-
Not through a 'light bulb' moment more enlightenment on a very slow acting dimmer switch but the majority of the population have come to the conclusion that this was all a fuss over nothing. The divisiveness, the arguments, the falling outs, the nastiness - none of it was worth a hill of beans.
We've had Brexit but we have not had as a result: a recession; any discernible increase in unemployment; any mass abandonment of the country by big companies; and we did get a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU.
Yes there was a substantial fall in investment and the stock market (a bas**rd if you happened to be retiring on an annuity back in 2016) in the 6 months immediately after the vote, but this was due to sentiment - a reaction to the remorseless negativity of the Remain campaign and it's high profile backers not the fundamental nature of Brexit itself, both have since rebounded.
Yet we have regained sovereignty and our individual and collective democratic rights over a wide range of issues which is fundamentally what Brexit was about.
You'd have to go a long way to find a rational, independently-minded person in favour of us rejoining the EU. Probably sadly to Westminster and those politicians and civil servants who've found the implementation of their political agendas and/or political ambitions cut short by Brexit.
-
Not through a 'light bulb' moment more enlightenment on a very slow acting dimmer switch but the majority of the population have come to the conclusion that this was all a fuss over nothing. The divisiveness, the arguments, the falling outs, the nastiness - none of it was worth a hill of beans.
We've had Brexit but we have not had as a result: a recession; any discernible increase in unemployment; any mass abandonment of the country by big companies; and we did get a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU.
You'd have to go a long way to find a rational, independently-minded person in favour of us rejoining the EU. Probably sadly to Westminster and those politicians and civil servants who've found the implementation of their political agendas and/or political ambitions cut short by Brexit.
Whilst that was very articulately put it is almost all absolute rubbish; read the trade deal and you will see that we don’t have sovereignty or what could really be considered anything like a “free trade deal”. The EU have over a barrel and now we have no say within The EU. Brilliant.
https://www.traverssmith.com/knowledge/knowledge-container/a-business-friendly-guide-to-the-uk-eu-brexit-trade-deal/#GTQAROO
We now have supply chain issues, not enough workers to fulfil certain sectors; quite evidently the care and logistic professions, we have lost 7500 jobs from the financial industry in London alone too.
You are clearly not involved in transportation or any industry where trade/ services is required with the EU.
Despite all the promises we remain aligned to the Human Rights Act and almost all other laws. We already had the ability to deviate on a number of other laws.
People largely wanted to leave because of immigration; the EU only ever accounted for 30% of this; nobody was “sent back” and the government are all ready talking of allowing migration from the EU again to fill the skills gap.
Two questions for you; what in real terms has been gained from”leaving” ?and was this the Brexit you really voted for?
Whilst there were clearly issues with the EU that needed fixing we are nowhere near better off having left. Yours is a blinkered view fuelled by right wing media. The reality is, as usual, very, very different.
-
You have to be a bit of an idiot to link brexit and inflation.
-
So you don't think the labour shortages forcing up wages without efficiency gains will add to inflation pud?
-
So you don't think the labour shortages forcing up wages without efficiency gains will add to inflation pud?
Do you think it will do SR.
-
So you don't think the labour shortages forcing up wages without efficiency gains will add to inflation pud?
A slight effect perhaps but it's minimal and short term regardless.
The biggest causes on inflation are shipping, logistics and energy issues, none of which are predominantly brexit related but mostly outside of that.
Do you think wage rises are a good thing or not? Yesterday you said for example nurses should be paid for, now you question of pay rises without efficiency are a good thing? What's your actual thought on it? Pay rises or not?
-
Are the brexit induced labour shortages over pud? what is a slight effect, can you put an approx figure on it
-
Stop sweating and Wriggling Syd, somebody else has asked you a question to be answered with questions of your own, have you no credibility man? You are a man aren't you and not a robot? just asking?
-
Stop sweating and Wriggling Syd, somebody else has asked you a question to be answered with questions of your own, have you no credibility man? You are a man aren't you and not a robot? just asking?
He doesn’t do answers selby.
-
Are the brexit induced labour shortages over pud? what is a slight effect, can you put an approx figure on it
Nope, if I could I'd get paid far more than I do currently. In the business I work it is far away from being even a conversation in reality, the other things much more important.
Now can you answer the question I asked?
-
I have noticed over the tears the last six years Hound.
-
Hi Aidan thanks for a spirited response. Please don't be offended as I articulately pull it deservedly apart piece by piece as it is riddled with error and false assumptions.
Firstly I'm not right wing. Probably fairly typical of Donny I'm socially (small c) conservative, strongly pro-democracy, patriotic and strongly left wing economically. I do view right wing media occasionally but not regularly - I like/enjoy taking in a broad range of opinion from all sides to inform and to ensure I'm not stuck in an echo chamber. Any opinions I give are my own duly considered and I am not blinkered in the least.
You say I speak 'absolute rubbish' yet firstly the majority of what I stated is fact (the 2nd, 4th and 1st half of the 3rd paragraph) and secondly in spite giving this opinion you singularly fail to directly challenge anything I wrote.
First error the referendum was a vote to leave the European Union not the European Convention on Human Rights and so your point on the Human Rights Act is totally invalid.
The EU-UK trade deal deals with trade from the UK to EU and vice versa. Of course rules are in place through it relating to e.g. standards for UK imports into the EU. This is the same as any free trade deal around the world. These rules do not constitute a reduction in sovereignty as the deal was agreed by and could be revoked by a democratically elected Government. It does not significantly impact what domestic rules we choose to implement - many of which previously came under the auspices of the EU.
2 examples. 1) We can now set our on Sales Tax rates (VAT) - much restricted under EU rules. This is both a massive tax earner and gives the UK Government opportunities to solve societal issues (e.g. removing VAT on fuel, reducing obesity, giving a level playing field to the high street). 2) Replacement of the Common Agricultural policy to one which rewards more sustainable farming, public-good projects. Given farm subsidies accounted for a huge % of EU spend and farmland accounts for c. 75% of UK land this is no small issue. Just 2 of many areas of domestic law making shifted from the EU into our hands.
So in answer to your questions there are huge opportunities for us as a country through our democratically elected governments to make real positive differences thanks to regained areas of lawmaking - and that opportunity to influence these laws through the ballot box is exactly the Brexit I voted for.
Re supply chain issues I don't doubt some exist partly due to Brexit but these would appear from my retail experience to be being overcome - where are the news reports showing row on row of empty shelves in the supermarkets? All told a minor issue the market will by necessity resolve.
With many 'blame Brexit' stories farmed out by the left wing press and believed unquestionably by the blinkered there is a real problem with 'cause and effect'. The labour shortages you highlight are mainly due to Covid and foreign workers returning home/not being willing to move to the UK understandably. It is a misconception that Brexit has stopped the UK from using immigration to fill skills gaps.
On your 'nobody has been sent back' barb where was 'sending people back' included in Leave campaigning? Personally immigration levels are not a major issue for me (hence why I didn't even mention the topic in my initial post) so if that 'sent back' comment is aimed at me it is both misdirected and deeply insulting - I am not Alf bleeding Garnett.
I correctly state there has been no discernible increase in UK-wide unemployment due to Brexit your reply is that 7,500 jobs have been lost in the City. 7,500 is 0.01% of the UK population.
"We are nowhere near better off" after Brexit economically correct my point initial point being for the majority Brexit has made very little difference; democratically we are much better off as explained earlier.
"The reality is very, very different [from what I stated]" yet what I stated, as explained previously was largely fact, what you've stated to emphasise things are "very, very different" are either from a very narrow part of society and/or just plain wrong again as previously explained.
Still had least you haven't proved the 1st sentence of my final paragraph on my initial post to be inaccurate.
-
Are the brexit induced labour shortages over pud? what is a slight effect, can you put an approx figure on it
Nope, if I could I'd get paid far more than I do currently. In the business I work it is far away from being even a conversation in reality, the other things much more important.
Now can you answer the question I asked?
''You have to be a bit of an idiot to link brexit and inflation''
''UK faces slow growth, high inflation after pandemic and Brexit - NIESR''
''LONDON, Nov 9 (Reuters) - Britain's economy risks stagnation and sticky inflation over the coming years due to persistent supply-chain bottlenecks and headwinds from Brexit, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) think tank warned on Tuesday.
Inflation is on course to hit around 5% next year, while Britain's economy looks set to grow by only 1.7% in 2023 and 1.3% in 2024 after rebounding by 6.9% in 2021 and 4.7% in 2022 after the COVID-19 pandemic, NIESR said''
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-niesr-warns-stagnation-risk-supply-chain-problems-2021-11-09/
-
''What is the UK's inflation rate and why is the cost of living going up?''
The main reason is the rising global price of energy. This has meant higher energy and transport bills for businesses, many of whom pass on the extra costs to customers.
Supply problems and higher shipping costs also continue to hurt businesses.
Next, the High Street retailer, has admitted its prices could rise by up to 6% this year to keep up with higher costs.
Staff shortages are a particular problem in the UK, due to Brexit and the pandemic, and are prompting some employers to raise wages.
However, this can itself contribute to inflation. Greggs, for instance, has raised the price of some foods in order to cover increased labour costs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-12196322#:~:text=The%20main%20reason%20is%20the,also%20continue%20to%20hurt%20businesses.
Not sure what you do pud but this is a good read
''Causes of Inflation''
''Inflation means there is a sustained increase in the price level. The main causes of inflation are either excess aggregate demand (AD) (economic growth too fast) or cost-push factors (supply-side factors)''
https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/inflation/causes-inflation/
-
Trying to teach someone with multiple qualifications in finance about inflation is probably not the wisest idea.
The problem with your points is they are conjecture. No links between cause and effect but theoretical points.
So to sum up as I said any brexit impact on labour was minimal and short term (if it was significant it would have happened long ago), granted some industries would be more adversely affected than others.
What you won't see is the full effect at the time, it takes time for the impact of the significant energy and shipping issues to drip through in to prices, that's now starting to bite, you don't see the impact directly when it happens there's always a delay. They dwarf any wage inflation totally. The problem on wages is that the costs hitting consumers will lead to demands from employees for pay rises. That won't be your lower paid types getting the rises but the industries where supply of workers is limited.
As an aside, don't trust every source you read on what the cause of financial results changes actually are. The narrative is built to often suit the story they want to tell not always the actual story on the ground so you won't always get an accurate reflection and brexit is a very very easy excuse (which pretty much every business has used).
-
Which is why I asked you to qualify your earlier statement
''Are the brexit induced labour shortages over pud? what is a slight effect, can you put an approx figure on it''
which should be a doddle for someone with your qualifications, no?
And I guess minimal effect depends on where you are looking from ........ the breadline or ...
''As an aside, don't trust every source you read on what the cause of financial results changes actually are''
Happy to read any source you have about brexit putting downward pressure on inflation pud.
I also guess this is rewriting history from tory party HQ, 'brexit is good'
-
The Remain campaign warned that Brexit would be both recessionary and lead to mass job losses (neither of which have come anywhere close to coming to pass) both of which are deflationary. With higher inflation now becoming present in the economy it is ironic to see Remainers counterintuitively blaming (in part) Brexit for this. But then again: -
"What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact" Warren Buffett
This has been seen very regularly in the media since the referendum. Any negative economic story which cannot be fully attributable to something else is blamed, at least in part, on Brexit usually with no evidence to back up such an assertion.
Let's look at current inflation levels as a case in point. As Sydney's article correctly states the primary factors behind increasing prices are higher energy costs and sudden increased demand as the economy opens up and recovers from pandemic lockdowns and restrictions. All easily provable and tie into basic economic theory.
Where is the evidence that Brexit (which remember we were told indirectly would be deflationary) is a major contributing factor to increasing prices? We can easily test for this. All countries are experiencing higher energy costs and post-pandemic recoveries but Brexit is unique to the UK. If Brexit is contributing in any significant way to inflation the UK inflation rate should be higher than those of other countries.
In December CPI inflation in the UK was 4.8%; in the EU 5.3%; US 7.0%.
-
Only the same if the other countries have exactly the same inflationary levers as the UK I guess.
''UK inflation jumps above 5% as BoE considers rate rise''
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-inflation-jumps-10-year-high-51-2021-12-15/
-
Nothing to see here?
''Britain’s small businesses should expect trade with the EU to be “permanently damaged” from 1 January, the refrigerated supply chain trade body has said, after new customs checks take effect that it says will make imports from the bloc “more expensive, less flexible and much slower”.
Amid growing public dismay at the negative impact of Brexit, the Cold Chain Federation said speciality food imports could face the same 70% decline that affected exports of food by small businesses this year after Britain quit the EU single market and customs union''
''Extra costs that amount to £300 to £400 for each consignment will mean sales of food to EU countries in small batches could become uneconomic, said the CCF, which lobbies on behalf of firms that transport frozen and chilled goods''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/01/new-year-brexit-changes-permanently-damage-eu-trade-says-food-body
Granted not all small business were reliant on the EU but around 99% of business in the UK are small businesses.
And I don't see any efficiency offsets here.
-
Only the same if the other countries have exactly the same inflationary levers as the UK I guess.
''UK inflation jumps above 5% as BoE considers rate rise''
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-inflation-jumps-10-year-high-51-2021-12-15/
"If"; you "guess"?? Yet you seemed so certain earlier in the thread that Brexit was a major contributory factor to rising inflation.
This is an important question as inflation (and the resulting falls in real wages and therefore living standards) appears to be the major economic problem facing the UK and much of the rest of the world currently so we need to gain a solid understanding of its causes.
I've given you a logical argument with data to back up my point showing that almost certainly Brexit is not significantly contributing to rising prices. Do you agree with my analysis?
If not can you provide a logical data-backed argument to the contrary? Or as I strongly suspect are you someone under the spell of something psychologists call 'Confirmation Bias' on this subject matter?
-
Branton, just a couple of points, you used a quote from Buffet unrelated to brexit whereas you could have used a quote from him about brexit where he said that Britons probably made a mistake, he was being polite. Also I don't remember typing that Brexit was a major or any other degree of inflation but you could correct me if you find it. If you type Brexit into the search box for off topic you will find an amazing array consisting of thousands of comments and debate on various thread so please if you are thinking this hasn't been discussed or you have found a new angle you'd be wrong. If you read them all you will not find a single one that shows any benefit to the UK from brexit, lots of vague claims about sovereignty, most didn't know what they were voting for or if they thought they did they were wrong. My reply originally was to pud, but I think one would be an idiot to think that brexit has not had some effect on inflation. What would the inflation figure be if we had not had brexit, better or worse would you think.
As for inflation caused by brexit, let's take the politics out of the debate and view it as a commercial venture, there is a company sales meeting and the team are gathered and are invited to make suggestions how to grow the business. Person 1 ventures that they should for no particular reason ditch the largest, wealthiest customer and then resign an agreement where the company has to pay increased cost and time to get goods to that same customer, without and before any other business deals are arranged with other customers.
Do you .......
A/ Promote that person
B/ Award them sales rep of the decade medal
C/ talk to HR about finding a replacement
Less sales for a company with the same overheads means higher costs.
Edit
Just to clarify I don't mean yourself when I refer to 'idiot' and should have said 'anyone'
-
Not through a 'light bulb' moment more enlightenment on a very slow acting dimmer switch but the majority of the population have come to the conclusion that this was all a fuss over nothing. The divisiveness, the arguments, the falling outs, the nastiness - none of it was worth a hill of beans.
We've had Brexit but we have not had as a result: a recession; any discernible increase in unemployment; any mass abandonment of the country by big companies; and we did get a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU.
Yes there was a substantial fall in investment and the stock market (a bas**rd if you happened to be retiring on an annuity back in 2016) in the 6 months immediately after the vote, but this was due to sentiment - a reaction to the remorseless negativity of the Remain campaign and it's high profile backers not the fundamental nature of Brexit itself, both have since rebounded.
Yet we have regained sovereignty and our individual and collective democratic rights over a wide range of issues which is fundamentally what Brexit was about.
You'd have to go a long way to find a rational, independently-minded person in favour of us rejoining the EU. Probably sadly to Westminster and those politicians and civil servants who've found the implementation of their political agendas and/or political ambitions cut short by Brexit.
Sorry Branton but I have to take issue with your suggestion that Brexit has turned out to be a fuss about nothing.
1. As a nation we are economically worse off; estimated at c 4% of GDP. Why, because our exports to the EU (particularly food) have plummeted. So what? Well it means that taxes will have to rise to bridge the gap or we'll face yet more cuts; in defence, NHS, schooling, transport, infrastructure etc. Reclaiming 'sovereignty' - whatever that means - won't pay the bills
2. We now have a recurrence of the political problem in N Ireland
3. We now have a divided Union
4. We now have an undermined democracy, with an electorate that's lost trust in governmental ability to act with trust and integrity in the interests of its people
I might be talking utter rot but here's the view of a guy who was a cabinet minister in May's government (so hardly a Corbynite lefty):
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/01/david-gauke-how-my-party-lost-its-way
And we still don't have proper light bulbs...
-
Which is why I asked you to qualify your earlier statement
''Are the brexit induced labour shortages over pud? what is a slight effect, can you put an approx figure on it''
which should be a doddle for someone with your qualifications, no?
And I guess minimal effect depends on where you are looking from ........ the breadline or ...
''As an aside, don't trust every source you read on what the cause of financial results changes actually are''
Happy to read any source you have about brexit putting downward pressure on inflation pud.
I also guess this is rewriting history from tory party HQ, 'brexit is good'
Yep but it won't always be exact. A cause and effect is not always exact. Eg what impact does brexit have on energy prices? Nothing. What does it have on shipping costs? None. Are they some of the biggest pulls on inflation? Quite clearly.
Take a look at the other big pulls, fuel prices, second hand cars (international semi conductor related), UK tax rises.
Also worth noting inflation by country/area. UK 5.4%, Germany 5.3%, USA 7%. But yes brexit.....
-
Which is why I asked you to qualify your earlier statement
''Are the brexit induced labour shortages over pud? what is a slight effect, can you put an approx figure on it''
which should be a doddle for someone with your qualifications, no?
And I guess minimal effect depends on where you are looking from ........ the breadline or ...
''As an aside, don't trust every source you read on what the cause of financial results changes actually are''
Happy to read any source you have about brexit putting downward pressure on inflation pud.
I also guess this is rewriting history from tory party HQ, 'brexit is good'
Yep but it won't always be exact. A cause and effect is not always exact. Eg what impact does brexit have on energy prices? Nothing. What does it have on shipping costs? None. Are they some of the biggest pulls on inflation? Quite clearly.
Take a look at the other big pulls, fuel prices, second hand cars (international semi conductor related), UK tax rises.
Also worth noting inflation by country/area. UK 5.4%, Germany 5.3%, USA 7%. But yes brexit.....
Oh yes it does, quite a lot when trading with the EU.
-
I'm guessing the 9km lorry queue on the M20 on Thursday morning might have added to shipping costs.
https://mobile.twitter.com/vivamjm/status/1484206511547105280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1484206511547105280%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-3092653080828281772.ampproject.net%2F2201071715000%2Fframe.html
Still. Blue passports.
-
luckily I still have a few years on my passport before I get stuck with a poxy Brexit Britain one.
-
Sydney with respect for the time you've taken to respond I'm not interested in being drawn into an argument to a question from 5.5 years ago which has been settled by the electorate through due democratic process.
The thread is about the "Brexit dividend" i.e. what impact Brexit has/has not had. You copied and pasted part of an article into a thread on Brexit which states Brexit is a key influence in rising inflation. You even highlighted the relevant passage. So it's a bit disingenuous of you to state this isn't your own opinion when challenged.
Do you think Brexit is contributing to rising inflation? If so 1) Where is my analysis to the contrary so wrong? And 2) Can you give a logical, data informed argument for this? Happy to answer your questions once you answer mine.
PS Less sales for a company with the same overheads means lower profits not higher costs. :)
-
Hi Big H. Thanks for the response. I agree with you on the light bulbs. If you want to start a petition let me know and I'll countersign.
I note you don't disagree with me that Brexit hasn't caused: a recession; mass unemployment; abandonment of the country by big business' etc. I'll just talk around your first point for now as it directly answers my post.
My own estimate is that at 1/1/20 i.e. pre-Covid the economy was c. 2% smaller than it would have been without Brexit. I'd be interested to know where your 4% comes from but both intuitively and based on my own calculations it appears an overestimate.
My calculation is based on estimating what UK economic growth would have been based on the growth rate of other similar nations. The level of difference reduces post vote till 2019 where our growth rate is at a similar level to our EU neighbours.
Therefore my own view is the majority of this 2% is down to the large-scale drop off in investment late 2016/early 2017. Which as I said earlier again IMO was due to sentiment given the strongly negative Remain campaign and not inherently due to Brexit itself. Investment decision makers may be experts in their fields but most aren't macro-economic experts - would you buy shares in a company if it's Chairman, CEO, FD etc etc had previously vehemently warned if a certain event happened the company would be heading for disaster immediately after that event actually did happen??
A 2% reduction isn't good but compared to Covid, the 2008 banking crisis and most recessions it is relatively benign. Of course 2% is an average so some people/business' would have been impacted a lot but most hardly at all hence my assertion that "the majority of the population have come to the conclusion that this was all a fuss over nothing" holds though I take your point on tax take.
-
Higher relative costs Branton, apologies.
-
Not through a 'light bulb' moment more enlightenment on a very slow acting dimmer switch but the majority of the population have come to the conclusion that this was all a fuss over nothing. The divisiveness, the arguments, the falling outs, the nastiness - none of it was worth a hill of beans.
We've had Brexit but we have not had as a result: a recession; any discernible increase in unemployment; any mass abandonment of the country by big companies; and we did get a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU.
Yes there was a substantial fall in investment and the stock market (a bas**rd if you happened to be retiring on an annuity back in 2016) in the 6 months immediately after the vote, but this was due to sentiment - a reaction to the remorseless negativity of the Remain campaign and it's high profile backers not the fundamental nature of Brexit itself, both have since rebounded.
Yet we have regained sovereignty and our individual and collective democratic rights over a wide range of issues which is fundamentally what Brexit was about.
You'd have to go a long way to find a rational, independently-minded person in favour of us rejoining the EU. Probably sadly to Westminster and those politicians and civil servants who've found the implementation of their political agendas and/or political ambitions cut short by Brexit.
Sorry Branton but I have to take issue with your suggestion that Brexit has turned out to be a fuss about nothing.
1. As a nation we are economically worse off; estimated at c 4% of GDP. Why, because our exports to the EU (particularly food) have plummeted. So what? Well it means that taxes will have to rise to bridge the gap or we'll face yet more cuts; in defence, NHS, schooling, transport, infrastructure etc. Reclaiming 'sovereignty' - whatever that means - won't pay the bills
2. We now have a recurrence of the political problem in N Ireland
3. We now have a divided Union
4. We now have an undermined democracy, with an electorate that's lost trust in governmental ability to act with trust and integrity in the interests of its people
I might be talking utter rot but here's the view of a guy who was a cabinet minister in May's government (so hardly a Corbynite lefty):
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/01/david-gauke-how-my-party-lost-its-way
And we still don't have proper light bulbs...
If costs to do business rise, costs of products rise = inflation and I didn't finish my economics degree ...... well I didn't start one to be honest.
-
Branton.
I'm interested in what numbers you base your 2% contraction of the economy on.
-
Branton, my numbers come from the OBR:
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions
I agree that there hasn't been a cliff-edge descent into the apocalypse. More a case of gradual descent into the wilderness perhaps?
Incidentally, the OBR reckon that Covid will hit GDP by 2%. The financial crisis in 2008 saw GDP hit by 6% (according to the Bank of England). So the Brexit 'hit' is expected to be somewhere between Covid and the 2008 financial crisis.
-
Which is why I asked you to qualify your earlier statement
''Are the brexit induced labour shortages over pud? what is a slight effect, can you put an approx figure on it''
which should be a doddle for someone with your qualifications, no?
And I guess minimal effect depends on where you are looking from ........ the breadline or ...
''As an aside, don't trust every source you read on what the cause of financial results changes actually are''
Happy to read any source you have about brexit putting downward pressure on inflation pud.
I also guess this is rewriting history from tory party HQ, 'brexit is good'
Yep but it won't always be exact. A cause and effect is not always exact. Eg what impact does brexit have on energy prices? Nothing. What does it have on shipping costs? None. Are they some of the biggest pulls on inflation? Quite clearly.
Take a look at the other big pulls, fuel prices, second hand cars (international semi conductor related), UK tax rises.
Also worth noting inflation by country/area. UK 5.4%, Germany 5.3%, USA 7%. But yes brexit.....
Oh yes it does, quite a lot when trading with the EU.
Of course remainders would have us believe nobody wants to trade with us anymore.
No doubt there is a marginal effect but as I said in the scale of everything else on inflation it's not significant or long in terms of time.
Worth noting my point on energy prices a good tweet showing costs in Europe here. But yes, brexit. (Be cautious of the currencies here).
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1485588848801370114?t=eTxAKhaW3EVAo7tm0xaa9w&s=19
-
Which is why I asked you to qualify your earlier statement
''Are the brexit induced labour shortages over pud? what is a slight effect, can you put an approx figure on it''
which should be a doddle for someone with your qualifications, no?
And I guess minimal effect depends on where you are looking from ........ the breadline or ...
''As an aside, don't trust every source you read on what the cause of financial results changes actually are''
Happy to read any source you have about brexit putting downward pressure on inflation pud.
I also guess this is rewriting history from tory party HQ, 'brexit is good'
Yep but it won't always be exact. A cause and effect is not always exact. Eg what impact does brexit have on energy prices? Nothing. What does it have on shipping costs? None. Are they some of the biggest pulls on inflation? Quite clearly.
Take a look at the other big pulls, fuel prices, second hand cars (international semi conductor related), UK tax rises.
Also worth noting inflation by country/area. UK 5.4%, Germany 5.3%, USA 7%. But yes brexit.....
Oh yes it does, quite a lot when trading with the EU.
Of course remainders would have us believe nobody wants to trade with us anymore.
No doubt there is a marginal effect but as I said in the scale of everything else on inflation it's not significant or long in terms of time.
Worth noting my point on energy prices a good tweet showing costs in Europe here. But yes, brexit. (Be cautious of the currencies here).
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1485588848801370114?t=eTxAKhaW3EVAo7tm0xaa9w&s=19
You really ought to go back - even to before the referendum - and read what I've been telling people in this forum what shipping costs would increase after Brexit, and they have. And they certainly ain't short term, they're permanent, unless we rejoin the Single Market.
-
Shipping costs have gone up to every country in the world Glyn, come off it< and we should make any difference with the EU as small as possible by cutting trade with them as much as possible and replacing it with trade from the rest of the world.
Let them have as many food and wine mountains as they can.
-
Shipping costs have gone up to every country in the world Glyn, come off it< and we should make any difference with the EU as small as possible by cutting trade with them as much as possible and replacing it with trade from the rest of the world.
Let them have as many food and wine mountains as they can.
Has every other country in the world re-imposed Customs, paperwork and admin costs on themselves for every consignment to and from the EU the way we have with Brexit? No, so shipping costs haven't gone up in every country in the world the way they have for us.
As for swapping EU trade for more trade with the rest of the world, we had all those extra shipping costs with the rest of the world all the time we were in the EU and we still have them - so we wouldn't gain anything by replacing EU trade with non-EU trade.
And you tell ME to 'come off it'? What would you say if you actually knew what you were talking about?
-
Shipping costs have gone up to every country in the world Glyn, come off it< and we should make any difference with the EU as small as possible by cutting trade with them as much as possible and replacing it with trade from the rest of the world.
Let them have as many food and wine mountains as they can.
Yeah.
Because the basic shipping costs from Chile and New Zealand will be lower that those from France won't they?
I do wonder how some people manage to wipe their arses without help.
-
Shipping costs have gone up to every country in the world Glyn, come off it&lt; and we should make any difference with the EU as small as possible by cutting trade with them as much as possible and replacing it with trade from the rest of the world.
Let them have as many food and wine mountains as they can.
Yeah.
Because the basic shipping costs from Chile and New Zealand will be lower that those from France won't they?
I do wonder how some people manage to wipe their arses without help.
Not forgetting we threw away the EU Preference Deal we had with Chile too..!
-
They just get arse lickers Billy. There are lots in politics left and right.
Mixing with the high and mighty you know a few surely.
-
Shipping costs have gone up to every country in the world Glyn, come off it&lt; and we should make any difference with the EU as small as possible by cutting trade with them as much as possible and replacing it with trade from the rest of the world.
Let them have as many food and wine mountains as they can.
Yeah.
Because the basic shipping costs from Chile and New Zealand will be lower that those from France won't they?
I do wonder how some people manage to wipe their arses without help.
Think bigger picture and this applies to Glyn aswell. Lots of things are cheaper to obtain from those countries thus negating that higher freight cost as I'm sure you are aware. If you import from Asia etc you'll know how much that cost has increased all around the world albeit that will and can depend how long your contracts are tied up (I've worked in business with 10 year+ shipping forward contracts).
In some cases it's actually made the UK and EU more competitive to UK business though where that price has increased. My experience (and it's only mine so is limited to where I work) is that the brexit impact on imports and exports is very minimal to none, but I expect in smaller businesses than that which I work within will find that tougher. A colleague of mine was delighted that they are filing a piece of information for the last time as now post brexit it won't be required after this period. That is the case in some ways.
-
So not just one hard and fast rule for everyone then bfyp.
-
And 99% of UK businesses were classed as small, last time I looked pud.
''Of course remainders would have us believe nobody wants to trade with us anymore''
Do they pud, where so you get your lines from?
-
Shipping costs have gone up to every country in the world Glyn, come off it&amp;lt; and we should make any difference with the EU as small as possible by cutting trade with them as much as possible and replacing it with trade from the rest of the world.
Let them have as many food and wine mountains as they can.
Yeah.
Because the basic shipping costs from Chile and New Zealand will be lower that those from France won't they?
I do wonder how some people manage to wipe their arses without help.
Think bigger picture and this applies to Glyn aswell. Lots of things are cheaper to obtain from those countries thus negating that higher freight cost as I'm sure you are aware. If you import from Asia etc you'll know how much that cost has increased all around the world albeit that will and can depend how long your contracts are tied up (I've worked in business with 10 year+ shipping forward contracts).
In some cases it's actually made the UK and EU more competitive to UK business though where that price has increased. My experience (and it's only mine so is limited to where I work) is that the brexit impact on imports and exports is very minimal to none, but I expect in smaller businesses than that which I work within will find that tougher. A colleague of mine was delighted that they are filing a piece of information for the last time as now post brexit it won't be required after this period. That is the case in some ways.
If things were cheaper to buy elsewhere people would already have been buying them since before Brexit.
-
Serious question Glyn, would the EU have allowed us to buy certain things from other countries while we were members?
-
Serious question Glyn, would the EU have allowed us to buy certain things from other countries while we were members?
Such as?
-
Serious question Glyn, would the EU have allowed us to buy certain things from other countries while we were members?
Such as?
Glyn, don’t do a Sydney on me.
It was a genuine question that I asked without any undertones.
Because of you being an expert in this area I thought you might know the answer.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to answer though.
-
Serious question Glyn, would the EU have allowed us to buy certain things from other countries while we were members?
Such as?
Glyn, don’t do a Sydney on me.
It was a genuine question that I asked without any undertones.
Because of you being an expert in this area I thought you might know the answer.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to answer though.
I'm not trying to not answer, but it's too broad a question. I'm not aware of anything the EU prohibited anyone in the UK from importing but if you know of something, that's why I asked.
-
Serious question Glyn, would the EU have allowed us to buy certain things from other countries while we were members?
Such as?
Glyn, don’t do a Sydney on me.
It was a genuine question that I asked without any undertones.
Because of you being an expert in this area I thought you might know the answer.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to answer though.
I'm not trying to not answer, but it's too broad a question. I'm not aware of anything the EU prohibited anyone in the UK from importing but if you know of something, that's why I asked.
I don’t know, which is also why I asked, but thought there might be, perhaps due to silly rules like determining the shape of bananas that were allowed to be sold in our shops, or wonky veg.
-
Serious question Glyn, would the EU have allowed us to buy certain things from other countries while we were members?
Such as?
Glyn, don’t do a Sydney on me.
It was a genuine question that I asked without any undertones.
Because of you being an expert in this area I thought you might know the answer.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to answer though.
I'm not trying to not answer, but it's too broad a question. I'm not aware of anything the EU prohibited anyone in the UK from importing but if you know of something, that's why I asked.
I don’t know, which is also why I asked, but thought there might be, perhaps due to silly rules like determining the shape of bananas that were allowed to be sold in our shops, or wonky veg.
The banana rules etc. are purely grading systems adopted throughout the EU to make it easier for buyers to know what standard of produce they're buying - a good idea, surely? They've never been a method of 'banning' anything, that was the sort of bullshit Boris was peddling in the Telegraph in the past.
-
Branton, my numbers come from the OBR:
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions
I agree that there hasn't been a cliff-edge descent into the apocalypse. More a case of gradual descent into the wilderness perhaps?
Incidentally, the OBR reckon that Covid will hit GDP by 2%. The financial crisis in 2008 saw GDP hit by 6% (according to the Bank of England). So the Brexit 'hit' is expected to be somewhere between Covid and the 2008 financial crisis.
Thanks we're slightly at cross-purposes as the OBR are saying a 4% fall overall due to Brexit i.e. to date plus into the future. This makes my 2% fall to the end of 2019 look reasonable I think. Further they state 2/5ths of their 4% (i.e. 1.6%) drop is due to reduced investment due to uncertainty. As the majority of this 1.6% would be front-loaded again a 2% fall to 31/12/19 looks fair plus my explanation that the majority of the reduction was due to the drop in investment late 2016/early 2017 is validated.
The rest of their estimated fall (2.4%) is just that an estimate. Forgive me if I cast doubt on this. Economic predictions are notoriously inaccurate and UK Governmental economic predictions on Brexit (as you say no cliff-edge descent into apocalypse) have been wildly wrong previously. Their estimate is based on an assumption that trade with the EU will fall 15% versus staying in the EU which seems to me an exaggeration - time will tell.
Regardless if as I state few people will have noticed much difference to their lives of a 2% drop in 3.5 years they'll notice a further 2% drop over the longer term into perpetuity even less.
I disagree with you btw there was a cliff edge as warned just a much smaller one leading to a shallowly inclined lagoon rather than a sheer drop leading to a sharply inclined beach into rough seas, recession and mass unemployment.
The overall cost to the economy of Brexit may or may not (I still think not) be comparable to Covid/2008 crash but the latter 2 did involve a cliff edge nosedive in economic output hence the widespread damage to business' and unemployment (prevented largely with Covid due to the Furlough scheme) which we haven't seen with Brexit.
-
Serious question Glyn, would the EU have allowed us to buy certain things from other countries while we were members?
Such as?
Glyn, don’t do a Sydney on me.
It was a genuine question that I asked without any undertones.
Because of you being an expert in this area I thought you might know the answer.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to answer though.
I'm not trying to not answer, but it's too broad a question. I'm not aware of anything the EU prohibited anyone in the UK from importing but if you know of something, that's why I asked.
I don’t know, which is also why I asked, but thought there might be, perhaps due to silly rules like determining the shape of bananas that were allowed to be sold in our shops, or wonky veg.
The banana rules etc. are purely grading systems adopted throughout the EU to make it easier for buyers to know what standard of produce they're buying - a good idea, surely? They've never been a method of 'banning' anything, that was the sort of bullshit Boris was peddling in the Telegraph in the past.
Thanks.
-
Branton.
I'm interested in what numbers you base your 2% contraction of the economy on.
Hi Billy
Certainly. A=Actual growth; E=Estimate. 2016: A=1.7,E=2.2; 2017: A=1.7,E=2.6; 2018: A=1.3,E=2.0; 2019: A=1.4,E=1.6.
Mainly tracking Germany, France and Italy but also referring to EU as a whole and the rest of the G7. In each year my estimate keeps UK growth at least equal highest against Germany,France,Italy.
-
So nothing good Branton, which is what everyone is looking for.
-
So not as bad as some were predicting and blue passports is the new good?
Has it been worth it, splitting the country, the loss of good trading conditions with the EU, schengen, risk of trashing the GFA, loss of jobs, £billions lost, countless co-operative agreements from education to safety ..........................
-
Hi Sydney only a fool would claim there has been no economic cost to Brexit to date. What my previous more detailed post in reply to BigH is explaining is my take on why Brexit did not lead to the cliff edge recession and mass unemployment predicted during the referendum campaign by Remain. Backed up by data analysis which appears to correspond to OBR analysis too.
Therefore the societal cost of Brexit in terms of company liquidations and unemployment has been much lower than predicted.
Equally only a fool would claim that there isn't some benefit to Brexit in terms of returned lawmaking powers to our democratically elected Government and hence an increase in our democratic rights.
The price we have paid to regain these democratic rights has been much lower than we were warned.
PS you still haven't answered my question: Is Brexit a significant factor in currently increasing inflation?
-
I don't remember using the word significant in my argument Branton, you can correct me but I thought the original debate was whether brexit had caused any inflation?
-
The original question in the OP was when are we going to get proper light bulbs back.
And Sydney, you didn’t use the word significant, Branton did.
Now are you going to answer his question.
-
I don't remember using the word significant in my argument Branton, you can correct me but I thought the original debate was whether brexit had caused any inflation?
Added to the list, what are the democratic rights gained and were they worth it?
-
The man with no answers.
-
Branton, my numbers come from the OBR:
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions
I agree that there hasn't been a cliff-edge descent into the apocalypse. More a case of gradual descent into the wilderness perhaps?
Incidentally, the OBR reckon that Covid will hit GDP by 2%. The financial crisis in 2008 saw GDP hit by 6% (according to the Bank of England). So the Brexit 'hit' is expected to be somewhere between Covid and the 2008 financial crisis.
Thanks we're slightly at cross-purposes as the OBR are saying a 4% fall overall due to Brexit i.e. to date plus into the future. This makes my 2% fall to the end of 2019 look reasonable I think. Further they state 2/5ths of their 4% (i.e. 1.6%) drop is due to reduced investment due to uncertainty. As the majority of this 1.6% would be front-loaded again a 2% fall to 31/12/19 looks fair plus my explanation that the majority of the reduction was due to the drop in investment late 2016/early 2017 is validated.
The rest of their estimated fall (2.4%) is just that an estimate. Forgive me if I cast doubt on this. Economic predictions are notoriously inaccurate and UK Governmental economic predictions on Brexit (as you say no cliff-edge descent into apocalypse) have been wildly wrong previously. Their estimate is based on an assumption that trade with the EU will fall 15% versus staying in the EU which seems to me an exaggeration - time will tell.
Regardless if as I state few people will have noticed much difference to their lives of a 2% drop in 3.5 years they'll notice a further 2% drop over the longer term into perpetuity even less.
I disagree with you btw there was a cliff edge as warned just a much smaller one leading to a shallowly inclined lagoon rather than a sheer drop leading to a sharply inclined beach into rough seas, recession and mass unemployment.
The overall cost to the economy of Brexit may or may not (I still think not) be comparable to Covid/2008 crash but the latter 2 did involve a cliff edge nosedive in economic output hence the widespread damage to business' and unemployment (prevented largely with Covid due to the Furlough scheme) which we haven't seen with Brexit.
With respect Branton, you're making a classic error here.
You dismiss a 2% or 4% drop in GDP, but don't seem to realise that GDP is a rate.
It's the amount we produce PER YEAR.
So yes, producing 2% less in Year 1 might not be noticed by many folk.
But after 10 years, the total amount that you have lost amounts to 1.02^10 - 1, or 22% of GDP. That's roughly £400bn in lost economic activity over a decade. Enough to fund the construction of about 650 infirmaries.
So yes, you don't notice the loss over 1 year. But you damn well do over ten or twenty years, when you look round and see your infrastructure not being maintained, and you wonder why the Germans and Dutch and French all seem to have far higher standards of living than we do.
No-one sensible ever said there would be a cliff edge collapse due to Brexit (although there was an immediate and drastic reduction in economy growth, a surge in inflation due to the Pound collapsing, and 2 years of avoidable reduction in real wages).
The real disaster was always going to be the long, grinding reduction in our economic performance which one it's ly cones from choosing to make it much harder to do business with half a billion of the richest people in history, right on our doorstep.
-
Branton, my numbers come from the OBR:
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions
I agree that there hasn't been a cliff-edge descent into the apocalypse. More a case of gradual descent into the wilderness perhaps?
Incidentally, the OBR reckon that Covid will hit GDP by 2%. The financial crisis in 2008 saw GDP hit by 6% (according to the Bank of England). So the Brexit 'hit' is expected to be somewhere between Covid and the 2008 financial crisis.
Thanks we're slightly at cross-purposes as the OBR are saying a 4% fall overall due to Brexit i.e. to date plus into the future. This makes my 2% fall to the end of 2019 look reasonable I think. Further they state 2/5ths of their 4% (i.e. 1.6%) drop is due to reduced investment due to uncertainty. As the majority of this 1.6% would be front-loaded again a 2% fall to 31/12/19 looks fair plus my explanation that the majority of the reduction was due to the drop in investment late 2016/early 2017 is validated.
The rest of their estimated fall (2.4%) is just that an estimate. Forgive me if I cast doubt on this. Economic predictions are notoriously inaccurate and UK Governmental economic predictions on Brexit (as you say no cliff-edge descent into apocalypse) have been wildly wrong previously. Their estimate is based on an assumption that trade with the EU will fall 15% versus staying in the EU which seems to me an exaggeration - time will tell.
Regardless if as I state few people will have noticed much difference to their lives of a 2% drop in 3.5 years they'll notice a further 2% drop over the longer term into perpetuity even less.
I disagree with you btw there was a cliff edge as warned just a much smaller one leading to a shallowly inclined lagoon rather than a sheer drop leading to a sharply inclined beach into rough seas, recession and mass unemployment.
The overall cost to the economy of Brexit may or may not (I still think not) be comparable to Covid/2008 crash but the latter 2 did involve a cliff edge nosedive in economic output hence the widespread damage to business' and unemployment (prevented largely with Covid due to the Furlough scheme) which we haven't seen with Brexit
With respect Branton, you're making a classic error here.
You dismiss a 2% or 4% drop in GDP, but don't seem to realise that GDP is a rate.
It's the amount we produce PER YEAR.
So yes, producing 2% less in Year 1 might not be noticed by many folk.
But after 10 years, the total amount that you have lost amounts to 1.02^10 - 1, or 22% of GDP. That's roughly £400bn in lost economic activity over a decade. Enough to fund the construction of about 650 infirmaries.
So yes, you don't notice the loss over 1 year. But you damn well do over ten or twenty years, when you look round and see your infrastructure not being maintained, and you wonder why the Germans and Dutch and French all seem to have far higher standards of living than we do.
No-one sensible ever said there would be a cliff edge collapse due to Brexit (although there was an immediate and drastic reduction in economy growth, a surge in inflation due to the Pound collapsing, and 2 years of avoidable reduction in real wages).
The real disaster was always going to be the long, grinding reduction in our economic performance which one it's ly cones from choosing to make it much harder to do business with half a billion of the richest people in history, right on our doorstep.
Oh dear Billy the BBC evening news tonight has stated that figures show that the UK economy will grow slower than forecast next year but it is still the fastest growing G7 economy as it was last year.put that in your macroeconomic pipe dream and smoke it!
-
Sproty.
A friendly word of advice. Go and look up how much GDP shrank in the G7 countries due to COVID.
Then stop and have a think.
Then get back to me.
-
Sproty.
A friendly word of advice. Go and look up how much GDP shrank in the G7 countries due to COVID.
Then stop and have a think.
Then get back to me.
Ha you are the twin brother of slimy Sydders!
-
nothing surprises me about your good self sprot
-
Just a suggestion Sproty. You might see the bigger picture. If you really want to.
-
The IMF says uk economy will grow slowly in 2022 but will still be the fastest growing in the G7
-
That's a prediction that may or may not come to pass NR. The fact is that in the last quarter, our GDP growth was 5th out of 7 in the G7.
And my point to Sproty, which he doesn't seem to want to engage with, is that we had the worst hit to GDP of any country in the G7 in 2020, due to COVID. So just by natural rebound, you'd expect us to have growth at the higher end as the COVID restrictions were relaxed. In those circumstances, idly shouting "We've got the highest growth rate!" as well as being factually untrue at the moment, is pointless. It's a bit like your man running the first 5 miles of a marathon really slowly, being 2 miles behind the leaders, then sprinting for a bit and you shouting "Look at him! He's the fastest in the race!"
-
“That’s a prediction that may or may not come to pass”
Unbelievable.
How many times have predictions been put on here by bst and if anyone challenged, they were put down.
-
Shipping costs have gone up to every country in the world Glyn, come off it&amp;amp;lt; and we should make any difference with the EU as small as possible by cutting trade with them as much as possible and replacing it with trade from the rest of the world.
Let them have as many food and wine mountains as they can.
Yeah.
Because the basic shipping costs from Chile and New Zealand will be lower that those from France won't they?
I do wonder how some people manage to wipe their arses without help.
Think bigger picture and this applies to Glyn aswell. Lots of things are cheaper to obtain from those countries thus negating that higher freight cost as I'm sure you are aware. If you import from Asia etc you'll know how much that cost has increased all around the world albeit that will and can depend how long your contracts are tied up (I've worked in business with 10 year+ shipping forward contracts).
In some cases it's actually made the UK and EU more competitive to UK business though where that price has increased. My experience (and it's only mine so is limited to where I work) is that the brexit impact on imports and exports is very minimal to none, but I expect in smaller businesses than that which I work within will find that tougher. A colleague of mine was delighted that they are filing a piece of information for the last time as now post brexit it won't be required after this period. That is the case in some ways.
If things were cheaper to buy elsewhere people would already have been buying them since before Brexit.
You are missing the cause and effect link entirely. There are lots of variables that move alongside brexit. What was cheaper from outside the EU 6 months ago may not be now for example, the world economy is far more volatile than attributing each point to brexit.
-
With respect Branton, you're making a classic error here.
You dismiss a 2% or 4% drop in GDP, but don't seem to realise that GDP is a rate.
It's the amount we produce PER YEAR.
So yes, producing 2% less in Year 1 might not be noticed by many folk.
But after 10 years, the total amount that you have lost amounts to 1.02^10 - 1, or 22% of GDP. That's roughly £400bn in lost economic activity over a decade. Enough to fund the construction of about 650 infirmaries.
So yes, you don't notice the loss over 1 year. But you damn well do over ten or twenty years, when you look round and see your infrastructure not being maintained, and you wonder why the Germans and Dutch and French all seem to have far higher standards of living than we do.
No-one sensible ever said there would be a cliff edge collapse due to Brexit (although there was an immediate and drastic reduction in economy growth, a surge in inflation due to the Pound collapsing, and 2 years of avoidable reduction in real wages).
The real disaster was always going to be the long, grinding reduction in our economic performance which one it's ly cones from choosing to make it much harder to do business with half a billion of the richest people in history, right on our doorstep.
Billy my premise is: the majority of people will not have noticed a personal economic impact due to Brexit. To test this requires context.
The UK is a massive economy, extrapolate the GDP impact of any economic decision over a long enough time frame and you can quote a £xxxbn change in output and imply emotively (and incorrectly) that with that money we could have built xxx hospitals. £400bn is a massive sum of money - but not once it's shared between 67m people over 11 years.
I've estimated a 2% fall in GDP up to 31/12/19 , which appears in line with the OBR, that is £9.87 per person per week over 3.5 years. Let's round it up to £10. £10 per week is the cost per person of Brexit. Taking the prediction on to 2029 (assuming Covid didn't happen and a steady rate of growth of 1.5%) gives £548m of lost GDP but that is still only £11.72 per person per week. Where is this 'real disaster'?
Why haven't people noticed this £10 per week fall (and won't notice the £11.72 per week fall going forward)?: -
1) For some an extra £10 per week would be a godsend for the majority it's not much - I spend 7 times that amount per week just travelling to work which is not unusual.
2) It's what's called an 'Opportunity Cost' i.e. not money lost but money people don't realise they might have had.
3) £10 is a 'mean' average. We know a small number of people have been impacted disproportionately by Brexit. Therefore for the majority the impact on them will be less than £10 per week i.e. the 'median' average will be below £10
4) GDP includes public spending i.e. money spent on our behalf by the Government (most years c. 25%). So only c. £7.50 per week has been lost from our pockets.
5) Post-2019 the fall is at an imperceptibly slow rate (my shallow beach after the small cliff analogy from earlier).
And no people are not going to notice whilst holidaying on the continent that the populace is spending £11.72 more per week than they are.
Neither will they notice countries having anywhere near an extra (or a relative equivalent of) £400bn wealth to us whether measured in hospitals, infrastructure or whatever as you imply. GDP does not measure the increase in a countries wealth in a year just what is spent. It doesn't consider what the money is spent on - in the West additional spending is often on consumables manufactured abroad which add nothing to wealth. GDP also doesn't include many things which do impact wealth i.e. a German stock exchange crash; French house price crash; or a trend for Dutch millionaires to retire to California.
In reality by 2019, in spite of Brexit, UK GDP growth was 0.8% ahead of Germany and only 0.1% behind France so let's not worry too much about our cost of living falling massively behind our European friends just yet.
Was George Osborne being insensible when he claimed Brexit could cause GDP to be 6% lower and 820,000 job losses within 2 years? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564. Was everyone else who shared the Remain campaign platform with him and failed to debunk his predictions equally insensible? So the majority of Tory party MPs and practically all the parliamentary Labour party were insensible during the referendum campaign?
Or were they all misleading the public for political expediency?
-
All the comparisons to other countries are just that, comparisons, what matters is what life for the average person would be like in the uk without brexit and not just the economy. Tell me what the new democratic freedoms feel like, how they have changed your life and was it all worth it Branton.
-
The financial mechanism the uk became embroiled in over 40+ years, will take many years to detach from.
Anyone that thought that brexit benefits would be instant and noticeable are quite frankly, crackers. I fully expect it to take many, many years before benefits are realised.
That’s said, I feel the uk has had unbridled access to covid vaccines that we, as a country were pivotal in bringing to the world. We were free from the “EU group” for vaccine rollouts, and we are now starting to see the benefits of this way before other European Countries. We have, quite simply, led the way on tackling covid, without the need for the sort of draconian measures being imposed in Italy, Austria, France and Germany.
I expect someone will want to suppress my opinion in this.
Feel free.
-
It's funny how brexit benefits are getting harder to define, less and less and further and further away.
-
It's funny how brexit benefits are getting harder to define, less and less and further and further away.
A bit like the huge end of the world cliff edge the remain camp provoked. Both angles clearly worked the extremes, that's how campaigning is. The middle ground is often the truth.
I just do not like using specific examples to promote a view without concrete proof of the linkages. In truth we all know there's pros and cons to brexit there always was and each person had to weigh up that balance and how it matters to them.
-
It's funny how brexit benefits are getting harder to define, less and less and further and further away.
LoL. Ironic choice of words.
-
It's funny how brexit benefits are getting harder to define, less and less and further and further away.
A bit like the huge end of the world cliff edge the remain camp provoked. Both angles clearly worked the extremes, that's how campaigning is. The middle ground is often the truth.
I just do not like using specific examples to promote a view without concrete proof of the linkages. In truth we all know there's pros and cons to brexit there always was and each person had to weigh up that balance and how it matters to them.
Are you replying to my comment pud, it's hard to tell.
-
Yes it's fairly obvious.
-
I suppose you have to read my reply to NR in conjunction with his comment.
-
Nine out of ten financial institutions in the city of London have stated they are about to increase the number of employees in the city because of increased business since Brexit and the opportunities it has brought about.
-
Nine out of ten financial institutions in the city of London have stated they are about to increase the number of employees in the city because of increased business since Brexit and the opportunities it has brought about.
If you post the article I'm sure there will be replies selby.
-
Nine out of ten financial institutions in the city of London have stated they are about to increase the number of employees in the city because of increased business since Brexit and the opportunities it has brought about.
If you post the article I'm sure there will be replies selby.
He never posts sources Syd, he just make statements and his 'followers' lap it up - just as they do when the liar Johnson speaks.
-
Find someone who works for one of the big four accountancy companies such as PWC, KPMG, Ernst Young or Deloitte. Ask them how UK business has been since brexit. You may be surprised. Dig deeper yourself and you will find some very positive projections for the uk economy compared to some of our neighbours.
Long term forecasts by Pwc suggest by 2050, EU27 share of world gdp could fall below 10%. France to be out of the top ten and Italy to be out of the top 20. India to overtake the US as the worlds second largest economy. And importantly theUK to be the fastest growing G7 economy up to 2050 with an average growth of 1.9%.
By 2050, Indonesia is predicted to become the worlds fourth biggest economy, overtaking not just Germany and Japan but also Brazil and Russia. Germany and uk will remain in the top ten.
When you consider this in the context of Brexit and see long term that these emerging economies are ones we can, and will be doing business with, it’s not hard to see where brexit benefits will appear from.
Companies such as PWC have the ear of Government. They have a long term view which is critical for future planning in areas such as pensions, healthcare, energy and climate change, housing, transport and other infrastructure investment . Short term economic and political cycles, as are discussed on here, are often unreliable markers for future prosperity and growth.
-
NR, when Syd gets up he really should be on here asking you to post an article to back all that up.
That’s what happens.
-
I think you have been reading the same things as me NR while the dunderheads are left in LA LA Land.
-
It's funny how brexit benefits are getting harder to define, less and less and further and further away.
It's funny how, unlike what was warned, the short term Brexit costs have been hard to notice yet according to some the overall cost will still be eye-watering but just further and further away.
-
They haven't been hard to notice. It's just that some people are choosing not to notice them.
There's already been something like £150bn loss of output, a collapse in overseas investment, 2 years of real terms wage falls and an extension of the timescale of the Govt balancing its books because of reduced tax take.
Ignoring all that is like meh-ing when folk point out that bit of snow starting to slide at the top of the mountain towering above you.
-
''In September 2021, UK goods trade was 11.2 per cent, or £8.5 billion, lower than it would have been if the UK had stayed in the EU’s single market and customs union.
For many months the CER’s cost of Brexit model model has found that UK goods trade is between 11 and 16 per cent lower as a result of leaving the single market and customs union. Using the data for September 2021, the model puts the cost at 11.2 per cent.
Last month, the UK’s fiscal watchdog, the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), asked me to update my cost of Brexit model with the August 2021 data for October’s ‘Economic and Fiscal Outlook’. The reduction in the UK’s total goods trade – imports plus exports with the EU and the rest of the world – was 15.8 per cent, compared to a modelled ‘doppelgänger UK’ that did not leave the single market and customs union in January''
https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-september-2021
''The Centre for European Reform is a think-tank devoted to making the European Union work better and strengthening its role in the world. The CER is pro-European but not uncritical. We regard European integration as largely beneficial but recognise that in many respects the Union does not work well. We also think that the EU should take on more responsibilities globally, on issues ranging from climate change to security. The CER aims to promote an open, outward-looking and effective European Union''
https://www.cer.eu/about
-
Read my earlier post Billy. Brexit has cost only £10 per person per week. I've shown where this figure comes from and how it tallies with OBR analysis - do you dispute it?
It's not a case of people choosing not to notice - it is simply not a big enough impact for most people to notice.
No sensible extrapolation of economic performance into the future (even with the OBRs highly dubious 4% GDP fall) could in anyway shape or form be compared to an avalanche.
I don't dispute there has been some economic hit but listen to Osborne here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564. Views backed up by the majority of our politicians who stood on the same remain platform as him.
Is it any wonder after the vote that the £ fell, business' held off on investments and wage rises, and the stock exchange fell. The majority of the economic hit has been due to misplaced sentiment off the back of political lies and nothing to do with the fundamentals of Brexit itself.
-
Read my earlier post Billy. Brexit has cost only £10 per person per week. I've shown where this figure comes from and how it tallies with OBR analysis - do you dispute it?
It's not a case of people choosing not to notice - it is simply not a big enough impact for most people to notice.
No sensible extrapolation of economic performance into the future (even with the OBRs highly dubious 4% GDP fall) could in anyway shape or form be compared to an avalanche.
I don't dispute there has been some economic hit but listen to Osborne here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564. Views backed up by the majority of our politicians who stood on the same remain platform as him.
Is it any wonder after the vote that the £ fell, business' held off on investments and wage rises, and the stock exchange fell. The majority of the economic hit has been due to misplaced sentiment off the back of political lies and nothing to do with the fundamentals of Brexit itself.
£68,000,0000 x 10 so only 680,000,000 per week, what a bargain, I wonder how many hospital etc ........
-
I wonder how many people would have 'bought' brexit if that had been on the side of a bus
Get brexit now only £68,000,000 per week
vote tory
-
Branton.
I disagree with your £10 per person per week figure, for reasons which I've explained at length here previously, but I'll accept that. Add it up over 68 million people and the thick end of 5 years.
As for your "fundamentals of Brexit" feel free to find me any reputable economist who argues that making it significantly harder to do business with a vast and wealthy market on your doorstep does anything but seriously reduce your economic activity. I'm not talking about politicians or journalists with an angle to push. I'm taking about people who spend their careers analysing these things and who have a track record of getting calls right.
-
Meanwhile. This.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://mobile.twitter.com/fcdogovuk/status/1486338073864585224&ved=2ahUKEwiGuNWd6tL1AhVJilwKHS_4DIAQo7QBegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0A3HcpwGJuRAio2vJAildo
From the Govt who negotiated and signed the NI Protocol, lauded it as a brilliant achievement against the odds, then lied repeatedly in the last election campaign about what it implied.
-
This is the best campaign advert for voting tory
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/nov/08/there-will-not-be-checks-on-goods-from-northern-ireland-to-great-britain-boris-johnson-says-video
-
Branton.
I disagree with your £10 per person per week figure, for reasons which I've explained at length here previously, but I'll accept that. Add it up over 68 million people and the thick end of 5 years.
As for your "fundamentals of Brexit" feel free to find me any reputable economist who argues that making it significantly harder to do business with a vast and wealthy market on your doorstep does anything but seriously reduce your economic activity. I'm not talking about politicians or journalists with an angle to push. I'm taking about people who spend their careers analysing these things and who have a track record of getting calls right.
Billy
I'll be fair my £10 per person per week is up to the end of 2019 so 3.5 years not 5 as it's impossible to sensibly assess the impact of Brexit since Covid began - Covid being so overwhelming on economic performance and overwhelming over many Brexit impacts (how can you assess how Brexit has impacted on e.g. car imports/exports when people were banned from visiting car dealerships and Covid has massively hit supply of parts).
I'm not disputing one of the 'fundamentals of Brexit' is that it has made it somewhat harder to do business with the EU and that has/will have some economic hit. Although our different use of language clearly shows we disagree on how big that hit has/will be.
What I'm saying is a) the majority of individuals will not have noticed a hit on their personal finances as at a personal level for most it'll be too small plus it's an opportunity cost (if it's not £10 per person per week it can't be that much higher) and b) the OTT predictions and dire warnings during the referendum campaign must have hit market and business confidence more than necessary so producing an economic hit.
-
''The doppelgänger is a subset of countries selected from a larger group of 22 advanced economies by an algorithm. That algorithm finds the countries that, when combined, create a doppelgänger UK that has the smallest possible deviation from the real UK data until December 2019, before the pandemic struck. (The data includes goods trade, GDP growth, population, inflation, industrial production as a share of output, as well as some other measures. More information on the model, including Stata code and input data, is available here.)
''The OBR noted that other estimates of the hit to goods trade were around the same as those from my model. By the third quarter of 2021, the global market share of British exports had fallen by around 15 percentage points relative to the OBR’s March 2016 forecast. In other words, Britain’s export share was always going to fall as China and other emerging economies grew, but it has been falling faster than the OBR predicted before the 2016 referendum. And the degree to which UK domestic demand is satisfied by imports has fallen by around 10 percentage points compared to the March 2016 forecast (which predicted a mild long-term rise)''
Branton, it appears you are not reading the material made available on the subject of the cost of brexit.
https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-september-2021
-
Read my earlier post Billy. Brexit has cost only £10 per person per week. I've shown where this figure comes from and how it tallies with OBR analysis - do you dispute it?
It's not a case of people choosing not to notice - it is simply not a big enough impact for most people to notice.
No sensible extrapolation of economic performance into the future (even with the OBRs highly dubious 4% GDP fall) could in anyway shape or form be compared to an avalanche.
I don't dispute there has been some economic hit but listen to Osborne here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564. Views backed up by the majority of our politicians who stood on the same remain platform as him.
Is it any wonder after the vote that the £ fell, business' held off on investments and wage rises, and the stock exchange fell. The majority of the economic hit has been due to misplaced sentiment off the back of political lies and nothing to do with the fundamentals of Brexit itself.
£68,000,0000 x 10 so only 680,000,000 per week, what a bargain, I wonder how many hospital etc ........
I wonder how many people would have 'bought' brexit if that had been on the side of a bus
Get brexit now only £68,000,000 per week
vote tory
Sydney, given that I accept you have added an extra nought by mistake in the first example above, which figure are you promoting here….. because you are coming up with two different answers.
Are you saying it is £68m per week or £680m per week.
-
Read my earlier post Billy. Brexit has cost only £10 per person per week. I've shown where this figure comes from and how it tallies with OBR analysis - do you dispute it?
It's not a case of people choosing not to notice - it is simply not a big enough impact for most people to notice.
No sensible extrapolation of economic performance into the future (even with the OBRs highly dubious 4% GDP fall) could in anyway shape or form be compared to an avalanche.
I don't dispute there has been some economic hit but listen to Osborne here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564. Views backed up by the majority of our politicians who stood on the same remain platform as him.
Is it any wonder after the vote that the £ fell, business' held off on investments and wage rises, and the stock exchange fell. The majority of the economic hit has been due to misplaced sentiment off the back of political lies and nothing to do with the fundamentals of Brexit itself.
£68,000,0000 x 10 so only 680,000,000 per week, what a bargain, I wonder how many hospital etc ........
And if only 10 people lived in the UK that would be £100 per week. What point are you making exactly?
-
Meanwhile. This.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://mobile.twitter.com/fcdogovuk/status/1486338073864585224&ved=2ahUKEwiGuNWd6tL1AhVJilwKHS_4DIAQo7QBegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0A3HcpwGJuRAio2vJAildo
From the Govt who negotiated and signed the NI Protocol, lauded it as a brilliant achievement against the odds, then lied repeatedly in the last election campaign about what it implied.
Utterly bizarre.
Complete blx but you have to question the timing….
-
Read my earlier post Billy. Brexit has cost only £10 per person per week. I've shown where this figure comes from and how it tallies with OBR analysis - do you dispute it?
It's not a case of people choosing not to notice - it is simply not a big enough impact for most people to notice.
No sensible extrapolation of economic performance into the future (even with the OBRs highly dubious 4% GDP fall) could in anyway shape or form be compared to an avalanche.
I don't dispute there has been some economic hit but listen to Osborne here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564. Views backed up by the majority of our politicians who stood on the same remain platform as him.
Is it any wonder after the vote that the £ fell, business' held off on investments and wage rises, and the stock exchange fell. The majority of the economic hit has been due to misplaced sentiment off the back of political lies and nothing to do with the fundamentals of Brexit itself.
£68,000,0000 x 10 so only 680,000,000 per week, what a bargain, I wonder how many hospital etc ........
And if only 10 people lived in the UK that would be £100 per week. What point are you making exactly?
Now you are getting silly Branton, where are you getting your figures from, 10 people living in the UK, surely it's more than that?
-
Branton
1Even accepting your £10 per person per week, that's £2000-2500 per family per year. That's the minimum that we have lost in economic output per year already, before the real practical effects of Brexit even started.
2) I agree that most people haven't noticed that because it's not a reduction in income. It's a loss of growth. That is something that people only notice after a while, when living standards stagnate while the rest of the world is generally getting richer. That's what sensible people have always said about Brexit. It was never going to be a cliff edge (outside the possibility of a mad no deal crash out). It was all about a grinding long term deceleration.
3) You cannot call 2020 a Year Zero on this because of COVID. The fundamental problems that Brexit brought to our economy didn't suddenly vanish because COVID came along. If you're having a heart attack then you jump out if a window, you are still having a heart attack.
4) We haven't even seen the main consequences of Brexit yet because the transition period only ended 4 weeks ago. Look at the lorry park that the M20 has become and think about what that is doing to our trade with our biggest economic partner. There are very, very few credible economists who believe that the medium term hit to GDP of Brexit will be less than about 4% of GDP.
5) If you dismiss that, you need some credible argument for how we are going to make up that economic damage over the medium and long term. Not a "it'll be reight" bit of hand waving.
-
I forgot the other point.
We as individuals have been insulated from the worst costs of Brexit, because the Govt immediately reduced their deficit reduction plan. This means the majority of the costs have been borne to date by the Exchequer.
But that cannot go on forever.
You can and should run larger deficits temporarily in response to a demand-led slowdown like the GFC. But you cannot address structural problems in the economy (like loss of trade) by continuing to run higher deficits over the long term. Sooner or later the debts get called in. Either with higher taxes (the first one is coming in April), by deeper cuts to Govt spending or by inflation caused by devaluation of your currency. There's no way out of that, UNLESS you sort out your structural economic problem (in this case, seriously reduced and more costly trade with Europe)
If you can point to anyone having a plan for how we do that, I'm all ears.
-
............... which is why the following is good, to understand how inflation hits the poorest harder and why dismissing inflation and ''only'' £10 per person is not a strong position unless of course one doesn't actually care about the effects on the whole of the population.
''Cost-of-living crisis: Jack Monroe hails ONS update of inflation calculations
Move by government statisticians follows analysis by UK poverty activist of impact on poorest families''
Concern that rising inflation is having a disproportionate impact on people in poorer households in the UK has prompted government number-crunchers to provide a more detailed breakdown of the cost of living.
''The Office for National Statistics said it accepted that every person had their own inflation rate and it would do more to capture the impact of price increases on different income groups.
Mike Hardie, the head of inflation statistics at the ONS, said in a blog the published annual inflation rate – currently 5.4% – was an average for all households. “But everyone has their own personal inflation rate. Some people may spend a larger proportion of their income on gas and electricity, or petrol if you commute via car daily.”''
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/26/cost-of-living-crisis-ons-inflation-jack-monroe
''UK inflation rises to highest level in almost 30 years at 5.4%
Cost of living crisis worsens, piling pressure on Bank of England to raise interest rates again''
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/19/uk-inflation-hits-near-three-decade-high-rising-to-54
-
The inflation rate in the EU is running at 5.3%. It's almost the same as the UK.
-
Liz must be sweating on johnson's exit stage left and a reshuffle before this deadline arrives.
Frosty couldn't bully his way through or over the top of it. Brexit the gift to the nation that keeps on giving.
No trade deal with the US if this turns to shit.
''DUP gives Liz Truss February deadline to fix Brexit protocol row
First minister Paul Givan says UK must take action if EU agreement cannot be reached by 21 February''
Truss
''Business leaders at Green’s Food Fare in Lisburn tell me rules are frustrating efforts to bring goods into NI from Great Britain. That’s why the UK Govt is in intensive talks with the EU to find a solution. There is a deal to be done & a shared responsibility to make that happen''
So not because johnson lied all the way through this shit sandwich then?
-
The inflation rate in the EU is running at 5.3%. It's almost the same as the UK.
They must be missing us RD.
-
Read my earlier post Billy. Brexit has cost only £10 per person per week. I've shown where this figure comes from and how it tallies with OBR analysis - do you dispute it?
It's not a case of people choosing not to notice - it is simply not a big enough impact for most people to notice.
No sensible extrapolation of economic performance into the future (even with the OBRs highly dubious 4% GDP fall) could in anyway shape or form be compared to an avalanche.
I don't dispute there has been some economic hit but listen to Osborne here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564. Views backed up by the majority of our politicians who stood on the same remain platform as him.
Is it any wonder after the vote that the £ fell, business' held off on investments and wage rises, and the stock exchange fell. The majority of the economic hit has been due to misplaced sentiment off the back of political lies and nothing to do with the fundamentals of Brexit itself.
£68,000,0000 x 10 so only 680,000,000 per week, what a bargain, I wonder how many hospital etc ........
And if only 10 people lived in the UK that would be £100 per week. What point are you making exactly?
Now you are getting silly Branton, where are you getting your figures from, 10 people living in the UK, surely it's more than that?
:facepalm: There is no hope.
-
I think we have to keep in mind, what's driving this inflation in Europe is energy prices. It's cost push inflation and in the UK it's imported.
Energy prices are high for a number of reasons. We're coming out of the pandemic and demand is rapidly returning but the supply isn't meeting it. It's not meeting it because of a number of reasons.
The wind levels haven't been very high in Europe, intermittent renewable energy has been low. The Germans are decommissioning their nuclear power plants resulting in a loss of base load energy. Vladimir Putin has chosen this moment to pressurise Europe and is limiting gas supplies. China has been trying to transition away from coal to natural gas. More competition in the market, higher gas prices. The UK has closed down the Rough gas storage facility giving lower reserves to fall back on.
On top of all of this there is a global push to transition away from fossil fuels. Which means there has been a reduced commitment to developing new fossil fuel rescources. The high prices now would normally signal the green light for developing new fossil fuel fields but that is being held back.
If we're talking about structural problems this is quite a big one.
So far the renewable energy that is supposed to help build back better is not taking up the slack and even if we give up on meeting Co2 targets, which would be foolish, it would still take years to crank up the industry to reboot and reduce our reliance on Russian gas.
My guess is we are looking at a new higher inflation environment. Lower growth and feeling cold in the winter. I would suggest a concerted effort to insulate Britain, those nutters gluing themselves to roads have a point.
-
Its not sitting down weather until April RD, haven't you noticed?
-
Its not sitting down weather until April RD, haven't you noticed?
Tell us why job security has declined selby?
-
Billy taking your points one at a time
1)The £10 per week is an average, not all individuals will have been affected equally, so claiming a typical family of 5 with 3 below working age kids have been impacted by £2500 per year is clearly not correct.
2) If most people haven't noticed a 2% loss (c. £10 per week) in 3.5 years it would seem illogical to suggest they will notice a 2% loss of growth (if your 4% is accurate) over what I assume is a longer 'medium term' which is what 10,20 years? Or I suspect an elastic period dependent on relative UK economic performance. If noticed will they associate this loss with a vote which happened over a decade or more ago?
This is really important. Leaving the EU or just the Single Market are not irreversible. If there is a move to rejoin either some point in the future then it needs the consent of the public. I'm not convinced that the majority will ever notice a personal hit from Brexit or that they associate with Brexit. Remain (Regain?) need to inform/persuade the public on what Brexit is costing people personally. That process should (from a Remain standpoint) be starting now and be continuous yet all I see on the cost of Brexit is at a macroeconomic level (this thread being an example) which doesn't engage most people.
3) I wasn't calling 2020 a Year Zero on Brexit just stating that Covid makes the impact of Brexit in 20/21 difficult to quantify.
4) I agree we haven't even seen the main consequences of our change in trading arrangements with the EU yet, but that's different to saying we haven't seen the biggest hit to the economy yet. I can't imagine that the collapse in market confidence in the UK immediately post-vote due to (largely-misguided) sentiment, particularly the significant falls in the £ and investment levels, will prove to have less of an economic impact than an increase in paperwork and border checks on EU exports.
The OBR agrees with your consensus 4% hit to GDP. They base this on trade with the EU being 15% lower. I expect the other credible economists making similar predictions will be relying on a similarly incredible looking assumption on trade loss.
5) Your assertion that the government have borne the majority of the costs of Brexit is proven false by the data www.theglobaleconomy.com/United-Kingdom/government_size/. Government spending in 2017-9 was actually lower as a % of GDP than before the referendum vote. The large increase in 2020 is due to Covid. Therefore the logical reason behind the Government making the unpopular decision to increase taxes is the impact of Covid on Government finances not Brexit.
-
Yet another Brexit benefit! Rosslare port in Ireland
-
Yet another Brexit benefit! Rosslare port in Ireland
It's part of the BBB, the Brexit Britain Byass and could have been a metaphor for the future ............ if it wasn't real.
-
''BORIS VOWS TO UNLEASH BENEFITS OF BREXIT'' screams the Express.
fmd if he doesn't get started all those that voted for it will be dead .....
-
We have spent 5 years on the streets of Leeds talking to thousands of people, many of them Brexit supporters. And in all that time not one of them has been able to tell us about a meaningful benefit of Brexit.
(Leeds for Europe )
So forgive our cynicism about Boris Johnson’s current “initiatives”. https://t.co/J1dUde7gmQ
#BrexitReality #BrexitHasFailed
-
Well it's kicking off in NI.
Remember back in 2016, when Johnson said it wasn't beyond the wit of man to find an Irish accommodation of Brexit?
Remember in 2019 when he signed an agreement explicitly requiring customs checks between GB and NI, then consistently lied that there'd be any such checks?
Well there were checks.
But the DUP leadership has just instructed border officials to stop making them. which means as of today, the UK is in breach of the Brexit deal with the EU. (Yeah, that one that Johnson lied about.)
As if that wasn't bad enough (and it is....very bad) the DUP First Minister is now reported to be about to resign, over the same issue. Which would cause a crisis in the NI Govt.
Hard to find words to express what a Kitson Johnson has been over this. He's tipped NI right to the very edge, for absolutely zero reason other than his own career progression.
-
A resignation in NI, there's a surprise. That government collapses far far too often and a card they use too often.
But it does demonstrate something has to change, the requests and wants of that community shouldn't be forgotten. Checks to NI don't matter to most of us but clearly it's sensitive to them.
-
Go on then BFYP. Follow the logic.
What happens if you get rid of checks between the UK and NI?
-
They get enforced on the Irish border. So you have half of northern Ireland wants one there the other elsewhere. There's not much of a win either way.
Of course there could be and is solutions to avoid a border at all but that gap is also too big to bridge.
-
They get enforced on the Irish border. So you have half of northern Ireland wants one there the other elsewhere. There's not much of a win either way.
Of course there could be and is solutions to avoid a border at all but that gap is also too big to bridge.
Apart from the UK rejoining the Single Market or a united Ireland I'd love to hear one.
-
There has to be a border either between NI and GB or between NI and Ireland. There is no possible way of avoiding that. There is no example anywhere in the world of a boundary between two entirely sovereign trade blocks that has no border checks on goods passing over the boundary. Talk about "solutions" is hogwash. There are no "solutions" if there's a boundary.
And as you say, if there's a boundary, one side or the other in NI is disadvantaged. Which is precisely what some of us were saying 6 years ago, and being told we were playing Project Fear. The one and only way in which stability could have been maintained in NI (short of reunification, which would lead to civil war) was by us staying part of the SM and CU. One day, Brexit supporters will have to accept that fact.
-
Damn Guardian journalist Freedland has been reading the off topic.
''How can Jacob Rees-Mogg find ‘Brexit opportunities’? They don’t exist''
''''Here’s how it can be identified. Take the Brexiters at their word – that leaving was about more than ending European immigration – and ask them to name some other reform that Britain badly needed but which proved unachievable so long as we remained in the EU: a specific change that only Brexit could unlock. The committed leaver will struggle and sputter, before either mentioning blue passports or else retreating into abstract nouns: “freedom” or “sovereignty”. Press them for a concrete, real-world benefit of Brexit, one that survives scrutiny, and they wilt. They either end up making something up, as Johnson did, or else phoning a friend – like Rees-Mogg’s call-out to Sun readers''
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/11/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-opportunities-britain-economy
-
The EU is being threatened with a war on its borders, The Balkans situation is rearing it's ugly head once again, and the Reports of 16 bodies some completely naked found on the Greek Turkish border of frozen migrants turned back by Greece is horrific.
The place is turning into a basket case, with Macron trying to wrestle the power strings from a wilting Germany, and trying to be the Billy big b*llocks and the Eastern states now realising the land of milk and honey without us chipping in millions for them to gorge themselves on is upsetting Hungary and Poland, and it's just starting to fester, it's a long way to go yet, let them get on with it, we are well out of it.
-
The EU is being threatened with a war on its borders, The Balkans situation is rearing it's ugly head once again, and the Reports of 16 bodies some completely naked found on the Greek Turkish border of frozen migrants turned back by Greece is horrific.
The place is turning into a basket case, with Macron trying to wrestle the power strings from a wilting Germany, and trying to be the Billy big b*llocks and the Eastern states now realising the land of milk and honey without us chipping in millions for them to gorge themselves on is upsetting Hungary and Poland, and it's just starting to fester, it's a long way to go yet, let them get on with it, we are well out of it.
Looks like putin got his way then cutting a sheep from the flock?
-
The EU is being threatened with a war on its borders, The Balkans situation is rearing it's ugly head once again, and the Reports of 16 bodies some completely naked found on the Greek Turkish border of frozen migrants turned back by Greece is horrific.
The place is turning into a basket case, with Macron trying to wrestle the power strings from a wilting Germany, and trying to be the Billy big b*llocks and the Eastern states now realising the land of milk and honey without us chipping in millions for them to gorge themselves on is upsetting Hungary and Poland, and it's just starting to fester, it's a long way to go yet, let them get on with it, we are well out of it.
Looks like putin got his way then cutting a sheep from the flock?
SR, can you point out any untruths in that post by selby?
-
Must be something wrong Hound you have had the last say for nearly a full day, come on Syd show some effort.
-
Must be something wrong Hound you have had the last say for nearly a full day, come on Syd show some effort.
see you over at the brexit dividends thread selby, oh we are here, looks like ONS will have the last say then as usual, comparing exports to the EU and to the rest of the world.
''Highlighting the disproportionate impact of leaving the EU, exports to the rest of the world excluding the 27-nation bloc dropped by a much smaller £10bn, or about 6% compared with 2018 levels.
UK exports of goods to the EU have fallen by £20bn compared with the last period of stable trade with Europe, according to official figures marking the first full year since Brexit.
Despite the disruption, the EU remains the UK’s largest trading partner. However, for the first time since comparable records began in 1997, the UK now spends more importing goods from the rest of the world than it does from the EU''
brexit is working a treat aye selby?
-
Yes it is Syd no problem at all.
-
Must be something wrong Hound you have had the last say for nearly a full day, come on Syd show some effort.
He doesn’t provide answers matey, only questions.
-
Yes it is Syd no problem at all.
Nothing much to say about johnson either selby, see you over there soon?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55997641.amp
Understatement of the Decade..
"I actually think it was not thought out."
-
If brexit was a trade battleship it would have been stripped and scuttled to make a reef
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55997641.amp
Understatement of the Decade..
"I actually think it was not thought out."
I was telling anyone who would listen what would happen even before the referendum took place. It's not a surprise to anyone who understands it.
-
Maybe the trade battleship sank and blocked the harbour?
-
If brexit was a trade battleship it would have been stripped and scuttled to make a reef
Interesting analogy. Reefs are good things aren’t they? Good for eco tourism good for the environment ?
-
Maybe, but boats that are any good are not used for that purpose are they.
-
Meanwhile:
Sir Keir Starmer has sparked outrage by saying the UK can take advantage of the “opportunities” of Brexit during a visit to the north east of England.
The Labour leader faced backlash after he used similarly positive language as senior Conservative Jacob Rees-Mogg, the new minister for Brexit opportunities.
Sir Keir also definitively ruled out the idea his party could campaign for Britain to re-join the EU in future – insisting that he wants to “make Brexit work”.
The SNP pounced on Sir Keir’s comments and claimed that they amounted to Labour “joining the Tories on Brexit”.
The SNP party’ Westminster leader Ian Blackford said: “In a shoddy attempt to win back votes in England, Starmer’s Labour party has completely abandoned Scotland.
From the Independent.
-
Is he wrong to say we've got to try and make the best of the shambles we've been left with?
-
Oh dear, it looks like that pact with the EU loving Lib Dems and Greens that some on here were suggesting for Starmer to pursue, might be dead in the water now.
-
Is he wrong to say we've got to try and make the best of the shambles we've been left with?
No it isn’t but it doesn’t appear to be a popular decision among some of his supporters.
-
So you've found one decision that you suppose might be unpopular to some of his supporters. How many has Johnson made that were unpopular with his supporters? Haven't seen you flag up any of those.
-
You might not have looked hard enough then pies.
Also, has Starmer only made one unpopular decision?
Hardly.
However, To answer your question, yes I agree that Johnson has made plenty of decision# that are unpopular with his people.
-
Stabber living up to his reputation, just think what all the other Bozo's on the train over to Brussels think of their mate now, oh the memories of standing on the platform at Waterloo going over to knife the governments attempt to get an agreement, dishing it out with the blurb of how we are better off having another referendum.
That guy would stab his granny to get on, I wouldn't send him to the shop with a list and trust him, a complete S**T house he would cuddle up to an alligator to pull the wool over the labour supporters eyes.
At least with Corbyn people knew he was a nut job, this P*****k has more edges than a diamond.
-
As I say. 10 years of Mike Graham and you're incapable of writing coherent sentences. It's clinically proven. Just say "No!" kids.
-
No defence there Billy, the old chestnut you turn to dish the other poster, He is just after your vote in the north Billy and he and his buddies will then leave you high and dry and concentrate on his south east.
Keep your pecker up buddy at least you are entertaining if you take no notice of what you say. Where would we be without your and Syds reams of nonsense, at least it gives the disciples some thing to hang on to.
-
QED.
Don't do it kids!
-
Stop calling your disciples up.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55997641.amp
Understatement of the Decade..
"I actually think it was not thought out."
"Peter Cowgill, chairman of JD Sports, said the red tape and delays in shipping goods to mainland Europe meant "double-digit millions" in extra costs."
Sounds awful doesn't it this? When reported wholly without context.
Firstly never trust unverifiable data from people with a political bias peddling a political agenda especially where they are provably exaggerating in other data they put forward (see * below).
Let's cautiously take Mr Cowgill at his word and say the cost will be £10m pa. Yet JD is a massive company which incurred £6bn in costs in 20/21 files.jdplc.com/pdf/reports/annual-report-2021.pdf.
This additional £10m expense is only increasing JD's costs by a measly 0.17%.
An event arising such a relatively small cost increase would normally barely merit a passing reference in an Annual Report. Yet here this is being reported by the BBC!
Furthermore being deliberately reported without context to give a false picture to the unthinking, gullible and those suffering from Confirmation Bias.
What this story actually clearly shows is how relatively small these extra border admin costs are to exporters and therefore even more to the UK economy as a whole.
As for opening a warehouse in Europe due to a 0.17% increase in their cost base. If I were his FD I'd laugh him out of the room at the suggestion. Pure bluster made for a political purpose.
* The 1,000 UK jobs lost is clearly a deliberate exaggeration. JD currently employ just under 2,000 at it's Rochdale warehouse servicing £6.2bn revenue. So why would they need over half that number to service their £1.6bn revenue in the EU?
I note JD doesn't pay the living wage. The average Full Time Equivalent annual salary of it's staff is only £18,143. At least 75% of it's 54,385 employees are paid below the UK living wage. Meanwhile Mr Cowgill earned £4.3m last year.
To put Mr Cowgill's £10m (0.17%) Brexit cost into further context it would cost JD approximately £45m per year extra (0.75% addition to it's cost base) to put their staff on the living wage.
Billy - you bizarrely implied I was right wing for saying postal voting is more open to fraud than voting at polling stations. Yet here you are quoting from the most awful example of a greedy, immoral, extreme capitalist. Whilst endorsing his opinion that a 0.17% increase in his company's cost base is more important than restoring democratic rights to ordinary, working people - the sort he has no compunction taking advantage of for his own gain.
Glynn - were you telling everyone that Brexit would increase exporters costs by 0.17%? Or does the article when placed against actual facts expose your position as what it really is - unthinking hyperbolic nonsense?
-
Glynn - were you telling everyone that Brexit would increase exporters costs by 0.17%? Or does the article when placed against actual facts expose your position as what it really is - unthinking hyperbolic nonsense?
No, because it doesn't. Firstly because your 'working out' is based on assuming that all of JD costs were related to import consignments, which is a completely fallacious argument. Secondly it is even more fallacious when you have absolutely no idea how many of their import consignments come from the EU (which are the only ones the new costs apply to), which I would assume would be very much the minority of their imports as most textile manufacture suppliers are from non-EU countries. And you have the nerve to accuse someone else of not being in context?? You can take your ridiculous not-in-context 0.17% and shove it back where it came from.
As for my position being unthinking and hyperbolic, well, my position is based upon being an International Trade Officer with Customs & Excise/HMRC for twenty years, auditing importers' and exporters' Custom Declarations so knowing the costs and procedures involved inside out. Which is how I know where textile retailers import from for a start. I also know where the new costs importers and exporters will now have to pay have come from and what they are. Can you say the same?
-
Branton
The full hit of Brexit regulations only started last month. Those costs are, I assume, what they have racked up already.
As for them being mean, nasty capitalists, that is neither here nor there. The trade costs wouldn't vanish if they were nice socialists.
-
Glyn £10m is only 0.17% of JD's total annual costs of £6bn (all its costs - cost of goods, employment, etc etc)
That's a fact.
Do you think they'll change their company policies based on this tiny cost increase?
Really?!
-
Branton
The full hit of Brexit regulations only started last month. Those costs are, I assume, what they have racked up already.
As for them being mean, nasty capitalists, that is neither here nor there. The trade costs wouldn't vanish if they were nice socialists.
No he'll be talking the annual cost.
And your lovely Mr Cowgill only gave his interview last week. Ample time for him to assess (and given his form exaggerate) his numbers based on the new regulations.
Do you think it likely these costs will increase beyond 0.17% (or a similarly low %) of their cost base to something that may actually be significant and lead to a change in company practices then? Why?
-
Glyn £10m is only 0.17% of JD's total annual costs of £6bn (all its costs - cost of goods, employment, etc etc)
That's a fact.
Do you think they'll change their company policies based on this tiny cost increase?
Really?!
Do you really think that 0.17% applies to every importer and exporter? Because that is what I have always talked about, not one company. Because if you are, then you're making the assumption that the new costs are ad valorem.
-
Glynn - no of course not.
But it was in response to the numbers for this particular company that you said 'I was telling anyone who would listen what would happen even before the referendum took place. It's not a surprise to anyone who understands it.'
Having clearly read the article without considering putting those numbers into context. Clearly showing in this case a lack of understanding - sorry.
Even if an exporter suffers relative costs twice or three times this amount - it's really not going make a significant difference to how they operate is it? 0.17% of total costs is tiny.
-
Stop calling your disciples up.
This from your own people
''Why the panic among Boris Johnson’s allies? Because they know Brexit is unravelling''
Michael Heseltine
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/16/panic-boris-johnson-allies-brexit-unravelling-michael-heseltine
-
Glynn - no of course not.
But it was in response to the numbers for this particular company that you said 'I was telling anyone who would listen what would happen even before the referendum took place. It's not a surprise to anyone who understands it.'
Having clearly read the article without considering putting those numbers into context. Clearly showing in this case a lack of understanding - sorry.
Even if an exporter suffers relative costs twice or three times this amount - it's really not going make a significant difference to how they operate is it? 0.17% of total costs is tiny.
I was speaking about the costs increasing for every importer and exporter to the EU, not just JD.
By the way, do you think that £10 million extra cost will just be absorbed by JD or that it'll get added on to the costing sheets for the imported goods?
-
Branton
The full hit of Brexit regulations only started last month. Those costs are, I assume, what they have racked up already.
As for them being mean, nasty capitalists, that is neither here nor there. The trade costs wouldn't vanish if they were nice socialists.
No he'll be talking the annual cost.
And your lovely Mr Cowgill only gave his interview last week. Ample time for him to assess (and given his form exaggerate) his numbers based on the new regulations.
Do you think it likely these costs will increase beyond 0.17% (or a similarly low %) of their cost base to something that may actually be significant and lead to a change in company practices then? Why?
Where's your evidence that he's talking about annual costs? No-one knows if the costs will reduce as initial frictions reduce. It makes far more logical sense to assume he's talking about costs already rung up.
-
Stop calling your disciples up.
This from your own people
''Why the panic among Boris Johnson’s allies? Because they know Brexit is unravelling''
Michael Heseltine
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/16/panic-boris-johnson-allies-brexit-unravelling-michael-heseltine
Selby's own people? Heseltine was the biggest Europhile in the HOC for donkey's years.
Nobody in the Tory Party listens to him.
-
Glynn - No you were responding to the article - quite obviously you were. Just admit you were wrong.
"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.
Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
In answer to your question: -
"Peter Cowgill, chairman of JD Sports, said the red tape and delays in shipping goods to mainland Europe meant "double-digit millions" in extra costs."
He's clearly talking here of extra costs to JD.
-
No you were responding to the article - quite obviously you were. Just admit you were wrong.
"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.
Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
In answer to your question: -
"Peter Cowgill, chairman of JD Sports, said the red tape and delays in shipping goods to mainland Europe meant "double-digit millions" in extra costs."
He's clearly talking here of extra costs to JD.
And he was confirming the same extra costs that everybody else is facing. Which is what I have said all along.
Oh, and the question I was asking is where the money to pay those millions is going to come from? I presume it's going to be passed onto their customers because the costing sheets will now have extra expenditure on them.
-
Stop calling your disciples up.
This from your own people
''Why the panic among Boris Johnson’s allies? Because they know Brexit is unravelling''
Michael Heseltine
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/16/panic-boris-johnson-allies-brexit-unravelling-michael-heseltine
Selby's own people? Heseltine has been the biggest Europhile in the HOC for donkey's years.
Nobody in the Tory Party listens to him.
he's a tory SS, people listened to johnson, non tories listened to johnson, go figure
-
No you were responding to the article - quite obviously you were. Just admit you were wrong.
"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.
Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
In answer to your question: -
"Peter Cowgill, chairman of JD Sports, said the red tape and delays in shipping goods to mainland Europe meant "double-digit millions" in extra costs."
He's clearly talking here of extra costs to JD.
And he was confirming the same extra costs that everybody else is facing. Which is what I have said all along.
And as I've shown for JD these costs are relative to the size of the company miniscule. Not everyone will be effected the same granted but if we use JD as a yardstick (this remember based on the quite likely exaggerated numbers provided by someone with a political axe to grind) then it is difficult to see how these costs will be of much significance to any company, therefore they are unlikely to impact company policy and behaviour, and even more unlikely to impact the UK economy in any meaningful way.
That's what can be inferred from the BBC article from sensible analysis of the facts. Even though it was seemingly written to convey the exact opposite of that.
-
Stop calling your disciples up.
This from your own people
''Why the panic among Boris Johnson’s allies? Because they know Brexit is unravelling''
Michael Heseltine
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/16/panic-boris-johnson-allies-brexit-unravelling-michael-heseltine
Selby's own people? Heseltine has been the biggest Europhile in the HOC for donkey's years.
Nobody in the Tory Party listens to him.
he's a tory SS, people listened to johnson, non tories listened to johnson, go figure
I have figured. The Tory Party are mainly anti-EU. They don't care what Heseltine says.
As regards non-Tories, they voted for Johnson because he promised to get Brexit done. No other reason.
-
Did you read the article Steve? it confirms what remainers have said all along, no one from the exit side has yet said or said and proven any benefit yet, Branton atm is arguing that the cost is small but only last week pud said anyone the thinks brexit will add to inflation is an idiot, is all a bit magic mushrooms brexit benefits aye Steve.
-
Where's your evidence that he's talking about annual costs? No-one knows if the costs will reduce as initial frictions reduce. It makes far more logical sense to assume he's talking about costs already rung up.
From many years sitting in Board meetings - these people talk in annual numbers. He does say "I don't see that regulatory paperwork easing much in the short term" in answer to your 2nd sentence - like you I don't agree he could be so certain. Again though he's saying this for political effect i.e. can't see this improving.
You maybe right. Regardless it is a tiny fraction of JDs overall annual costs. I'm really struggling to see what the fuss is about here.
-
Did you read the article Steve? it confirms what remainers have said all along, no one from the exit side has yet said or said and proven any benefit yet, Branton atm is arguing that the cost is small but only last week pud said anyone the thinks brexit will add to inflation is an idiot, is all a bit magic mushrooms brexit benefits aye Steve.
Nothing whatsoever to do with what I said about Heseltine.
-
Did you read the article Steve? it confirms what remainers have said all along, no one from the exit side has yet said or said and proven any benefit yet, Branton atm is arguing that the cost is small but only last week pud said anyone the thinks brexit will add to inflation is an idiot, is all a bit magic mushrooms brexit benefits aye Steve.
Nothing whatsoever to do with what I said about Heseltine.
Heseltine is correct, when johnson goes so does the dream, you saying no one in the tory party listens to him is not correct is it Steve, you just made it up.
-
Oh, and the question I was asking is where the money to pay those millions is going to come from? I presume it's going to be passed onto their customers because the costing sheets will now have extra expenditure on them.
:facepalm: Glynn you don't understand context. £10m is miniscule for JD. It's revenue was £6.6bn last year. Even if £10m extra cost is passed onto customers their prices will only rise 0.16%.
Inflation currently is 5.5%.
-
''Jacob Rees-Mogg says little evidence Brexit hit trade''
So who would you believe the mogg or the ONS
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60407234
-
Did you read the article Steve? it confirms what remainers have said all along, no one from the exit side has yet said or said and proven any benefit yet, Branton atm is arguing that the cost is small but only last week pud said anyone the thinks brexit will add to inflation is an idiot, is all a bit magic mushrooms brexit benefits aye Steve.
Nothing whatsoever to do with what I said about Heseltine.
Heseltine is correct, when johnson goes so does the dream, you saying no one in the tory party listens to him is not correct is it Steve, you just made it up.
Just made it up? Since when did MPs in the HOC listen to any of the old has-beens in the HOL? Especially those who are bitter with an axe to grind.
Heseltine is yesterday's man; and that yesterday goes right back to Thatcher's years.
-
Did you read the article Steve? it confirms what remainers have said all along, no one from the exit side has yet said or said and proven any benefit yet, Branton atm is arguing that the cost is small but only last week pud said anyone the thinks brexit will add to inflation is an idiot, is all a bit magic mushrooms brexit benefits aye Steve.
Nothing whatsoever to do with what I said about Heseltine.
Heseltine is correct, when johnson goes so does the dream, you saying no one in the tory party listens to him is not correct is it Steve, you just made it up.
Just made it up? Since when did MPs in the HOC listen to any of the old has-beens in the HOL? Especially those who are bitter with an axe to grind.
Heseltine is yesterday's man; and that yesterday goes right back to Thatcher's years.
just post the proof Steve is all
-
Truth or lack of it is the very essence of brexit, if the truth was spoken at the time it would never have happened.
-
Sorry Branton, my mistake. You're right. The mass of professional macroeconomic opinion whic reckons Brexit will have a 4-8% hit on GDP is wrong.
For the record, when I posted that link, I was really referring to the "nobody thought it through" comment.
-
Maybe it's now time for the economic rationalists to step forward and say why this addition to inflation is a good thing? It is after all a brexit dividend, no? admittedly it may have been good during Austerity along with a few pay rises for the bolshies, but now? Let's try and put it into to terms that everyday people understand, foodbanks! to those that live day-to-day, those that spend all their money every week, how many more foodbanks can we expect, will they need more stock, will they need more volunteers? And pay rises, now? of course now is not a good time not because we have Austerity and the debt has to be paid off, it's because we have inflation and pay rises are bad, we'll just have to wait for the brexit dividends to kick in and everyone will be highly paid techie ................... next?
-
Oh, and the question I was asking is where the money to pay those millions is going to come from? I presume it's going to be passed onto their customers because the costing sheets will now have extra expenditure on them.
:facepalm: Glynn you don't understand context. £10m is miniscule for JD. It's revenue was £6.6bn last year. Even if £10m extra cost is passed onto customers their prices will only rise 0.16%.
Inflation currently is 5.5%.
Don't be so stupid. You don't understand the context of how retailers work. If an item costs more to import then the full cost will be entered to the costing sheet and included in the selling-on price of that item, it doesn't get amortised across the whole of the company's goods for sale otherwise the company will have no idea of how their goods are individually selling against the costs of purchasing them. There would only be an 0.16% increase in prices if the whole of their costs relates to movements to/from the EU. Which they don't. Their costs includes the cost of land, labour, capital and capital investment.
-
Something missing here, brexit was supposed to be about stopping the migration of people from EU countries, tick, that's been a roaring success so tick tick .......... boom.
Secondly brexit was to allow the UK to trade with the world, not that the EU was stopping that but anyway if world trade was the goal why do we need a Mogg brexit opportunities detector? Has johnson been on the forum, or on the spumante?
Why does Mogg have to waste time with petty amounts of red tape surrounding trade with the EU which surely will be reduced to a secondary trading partner any minute, when cheaper better quality goods will be flooding in from the rest of the world? it doesn't make sense. Wouldn't his time be better spent rolling out the red carpet for the new major partners?
''Jacob Rees-Mogg: New Brexit minister promises to cut red tape
The minister for Brexit opportunities has urged firms struggling with red tape to write to him, while on a visit to the UK's biggest container port.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said Brexit was "already a success" and that he would be working to "cut through the thicket" of red tape''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-60406922
thicket alright
-
Stop calling your disciples up.
This from your own people
''Why the panic among Boris Johnson’s allies? Because they know Brexit is unravelling''
Michael Heseltine
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/16/panic-boris-johnson-allies-brexit-unravelling-michael-heseltine
Selby's own people? Heseltine was the biggest Europhile in the HOC for donkey's years.
Nobody in the Tory Party listens to him.
True, because the modern day Tory Party bears no relation to the Tory Government that he was part of.
Lord Patten - former Tory Part Chair - now calls it the 'English Nationalist Party':
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19900384.chris-patten-blistering-attack-boris-johnsons-tory-party/
With nutters like Bone, Cash and Baker now mainstream 'Tories', the lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum.
-
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-economy-brexit_uk_5b54e3b5e4b0de86f48e3566
So the man who said it will take 50 years to see the benefits of Brexit is put in charge of exploiting the benefits of Brexit after 5 years?
I’m sure he’s scratching his head at the Breakfast table whilst Nanny butters his crumpets.
-
Why is there so much debate about comments JD sports made over 12 months ago?
Their financial results don't really back up the claim all that much - record profits and by some margin. It's such a struggle for them eh and they kept their furlough money didn't they? Not all retailers did that.
-
Ha! I didn't see that date BFYP. It came up as a link in another story I was looking at and I assumed it was current.
That'll teach me to check next time.
As for JD, I have no axe to grind for them and yes, their keeping of furlough money while making profits is disgusting.
But the bigger point stands. Thousands and thousands of companies ARE finding it harder to export and import. I know this from personal experience. And those problems aren't going away.
-
The EU courts found against Poland and Hungary rule of law yesterday;
Let the fun begin.
-
Ha! I didn't see that date BFYP. It came up as a link in another story I was looking at and I assumed it was current.
That'll teach me to check next time.
As for JD, I have no axe to grind for them and yes, their keeping of furlough money while making profits is disgusting.
But the bigger point stands. Thousands and thousands of companies ARE finding it harder to export and import. I know this from personal experience. And those problems aren't going away.
That's the problem with the internet things get brought up a long time ago. Odd his worries didn't come to past or have much effect though.
Its a convenient excuse in some cases (talking to an auditor yesterday they said use brexit or covid everyone else does).
It's mixed in reality and very hard to prove the direct effects. Linking it in with other things that are happening tells much more of a story. In my last job the paperwork was tricky as the business not used to it. But in another business it was bau and that impact on smaller Vs larger businesses shouldn't be understated. Perhaps helping smaller businesses is the way to go.
I think I've said that before as someone who does that for a job the cause and effect isn't always quite as it appears.
-
Sorry Branton, my mistake. You're right. The mass of professional macroeconomic opinion whic reckons Brexit will have a 4-8% hit on GDP is wrong.
For the record, when I posted that link, I was really referring to the "nobody thought it through" comment.
An understandable if flawed argument.
Study after study shows economic experts are not only not particularly good at making economic predictions they are in fact no better, and no worse, at this than well-informed amateurs. Also IQ levels make little to no difference in making accurate forecasts.
The best economic forecasters are those that:
- Are receptive to new evidence
- Are actively open-minded thinkers
- Are comfortable in abandoning an old views
- Embrace arguments with others as an opportunity to learn
I wonder how many of your macroecomic experts would meet the above criteria on this subject matter?
I, or you, therefore have just as much chance of making a correct forecast on the economic impact of Brexit as any macroecomic expert.
Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to ask: logically why will the new but relatively low costs being met at the border by those companies trading with the EU lead to the UK economy being as much as 4-8% smaller than it would have been some point in the future? As a proponent of these views can you answer this question?
I pay more attention to experts but don't simply believe everything they say unquestionably. I'd want corroborating evidence on a historical supposition, or a logical explanation behind a forecast.
-
Don't be so stupid. You don't understand the context of how retailers work. If an item costs more to import then the full cost will be entered to the costing sheet and included in the selling-on price of that item, it doesn't get amortised across the whole of the company's goods for sale otherwise the company will have no idea of how their goods are individually selling against the costs of purchasing them. There would only be an 0.16% increase in prices if the whole of their costs relates to movements to/from the EU. Which they don't. Their costs includes the cost of land, labour, capital and capital investment.
Glynn whether a cost increase can be passed on to a particular product depends on the market for that product. If the cost of one type of JD trainers goes up but they know if they increase the price their sales will collapse because a rival is selling a similar product for less they won't do it. The MD may then decide to recoup the costs by increasing the price on another product - or several products where the market allows.
Let's not split hairs though I'll reword by previous post
£10m is miniscule for JD. It's revenue was £6.6bn last year. Even if £10m extra cost is passed onto customers their prices will only rise on average by 0.16%.
Inflation currently is 5.5%.
-
Branton.
You are as one with Rees-Mogg in insisting that Brexit's problems are overblown.
You are as one with Gove in proposing to ignore expert opinion when it tells you stuff you do not like.
Your comments ""economic experts are not particularly good" and "I, or you, therefore have just as much chance of making a correct forecast on the economic impact of Brexit as any macroecomic expert" are as ignorant as they are risible. Both could have come straight out of Gove's mouth.
The economics of trade is an extremely well-founded subject with an extremely strong foundation of logical theoretical models which have been generally validated by real world findings. Pretty much every trade economist says that the effect of putting up the sort of barriers to free trade that we are doing with the EU will result in a reduction of GDP of 4-8% compared to the baseline case of if we hadn't left the EU.
Dismissing that out of hand because you don't want to hear it is frankly pathetic. Have a sensible argument why they are wrong, or accept that they are likely to be right.
-
Maybe it's now time for the economic rationalists to step forward and say why this addition to inflation is a good thing? It is after all a brexit dividend, no?
Sydney you won't be told will you? See my response 31 to this thread. It still holds. There is no evidence Brexit is significantly contributing to inflation.
-
Branton.
You are as one with Rees-Mogg in insisting that Brexit's problems are overblown.
You are as one with Gove in proposing to ignore expert opinion when it tells you stuff you do not like.
Your comments ""economic experts are not particularly good" and "I, or you, therefore have just as much chance of making a correct forecast on the economic impact of Brexit as any macroecomic expert" are as ignorant as they are risible. Both could have come straight out of Gove's mouth.
The economics of trade is an extremely well-founded subject with an extremely strong foundation of logical theoretical models which have been generally validated by real world findings. Pretty much every trade economist says that the effect of putting up the sort of barriers to free trade that we are doing with the EU will result in a reduction of GDP of 4-8% compared to the baseline case of if we hadn't left the EU.
Dismissing that out of hand because you don't want to hear it is frankly pathetic. Have a sensible argument why they are wrong, or accept that they are likely to be right.
My comments on the ability of economic experts in making economic predictions are based on scientific studies so not in the least bit ignorant. See Tetlock and Gardner "Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Predictions" the pre-eminent work in this area. This was a case study of 20,000 individuals asking them to make predictions over a period of time. Their findings confirmed previously scientifically verified studies that economists are no better at making economic predictions than well-informed amateurs.
I'm neither ignoring nor dismissing the predictions out of hand but raising legitimate questions against them. Unlike yourself who is accepting these predictions unquestioningly. That is true ignorance.
I do have a sensible argument/question re why they're wrong which you are deliberately choosing not to answer:
"Logically why will the new but relatively tiny border costs to those companies trading with the EU lead to the UK economy being as much as 4-8% smaller than it would have been some point in the future?"
I suppose you're ignoring my pretty fundamental question because, despite passionately supporting the 4-8% prediction, you haven't got a second clue as to how the numbers are arrived at and therefore can't in any meaningful way answer me.
Passionately supporting a supposition, simply because it meets your expectation, but being utterly unable to explain how it is derived. Now that is truly pathetic.
-
Maybe it's now time for the economic rationalists to step forward and say why this addition to inflation is a good thing? It is after all a brexit dividend, no?
Sydney you won't be told will you? See my response 31 to this thread. It still holds. There is no evidence Brexit is significantly contributing to inflation.
And you will not refer to the original argument will you? which was 'anyone that thinks brexit will effect inflation is an idiot' not a bit, not a little bit, not a tad, not any, which bit of that don't you understand?
-
Good mate of mine runs his own local business. He supplies the agriculture and engineering sector with mechanical parts and maintenance. The vast majority of his stock comes from Italy. He has suffered no noticeable loss since brexit. Quite the opposite. His business is booming.
My youngest son works for PWC in their London office.
They have never been so busy. PWC acknowledge that there will be some mid term drag from brexit, but the UK will maintain its position as a global financial powerhouse for some decades according to their projections. Take a look at their projections for countries relative to GDP for the coming years.
France to drop out of the top ten. Only Germany and UK remain in the top ten.
-
The main and possibly only things about this bit of the brexit argument that concern me are the attempts to rewrite history that brexit is somehow fiscally neutral and or that it's effects are minimal. Minimal depends on ones situation and if it is anywhere near, above below or on the breadline it will hurt, and currently in Britain millions are.
-
Good mate of mine runs his own local business. He supplies the agriculture and engineering sector with mechanical parts and maintenance. The vast majority of his stock comes from Italy. He has suffered no noticeable loss since brexit. Quite the opposite. His business is booming.
My youngest son works for PWC in their London office.
They have never been so busy. PWC acknowledge that there will be some mid term drag from brexit, but the UK will maintain its position as a global financial powerhouse for some decades according to their projections. Take a look at their projections for countries relative to GDP for the coming years.
France to drop out of the top ten. Only Germany and UK remain in the top ten.
You should have addressed this to Branton, NR.
-
Branton.
You are as one with Rees-Mogg in insisting that Brexit's problems are overblown.
You are as one with Gove in proposing to ignore expert opinion when it tells you stuff you do not like.
Your comments ""economic experts are not particularly good" and "I, or you, therefore have just as much chance of making a correct forecast on the economic impact of Brexit as any macroecomic expert" are as ignorant as they are risible. Both could have come straight out of Gove's mouth.
The economics of trade is an extremely well-founded subject with an extremely strong foundation of logical theoretical models which have been generally validated by real world findings. Pretty much every trade economist says that the effect of putting up the sort of barriers to free trade that we are doing with the EU will result in a reduction of GDP of 4-8% compared to the baseline case of if we hadn't left the EU.
Dismissing that out of hand because you don't want to hear it is frankly pathetic. Have a sensible argument why they are wrong, or accept that they are likely to be right.
Quote by bst:
“You are at one with Gove in proposing to ignore expert opinion when it tells you stuff you do not like.”
Oh the irony. :facepalm:
-
Good mate of mine runs his own local business. He supplies the agriculture and engineering sector with mechanical parts and maintenance. The vast majority of his stock comes from Italy. He has suffered no noticeable loss since brexit. Quite the opposite. His business is booming.
My youngest son works for PWC in their London office.
They have never been so busy. PWC acknowledge that there will be some mid term drag from brexit, but the UK will maintain its position as a global financial powerhouse for some decades according to their projections. Take a look at their projections for countries relative to GDP for the coming years.
France to drop out of the top ten. Only Germany and UK remain in the top ten.
You should have addressed this to Branton, NR.
I was not addressing anyone specifically, other than those that want to read and digest.
It’s been said before, but any divorce, especially one with such deeply entrenched financial obligation and commitment, such as our membership of the EU regime, would suffer from short term loss and pain.
-
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-economy-brexit_uk_5b54e3b5e4b0de86f48e3566
So the man who said it will take 50 years to see the benefits of Brexit is put in charge of exploiting the benefits of Brexit after 5 years?
I’m sure he’s scratching his head at the Breakfast table whilst Nanny butters his crumpets.
Is that a euphemism?
One area that mogg could address and solve many problems with the stroke of a pen would be to slash the red tape and free up access to foreign workers, but that would be admitting the house of cards is built with jokers.
-
Good mate of mine runs his own local business. He supplies the agriculture and engineering sector with mechanical parts and maintenance. The vast majority of his stock comes from Italy. He has suffered no noticeable loss since brexit. Quite the opposite. His business is booming.
My youngest son works for PWC in their London office.
They have never been so busy. PWC acknowledge that there will be some mid term drag from brexit, but the UK will maintain its position as a global financial powerhouse for some decades according to their projections. Take a look at their projections for countries relative to GDP for the coming years.
France to drop out of the top ten. Only Germany and UK remain in the top ten.
You should have addressed this to Branton, NR.
I was not addressing anyone specifically, other than those that want to read and digest.
It’s been said before, but any divorce, especially one with such deeply entrenched financial obligation and commitment, such as our membership of the EU regime, would suffer from short term loss and pain.
I wasn't having a go at you NR but rather teasing Branton who has basically just dismissed all economic forecasts. But while I'm here .............. One swallow does not a summer make, it's very fortunate for your friend and good luck to him but it's not the norm.
And .............. 10s of thousands of british pigs slaughtered for no good reason with another couple of hundred thousand on death row, for what?
-
Whilst I understand your frustration over a lack of Labour to slaughter our home grown pigs, which I share, it’s a bit of a jump to compare the fate of pigs over the next year or two compared to our National finances on the global scale over the next 28 yrs.
On the pig front, the whole industry was set up to fail. Far too much bulk productIon. We used to import a lot of pork from abroad too.
I can’t remember the last time I bought pork or sosig from a supermarket. I know someone locally who breeds his own pigs. Rare breed too.
He gets them slaughtered and butchered locally. From birth to plate, no more than 5 miles. Same price as supermarket and tastes so, so much better.
This is what we should be doing in the uk and in time I hope we do.
What the supermarkets don’t report is how much home grown pork goes in the bin as un sold or out of date. The news of pigs being slaughtered makes headlines. The truth behind it doesn’t. There is no shortage of pork in the supermarkets.
Supermarkets buy far too much and pay far too little for it. They are crippling large parts of the farming industry.
Milk being a good example.
-
I need to add/correct my earlier statement about your mates business NR, it's not whether he is doing well it's how is brexit effecting it. Is brexit affecting competition? You'd have to look at turnover before brexit separate out the covid effect and look at business now, as the ONS has done recently to show that trade with the EU is down £20bn.
Lack of labour in all areas NR.
-
I asked him that very question. It’s a microcosm of the big picture of course.
I am fully aware that the short term after affects of brexit are having an impact, and not necessarily a positive one.
I’ll re assess things in five years. Not next week.
-
I asked him that very question. It’s a microcosm of the big picture of course.
I am fully aware that the short term after affects of brexit are having an impact, and not necessarily a positive one.
I’ll re assess things in five years. Not next week.
I'm afraid ''short term effects'' as far as trade with the EU is a misnomer there is no short as far as brexit is concerned, there will always be a drag on trade with the UK-EU it cannot be ignored, bypassed or gotten around, the only way to improve future trade with the EU would be a renegotiation.
Trade with the rest of the world could make up deficit but if what has been gained so far I it's not looking the best. And whenever trade deal is done, as with the one with Australia someone will suffer, short term the government are going to subsidise farmers for their losses and that goes on taxes, long term the deal expires and farmers suffer. The public get cheaper meat and wine but pay more taxes.
-
I saw it on the side of a bus ..... Brexit the Forever Tax .......... Vote Tory
-
''Skilled Worker visa Gov.UK''
Overview
Your job
When you can be paid less
If you work in healthcare or education
Knowledge of English
How much it costs
Documents you'll need to apply
Apply from outside the UK
Your partner and children
Extend your visa
Update your visa if you change job or employer
Switch to this visa
Taking on additional work
Overview
A Skilled Worker visa allows you to come to or stay in the UK to do an eligible job with an approved employer.
This visa has replaced the Tier 2 (General) work visa.
If you or your family are from the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein
If you or your family member started living in the UK by 31 December 2020, you may be able to apply to the free EU Settlement Scheme.
The deadline to apply was 30 June 2021 for most people. You can still apply if either:
you have a later deadline - for example, you’re joining a family member in the UK who was living in the UK by 31 December 2020
you have ‘reasonable grounds’ for being unable to apply by 30 June 2021 - for example, you had an illness or were the victim of domestic abuse
Check if you can still apply to the EU Settlement Scheme.
Otherwise you need a visa to work in the UK.
Irish citizens do not need to apply for a visa or to the EU Settlement Scheme.
Eligibility
Your job
To qualify for a Skilled Worker visa, you must:
work for a UK employer that’s been approved by the Home Office
have a ‘certificate of sponsorship’ from your employer with information about the role you’ve been offered in the UK
do a job that’s on the list of eligible occupations
be paid a minimum salary - how much depends on the type of work you do
The specific eligibility depends on your job.
You must have a confirmed job offer before you apply for your visa.
Knowledge of English
You must be able to speak, read, write and understand English. You’ll usually need to prove your knowledge of English when you apply.
If you’re not eligible for a Skilled Worker visa
You may be eligible for another type of visa to work in the UK.
How long you can stay
Your visa can last for up to 5 years before you need to extend it. You’ll need to apply to extend or update your visa when it expires or if you change jobs or employer.
If you want to stay longer in the UK
You can apply to extend your visa as many times as you like as long as you still meet the eligibility requirements.
After 5 years, you may be able to apply to settle permanently in the UK (also known as ‘indefinite leave to remain’). This gives you the right to live, work and study here for as long as you like, and apply for benefits if you’re eligible.
How to apply
You must apply online.
How you apply depends on whether you’re:
outside the UK and are coming to the UK
inside the UK and extending your current visa
inside the UK and switching from a different visa
If you want to change your job or employer, you must apply to update your visa.
You can include your partner and children in your application to stay in the UK if they are eligible.
How long it takes
You can apply for a visa up to 3 months before the day you are due to start work in the UK. This date is listed on your certificate of sponsorship.
As part of your application, you’ll need to prove your identity and provide your documents.
You may need to allow extra time if you need an appointment to do this. You’ll find out if you need one when you start your application.
Getting a decision
Once you’ve applied online, proved your identity and provided your documents, you’ll usually get a decision on your visa within:
3 weeks, if you’re outside the UK
8 weeks, if you’re inside the UK
You may be able to pay to get a faster decision. How you do this depends on whether you’re outside the UK or inside the UK.
How much it costs
You, your partner or children will each need to:
pay the application fee
pay the healthcare surcharge for each year of your stay
prove you have enough personal savings
Check how much money you’ll need.
If you work in public sector healthcare
If you’re a doctor or nurse, or you work in health or adult social care, check if you’re eligible to apply for the Health and Care Worker visa instead. It’s cheaper to apply for and you do not need to pay the annual immigration health surcharge.
What you can and cannot do
With a Skilled Worker visa you can:
work in an eligible job
study
bring your partner and children with you as your ‘dependants’, if they’re eligible
take on additional work in certain circumstances
do voluntary work
travel abroad and return to the UK
apply to settle permanently in the UK (also known as ‘indefinite leave to remain’) if you’ve lived in the UK for 5 years and meet the other eligibility requirements
You cannot:
apply for most benefits (public funds), or the State Pension
change jobs or employer unless you apply to update your visa
If your application is successful, you’ll get a full list of what you can and cannot do with a Skilled Worker visa.
Next
:Your job
View a printable version of the whole guide
Related content
Check if you need a UK visa
Sponsorship: guidance for employers and educators
Applying for a visa to come to the UK
Explore the topic
Work in the UK
Is this page useful?
-
SR you know for someone who supposedly lives the other side of the world you seem to have taken the Brexit situation very much to heart, i don't know how much it affects you currently but its obviously enough to render you into an agitated state with it all.
I'm imagining you must be feeling like someone who voted to stay out of the EEC in 1973 and again in 1975 when the decision was made to stay in the EEC, now i don't know if they were rabid about that decision for the 40 odd years that it was in place, campaigned to reverse it or just settled down to live their life and not fret about something they have no control over.
By all means talk about it and let off your steam but the incredulity looks very strong in this one?
Would bitter and twisted be a correct summary?
-
SR you know for someone who supposedly lives the other side of the world you seem to have taken the Brexit situation very much to heart, i don't know how much it affects you currently but its obviously enough to render you into an agitated state with it all.
I'm imagining you must be feeling like someone who voted to stay out of the EEC in 1973 and again in 1975 when the decision was made to stay in the EEC, now i don't know if they were rabid about that decision for the 40 odd years that it was in place, campaigned to reverse it or just settled down to live their life and not fret about something they have no control over.
By all means talk about it and let off your steam but the incredulity looks very strong in this one?
Would bitter and twisted be a correct summary?
Couldn't be further from the truth DD, I'm just showing what a crap decision it was to elect a government that would do this to the country. They must be Britain haters or have swallowed the biggest con to bring this upon a once great nation. It doesn't make any sense, it never did.
edited
-
Branton.
You are as one with Rees-Mogg in insisting that Brexit's problems are overblown.
You are as one with Gove in proposing to ignore expert opinion when it tells you stuff you do not like.
Your comments ""economic experts are not particularly good" and "I, or you, therefore have just as much chance of making a correct forecast on the economic impact of Brexit as any macroecomic expert" are as ignorant as they are risible. Both could have come straight out of Gove's mouth.
The economics of trade is an extremely well-founded subject with an extremely strong foundation of logical theoretical models which have been generally validated by real world findings. Pretty much every trade economist says that the effect of putting up the sort of barriers to free trade that we are doing with the EU will result in a reduction of GDP of 4-8% compared to the baseline case of if we hadn't left the EU.
Dismissing that out of hand because you don't want to hear it is frankly pathetic. Have a sensible argument why they are wrong, or accept that they are likely to be right.
My comments on the ability of economic experts in making economic predictions are based on scientific studies so not in the least bit ignorant. See Tetlock and Gardner "Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Predictions" the pre-eminent work in this area. This was a case study of 20,000 individuals asking them to make predictions over a period of time. Their findings confirmed previously scientifically verified studies that economists are no better at making economic predictions than well-informed amateurs.
I'm neither ignoring nor dismissing the predictions out of hand but raising legitimate questions against them. Unlike yourself who is accepting these predictions unquestioningly. That is true ignorance.
I do have a sensible argument/question re why they're wrong which you are deliberately choosing not to answer:
"Logically why will the new but relatively tiny border costs to those companies trading with the EU lead to the UK economy being as much as 4-8% smaller than it would have been some point in the future?"
I suppose you're ignoring my pretty fundamental question because, despite passionately supporting the 4-8% prediction, you haven't got a second clue as to how the numbers are arrived at and therefore can't in any meaningful way answer me.
Passionately supporting a supposition, simply because it meets your expectation, but being utterly unable to explain how it is derived. Now that is truly pathetic.
1) On economics in general, you are making a fundamental error. You are conflating forecasting of the detail of the entire economic system with analysis of the effect of a specific mechanism. The former is extremely hard. The latter is far more tractable.
Let me give you an analogy. No meterologist will be able to predict what the weather will be like at Clock Corner at twenty five past three in the afternoon of 17 May 2061. But they do know that if we don't reduce CO2 emissions by then, the average global temperature that year will almost certainly be higher than it would have been if we had reduced emissions.
Because you can separate and quantify the effect of individual mechanisms.
That's what trade economists do when assessing the effect of Brexit. They don't say what GDP will be in 2030 because there are too many unknown factors. But they CAN predict what the likely effect will be on GDP level of our decision to make it much harder to trade with the biggest and richest market in history, on our doorstep.
Now, you might claim that Brexit will open other opportunities which will more than make up for that loss. But if you don't specify what they are, preferring to high handedly dismiss economics, pardon me if I put you in the shelf with Rees-Mogg and Gove. Because that is precisely what they are doing.
2) As far as I can see, there's only you, Farage and Rees-Mogg claiming that the costs of Brexit are "tiny". So excuse me if I pass on engaging with a false hypothesis.
-
Have they caught that great white shark yet?
-
SR you know for someone who supposedly lives the other side of the world you seem to have taken the Brexit situation very much to heart, i don't know how much it affects you currently but its obviously enough to render you into an agitated state with it all.
I'm imagining you must be feeling like someone who voted to stay out of the EEC in 1973 and again in 1975 when the decision was made to stay in the EEC, now i don't know if they were rabid about that decision for the 40 odd years that it was in place, campaigned to reverse it or just settled down to live their life and not fret about something they have no control over.
By all means talk about it and let off your steam but the incredulity looks very strong in this one?
Would bitter and twisted be a correct summary?
Couldn't be further from the truth DD, I'm just showing what a crap decision it was to elect a government that would do this to the country. They must be Britain haters or have swallowed the biggest con to bring this upon a once great nation. It doesn't make any sense, it never did.
edited
……this from a man who left the uk years ago after telling everyone that it was f**ked.
-
And in the meantime last month the world coal miners produced the highest ever tonnage of coal ever for power production, China alone over 3 billion tons, just to upset Greta and Syd.
We must be mad, and will have an argument over one coal mine.
-
SR you know for someone who supposedly lives the other side of the world you seem to have taken the Brexit situation very much to heart, i don't know how much it affects you currently but its obviously enough to render you into an agitated state with it all.
I'm imagining you must be feeling like someone who voted to stay out of the EEC in 1973 and again in 1975 when the decision was made to stay in the EEC, now i don't know if they were rabid about that decision for the 40 odd years that it was in place, campaigned to reverse it or just settled down to live their life and not fret about something they have no control over.
By all means talk about it and let off your steam but the incredulity looks very strong in this one?
Would bitter and twisted be a correct summary?
Couldn't be further from the truth DD, I'm just showing what a crap decision it was to elect a government that would do this to the country. They must be Britain haters or have swallowed the biggest con to bring this upon a once great nation. It doesn't make any sense, it never did.
edited
……this from a man who left the uk years ago after telling everyone that it was f**ked.
Yeah I remember the day he trotted up the South stand stairs and told his buddies that he was leaving and that this country was a dogs dinner. Good riddance I thought but he won't let go, he must hate it over there,having to eek out a living as a Skip rat!
-
He had buddies? poor buggers.
-
Macron has been reported to be having to pump £2billion into EDF after capping energy prices.
Surprising really seeing how they sounded off about government help to the Scunthorpe works.
-
Macron has been reported to be having to pump £2billion into EDF after capping energy prices.
Surprising really seeing how they sounded off about government help to the Scunthorpe works.
It's not a problem Shelby as one of the founding fathers of the EEC the French can do whatever they like!
-
Have they caught that great white shark yet?
They are checking dental records
-
Macron has been reported to be having to pump £2billion into EDF after capping energy prices.
Surprising really seeing how they sounded off about government help to the Scunthorpe works.
re-read the is Donny dangerous thread sellby to see what your party has contributed to the country and see what people think of the town before sounding off about other countries aye?
-
And in the meantime last month the world coal miners produced the highest ever tonnage of coal ever for power production, China alone over 3 billion tons, just to upset Greta and Syd.
We must be mad, and will have an argument over one coal mine.
China's socialist and communist - why do we want to be like China?
China has coal mines - why can't we be like China?
The right-whinger manifesto right there - argue against everything today, pretend you never said it and argue the exact opposite tomorrow - doesn't matter if it's true or not if a bloke/woman with a posh voice says it.
-
who knew!
-
Oops
-
Billy
1) I concede it is easier for economists to assess more specific economic areas due to economic modelling than e.g. you or I.
2) This does not negate the impact of bad forecasting - it exaggerates it. Economists do not possess perfect economic models of the economy they can make an input in to generate a %GDP change output. Each model requires many assumptions (e.g. how much of the cost increase can be passed on in price rises, how will this impact sales, how will higher import costs impact inflation etc etc) i.e. a number of forecasts are required. Bad forecasters' mistakes will multiply - the problem of poor forecasting will be higher.
3) Most economic experts predicted Brexit would lead to a higher rate of unemployment in the short term. The unemployment rate has fallen from 5.0% in June 2016 to 4.1% now. You could argue this is down to other factors but the key event, Covid, despite the furlough scheme, would be expected to increase unemployment. Most of the economic models were wrong.
4) You're proposing an economic forecast (which science shows are often inaccurate) of a hit somewhere in the massive range of 4-8% of GDP, over an indeterminate timeframe, based on economic models (which exaggerate inaccurate forecasting) that have already been shown to be flawed on this subject and you're unable to explain the logic behind this forecast. Oh and I'm pathetic for not accepting you're right!
5) I accept the basic logic that increased border costs, in of themselves, will have an economic hit, I'm just highly sceptical of the scale you're suggesting.
6) I did not state the overall cost of Brexit is tiny. I said the additional costs at the border are relatively tiny (see JD*). Earlier in this thread I estimated the cost of Brexit to Dec 19 to be 2% of GDP* - please point out where Farage/Rees-Mogg have claimed as such.
7) I have calculated/analyzed/made decisions on more economic data than you've had hot dinners in my career - I use economic data all the time (e.g. *s above). Economists are brilliant at assessing historical data which can be used to inform future decisions. They are not great at forecasting. I am not dismissing your economics but questioning it as I would any economic forecast - you are unable to provide answers.
8) I don't need to explain 'opportunities of Brexit' I can simply point to the historical economic data that shows that since the formation of the EU in 1993 to 2019 when we left, the combined economic growth of the 12 original members, and the UK individually, was significantly behind that of every other major developed economy except Japan. A significance that dwarfs your top end 8%. The EU (not EEC) has been comparatively disastrous for the economies of Western Europe. The safest economic prediction is always that long term trends will continue.
This conclusion is based on the science of assessing historical economic information not the dubious art of economic conjecture.
-
''In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit#:~:text=Immediate%20impact%20on%20the%20UK%20economy,-Immediate%20impact%20of&text=Studies%20published%20in%202018%20estimated,by%200.6%25%20and%201.3%25.
Did anyone see this on a bus?
-
''Red Dwarf, Peter Tranter's Sister''
How brexit has duped so many.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhGrSJJZo0s
-
Thatcher if not the biggest but certainly one of them was certainly a cheer leader and more for the creation of the single market .
As far as I'm concerned anytime that women put her name to anything history tells you it was flawed , massively flawed for the vast majority of working people .
50 % of working people give or take fecked it off when given the opportunity .
Unlike GE's there was an alternative to the status quo , the referendum wasn't ring fenced .
Enough took advantage of that and whilst it led to a Johnson government lets be clear we will be out of the EU far longer than Johnson is PM that much I do know .
Yep it's a shyte show at the moment and I've even questioned my own view but it's also a long game too .
We are a pretty resourceful country when our backs are against the wall and I'm sure we will be again .
-
I think many have got passed unicorns and sunny uplands and would settle for a break on the clouds.
-
Thatcher if not the biggest but certainly one of them was certainly a cheer leader and more for the creation of the single market .
As far as I'm concerned anytime that women put her name to anything history tells you it was flawed , massively flawed for the vast majority of working people .
50 % of working people give or take fecked it off when given the opportunity .
Unlike GE's there was an alternative to the status quo , the referendum wasn't ring fenced .
Enough took advantage of that and whilst it led to a Johnson government lets be clear we will be out of the EU far longer than Johnson is PM that much I do know .
Yep it's a shyte show at the moment and I've even questioned my own view but it's also a long game too .
We are a pretty resourceful country when our backs are against the wall and I'm sure we will be again .
''In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario''
How long do you need Tyke?
-
Thatcher if not the biggest but certainly one of them was certainly a cheer leader and more for the creation of the single market .
As far as I'm concerned anytime that women put her name to anything history tells you it was flawed , massively flawed for the vast majority of working people .
50 % of working people give or take fecked it off when given the opportunity .
Unlike GE's there was an alternative to the status quo , the referendum wasn't ring fenced .
Enough took advantage of that and whilst it led to a Johnson government lets be clear we will be out of the EU far longer than Johnson is PM that much I do know .
Yep it's a shyte show at the moment and I've even questioned my own view but it's also a long game too .
We are a pretty resourceful country when our backs are against the wall and I'm sure we will be again .
''In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario''
How long do you need Tyke?
I suppose the significant difference between us is that whilst you post links to this that and the other from publications that tell you what you want to hear .
Others possibly have real life experience and voted accordingly when they were given the opportunity .
It would appear that over 50% had real life experience as oppose to reading The Guardian online in Australia .
Real life tends to play out at the ballot box and despite its obvious critics is pretty much final and even more so in a referendum as oppose to the rigged electoral system we have in the UK .
If the EU was that great to enough of the electorate we'd still be in it .
Hmm the ballot box says different but if you want to slide up to the ghost of Thatcher then knock yourself out cobber .
-
Thatcher if not the biggest but certainly one of them was certainly a cheer leader and more for the creation of the single market .
As far as I'm concerned anytime that women put her name to anything history tells you it was flawed , massively flawed for the vast majority of working people .
50 % of working people give or take fecked it off when given the opportunity .
Unlike GE's there was an alternative to the status quo , the referendum wasn't ring fenced .
Enough took advantage of that and whilst it led to a Johnson government lets be clear we will be out of the EU far longer than Johnson is PM that much I do know .
Yep it's a shyte show at the moment and I've even questioned my own view but it's also a long game too .
We are a pretty resourceful country when our backs are against the wall and I'm sure we will be again .
''In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario''
How long do you need Tyke?
I suppose the significant difference between us is that whilst you post links to this that and the other from publications that tell you what you want to hear .
Others possibly have real life experience and voted accordingly when they were given the opportunity .
It would appear that over 50% had real life experience as oppose to reading The Guardian online in Australia .
Real life tends to play out at the ballot box and despite its obvious critics is pretty much final and even more so in a referendum as oppose to the rigged electoral system we have in the UK .
If the EU was that great to enough of the electorate we'd still be in it .
Hmm the ballot box says different but if you want to slide up to the ghost of Thatcher then knock yourself out cobber .
Yes we know the tories are good if not great at marketing, just look at whom they sucked in? What does your life experience tell you about hmmm ..... let's think about the some of the twaddle from the 'ideas factory' oh yes how is the Northern Powerhouse trip going? coupled of course with 'big society' wouldn't that sort of make 'levelling up' a bit redundant?
A man went to the bank for a business loan .................. Ah yes animal husbandry I think was the plan Mr Public?
Yes yes, I'm thinking of a breeding establishment that will not only create jobs but generate wealth for everyone.
And you have taken into consideration a massive stud already established just across the canal Joe, you don't mind if I call you Joe?
No, no I've looked into it all here is my business plan ...............
Oh, unicorns ............... a 15 year gestation period is a tad long don't you think Joe?
-
In the interests of balance, some encouraging news on how Brexit is stimulating pursuit of non-EU markets:
https://www.rsmuk.com/ideas-and-insights/brexit-encourages-uk-pursue-international-markets-outside-eu
-
In the interests of balance, some encouraging news on how Brexit is stimulating pursuit of non-EU markets:
https://www.rsmuk.com/ideas-and-insights/brexit-encourages-uk-pursue-international-markets-outside-eu
It's all good, in fact the more the better BH, but I'd have thought a company like RSM would have been able to put a number on it though.
-
I suppose the significant difference between us is that whilst you post links to this that and the other from publications that tell you what you want to hear .
Others possibly have real life experience and voted accordingly when they were given the opportunity .
It would appear that over 50% had real life experience as oppose to reading The Guardian online in Australia .
Real life tends to play out at the ballot box and despite its obvious critics is pretty much final and even more so in a referendum as oppose to the rigged electoral system we have in the UK .
If the EU was that great to enough of the electorate we'd still be in it .
Hmm the ballot box says different but if you want to slide up to the ghost of Thatcher then knock yourself out cobber .
What actual 'real-life' experiences of the EU did you have Tyke? Not the political choices of the UK government - but the EU?
We know now that what Johnson, Farage and the like were promising as benefits of the leaving were false, just made up lies, so there must have been something else?
Brexit was a project enacted by millionaires on behalf of billionaires to reduce regulation protecting workers and ordinary people's lives - so they could make more money and pass on less to you.
Take for example clean water. In your youth the beaches, rivers and canals in the UK were filty due to UK government policy. The EU passed regulation to clean up waterways and beaches. On leaving the Johnson government scrapped this and now allows unlimited dumping or raw sewage, without penalty, anywhere. Beaches, canals and rivers are once again filthy.
It's a fantasy tyke, you bought a right-wing Tory unicorn. We have to make the best of it, but that wont happen until you (and others) stop insisiting unicorns exist.
-
Or maybe this real life experience:
I've just noticed a new benefit of Brexit in Tesco, all oranges had on their label "treated with Imazalil"
The use of this chemical is banned in the EU as it exerts a high inflammatory potential & causes leukocytosis.
Small amounts are dangerous as it accumulates in organs
https://twitter.com/MikeEllis132/status/1494386788827377665
Lower food standards mean greater profits for the shareholders at mulitnationals - with greater risk to workers who produce them and people who eat them.
-
Branton.
I see there's no shifting you on accepting economic prediction on the effect of putting up trade barriers.
So how about evidence of what HAS happened.
The OBR calculates that, by August last year, the effect of Brexit had been to reduce our trade with the EU by 15.8%.
https://obr.uk/box/the-initial-impact-of-brexit-on-uk-trade-with-the-eu/
You still insistent on sticking to the line that the costs are tiny?
-
''In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit#:~:text=Immediate%20impact%20on%20the%20UK%20economy,-Immediate%20impact%20of&text=Studies%20published%20in%202018%20estimated,by%200.6%25%20and%201.3%25.
Did anyone see this on a bus?
Interesting that wiki is now considered to be gospel.
You do realise that anyone can write stuff in there.
-
Branton.
I see there's no shifting you on accepting economic prediction on the effect of putting up trade barriers.
So how about evidence of what HAS happened.
The OBR calculates that, by August last year, the effect of Brexit had been to reduce our trade with the EU by 15.8%.
https://obr.uk/box/the-initial-impact-of-brexit-on-uk-trade-with-the-eu/
You still insistent on sticking to the line that the costs are tiny?
Billy
Stop misquoting me to repeat myself "I did not state the overall cost of Brexit is tiny. I said the additional costs at the border are relatively tiny (see JD Sports). Earlier in this thread I estimated the cost of Brexit to Dec 19 to be 2% of GDP." 2% is not tiny.
I'd be more willing to consider the credibility of your quoted economic predictions if you could describe how they were derived and what assumptions underlie them.
As for your OBR article. 2 major problems: -
1) Your 15.8% is not calculated by the OBR but by the Centre of European Reform who per their web site are based in London and are "devoted to making the EU work better, and strengthening its role in the world. We are pro-European". So hardly politically neutral then.
2) It's only comparing the first 8 months of 2021 v 2019. January 21 EU exports were down 45% due to the new rules being introduced. Dec 20 EU exports however were unusually high (2nd highest since March 19). Clearly business' were understandably getting exports in before the new rules arrived (the same appears to have happened in Dec 21). No such pattern in non-EU exports. The data being compared is therefore skewed.
Comparing the whole of 2021 to 2019 i.e. pre-pandemic using ONS data:
- EU exports were 11.1% lower www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/fsl4/mret
- Non-EU exports were 14.0% lower www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/fsl7/mret
Please point out the Brexit hit.
I suggest you investigate and corroborate your data before sharing it on here and asking me to comment on it. Because you can be damned sure I will and I don't particularly like showing people up.
You still insistent on sticking to the line that Brexit will cause GDP to fall by as much as 8%?!
-
Brexit Benefits so far seem only -
"reintroduced our iconic blue passports" (could have been done in the EU anyway) and "enabling businesses to use a crown stamp symbol on pint glasses" – which were also never banned by the EU.
The latest figures show that UK exports to the EU have fallen by £20 billion since Brexit. Those are some expensive passports and pint glasses.
-
Brexit Benefits so far seem only -
"reintroduced our iconic blue passports" (could have been done in the EU anyway) and "enabling businesses to use a crown stamp symbol on pint glasses" – which were also never banned by the EU.
The latest figures show that UK exports to the EU have fallen by £20 billion since Brexit. Those are some expensive passports and pint glasses.
It's £19bn actually comparing 2021 to 2019 or a fall of 11.1% in EU exports.
Comparing 2021 non-EU exports with 2019 they have fallen £26bn or 14.0%.
Clearly all exports have fallen significantly due to Covid but given the 11.1% v 14.0% comparison above please explain how you can possibly blame any of that £19bn fall on Brexit.
-
Branton.
I see there's no shifting you on accepting economic prediction on the effect of putting up trade barriers.
So how about evidence of what HAS happened.
The OBR calculates that, by August last year, the effect of Brexit had been to reduce our trade with the EU by 15.8%.
https://obr.uk/box/the-initial-impact-of-brexit-on-uk-trade-with-the-eu/
You still insistent on sticking to the line that the costs are tiny?
Billy
Stop misquoting me to repeat myself "I did not state the overall cost of Brexit is tiny. I said the additional costs at the border are relatively tiny (see JD Sports). Earlier in this thread I estimated the cost of Brexit to Dec 19 to be 2% of GDP." 2% is not tiny.
I'd be more willing to consider the credibility of your quoted economic predictions if you could describe how they were derived and what assumptions underlie them.
As for your OBR article. 2 major problems: -
1) Your 15.8% is not calculated by the OBR but by the Centre of European Reform who per their web site are based in London and are "devoted to making the EU work better, and strengthening its role in the world. We are pro-European". So hardly politically neutral then.
2) It's only comparing the first 8 months of 2021 v 2019. January 21 EU exports were down 45% due to the new rules being introduced. Dec 20 EU exports however were unusually high (2nd highest since March 19). Clearly business' were understandably getting exports in before the new rules arrived (the same appears to have happened in Dec 21). No such pattern in non-EU exports. The data being compared is therefore skewed.
Comparing the whole of 2021 to 2019 i.e. pre-pandemic using ONS data:
- EU exports were 11.1% lower www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/fsl4/mret
- Non-EU exports were 14.0% lower www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/fsl7/mret
Please point out the Brexit hit.
I suggest you investigate and corroborate your data before sharing it on here and asking me to comment on it. Because you can be damned sure I will and I don't particularly like showing people up.
You still insistent on sticking to the line that Brexit will cause GDP to fall by as much as 8%?!
Another lie or another error BST?
-
Ldr
To be fair to Billy (or BST) I don't for a second think he's lying.
Brexit is an emotive issue for some and they have deeply held views - on both sides. Nothing wrong with that.
The problem Billy and others have is that they suffer from something psychologists call Confirmation Bias
They see an article supporting their view, think "I knew I was right!" and share it/discuss it etc without checking the facts behind it.
Where (as in this case) we're talking easily verifiable historical economic data, because they've not double-checked their sources, they can so easily be made to look rather silly by someone that does do those checks afterward.
PS Great avatar btw - I remember seeing that happen
-
Brexit Benefits so far seem only -
"reintroduced our iconic blue passports" (could have been done in the EU anyway) and "enabling businesses to use a crown stamp symbol on pint glasses" – which were also never banned by the EU.
The latest figures show that UK exports to the EU have fallen by £20 billion since Brexit. Those are some expensive passports and pint glasses.
It's £19bn actually comparing 2021 to 2019 or a fall of 11.1% in EU exports.
Comparing 2021 non-EU exports with 2019 they have fallen £26bn or 14.0%.
Clearly all exports have fallen significantly due to Covid but given the 11.1% v 14.0% comparison above please explain how you can possibly blame any of that £19bn fall on Brexit.
You sure that 14% is correct Branton - is that not all exports rather than Non-EU?
Here the fall from ONS figures comparing 2021 - 2018 is
EU - £20 billion or 12%
Non-EU - £10 billion or 6%
The EU export figures would have been worse if it were not for the rise in gas exports. Big falls in many retail/consumer goods.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/december2021
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/11/uk-exports-to-eu-fell-by-20bn-last-year-new-ons-data-shows
-
Hi Wilts
Yes I'm sure
Check the figures on the links I provided.
The Guardian are comparing to 2018 levels not 2019. I assume for political expediency. There was a large rise in non-EU exports between 2018 and 2019 (6%) which they dismiss by quoting a year earlier.
The Guardian also state non-EU exports fell £10bn or 6% vs 2018 - this is incorrect it's £15bn and 9%.
Like I said always double check the sources you quote :)
-
Or maybe this real life experience:
I've just noticed a new benefit of Brexit in Tesco, all oranges had on their label "treated with Imazalil"
The use of this chemical is banned in the EU as it exerts a high inflammatory potential & causes leukocytosis.
Small amounts are dangerous as it accumulates in organs
https://twitter.com/MikeEllis132/status/1494386788827377665
Lower food standards mean greater profits for the shareholders at mulitnationals - with greater risk to workers who produce them and people who eat them.
Worth reading down the thread, it's an incorrect assumption.
It is not banned in the EU nor is it in the UK where the exact same rules are in place.
Perhaps we should go further on the standard as a brexit benefit?
-
As I've said you can all quote and link what ever you want to endorse what you want to read it much doesn't matter to me .
The single market was a part Thatcher creation and fully endorsed by that women .
That's a solid fact and you navigate yourselves around that fact all you want but it's still fact .
Anytime anybody who puts their name to anything Thatcher had a hand in should probably have a deep look in to what it is they actually stand for .
But hey ho it's better to be Thatcher with a red rosette on ?
Ain't that the truth .
-
As I've said you can all quote and link what ever you want to endorse what you want to read it much doesn't matter to me .
The single market was a part Thatcher creation and fully endorsed by that women .
That's a solid fact and you navigate yourselves around that fact all you want but it's still fact .
Anytime anybody who puts their name to anything Thatcher had a hand in should probably have a deep look in to what it is they actually stand for .
But hey ho it's better to be Thatcher with a red rosette on ?
Ain't that the truth .
when did you find out the guardian was run by a trust and has a charter tyke and not owned by billionaires .................... do you require reminding each week?
-
As I've said you can all quote and link what ever you want to endorse what you want to read it much doesn't matter to me .
The single market was a part Thatcher creation and fully endorsed by that women .
That's a solid fact and you navigate yourselves around that fact all you want but it's still fact .
Anytime anybody who puts their name to anything Thatcher had a hand in should probably have a deep look in to what it is they actually stand for .
But hey ho it's better to be Thatcher with a red rosette on ?
Ain't that the truth .
when did you find out the guardian was run by a trust and has a charter tyke and not owned by billionaires .................... do you require reminding each week?
Unfortunately your weak straw man attempt will bear no fruit with the likes of me Sydney .
Try and at least to debate my point that was presented to you .
Everything that's wrong with this country started in 1979 and we've ended up here as a consequence .
Just for the record can you place any other Thatcher policies that you enthusiastically endorsed ?
In the interests of balance of course .
-
Brexit Benefits so far seem only -
"reintroduced our iconic blue passports" (could have been done in the EU anyway) and "enabling businesses to use a crown stamp symbol on pint glasses" – which were also never banned by the EU.
The latest figures show that UK exports to the EU have fallen by £20 billion since Brexit. Those are some expensive passports and pint glasses.
It's £19bn actually comparing 2021 to 2019 or a fall of 11.1% in EU exports.
Comparing 2021 non-EU exports with 2019 they have fallen £26bn or 14.0%.
Clearly all exports have fallen significantly due to Covid but given the 11.1% v 14.0% comparison above please explain how you can possibly blame any of that £19bn fall on Brexit.
Because UK goods are now much more expensive to EU customers, and they will now buy from cheaper suppliers inside the Single Market. It is that simple.
-
The guardian which you constantly rail against, run by the Scott trust since 1936 and abides by a ethical and editorial independence code, born out of the Peterloo massacre which up until a matter of weeks ago you thought was owned by billionaires Tyke.
the world according to garp
-
Brexit Benefits so far seem only -
&quot;reintroduced our iconic blue passports&quot; (could have been done in the EU anyway) and &quot;enabling businesses to use a crown stamp symbol on pint glasses&quot; – which were also never banned by the EU.
The latest figures show that UK exports to the EU have fallen by £20 billion since Brexit. Those are some expensive passports and pint glasses.
It's £19bn actually comparing 2021 to 2019 or a fall of 11.1% in EU exports.
Comparing 2021 non-EU exports with 2019 they have fallen £26bn or 14.0%.
Clearly all exports have fallen significantly due to Covid but given the 11.1% v 14.0% comparison above please explain how you can possibly blame any of that £19bn fall on Brexit.
Because UK goods are now much more expensive to EU customers, and they will now buy from cheaper suppliers inside the Single Market. It is that simple.
Also, here's a thing.
The exports of Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands (I got bored searching after those first 5) are all at levels as high or higher than they were before COVID. Ours are very much lower.
Which is why the report that the OBR quoted (hands up: my mistake, it wasn't the OBR's own work) compares our trend to a datum based on the trends of similar countries, rather than taking our own figures in isolation.
Unfortunately, Branton, despite his clear intelligence, does the Zeitgeist thing of off handedly ignoring that analysis because it comes from the other side.
Then he says I suffer from confirmation bias.
Hey ho...
-
A band of desperados picking over the carcass of a dead cat looking for infinitesimally small advantages of brexit that disappear as smoke under scrutiny.
The main fact remains, the wealthiest bloc in the world sits on the opposite bank and brexit has just put up barriers to that market.
The other side to brexit will be longer term, unfortunately they won't be benefits, but will be the dismantling of protections of everything from the environment to workers rights.
-
As I've said you can all quote and link what ever you want to endorse what you want to read it much doesn't matter to me .
The single market was a part Thatcher creation and fully endorsed by that women .
That's a solid fact and you navigate yourselves around that fact all you want but it's still fact .
Anytime anybody who puts their name to anything Thatcher had a hand in should probably have a deep look in to what it is they actually stand for .
But hey ho it's better to be Thatcher with a red rosette on ?
Ain't that the truth .
I’m a bit confused Tyke; you’re a Conservative that opposes Thatcher? Or. Conservative that voted for Boris, who was always a remainer until it suited his political ambitions? Which Conservative leader did you vote for who held similar political views at their core? I’m not having a go I’m just curious.
Also what personal, tangible, benefits have you or this country gained from leaving the EU? and what, honestly, do you think the detrimental impacts have been?
-
Hi Wilts
Yes I'm sure
Check the figures on the links I provided.
The Guardian are comparing to 2018 levels not 2019. I assume for political expediency. There was a large rise in non-EU exports between 2018 and 2019 (6%) which they dismiss by quoting a year earlier.
The Guardian also state non-EU exports fell £10bn or 6% vs 2018 - this is incorrect it's £15bn and 9%.
Like I said always double check the sources you quote :)
Thanks Branton, will do. I just presumed you had taken your figures from the offical ONS stats - where the Guardian say their figures are from.
Looking at the ONS figures in the link, for me the thing that jumps out most are not the exports, which are fairly flat, but the big jump in Non-EU imports from Sept onwards. So we are exporting less but importing more.
-
Wilts
To be clear my figures are from ONS stats see below extract from my earlier post to BST
"Comparing the whole of 2021 to 2019 i.e. pre-pandemic using ONS data:
- EU exports were 11.1% lower www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/fsl4/mret
- Non-EU exports were 14.0% lower www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/fsl7/mret
Please point out the Brexit hit."
-
Branton.
You are looking at the UK in isolation.
You need to ask yourself the question:
Why have total exports and imports risen back to pre-pandemic levels in every major EU economy, and USA and China, but are still well below them in the UK?
Occam's Razor suggests that we should look to first order big factors first. The key first order difference between the UK and the rest of the world is that we alone put up major trade barriers with a key partner. Maybe that has had wider implications for our ability to trade full stop. For example, in taking up customs paperwork processing capacity? In reducing key imports that are required for incorporation into things that we would then export to the rest of the world?
I don't know. But what I do know is that we in the UK are globally unique in the hit that we've had. And you won't see that if you insist on ignoring global data.
The fact that we alone of the major global economies are not trading as strongly as before with BOTH the EU and the rest of the world is not evidence that the Brexit effect has been negligible.
-
May I suggest you consider the numbers in the table at the bottom of page 2 here, Branton?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/151969.htm&ved=2ahUKEwjq6LfamI72AhVZi1wKHaqQBdMQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3h6gUBwJanQ0JY89yYAkYF
Apologies that it only refers to the difference between 2020 and 2021, but that's all I've been able to find while dealing with a roof leak.
PS.
In the interests of being fair and transparent, I should bring attention to this note in that documents.
"As of January 2021 onwards, data on trade with the United Kingdom is based on a mixed concept. In application of the Withdrawal Agreement Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland, for trade with Northern Ireland the statistical concepts applicable are the same as those for trade between Member States while for trade with the United Kingdom (excluding Northern Ireland) the same statistical concepts are applicable as for trade with any other extra-EU partner country.
For these reasons data on trade with the United Kingdom are not fully comparable with data on trade with other extra-EU trade partners, and for reference periods before and after the end of 2020."
However, it would stretch credibility to imagine that the massive difference in EU trade with the UK compared to EU trade with everywhere else could be explained, even in reasonably large part, by NI-Eire trade now being not classed as UK-EU trade.
-
Wilts
To be clear my figures are from ONS stats see below extract from my earlier post to BST
"Comparing the whole of 2021 to 2019 i.e. pre-pandemic using ONS data:
- EU exports were 11.1% lower www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/fsl4/mret
- Non-EU exports were 14.0% lower www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/fsl7/mret
Please point out the Brexit hit."
Yes thanks Branton
These are the graphs from the ONS figures. As I said whilst exports have pretty much flatlined, what jumps out to me is the rise in Non-EU imports.
Presumably thats a Brexit benefit?
-
Yes thanks Branton
These are the graphs from the ONS figures. As I said whilst exports have pretty much flatlined, what jumps out to me is the rise in Non-EU imports.
Presumably thats a Brexit benefit?
I agree Wilts. There has been a clear shift away from importing from the EU towards importing from outside the EU since the transition period. Yet we don't have a particularly different inflation rate compared to other countries. So I'm not sure if it's an economic benefit/cost or not?
Probably not great for our carbon footprint mind.
-
It's £19bn actually comparing 2021 to 2019 or a fall of 11.1% in EU exports.
Comparing 2021 non-EU exports with 2019 they have fallen £26bn or 14.0%.
Clearly all exports have fallen significantly due to Covid but given the 11.1% v 14.0% comparison above please explain how you can possibly blame any of that £19bn fall on Brexit.
Because UK goods are now much more expensive to EU customers, and they will now buy from cheaper suppliers inside the Single Market. It is that simple.
I understand that concept Glyn. The question though is why have exports fallen to non-EU countries by a higher amount as they shouldn't be more expensive to the non-EU customers?
-
Also, here's a thing.
The exports of Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands (I got bored searching after those first 5) are all at levels as high or higher than they were before COVID. Ours are very much lower.
Which is why the report that the OBR quoted (hands up: my mistake, it wasn't the OBR's own work) compares our trend to a datum based on the trends of similar countries, rather than taking our own figures in isolation.
Unfortunately, Branton, despite his clear intelligence, does the Zeitgeist thing of off handedly ignoring that analysis because it comes from the other side.
Then he says I suffer from confirmation bias.
Hey ho...
Thanks Billy. Not sure you can avoid an accusation of confirmation bias for checking numbers after someone has questioned you on them ;)
The CER explanation of how their numbers were derived defeated even my intelligence I'm afraid. Hence my scepticism. I don't trust unverifiable data esp from obviously biased sources. I therefore still don't trust their 15.8% - their figure from 1 month later jumped to 11.2% just for info.
However you've gone further than I did re checking the trade of other countries so fair play to you. This at least gives credence to the fact that Brexit has had an impact on trade. Plus has given me pause for thought.
I was (and still am) surprised that non-EU exports have fallen more than EU exports. Prima facie suggesting little to no Brexit impact.
To be clear I did expect some impact on Brexit on trade (and therefore GDP) and this to be higher immediately after new rules were introduced - hence my surprise. I just don't (and still don't*) anticipate anywhere near the 4-8% you're putting forward - and unable to explain. Scepticism of unverifiable data from an obviously biased (no offence) source again.
I don't think the higher fall in non-EU exports can be dismissed out of hand. I get there would be some knock on effect on them from these new rules - but to such an extent that they fall more than EU exports, which are directly effected, defies credibility.
Clearly something else is going on here on the non-EU export side which may or may not have impacted EU exports too. I've no idea what though.
* The OBR reckon Brexit will reduce trade long-term 15% leading to 4% lower GDP. My thoughts are EU trade will pick up again once business'/government agencies get used to administering the new rules. I might be wrong. Even the CER only have the impact on trade currently at 11.2%. On this basis I still can't believe your 4-8%. Sorry.
-
Would 50,000 extra civil servants make us less efficient, who pays for that? One would expect that to be inflationary.
-
Here's an estimate of costs
''British business faces £7bn red tape bill under Brexit border plan
Government’s ‘new start’ will generate 215m customs declarations a year and need 50,000 extra customs agents''
''
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/fbc6f191-6d69-4dcb-b374-0fa6e48a9a1e
Mr Gove has not disputed industry estimates that some 50,000 new private sector customs agents will have to be hired by business to deal with formalities at the UK-EU border — regardless of whether the two sides reach a trade deal.
The cabinet minister was speaking on the day the government launched an upbeat advertising campaign to prepare the country for the end of the Brexit transition deal on January 1, under the strapline: “UK’s new start — let’s get going”''
https://www.ft.com/content/fbc6f191-6d69-4dcb-b374-0fa6e48a9a1e
-
It's £19bn actually comparing 2021 to 2019 or a fall of 11.1% in EU exports.
Comparing 2021 non-EU exports with 2019 they have fallen £26bn or 14.0%.
Clearly all exports have fallen significantly due to Covid but given the 11.1% v 14.0% comparison above please explain how you can possibly blame any of that £19bn fall on Brexit.
Because UK goods are now much more expensive to EU customers, and they will now buy from cheaper suppliers inside the Single Market. It is that simple.
I understand that concept Glyn. The question though is why have exports fallen to non-EU countries by a higher amount as they shouldn't be more expensive to the non-EU customers?
Because we threw away free trade deals with about 60 non-EU countries that the EU has and we decided we didn't want any more and so out exports to those countries are now more expensive than they were before too. It is that simple.
And no, that wasn't the question. The question was 'how you can possibly blame any of that £19bn fall on Brexit' , so don't try to change the question when the very simple explanation that you didn't take into consideration is pointed out to you.
Or perhaps the real question is why you say that non-EU exports are falling when the latest official figures show that they've stayed the same against a rise of 7.4% to the EU.
-
Hey Glynn
I honestly wasn't trying to change the question - just re-phrase it.
The vast majority of our non-EU trade relates to countries which didn't have a trade deal previously, inc the US and China our biggest non-EU trade partners, and some trade deals we had with the EU have been rolled over.
Therefore if Brexit is the main reason, after Covid, for exports in total falling you'd expect EU exports to fall more than non-EU exports (probably quite significantly).
It's the other way round.
This in of itself suggests Brexit isn't the key driver behind exports falling - again other than Covid.
So 'how can you blame the fall in EU exports on Brexit?' equates to 'why have non-EU exports fallen more?'
It's a real conundrum whether you believe Brexit is the main driver, after Covid, or not.
-
Branton.
Wilts gave a bit of a clue as to why our EU exports haven't fallen relative to our non-EU exports. We export a lot of North Sea oil and gas to the EU. Not so much to the rest of the world. Those exports have gone up markedly in value over the past year. I'm sure that doesn't account for the whole story, but it will be at not insignificant part.
-
Branton.
Wilts gave a bit of a clue as to why our EU exports haven't fallen relative to our non-EU exports. We export a lot of North Sea oil and gas to the EU. Not so much to the rest of the world. Those exports have gone up markedly in value over the past year. I'm sure that doesn't account for the whole story, but it will be at not insignificant part.
It's a good call for some of the difference at least
-
Yes thanks Branton
These are the graphs from the ONS figures. As I said whilst exports have pretty much flatlined, what jumps out to me is the rise in Non-EU imports.
Presumably thats a Brexit benefit?
I agree Wilts. There has been a clear shift away from importing from the EU towards importing from outside the EU since the transition period. Yet we don't have a particularly different inflation rate compared to other countries. So I'm not sure if it's an economic benefit/cost or not?
Probably not great for our carbon footprint mind.
But the graphs are not showing that, imports from the EU are flat-lined, haven't changed, but non-EU imports have risen. To me that says something we once made at home is now being imported from abroad. Someone will have to dig down further into the figures to see what that is and why the big change?
What it certainly hasn't lead to are cheaper prices that were supposed to be another benefit of Brexit.
-
Yes thanks Branton
These are the graphs from the ONS figures. As I said whilst exports have pretty much flatlined, what jumps out to me is the rise in Non-EU imports.
Presumably thats a Brexit benefit?
I agree Wilts. There has been a clear shift away from importing from the EU towards importing from outside the EU since the transition period. Yet we don't have a particularly different inflation rate compared to other countries. So I'm not sure if it's an economic benefit/cost or not?
Probably not great for our carbon footprint mind.
But the graphs are not showing that, imports from the EU are flat-lined, have hardly changed, but non-EU imports have risen. To me that says something we once made at home is now being imported from abroad. Someone will have to dig down further into the figures to see what that is and why the big change?
What it certainly hasn't lead to are cheaper prices that were supposed to be another benefit of Brexit.
-
Wilts
Figures 1st those based on your graphs of imports of goods: -
EU goods imports 2021: Down 17.6% on 2019
Non-EU goods imports 2021: Up 8.2%
Total goods imports: Down 5.9%
UK manufacturing output 2021: Down 2.7% on 2019 per ONS www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/timeseries/k22a/diop
Comparing apples with pears a little here as the goods imports will include things not manufactured e.g fruit/veg
But UK manufacturing has recovered better from Covid than total goods imports. And there has been a shift from EU to non-EU goods imports.
To be expected as if you're buying something from the EU and the price increases/it gets more administratively difficult to source due to Brexit you may decide to buy from elsewhere so either a UK or non-EU business.
Positive: More work for UK manufacturers; Negative: higher prices - though again no sign we've got any higher inflation than other countries so far.
-
Branton
Look at the increase in non-EU fuel imports to the UK. That massively skews the overall non-EU import figure.
The big picture seems to be that we are importing and exporting less from/to the EU than before, and neither imports not exports from/to non-EU countries have made up the difference. Which seems like a major cause for concern.
-
According to the ONS report the rise in Non-EU imports is down to fuel. Our export to the EU of course also include fuel - as explained in the gas price thread.
How this relates to British manufacturing/farming, I guess we will see in the years to come. But they now face greater costs selling goods to their closest markets - I doubt thats a good thing for anyone.
To clarify they are not my graphs, they are the graphs in the ONS report
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/december2021
-
Here's an interesting graph on UK imports from a non-EU country
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/imports/russia#:~:text=United%20Kingdom%20Imports%20from%20Russia%20was%20US%2424.5%20Billion%20during,updated%20on%20February%20of%202022.&text=Base%20metals%20not%20specified%20elsewhere%2C%20cermets.
-
Cheers Wilts sorry just meant yours as in the graphs you put up.
I'll clarify too that my previous stats were for the whole of 2019 and 2021.
If you take off imports of fuels it makes little general difference to the annual 2019 v 2021 import trends. The increase in non-EU fuels only really started to kick in from August. Though they've doubled over the second half of the year - causing our inflation.
Anyhow for completeness goods imports excluding fuel: -
EU goods imports 2021: Down 18.2% on 2019
Non-EU goods imports 2021: Up 6.6%
Total goods imports: Down 7.9%
So I'll stick with my initial analysis: -
UK manufacturing output 2021: Down 2.7% on 2019 per ONS www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/timeseries/k22a/diop
Comparing apples with pears a little here as the goods imports will include things not manufactured e.g fruit/veg
But UK manufacturing has recovered better from Covid than total goods imports. And there has been a shift from EU to non-EU goods imports.
To be expected as if you're buying something from the EU and the price increases/it gets more administratively difficult to source due to Brexit you may decide to buy from elsewhere so either a UK or non-EU business.
Positive: More work for UK manufacturers; Negative: higher prices - though again no sign we've got any higher inflation than other countries so far.
-
Here's an interesting graph on UK imports from a non-EU country
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/imports/russia#:~:text=United%20Kingdom%20Imports%20from%20Russia%20was%20US%2424.5%20Billion%20during,updated%20on%20February%20of%202022.&text=Base%20metals%20not%20specified%20elsewhere%2C%20cermets.
Here's another boring meaningless post from the Skip Rat!
-
Here's an interesting graph on UK imports from a non-EU country
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/imports/russia#:~:text=United%20Kingdom%20Imports%20from%20Russia%20was%20US%2424.5%20Billion%20during,updated%20on%20February%20of%202022.&text=Base%20metals%20not%20specified%20elsewhere%2C%20cermets.
Here's another boring meaningless post from the Skip Rat!
You're not interested in how the UK interacts with the world sprot?
-
Can you see the wall paper for the graphs in your house Syd?
-
Thanks Branton, been an interesting discussion. I dont think there is much more to say at the moment - but I am sure we will be coming back to this topic reguarly in the months/years to come. I do hope your positive outlook is justified even though I am not seeing it myself.
Tho if it kicks off in Ukraine/Russia big time then all current financal analyses are going to be meaningless.
-
Cheers Wilts. I wouldn't say I was positive just not so negative as others. I voted leave to regain democratic powers at the ballot box. I knew there would be a negative economic impact, at least short term, but at a level that for me was a price worth paying. I never thought the negative impact would be as bad as the Remain side campaigned on, think I'm justified in that thought today, and still don't believe the negative impact will be as bad as is being predicted. Time will tell.
Ta
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
Which laws that we were forced to accept or stopped from passing by being in the EU particularly upset you?
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
Which laws that we were forced to accept or stopped from passing by being in the EU particularly upset you?
I bet a pound that he wanted bent cucumbers
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
What’s your view on giving Scotland a vote on independence?
-
Let them have it, also reunite Ireland
-
You can't go giving people what they want, that's not democratic! :silly:
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
What’s your view on giving Scotland a vote on independence?
Democracy and the right to self-determination go hand in hand.
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
What’s your view on giving Scotland a vote on independence?
Democracy and the right to self-determination go hand in hand.
But has little t do with brexit
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
Which laws that we were forced to accept or stopped from passing by being in the EU particularly upset you?
Sorry democracy is the key to our freedom, our happiness and our prosperity. Anyone with any inkling of political and economic history would recognise this.
Anybody who believes in any of the above 3 should be upset at any diminution of our democratic rights.
For the record to answer your question: VAT, farming subsidies, government procurement, government subsidies, loss of independence in trade deals - for a start. None of these being the least bit of small importance.
I'll remind you what I said earlier "since the formation of the EU in 1993 to 2019 when we left, the combined economic growth of the 12 original members, and the UK individually, was significantly behind that of every other major developed economy except Japan." Want to disagree with this?
How much of our democratic rights do you think it's acceptable to hand over to the meritocratic, power-hungry (ever closer union), woefully long-term underperforming economically European Union?
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
What’s your view on giving Scotland a vote on independence?
Democracy and the right to self-determination go hand in hand.
So are you against the Conservatives refusal to allow Scotland to be self determining?
-
Branton.
Forgive me for not answering your points directly at the moment, but there's a bit of clarification required.
1) Are you talking about the growth of GDP, or GDP per capita?
2) Do you agree with the UK remaining in NATO?
-
A vote for Brexit was a vote for Putin to invade Ukraine because it weakened the Western alliance and emboldened Putin. Putin’s people engineered this by bankrolling the Conservative Party and the Brexit campaign, which is why Johnson has hidden the Russia Report.
-
A vote for Brexit was a vote for Putin to invade Ukraine because it weakened the Western alliance and emboldened Putin. Putin’s people engineered this by bankrolling the Conservative Party and the Brexit campaign, which is why Johnson has hidden the Russia Report.
It’s worse than that; they interfered with out election as identified in the report upon such; the report boris refused to publish before the election and then redacted before its eventual publishing after it. Boris is in bed with Putin.
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
What’s your view on giving Scotland a vote on independence?
Democracy and the right to self-determination go hand in hand.
So are you against the Conservatives refusal to allow Scotland to be self determining?
1. They had a "once in a generation" vote not long ago.
2. Is it the right of Scots or people living in Scotland? Two very different things.
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
What’s your view on giving Scotland a vote on independence?
Democracy and the right to self-determination go hand in hand.
So are you against the Conservatives refusal to allow Scotland to be self determining?
1. They had a "once in a generation" vote not long ago.
2. Is it the right of Scots or people living in Scotland? Two very different things.
The Scottish never said it should be a once in a generation vote; the conservatives did.
You know fine well that vote was taken before Brexit and the Scot’s were forced into a deal they didn’t want or vote for.
Why should people only get to vote once on something; what other walk of life does that happen in? Things change, times change and that approach hardly supports the concept of democracy does it?
-
negative impact ? ,a price (we all have top pay) worth paying ?, ' short term ? ( every year , year on year , to be be exact ) for what exactly.
I can't see any 'sunny uplands from Donny.
Just a little thing called democracy.
What’s your view on giving Scotland a vote on independence?
Democracy and the right to self-determination go hand in hand.
So are you against the Conservatives refusal to allow Scotland to be self determining?
1. They had a &quot;once in a generation&quot; vote not long ago.
2. Is it the right of Scots or people living in Scotland? Two very different things.
The Scottish never said it should be a once in a generation vote; the conservatives did.
You know fine well that vote was taken before Brexit and the Scot’s were forced into a deal they didn’t want or vote for.
Why should people only get to vote once on something; what other walk of life does that happen in? Things change, times change and that approach hardly supports the concept of democracy does it?
Just like the snp you are trying to rewrite history a little. I know the person who said it is now a Russian today TV presenter, so their word may not be wholely truthful, however he did sign the agreement and say the words.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661
You'll also remember the many elements the snp stated as the case for independence that didn't turn out to be true either - oil and gas the obvious one.
So, do we have a vote every week, every year, every time the wind changes?
What would becoming independent and joining the EU mean for Scotland? A great big mess is the answer.
-
I think also you have to look at Scottish independence from the other view of how a decision either way impacts on the future of all of the UK,
What affect would a possible parting of the ways for Scotland from the UK have on the remaining constitutes of the Uk?
I would say that as it does impact others then they should also have a say in the future of the Union.
Because the country is a union in the same way that the Brexit vote impacted all corners regardless of the local vote then a future independence vote for Scotland should include a UK wide vote.
After all its only democratic to do it this way.
-
I wonder what an independant Scotland would do for an armed Force? They have none currently. Would they join NATO?
Our Nuclear deterrent is currently based in Scotland, and unless I’m mistaken, there is no other coastal location suitable for submarines in England or Wales. Because of a lack of deep water close to the coast. That’s why Scotland is used.
-
Isn't Poole harbour one of the deepest in the world and what about Milford Haven?
-
Isn't Poole harbour one of the deepest in the world and what about Milford Haven?
You are right to point the two out as possible locations. There is more to my initial point though. Yes, they have deep water access, however, in the case of Poole, there is a requirement that the council to have a plan in place in case of a radiation emergency, including stocking enough iodine tablets for people within a 1.5km radius of the port.
And neither location has a suitable nearby location for nuclear warhead storage.
Plymouth is another possible, but because of the dense population and lack of nearby storage potential I think that’s a no also.
Scotland ticks all the boxes. Remote, suitable storage nearby and deep water access.
It’s been considered as part of the Scottish ref plans in 2014. It would cause a big headache if it happened.
-
I saw something recently where the low cloud cover for most of the year was also beneficial to it's location, stopped sat spying
-
It’s no secret where it is. You can see the storage facility on google maps.
-
Oh come on at least credit me with a bit more intelligence. It was more to do with what activity was going on at any one time away from prying eyes above
-
Sorry. I was talking about the storage dump. Not Faslane.
-
Oh come on at least credit me with a bit more intelligence. It was more to do with what activity was going on at any one time away from prying eyes above
Russia have spies embedded in the hills almost permanently around the base. There's many vantage points where you can see every part of the bases and areas around them. The navy aren't that bothered that activity can be seen, they want to make it clear that we have a capability, that's part of the deterrent. It's when the subs are at sea they want them hidden.
I remember as a kid at school near the base one of the teachers was very pro cnd. It was parents evening that night and he was having a rant. One of the other lads piped up and said he should discuss it with his dad that night, he was a missile technician. The teacher often forgot half of us had mainly dad's who worked at the base in some form. Cost us a few lunchtimes winding him up mind.
-
68% of Ukrainians want to join the EU to help retain independence and sovereignty
-
Posted without comment. Other than...what the hell have we done?
https://mobile.twitter.com/DuncanWeldon/status/1507619876537520132
-
Posted without comment. Other than...what the hell have we done?
https://mobile.twitter.com/DuncanWeldon/status/1507619876537520132
I think what you mean is ‘posted with comment’.
-
68% of Ukrainians want to join the EU to help retain independence and sovereignty
Good Luck with that .
-
Posted without comment. Other than...what the hell have we done?
https://mobile.twitter.com/DuncanWeldon/status/1507619876537520132
Democratically voted to leave perhaps ?
-
Then own the consequences Tyke. This is on you.
-
Then own the consequences Tyke. This is on you.
The country is completely fecked up Billy .
Nobody speaks or represents the lower paid anymore .
They stuck two fingers up and it doesn't much matter because they were fecked anyway either way .
A totally free hit .
The fact they pyssed you off is testament to that and your own beliefs which aren't there's .
The fact that many people such as yourself called them thick , uneducated and racist means the current pro EU Labour Party leader has no wriggle room .
The Tories are corrupt , not fit for office and look after themselves .
That wasn't the issue , the silent majority wanted to feck you over and they did .
Own that .
-
68% of Ukrainians want to join the EU to help retain independence and sovereignty
And a better economic future
-
Christ Tyke you don't half go off axis when you are put on the spot.
Stop prattling on. Face up to the fact that you and your "we'll show you" mates have reduced our exports by the amount you'd expect from a very big recession or a small war.
You've done that. Out of choice. That will make all of us poorer for years to come.
Don't give me your b*llocks about caring for the low paid. Who do you think is going to suffer most from this?
-
Christ Tyke you don't half go off axis when you are put on the spot.
Stop prattling on. Face up to the fact that you and your "we'll show you" mates have reduced our exports by the amount you'd expect from a very big recession or a small war.
You've done that. Out of choice. That will make all of us poorer for years to come.
Don't give me your b*llocks about caring for the low paid. Who do you think is going to suffer most from this?
Billy I said the country is completely fecked up .... Pay attention .
I'm telling you what the feeling is from the circle I'm in .
They dislike people such as yourself more than they do the Tories in enough numbers to make the difference .
That's the circle you've got to square , as I say it's fecked up but that's where we are .
It's not a dig at you it's where we are pal .
-
68% of Ukrainians want to join the EU to help retain independence and sovereignty
And a better economic future
If it's a successful one I'll give you that , if it isn't the EU will impose austerity quicker than Cameron and Osborne could do on acid .
Ask the Greeks and Italians how that works out .
-
Christ Tyke you don't half go off axis when you are put on the spot.
Stop prattling on. Face up to the fact that you and your "we'll show you" mates have reduced our exports by the amount you'd expect from a very big recession or a small war.
You've done that. Out of choice. That will make all of us poorer for years to come.
Don't give me your b*llocks about caring for the low paid. Who do you think is going to suffer most from this?
Billy I said the country is completely fecked up .... Pay attention .
I'm telling you what the feeling is from the circle I'm in .
They dislike people such as yourself more than they do the Tories in enough numbers to make the difference .
That's the circle you've got to square , as I say it's fecked up but that's where we are .
It's not a dig at you it's where we are pal .
I can see why you and your circle were seen as such an easy mark.
-
Billy, have you seen the price of Brent Crude oil and gas? They will not be doing any harm at all to the value of exports.
-
Billy, have you seen the price of Brent Crude oil and gas? They will not be doing any harm at all to the value of exports.
Or about 1% of GDP
-
Christ Tyke you don't half go off axis when you are put on the spot.
Stop prattling on. Face up to the fact that you and your "we'll show you" mates have reduced our exports by the amount you'd expect from a very big recession or a small war.
You've done that. Out of choice. That will make all of us poorer for years to come.
Don't give me your b*llocks about caring for the low paid. Who do you think is going to suffer most from this?
Billy I said the country is completely fecked up .... Pay attention .
I'm telling you what the feeling is from the circle I'm in .
They dislike people such as yourself more than they do the Tories in enough numbers to make the difference .
That's the circle you've got to square , as I say it's fecked up but that's where we are .
It's not a dig at you it's where we are pal .
Why do you keep going on about the country being fecked up when it's you and your mates that have fecked the country up? It's like you're proud of it but don't want to take any blame for it.
-
Christ Tyke you don't half go off axis when you are put on the spot.
Stop prattling on. Face up to the fact that you and your &quot;we'll show you&quot; mates have reduced our exports by the amount you'd expect from a very big recession or a small war.
You've done that. Out of choice. That will make all of us poorer for years to come.
Don't give me your b*llocks about caring for the low paid. Who do you think is going to suffer most from this?
Billy I said the country is completely fecked up .... Pay attention .
I'm telling you what the feeling is from the circle I'm in .
They dislike people such as yourself more than they do the Tories in enough numbers to make the difference .
That's the circle you've got to square , as I say it's fecked up but that's where we are .
It's not a dig at you it's where we are pal .
Why do you keep going on about the country being fecked up when it's you and your mates that have fecked the country up? It's like you're proud of it but don't want to take any blame for it.
Glyn, would you care to put some meat on the bones of how Tyke and people like him have fu*cked up the country with him being just a lad from South Yorkshire and all that and his surmane not being Johnson?
-
It depends if you play by the EU rules or not, When Russia invaded the Ukraine in 2014 the EU put a ban on all arms sales to Russia.
In that time line over £300 million pounds worth of arms were exported to Russia by EU member countries, France being by far the worst offender with £233.7 million pounds worth of sales and Austria that good old neutral country well up there in sales of arms.
You will be pleased to know that the UK over that time period had a sales figure of £0, zilch, nothing.
So a big Brexit Dividend is parting company with cheating two faced countries that cheat and do what they want when they want.
As an aside I cannot for the life of me understand what Russia would want French equipment for, they have not won a war for hundreds of years, although I suppose they could be running shoes I guess.
-
It depends if you play by the EU rules or not, When Russia invaded the Ukraine in 2014 the EU put a ban on all arms sales to Russia.
In that time line over £300 million pounds worth of arms were exported to Russia by EU member countries, France being by far the worst offender with £233.7 million pounds worth of sales and Austria that good old neutral country well up there in sales of arms.
You will be pleased to know that the UK over that time period had a sales figure of £0, zilch, nothing.
So a big Brexit Dividend is parting company with cheating two faced countries that cheat and do what they want when they want.
As an aside I cannot for the life of me understand what Russia would want French equipment for, they have not won a war for hundreds of years, although I suppose they could be running shoes I guess.
Yep noone likes the exocet aye?
-
It depends if you play by the EU rules or not, When Russia invaded the Ukraine in 2014 the EU put a ban on all arms sales to Russia.
In that time line over £300 million pounds worth of arms were exported to Russia by EU member countries, France being by far the worst offender with £233.7 million pounds worth of sales and Austria that good old neutral country well up there in sales of arms.
You will be pleased to know that the UK over that time period had a sales figure of £0, zilch, nothing.
So a big Brexit Dividend is parting company with cheating two faced countries that cheat and do what they want when they want.
As an aside I cannot for the life of me understand what Russia would want French equipment for, they have not won a war for hundreds of years, although I suppose they could be running shoes I guess.
You got a link for this?
-
It depends if you play by the EU rules or not, When Russia invaded the Ukraine in 2014 the EU put a ban on all arms sales to Russia.
In that time line over £300 million pounds worth of arms were exported to Russia by EU member countries, France being by far the worst offender with £233.7 million pounds worth of sales and Austria that good old neutral country well up there in sales of arms.
You will be pleased to know that the UK over that time period had a sales figure of £0, zilch, nothing.
So a big Brexit Dividend is parting company with cheating two faced countries that cheat and do what they want when they want.
As an aside I cannot for the life of me understand what Russia would want French equipment for, they have not won a war for hundreds of years, although I suppose they could be running shoes I guess.
You got a link for this?
https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20220315-ministry-stresses-that-french-arms-sales-to-russia-not-in-violation-of-eu-sanctions
Loads of others online and France don't deny it either.
-
BFYP
You can't have it both ways.
You were saying that we can't allow people to occupy kleptocrats' homes because...law.
Now you're posting a link that says explicitly that France didn't break an arms embargo. The embargo allowed the completion of contracts signed before 1 August 2014.
Now, I'm not approving selling military equipment to Russia in any circumstances. But there's some consistency needed here.
Personally, I'd like to see robust Govt action across the board on dealing with Russia, but if you accept legal inertia in one area, it seems strange to highlight it in another.
Also, I wonder if Selby could tell us how much the UK delivered to Russia after 2014, on contracts signed before August 2014?
-
BFYP
You can't have it both ways.
You were saying that we can't allow people to occupy kleptocrats' homes because...law.
Now you're posting a link that says explicitly that France didn't break an arms embargo. The embargo allowed the completion of contracts signed before 1 August 2014.
Now, I'm not approving selling military equipment to Russia in any circumstances. But there's some consistency needed here.
Personally, I'd like to see robust Govt action across the board on dealing with Russia, but if you accept legal inertia in one area, it seems strange to highlight it in another.
Also, I wonder if Selby could tell us how much the UK delivered to Russia after 2014, on contracts signed before August 2014?
I never actually made comment on it, but I even if I had I'd argue occupying civilian homes is very different to selling arms to a country based on semantics.
-
It depends if you play by the EU rules or not, When Russia invaded the Ukraine in 2014 the EU put a ban on all arms sales to Russia.
In that time line over £300 million pounds worth of arms were exported to Russia by EU member countries, France being by far the worst offender with £233.7 million pounds worth of sales and Austria that good old neutral country well up there in sales of arms.
You will be pleased to know that the UK over that time period had a sales figure of £0, zilch, nothing.
So a big Brexit Dividend is parting company with cheating two faced countries that cheat and do what they want when they want.
As an aside I cannot for the life of me understand what Russia would want French equipment for, they have not won a war for hundreds of years, although I suppose they could be running shoes I guess.
You got a link for this?
https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20220315-ministry-stresses-that-french-arms-sales-to-russia-not-in-violation-of-eu-sanctions
Loads of others online and France don't deny it either.
So you are saying the above assertion that the UK has sold zich arms (or other military equipment) to Russia since 2014 is true?*
*spoiler altert -I posted the figures in the Ukraine thread
-
BFYP
You said France "don't deny it". But there was nothing to deny if you accept international contract law. So why make that comment?
My take is that those shipments should have been stopped after 2014 and the investments (not "civilian homes"...Sheesh) of kleptocrats should be seized. You seem to want to paint shades of grey.
-
Neither of the posters who are claiming/insuating that the UK has sold no military goods to Russia since 2014 yet to back up that point.
This question in Parliament yesterday may help_
Why did the UK Defence Procurment Minister attend the Saudi Army Fair alongside Russian Arms dealers 3 weeks after the current Russian invasion of Ukraine?
https://twitter.com/SamTarry/status/1509456352682418176
-
Word of the day is ‘gobemouche’ (19th century): a gullible, open-mouthed individual who believes everything they are told. From the French for ‘fly swallower’.
-
Well, at least Bozo has made good on his promise to reduce energy bills;
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1218703/boris-promises-cheaper-household-gas-bills-if-brits-back-brexit/
Another measure of success for the speaker of truths!
-
Christ Tyke you don't half go off axis when you are put on the spot.
Stop prattling on. Face up to the fact that you and your "we'll show you" mates have reduced our exports by the amount you'd expect from a very big recession or a small war.
You've done that. Out of choice. That will make all of us poorer for years to come.
Don't give me your b*llocks about caring for the low paid. Who do you think is going to suffer most from this?
Billy I said the country is completely fecked up .... Pay attention .
I'm telling you what the feeling is from the circle I'm in .
They dislike people such as yourself more than they do the Tories in enough numbers to make the difference .
That's the circle you've got to square , as I say it's fecked up but that's where we are .
It's not a dig at you it's where we are pal .
I can see why you and your circle were seen as such an easy mark.
And yet Syd your the biggest leaver of us all .
10k miles worth .
-
Christ Tyke you don't half go off axis when you are put on the spot.
Stop prattling on. Face up to the fact that you and your "we'll show you" mates have reduced our exports by the amount you'd expect from a very big recession or a small war.
You've done that. Out of choice. That will make all of us poorer for years to come.
Don't give me your b*llocks about caring for the low paid. Who do you think is going to suffer most from this?
Billy I said the country is completely fecked up .... Pay attention .
I'm telling you what the feeling is from the circle I'm in .
They dislike people such as yourself more than they do the Tories in enough numbers to make the difference .
That's the circle you've got to square , as I say it's fecked up but that's where we are .
It's not a dig at you it's where we are pal .
I can see why you and your circle were seen as such an easy mark.
And yet Syd your the biggest leaver of us all .
10k miles worth .
Syd has the freedom of a couple of passports tyke, he hasn't forgotten friends and family where ever they live
-
Christ Tyke you don't half go off axis when you are put on the spot.
Stop prattling on. Face up to the fact that you and your "we'll show you" mates have reduced our exports by the amount you'd expect from a very big recession or a small war.
You've done that. Out of choice. That will make all of us poorer for years to come.
Don't give me your b*llocks about caring for the low paid. Who do you think is going to suffer most from this?
Billy I said the country is completely fecked up .... Pay attention .
I'm telling you what the feeling is from the circle I'm in .
They dislike people such as yourself more than they do the Tories in enough numbers to make the difference .
That's the circle you've got to square , as I say it's fecked up but that's where we are .
It's not a dig at you it's where we are pal .
I can see why you and your circle were seen as such an easy mark.
And yet Syd your the biggest leaver of us all .
10k miles worth .
Syd has the freedom of a couple of passports tyke, he hasn't forgotten friends and family where ever they live
Sorted then .
Passed some of the most stringent immigration criteria there is on this planet with a history of cruelty to native Australians and turning boats with refugees right round and back to where they came from .
Morrison is probably the most neoliberal PM in Australian history .
The postcards from Bondi Beach must make interesting reading .
Sold out and hypocrisy would be on my reply but that's just my opinion sport .
-
''Sorted then .
Passed some of the most stringent immigration criteria there is on this planet with a history of cruelty to native Australians and turning boats with refugees right round and back to where they came from .
Morrison is probably the most neoliberal PM in Australian history .
The postcards from Bondi Beach must make interesting reading .
Sold out and hypocrisy would be on my reply but that's just my opinion sport''
Correct
-
Tyke. Please don't sink to the level we all see too often on this board. I used to welcome your posts as intelligent, reasoned and articulate.
I'd love you to keep that style going. I know I'm a crusty bugger but that doesn't mean you have to be too.
Cheers!
BobG
-
You remember how Brexit was about taking control of our borders?
https://mobile.twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1519691770736558081
Looks like that means having no control over our exports being hammered, because the EU has imposed customs controls over what we sell to them, but us having no control over what comes into the country, because imposing checks would be "an act of self harm".
In other words, as many if us said, and many others refused to listen to, we have much LESS control over our border with the EU than before Brexit.
Still. Blue passports.
-
Here's a 6% dividend everyone can enjoy ........
Extra trade barriers created by Britain's exit from the European Union and subsequent trade agreement have added 6% to the cost of food, researchers from the London School of Economics and other universities estimated on Wednesday.
https://thecattlesite.com/news/58435/brexit-added-6-to-british-food-bills-researchers/#:~:text=Extra%20trade%20barriers%20created%20by,other%20universities%20estimated%20on%20Wednesday.
-
busadvertising uk
The economy is in a mess, we helped where we could, don't forget us on Thursday.
-
warning warning yet another major diversion ................
''Boris Johnson will try to reboot his government tomorrow with a series of post-Brexit reforms designed to boost the economy and reunite the coalition of voters who brought him to power three years ago.
In his last chance to implement significant legislative reform before the next election, Johnson will announce measures designed to capitalise on Britain’s departure from the European Union, update the planning system and improve standards in schools.
He will detail plans to remove hundreds of pieces of EU law from the statute book, cut regulations for small businesses and remove environmental restrictions that can delay or prevent infrastructure projects.
The Treasury will outline proposals to open up more than £10 billion of UK investment through a post-Brexit overhaul of the insurance industry. It will allow insurance companies to invest in long-term growth projects such as renewable energy, which are banned under EU rules brought in after the 2008 financial crisis''
the times
will any of this reduce gas prices, reduce inflation or improve wages? or in fact recover any of the losses to the UK economy from breshit .............
-
Which all suggests...another COVID fine is in the post.
-
warning warning yet another major diversion ................
''Boris Johnson will try to reboot his government tomorrow with a series of post-Brexit reforms designed to boost the economy and reunite the coalition of voters who brought him to power three years ago.
In his last chance to implement significant legislative reform before the next election, Johnson will announce measures designed to capitalise on Britain’s departure from the European Union, update the planning system and improve standards in schools.
He will detail plans to remove hundreds of pieces of EU law from the statute book, cut regulations for small businesses and remove environmental restrictions that can delay or prevent infrastructure projects.
The Treasury will outline proposals to open up more than £10 billion of UK investment through a post-Brexit overhaul of the insurance industry. It will allow insurance companies to invest in long-term growth projects such as renewable energy, which are banned under EU rules brought in after the 2008 financial crisis''
Isn’t that what pro Brexit voters wanted?
-
So much for the fantastic Brexit deal that got Johnson elected 30 months back.
Remember? That one that he insisted did not require a border between GB and NI.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1524464178236465157
-
warning warning yet another major diversion ................
''Boris Johnson will try to reboot his government tomorrow with a series of post-Brexit reforms designed to boost the economy and reunite the coalition of voters who brought him to power three years ago.
In his last chance to implement significant legislative reform before the next election, Johnson will announce measures designed to capitalise on Britain’s departure from the European Union, update the planning system and improve standards in schools.
He will detail plans to remove hundreds of pieces of EU law from the statute book, cut regulations for small businesses and remove environmental restrictions that can delay or prevent infrastructure projects.
The Treasury will outline proposals to open up more than £10 billion of UK investment through a post-Brexit overhaul of the insurance industry. It will allow insurance companies to invest in long-term growth projects such as renewable energy, which are banned under EU rules brought in after the 2008 financial crisis''
the times
will any of this reduce gas prices, reduce inflation or improve wages? or in fact recover any of the losses to the UK economy from breshit .............
Which all suggests...another COVID fine is in the post.
Growth in the UK appears to be limited to foodbanks and fpn's as johnson wants to cut red tape and the civil service by 90,000, which sounds absolutely wonderful .........
yet he's still hiring Nurses and Coppers and .........
May 2020
''UK steps up plans to train 50,000 form fillers for post-Brexit trade
Gove unveils ‘customs agent academy’ and is talking to freight businesses
https://www.ft.com/content/3c1ae9bd-97e0-4131-b7e6-b4d0d5b8f4ff
busadvertising
There is nothing we cant do when we put our best minds on the job
vote tory ....... your future is in our hands.
-
By the way. This from the BBC Economics Editor.
https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1525054013191880704
The Government's own risk assessment of the Brexit Agreement. Dated 21 October 2019. Stating categorically that there would be border checks on "20-100%" of goods passing between GB and NI.
So that's slam dunk evidence that Johnson lied through his teeth when he insisted all through the subsequent election campaign that there'd be no checks between NI and GB.
How in the name of God does he remain in power?
-
this puts all the lies and deception in a neat package
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-61436985
-
Priced in
-
Another small step .............
''Brexit: UK signs first US state-level trade deal with Indiana''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61604784
just sort out the border mess and take a big one
-
rees mogg and brexit - just keeps on giving, remember how with brexit, 'workers rights would be improved, how's that part of the plan going?
''Rees-Mogg has previously said the government’s vision for Brexit is to get rid of “gold-plated” EU regulations. He told MPs in March: “What is the vision in terms of Brexit opportunities is that we should have an economy that is more efficient, that we should have supply-side reforms, get rid of the unnecessary, regulation imposed upon us. Very often we were outvoted in the Council of Ministers. We have things that came through by qualified majority voting. It’s about freeing up the economy.”''
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jacob-rees-mogg-calls-for-bonfire-of-eu-rules-to-power-brexit-innovations-6hpc8v3wj
BUT NOT FOR 5 YEARS, if these reforms are going to be soooooo good, why not just do it?
But wait, what we will do is make sure workers rights and every other bit of legislation we can grasp is an election issue ............. go the culture wars.
And who will do the scrutinising of the tonnes and tonnes tons and tons of legislation that has to be rewritten and or scrapped with 90 thousand civil servants getting the boot? remember the tories cutting back the NHS and the Police by 50,000 and 20,000 respectively? that legacy is still being dealt with.
busadvertising
revisionism, we don't learn we change the story ......
vote tory
-
Minister for Brexit Opportunities , Rees Mogg, asked the readers of the Daily Express (!!) for their ideas on how Brexit could benefit the country. (Not that he hasn’t got a clue himself of course).
And the greatest possible benefit they came up with?
Scrap the EU law on vacuum cleaners having a maximum power of 1400 watts.
I’m sure famous Brexiteer James Dyson would sign up for that!
(From his office in Singapore, where he moved his businesses to after shutting down his operation here).
The headline in the Independent should have been ‘Suckers vote for Big suckers’.
https://apple.news/AdeXg8LE_QbiBBDVzeaPO5g
-
When I typed 'Rees Mogg' in my previous post, the auto correct thing turned it into 'Rees Mogadishu'. How apt for a man that loves Africa so much, he's sending refugees there!
-
Greater love hath no man than this. That he will sacrifice his country for his hoover.
-
Daniel Hannan ............... Hmmm
-
The Hoover story reminds me of the old large billboard that used to be on the approach into Pontefract from Knottingley for a hoover junior.
Nothing sucks like a Hoover Junior in big black type along with a photo of said machine and a housewife using it in the house.
In big black letters written underneath
J***** N****** DOES
It was there for months.
-
''Wizz Air boss blames air travel disruption on Brexit''
''Wizz Air has blamed the British government’s post-Brexit immigration constraints on the labour market for fueling the staff shortages in the aviation industry that are blighting travel plans and holidays.
József Váradi, the founder and chief executive of the low-cost airline, blamed the disruption, cancellations and delays at Britain’s airports over the last two months on others in the industry.
Claiming that Wizz has adequately numbers of pilots and cabin crew, he said: “There is understaffing in air traffic control management. There is insufficient staffing at airports and in ground handling. The solution is that the supply chain needs to perform to standard. That is what we are missing.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=Truss+ousts+foreign+advisor&rlz=1C1VDKB_en-GBAU957AU957&oq=Truss+ousts+foreign+advisor&aqs=chrome..69i57.13122j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
who would have thought that aye?
-
You know how the Tories Got Brexit Done?
Watch the news on Monday...
-
''Wizz Air boss blames air travel disruption on Brexit''
''Wizz Air has blamed the British government’s post-Brexit immigration constraints on the labour market for fueling the staff shortages in the aviation industry that are blighting travel plans and holidays.
József Váradi, the founder and chief executive of the low-cost airline, blamed the disruption, cancellations and delays at Britain’s airports over the last two months on others in the industry.
Claiming that Wizz has adequately numbers of pilots and cabin crew, he said: “There is understaffing in air traffic control management. There is insufficient staffing at airports and in ground handling. The solution is that the supply chain needs to perform to standard. That is what we are missing.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=Truss+ousts+foreign+advisor&rlz=1C1VDKB_en-GBAU957AU957&oq=Truss+ousts+foreign+advisor&aqs=chrome..69i57.13122j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
who would have thought that aye?
The average salary for an airport baggage handler is £18,578 .
Average working week is 46 Hours .
Which includes weekends , bank holidays and obviously very unsociable hours .
The job involves very repetitive physical and manual work , highly pressured with aircrafts needing to adhere to timetables .
It's a tough job paying a very average wage .
They may well be more applications for this role if there weren't easier jobs with better hours available .
He failed to mention that of course .
The boss of Wizz should look more closely at his own business model which is constantly losing money and has done for years .
-
thank dog for the delays in getting a passport or it could be a whole lot worse.
-
There are problems in airports in the US and Europe too apparently.
-
My son and his family flew out to Portugal on Ryanair from East Midlands airport last week.
They had no problems and the flight left on time.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27789916
From 2014 , nothing new going on here in my opinion .
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27789916
From 2014 , nothing new going on here in my opinion .
Well there wouldn't be, would there? You've drunk the Brexit koolaid.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27789916
From 2014 , nothing new going on here in my opinion .
Well there wouldn't be, would there? You've drunk the Brexit koolaid.
Just simply pointing out that there were problems in the areas highlighted when we were EU members Billy .
Apologies if the facts don't reconcile with your agenda but there you are .
-
Tyke.
You're pointing out an effect of Austerity. The Govt chose to cut staffing and it led to a mess.
It's got precisely nothing to do with the current situation.
You cannot spend the rest of your life in post-Brexit England saying "well we had problems when we were in the EU" as a response to every problem that emerges. This is the Britain you wanted. Own it.
-
It always irritates me when Remainers / so called Liberals are highlighting Labour shortages in low paid work as a consequence of Brexit and getting angry about it .
Which leads me to believe they are quite content to look the other way as many Eastern Europeans are exploited in order to continue with the race to the bottom with the less than glamourous jobs in this country .
Nothing to see here with Agency exploitation , ZHC's and The Amazon Fulfilment Centres of this world .
Quite happy for that Cheap Labour and exploitation tap to remain fully turned on just as long as they aren't doing that kind of work it seems .
Unconscious Prejudice would be my call on this mindset .
Anti Tory the Remainers and Liberals may well be but make no mistake they are pro Neoliberals , Thatchers children or disciples taken in by New Labour and the rest of the vermin in the centre and right of the current Labour Party .
The kinder face of capitalism whilst they use "forriners" to do the shyte work for buttons a week and little rights .
The Unconscious Right Wing dressed as liberal "do gooders" .
Pass me the sick bucket with your hypocrisy .
-
Well Tyke, instead of whining about everyone else's attitudes, now that you've got the Brexit you wanted, how about you roll your sleeves up and make the country work better?
-
Well Tyke, instead of whining about everyone else's attitudes, now that you've got the Brexit you wanted, how about you roll your sleeves up and make the country work better?
So you’re not denying what Tyke says, you were quite content for your European ideal to be built on the exploration of others? You’re not really a socialist are you?
-
I never heard the exploitation of foreigners used as a reason to vote Leave during the referendum campaign. I only heard them being repeatedly blamed for all our troubles. By coming to this country in their millions - presumably desperate to be exploited.
-
Tyke makes yet another motherhood statement and you defend it Ldr. I'm not sure what low pay and conditions has to do with being in the EU but it sure has a lot do do with having another tory government. Labour are not perfect and have never claimed to be, but putting in another tory government was never going to help. But but but labour couldn't have done any better I hear being chanted. but I really don't know how it could possibly be worse and all so predictable.
If you want to know how being out of the EU is going to change things write to mogg, he's the man in charge of cutting red tape, you know the stuff the protects water quality, air quality and food quality etc and workers conditions.
-
Wouldn’t have said i defended it Syd, I find it a valid point. We built a prosperous economy based on exploitation. Now that avenue has been cut off through brexit. Surely a true socialist would be happy that exploited peoples are no longer exploited?
-
On the points people make about airports. Flight from Manchester this morning, 30 mins from bag drop queue to being sat having my breakfast airside. It really is clearly dependent on the time you hit it.
In France, fairly straightforward. No separate lines for UK or EU passengers, the French were in the same lines. Took 10 mins through passport control then a 20 min wait for bags (short staffed apparently but not much to it).
Worth noting how many are flying without issue in this case despite how tricky it clearly has been for many.
-
I voted for Brexit and hoped for a hard Brexit.
I was wrong.
It is clear now this Brexit cannot happen without causing untold damage in Northern Ireland. We were warned of this but I always thought we could fudge it. It's clear now we can't. It is also clear there is no political appetite to prevent mass immigration into the UK, even though it is an environmental nightmare.
I now think we have to aim for some sort of soft Brexit whilst we remain in the single market. Things had moved too far, we will have to live with it. Reality bites.
I do not want to see any further political integration with the EU. I want to see the uk remain as independent as it possibly can.
-
Wouldn’t have said i defended it Syd, I find it a valid point. We built a prosperous economy based on exploitation. Now that avenue has been cut off through brexit. Surely a true socialist would be happy that exploited peoples are no longer exploited?
How was it built on exploitation? Run the logic of that by me.
I thought you believed in freedom rather than coercion. The EU has a system where areas that have an excess demand for labour can, freely and without coercion, have people from areas where there is an excess supply of labour address that demand. Economically, both sides benefit.
Your and Tyke's misconception seems to be that if there were no immigration taking the available work, then "indigenous" people would be better off. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. If, in the absence of any other policies, people in menial labour jobs were paid significantly more, the effect would be a round of inflation that would quickly erode the benefit of the wage rise.
The problem is that, in the current system, menial labour jobs cannot attract higher wages. But the jobs need doing. And if "indigenous" people don't want to do them, then either immigrants have to do, or the jobs don't get done.
The biggest lie peddled over Brexit is that restricting immigrant labour would magically raise the prospects for "indigenous" labour. It won't. And over the next decade or so, there's going to be a f**k load of anger from people who believed that lie.
-
I voted for Brexit and hoped for a hard Brexit.
I was wrong.
It is clear now this Brexit cannot happen without causing untold damage in Northern Ireland. We were warned of this but I always thought we could fudge it. It's clear now we can't. It is also clear there is no political appetite to prevent mass immigration into the UK, even though it is an environmental nightmare.
I now think we have to aim for some sort of soft Brexit whilst we remain in the single market. Things had moved too far, we will have to live with it. Reality bites.
I do not want to see any further political integration with the EU. I want to see the uk remain as independent as it possibly can.
Not without a mandate from the electorate surely RD ?
-
I'm not sure Brexit was ever defined as hard or soft.
-
I'm not sure Brexit was ever defined as hard or soft.
When it was first talked about RD, you are correct, it wasn’t talked about.IIRC.
-
RD
It is clear now this Brexit cannot happen without causing untold damage in Northern Ireland. We were warned of this but I always thought we could fudge it.
Two points.
1) Think who the politicians were who told you it was a problem that could be managed.
2) Watch the news on Monday.
-
RD
It is clear now this Brexit cannot happen without causing untold damage in Northern Ireland. We were warned of this but I always thought we could fudge it.
Two points.
1) Think who the politicians were who told you it was a problem that could be managed.
2) Watch the news on Monday.
I do not think it was politicians telling me what they would do.
It was more a gut instinct about what I wanted to happen and politicians telling me they could deliver it. But they can't.
It's all very disappointing but choices were made before my time and we must live with it.
-
I voted for Brexit and hoped for a hard Brexit.
I was wrong.
It is clear now this Brexit cannot happen without causing untold damage in Northern Ireland. We were warned of this but I always thought we could fudge it. It's clear now we can't. It is also clear there is no political appetite to prevent mass immigration into the UK, even though it is an environmental nightmare.
I now think we have to aim for some sort of soft Brexit whilst we remain in the single market. Things had moved too far, we will have to live with it. Reality bites.
I do not want to see any further political integration with the EU. I want to see the uk remain as independent as it possibly can.
Not without a mandate from the electorate surely RD ?
The electorate never gave a mandate to leave the Single Market or Customs Union!
-
RD
It is clear now this Brexit cannot happen without causing untold damage in Northern Ireland. We were warned of this but I always thought we could fudge it.
Two points.
1) Think who the politicians were who told you it was a problem that could be managed.
2) Watch the news on Monday.
I do not think it was politicians telling me what they would do.
It was more a gut instinct about what I wanted to happen and politicians telling me they could deliver it. But they can't.
It's all very disappointing but choices were made before my time and we must live with it.
Have you considered the consequences for any kind of Brexit U turn RD or as I suspect membership of the SM ? .
Without a mandate from the electorate you are potentially placing this country in a position it's probably never seen since Oliver Cromwell and the far right gaining even more support .
Look across the Atlantic RD .
-
I voted for Brexit and hoped for a hard Brexit.
I was wrong.
It is clear now this Brexit cannot happen without causing untold damage in Northern Ireland. We were warned of this but I always thought we could fudge it. It's clear now we can't. It is also clear there is no political appetite to prevent mass immigration into the UK, even though it is an environmental nightmare.
I now think we have to aim for some sort of soft Brexit whilst we remain in the single market. Things had moved too far, we will have to live with it. Reality bites.
I do not want to see any further political integration with the EU. I want to see the uk remain as independent as it possibly can.
Not without a mandate from the electorate surely RD ?
The electorate never gave a mandate to leave the Single Market or Customs Union!
Don't talk ridiculous man .
-
I voted for Brexit and hoped for a hard Brexit.
I was wrong.
It is clear now this Brexit cannot happen without causing untold damage in Northern Ireland. We were warned of this but I always thought we could fudge it. It's clear now we can't. It is also clear there is no political appetite to prevent mass immigration into the UK, even though it is an environmental nightmare.
I now think we have to aim for some sort of soft Brexit whilst we remain in the single market. Things had moved too far, we will have to live with it. Reality bites.
I do not want to see any further political integration with the EU. I want to see the uk remain as independent as it possibly can.
Not without a mandate from the electorate surely RD ?
The electorate never gave a mandate to leave the Single Market or Customs Union!
Don't talk ridiculous man .
There's only been one national vote in which the option of leaving the SM and CU was explicitly on the table. The 2019 General Election. Only 47% of votes were cast for parties explicitly standing on the policy that we leave the SM and CU.
The question was never put in 2016. Many on the Brexit side explicitly or implicitly campaigned on the principle that we could leave the EU and stay in the SM and CU. The decision to leave the SM and CU was made by Theresa May and her alone in early 2017, with no reference to what the electorate wanted. Every opinion poll at the time showed a large majority across all parties prepared to accept a soft Brexit which meant us staying in the SM and CU.
If you are going to lecture us about democracy, you'd do well to leave your personal prejudices at the door and engage with the established facts. It is a fact that there isn't, and has never been any evidence that a majority in this country want to leave the SM and CU. But that's what we have done.
-
I voted for Brexit and hoped for a hard Brexit.
I was wrong.
It is clear now this Brexit cannot happen without causing untold damage in Northern Ireland. We were warned of this but I always thought we could fudge it. It's clear now we can't. It is also clear there is no political appetite to prevent mass immigration into the UK, even though it is an environmental nightmare.
I now think we have to aim for some sort of soft Brexit whilst we remain in the single market. Things had moved too far, we will have to live with it. Reality bites.
I do not want to see any further political integration with the EU. I want to see the uk remain as independent as it possibly can.
Not without a mandate from the electorate surely RD ?
The electorate never gave a mandate to leave the Single Market or Customs Union!
Don't talk ridiculous man .
There's only been one national vote in which the option of leaving the SM and CU was explicitly on the table. The 2019 General Election. Only 47% of votes were cast for parties explicitly standing on the policy that we leave the SM and CU.
The question was never put in 2016. Many on the Brexit side explicitly or implicitly campaigned on the principle that we could leave the EU and stay in the SM and CU. The decision to leave the SM and CU was made by Theresa May and her alone in early 2017, with no reference to what the electorate wanted. Every opinion poll at the time showed a large majority across all parties prepared to accept a soft Brexit which meant us staying in the SM and CU.
If you are going to lecture us about democracy, you'd do well to leave your personal prejudices at the door and engage with the established facts. It is a fact that there isn't, and has never been any evidence that a majority in this country want to leave the SM and CU. But that's what we have done.
Just listen to yourself trying to fit the square pegs in the round holes to suit your agenda .
Yourself and your minions have spent the last 6 years telling everyone who'd listen that leave voters didn't know what they were voting for .
Now you've decided all of a sudden that they did and remaining in the SM and CU was desirable .
You've also spent the last 6 years telling everyone that leavers were not only racist they were thick as mince too .
Now you've concluded that they weren't actually racist it all because they actually endorsed free movement which is the standout aspect of the SM .
Which concludes me to think that when there's a wiff in the air of what Billy wants he'll become the reasonable , democracy loving stand up member of society he likes to think he is .
The truth is Billy boy is a sore loser whose had his liberal mandate shoved up his ass more times at the ballot box than its clearly good for him .
I'll have no more of your neoliberal junk chat William .
Finally a word to the not so wise , if you think there's a Lord Halifax looking across the channel to do a deal then I'd think again .
If you want to see a Labour government anytime soon in some form I'd kindly suggest you stop getting all moist around the lower regions because Johnson is toast due largely in my opinion to a Remainer plot and you can beat democracy .
You won't and you should be very careful what you wish for .
Just about the only vote that made any impact on this country for millions of people had better be respected .
Don't say you weren't warned .
-
All you have to do to convince people you know what you're talking about (a big ask) is to tell those on the forum how having successive tory governments has improved the lot of the working man tyke, in your own time.
-
People need to look forward.
We are all a nation of Leavers now. Why? because, quite simply, we have left the EU. There is, no longer, any remain/leave argument.
So I find it interesting that there are those out there peddling paranoid nonsense about 'Remainer' plots, 'Remoaner' agendas and the rest of it.
I'll tell you what I am. A Rebuilder. Someone committed to the cause of rebuilding the economic damage that has been wrought by Brexit. Because that damage is substantial and it is affecting every single one of us every day. Anyone who tells you otherwise is thick, deluded or a liar. When even the Brexiteer's Brexiteer, Daniel Hannan, tells you that leaving the Single Market was a mistake you should know the game is up.
Now if that means having to build bridges with the EU so that this country can prosper economically then that, in my humble opinion, is what we should do.
-
Tyke.
You have this very odd way of avoiding every simple issue that is presented to you and pouring out a diatribe like a muck spreader on turbo mode.
I was making a very simple point of fact. No opinion. No interpretation. I'll make it simple for you. A yes or no question. Do you agree that there has never been a democratic mandate for the leaving of the SM and CU?
-
Tyke.
You have this very odd way of avoiding every simple issue that is presented to you and pouring out a diatribe like a muck spreader on turbo mode.
I'll make it simple for you. A yes or no question. Do you agree that there has never been a democratic mandate for the leaving of the SM and CU?
No I don't agree .
-
Tyke.
You have this very odd way of avoiding every simple issue that is presented to you and pouring out a diatribe like a muck spreader on turbo mode.
I was making a very simple point of fact. No opinion. No interpretation. I'll make it simple for you. A yes or no question. Do you agree that there has never been a democratic mandate for the leaving of the SM and CU?
Firstly my position (previously stated) is that I had hoped for a softer brexit. leaving the SM and CU is stupid.
Having said that and putting opinion and what bullshit fell from politicians mouths to one side.
Logically the SM and CU are a part of the EU, therefore it follows that in a binary choice to remain or leave, that leaving the EU involved leaving the SM and CU. Do you agree BST?
-
Tyke.
You have this very odd way of avoiding every simple issue that is presented to you and pouring out a diatribe like a muck spreader on turbo mode.
I'll make it simple for you. A yes or no question. Do you agree that there has never been a democratic mandate for the leaving of the SM and CU?
No I don't agree .
Go on then. When was the vote that gave that mandate.
-
Tyke.
You have this very odd way of avoiding every simple issue that is presented to you and pouring out a diatribe like a muck spreader on turbo mode.
I was making a very simple point of fact. No opinion. No interpretation. I'll make it simple for you. A yes or no question. Do you agree that there has never been a democratic mandate for the leaving of the SM and CU?
Firstly my position (previously stated) is that I had hoped for a softer brexit. leaving the SM and CU is stupid.
Having said that and putting opinion and what bullshit fell from politicians mouths to one side.
Logically the SM and CU are a part of the EU, therefore it follows that in a binary choice to remain or leave, that leaving the EU involved leaving the SM and CU. Do you agree BST?
Ldr.
Simple question. Are SM members, Iceland, Switzerland and Norway members of the EU?
Your point about the interpretation of the Brexit vote is just that. Your personal interpretation. You're welcome to it of course, but it's absolutely wrong, both in law and in practice.
As I said, all the opinion polling in late 2016 and 2017 showed a very large majority (a majority that included me) in support of leaving the EU but remaining in the SM and CU. So clearly a majority in the country didn't interpret the 2016 vote result in the way you do.
-
Included me too to be fair, bit of devils advocate from in the question but logically it does fit
-
Tyke.
You have this very odd way of avoiding every simple issue that is presented to you and pouring out a diatribe like a muck spreader on turbo mode.
I'll make it simple for you. A yes or no question. Do you agree that there has never been a democratic mandate for the leaving of the SM and CU?
No I don't agree .
Go on then. When was the vote that gave that mandate.
Exactly as Ldr points out .
-
So Tyke, given the fact that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are inside the SM and outside the EU, do you still want to stick to that line that the 2016 vote was an explicit mandate to leave the SM?
Run it by me how that logic goes.
-
As I keep saying , put returning to the SM and CU in an election manifesto .
That would be my compromise , I aren't exactly going to be happy about it as I feel I've voted on this issue 6 years ago but none the less in the interests of building bridges I'll grudgingly accept it .
Any Party who were to put that in their manifesto I'd vote against them even if it meant voting Tory which would be for the first time ever .
-
So Tyke, given the fact that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are inside the SM and outside the EU, do you still want to stick to that line that the 2016 vote was an explicit mandate to leave the SM?
Run it by me how that logic goes.
As I keep repeating I and clearly millions more took the referendum to mean leave the EU in its entirety .
Simple as that .
-
As I keep saying , put returning to the SM and CU in an election manifesto .
That would be my compromise , I aren't exactly going to be happy about it as I feel I've voted on this issue 6 years ago but none the less in the interests of building bridges I'll grudgingly accept it .
Any Party who were to put that in their manifesto I'd vote against them even if it meant voting Tory which would be for the first time ever .
And once again you avoid the question.
My take? We WILL rejoin the SM in 15-20 years when the extent if the damage you've done becomes undeniable. Would I want that now? No, because people like you and Farage and Johnson have made the topic far too dangerously divisive.
My point in this thread is to get you to face up to the fact that there never was s democratic mandate for leaving the SM. Useful idioys on the Left like you were simply used to enable a far-right coup that imposed the Brexit that IT decided the 2016 vote allowed, not mandated.
When you come to terms with that, we can start to move on. But as I've said times many, I fully understand the difficulty in doing that when you've been the mark in a sting.
-
So Tyke, given the fact that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are inside the SM and outside the EU, do you still want to stick to that line that the 2016 vote was an explicit mandate to leave the SM?
Run it by me how that logic goes.
As I keep repeating I and clearly millions more took the referendum to mean leave the EU in its entirety .
Simple as that .
How many millions? How do you know?
-
So Tyke, given the fact that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are inside the SM and outside the EU, do you still want to stick to that line that the 2016 vote was an explicit mandate to leave the SM?
Run it by me how that logic goes.
As I keep repeating I and clearly millions more took the referendum to mean leave the EU in its entirety .
Simple as that .
Well this guy certainly didn't:
https://news.sky.com/video/footage-shows-boris-johnson-supported-eu-single-market-10318469
-
As I keep saying , put returning to the SM and CU in an election manifesto .
That would be my compromise , I aren't exactly going to be happy about it as I feel I've voted on this issue 6 years ago but none the less in the interests of building bridges I'll grudgingly accept it .
Any Party who were to put that in their manifesto I'd vote against them even if it meant voting Tory which would be for the first time ever .
And once again you avoid the question.
My take? We WILL rejoin the SM in 15-20 years when the extent if the damage you've done becomes undeniable. Would I want that now? No, because people like you and Farage and Johnson have made the topic far too dangerously divisive.
My point in this thread is to get you to face up to the fact that there never was s democratic mandate for leaving the SM. Useful idioys on the Left like you were simply used to enable a far-right coup that imposed the Brexit that IT decided the 2016 vote allowed, not mandated.
When you come to terms with that, we can start to move on. But as I've said times many, I fully understand the difficulty in doing that when you've been the mark in a sting.
I don't need any lessons from yourself Billy on how I should see things or what I should have or have not interpreted .
It played out like it should have played out when we voted in 2016 .
The only group who have created the divisiveness in this country are people such as yourself who have spent the last 6 years calling Leavers racist and as thick as mince .
Your group have created a divide that won't ever be repaired at least in my lifetime with your poison .
You talk of Culture Wars and yet on this matter your the biggest war mongerers of them all .
Well done .
-
Tyke.
Feel free to find an example of me ever calling all Leave voters racists and thick as mince.
Take your time.
Then come back and we can discuss where you get these ideas from.
-
Even one of your heroes Tyke has recently admitted the best thing that could be done with bexit is to delay it. For all the bluster from your leader, johnson hasn't got it done by a long chalk, there is a long way to go yet and none of it is looking good.
-
By the way Tyke. If leaving the SM and CU was an automatic consequence of the Brexit vote, why did May wait until Jan 2017 to announce that this was now our policy?
-
Even one of your heroes Tyke has recently admitted the best thing that could be done with bexit is to delay it. For all the bluster from your leader, johnson hasn't got it done by a long chalk, there is a long way to go yet and none of it is looking good.
Heroes ??
That's interesting given I didn't emigrate to the other side of the world to settle in a country that's had a right wing government for 20 of the last 26 years and with it some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world .
Makes you wonder who your heroes are Syd .
-
By the way Tyke. If leaving the SM and CU was an automatic consequence of the Brexit vote, why did May wait until Jan 2017 to announce that this was now our policy?
Because she was a Remainer with Mogg's stick up her ass .
-
Tyke.
Feel free to find an example of me ever calling all Leave voters racists and thick as mince.
Take your time.
Then come back and we can discuss where you get these ideas from.
Plenty of words to the affect Billy over the last 6 years .
-
Even one of your heroes Tyke has recently admitted the best thing that could be done with bexit is to delay it. For all the bluster from your leader, johnson hasn't got it done by a long chalk, there is a long way to go yet and none of it is looking good.
Heroes ??
That's interesting given I didn't emigrate to the other side of the world to settle in a country that's had a right wing government for 20 of the last 26 years and with it some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world .
Makes you wonder who your heroes are Syd .
Maybe you're not a racist but you appear to be a xenophobe tyke and therefore not acceptable here so that bit's academic.
-
''NI Protocol: UK override bill 'won't break international law'''
''New legislation to change post-Brexit trade arrangements will not break international law, the Northern Ireland secretary has said.
Brandon Lewis said he was confident the changes would be lawful.
The UK government is due to publish legislation on Monday that would allow ministers to override parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-61774429
If it's legal and going to be acceptable to all parties it make you wonder why they didn't do it earlier instead of the lying and deceit.
-
Tyke.
Feel free to find an example of me ever calling all Leave voters racists and thick as mince.
Take your time.
Then come back and we can discuss where you get these ideas from.
Plenty of words to the affect Billy over the last 6 years .
Go and dig some out. Then we can talk.
-
Serious question here but wasn’t the vote back in 2016 to leave or remain?
I don’t recall there being an option available to leave but to stay in the CU and SM.
-
So Tyke, given the fact that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are inside the SM and outside the EU, do you still want to stick to that line that the 2016 vote was an explicit mandate to leave the SM?
Run it by me how that logic goes.
As I keep repeating I and clearly millions more took the referendum to mean leave the EU in its entirety .
Simple as that .
Simple being the operative word.
-
So Tyke, given the fact that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are inside the SM and outside the EU, do you still want to stick to that line that the 2016 vote was an explicit mandate to leave the SM?
Run it by me how that logic goes.
As I keep repeating I and clearly millions more took the referendum to mean leave the EU in its entirety .
Simple as that .
Simple being the operative word.
What was the other option Glyn, apart from remain of course.
-
So Tyke, given the fact that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are inside the SM and outside the EU, do you still want to stick to that line that the 2016 vote was an explicit mandate to leave the SM?
Run it by me how that logic goes.
As I keep repeating I and clearly millions more took the referendum to mean leave the EU in its entirety .
Simple as that .
Simple being the operative word.
What was the other option Glyn, apart from remain of course.
Leave the EU but remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. I'd have been extremely happy with that as an outcome of a No vote I'd been warning about the consequences of leaving the SM and CU well before the referendum took place. But I got told I didn't know what I was talking about, or smeared as being Project Fear.
That was the other option, and it wouldn't have been contrary to the Referendum result.
-
Serious question here but wasn’t the vote back in 2016 to leave or remain?
I don’t recall there being an option available to leave but to stay in the CU and SM.
Just like there wasn't an option to leave the SM or CU either. It wasn't voted on so there was no mandate for either option.
And that is the main reason there should have been a second referendum so that whatever option the government decided shpould have got that mandate from the British people.
-
So Tyke, given the fact that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are inside the SM and outside the EU, do you still want to stick to that line that the 2016 vote was an explicit mandate to leave the SM?
Run it by me how that logic goes.
As I keep repeating I and clearly millions more took the referendum to mean leave the EU in its entirety .
Simple as that .
Simple being the operative word.
What was the other option Glyn, apart from remain of course.
Leave the EU but remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. I'd have been extremely happy with that as an outcome of a No vote I'd been warning about the consequences of leaving the SM and CU well before the referendum took place. But I got told I didn't know what I was talking about, or smeared as being Project Fear.
That was the other option, and it wouldn't have been contrary to the Referendum result.
Yes, I understand what you mean but was that an option when we voted. I only remember Leave or Renain being the options.
-
Even one of your heroes Tyke has recently admitted the best thing that could be done with bexit is to delay it. For all the bluster from your leader, johnson hasn't got it done by a long chalk, there is a long way to go yet and none of it is looking good.
Heroes ??
That's interesting given I didn't emigrate to the other side of the world to settle in a country that's had a right wing government for 20 of the last 26 years and with it some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world .
Makes you wonder who your heroes are Syd .
Maybe you're not a racist but you appear to be a xenophobe tyke and therefore not acceptable here so that bit's academic.
Unfortunately Syd those are the kind of playing the last card retorts that make you look like a complete idiot when it comes to political debate , instead of playing an ace you played the Joker .
The politics of the so called Progressive Left which is the tribe you tend to stick your hat on are the people of " the right thing to do " or " it's the decent thing to do " when it comes to the subject of immigration .
Except the " Right Thing To Do " isn't necessarily right politically .
Immigration also comes with problems .
The EU policy of open borders I find extremely dehumanising , a pool of 450m workers available to the top hats across Europe the majority of the cheap Labour variety lends itself to the citizens of anywhere ready to move around Europe filling in market shortages so the man with the Top hat on continues to keep the majority of the wealth created for himself without so much as leaving his top floor office .
Why should you expect your morning coffee on the High Street to be prepared for you by a migrant , is that your reality ? .
This trend then places downward pressure on wages , when there is an abundance of anything the price goes down , basic economics .
Not only that it then creates a lack of enthusiasm in governments , you could even call it laziness to not skill up and train it's workforce .
I've mentioned in the past the pressure it creates on our NHS , schools and housing I've no need to underline that .
So " The Decent Thing To Do " doesn't necessarily reconcile with reality and can make things worse .
I'll actually take the xenophobic comment on the chin because it says much more about you than it does me .
-
So Tyke, given the fact that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are inside the SM and outside the EU, do you still want to stick to that line that the 2016 vote was an explicit mandate to leave the SM?
Run it by me how that logic goes.
As I keep repeating I and clearly millions more took the referendum to mean leave the EU in its entirety .
Simple as that .
Simple being the operative word.
What was the other option Glyn, apart from remain of course.
Leave the EU but remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. I'd have been extremely happy with that as an outcome of a No vote I'd been warning about the consequences of leaving the SM and CU well before the referendum took place. But I got told I didn't know what I was talking about, or smeared as being Project Fear.
That was the other option, and it wouldn't have been contrary to the Referendum result.
Yes, I understand what you mean but was that an option when we voted. I only remember Leave or Renain being the options.
And neither of those options gave any mandate at all about the CU or SM. Tyke is trying to BS everybody that it did.
-
Serious question here but wasn’t the vote back in 2016 to leave or remain?
I don’t recall there being an option available to leave but to stay in the CU and SM.
Just like there wasn't an option to leave the SM or CU either. It wasn't voted on so there was no mandate for either option.
And that is the main reason there should have been a second referendum so that whatever option the government decided shpould have got that mandate from the British people.
Glyn, I have just seen this post of yours.
The reason I asked what other options there were besides Leave or Remain is that you appeared to be disagreeing with tyke when he said that the options were simple.
Apologies if I misunderstood what you meant.
I voted remain by the way but have had to come to terms with the leave vote winning.
No point in people continuing to whine about it, we are where we are and have to deal with it.
-
The claim that the 2016 referendum decision was not a mandate to leave the Single Market is the single worst, most invidious lie in recent British political history.
A lie that doesn't just threaten an overturn, by stealth, of a democratic vote but citizen's faith in politicians and democracy and faith in the purest form of democracy - the referendum.
For those with foggy memories the historical evidence from the referendum campaign is clear. Let's take, for instance, interviews on the UK's premier political interview program of the time the Andrew Marr show: -
With leader of the Remain campaign David Cameron 12/6/16: Cameron "What the British public would be voting for, if we leave, would be to leave the EU and leave the Single Market"
De facto leader of the Leave campaign Boris Johnson 5/6/16: Marr "I had Michael Gove in that chair and I asked
after Brexit will we be in the Single Market yes or no. He said no". Johnson "And he was right". Marr "So we won't be in the EU Single Market?" Johnson "Absolutely".
To ignore, forget or misremember this evidence and claim otherwise to meet a political agenda is nothing short of despicable. To campaign to rejoin, without a referendum, the Single Market on the basis of this pernicious lie is equally despicable. The very epitome of 'post-truth'.
I have no problem with people who campaigned or voted to Remain in the EU, though I disagreed with them. I'd have no problem with people campaigning for a referendum to rejoin the EU. That is the honest, decent path Remainers/Rejoiners should have the moral courage and respect for democracy to follow.
-
The claim that the 2016 referendum decision was not a mandate to leave the Single Market is the single worst, most invidious lie in recent British political history.
A lie that doesn't just threaten an overturn, by stealth, of a democratic vote but citizen's faith in politicians and democracy and faith in the purest form of democracy - the referendum.
For those with foggy memories the historical evidence from the referendum campaign is clear. Let's take, for instance, interviews on the UK's premier political interview program of the time the Andrew Marr show: -
With leader of the Remain campaign David Cameron 12/6/16: Cameron "What the British public would be voting for, if we leave, would be to leave the EU and leave the Single Market"
De facto leader of the Leave campaign Boris Johnson 5/6/16: Marr "I had Michael Gove in that chair and I asked
after Brexit will we be in the Single Market yes or no. He said no". Johnson "And he was right". Marr "So we won't be in the EU Single Market?" Johnson "Absolutely".
To ignore, forget or misremember this evidence and claim otherwise to meet a political agenda is nothing short of despicable. To campaign to rejoin, without a referendum, the Single Market on the basis of this pernicious lie is equally despicable. The very epitome of 'post-truth'.
I have no problem with people who campaigned or voted to Remain in the EU, though I disagreed with them. I'd have no problem with people campaigning for a referendum to rejoin the EU. That is the honest, decent path Remainers/Rejoiners should have the moral courage and respect for democracy to follow.
So when, before the referendum, Farage, Johnson and lots of others campaigning for the Leave vote were saying that it didn't mean that we would leave the SM and that the Norwegian option (ie in the SM but not the EU), you knew they were lying to you.
Why didn't you tell the rest of us that you knew they were lying?
-
So Tyke, given the fact that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are inside the SM and outside the EU, do you still want to stick to that line that the 2016 vote was an explicit mandate to leave the SM?
Run it by me how that logic goes.
As I keep repeating I and clearly millions more took the referendum to mean leave the EU in its entirety .
Simple as that .
Simple being the operative word.
What was the other option Glyn, apart from remain of course.
Leave the EU but remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. I'd have been extremely happy with that as an outcome of a No vote I'd been warning about the consequences of leaving the SM and CU well before the referendum took place. But I got told I didn't know what I was talking about, or smeared as being Project Fear.
That was the other option, and it wouldn't have been contrary to the Referendum result.
Yes, I understand what you mean but was that an option when we voted. I only remember Leave or Renain being the options.
And neither of those options gave any mandate at all about the CU or SM. Tyke is trying to BS everybody that it did.
Unfortunately Glyn it's my opinion that it was yourself who were subject to BS by the politicians and Establishment as soon as the result came through .
This talk emerged following the confirmation of the result and the narrative was changed , changed to leaving in name only if they could get away with it .
Two options
Do you want to remain in the EU ? , which meant every aspect of EU membership .
So what is the exact opposite of that in the second option then ?
Do you want to leave the EU ?
I mean c'mon how simple do you want it ?
-
Even one of your heroes Tyke has recently admitted the best thing that could be done with bexit is to delay it. For all the bluster from your leader, johnson hasn't got it done by a long chalk, there is a long way to go yet and none of it is looking good.
Heroes ??
That's interesting given I didn't emigrate to the other side of the world to settle in a country that's had a right wing government for 20 of the last 26 years and with it some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world .
Makes you wonder who your heroes are Syd .
Maybe you're not a racist but you appear to be a xenophobe tyke and therefore not acceptable here so that bit's academic.
Unfortunately Syd those are the kind of playing the last card retorts that make you look like a complete idiot when it comes to political debate , instead of playing an ace you played the Joker .
The politics of the so called Progressive Left which is the tribe you tend to stick your hat on are the people of " the right thing to do " or " it's the decent thing to do " when it comes to the subject of immigration .
Except the " Right Thing To Do " isn't necessarily right politically .
Immigration also comes with problems .
The EU policy of open borders I find extremely dehumanising , a pool of 450m workers available to the top hats across Europe the majority of the cheap Labour variety lends itself to the citizens of anywhere ready to move around Europe filling in market shortages so the man with the Top hat on continues to keep the majority of the wealth created for himself without so much as leaving his top floor office .
Why should you expect your morning coffee on the High Street to be prepared for you by a migrant , is that your reality ? .
This trend then places downward pressure on wages , when there is an abundance of anything the price goes down , basic economics .
Not only that it then creates a lack of enthusiasm in governments , you could even call it laziness to not skill up and train it's workforce .
I've mentioned in the past the pressure it creates on our NHS , schools and housing I've no need to underline that .
So " The Decent Thing To Do " doesn't necessarily reconcile with reality and can make things worse .
I'll actually take the xenophobic comment on the chin because it says much more about you than it does me .
Maybe then you shouldn't throw insults around if you're so thinned skinned tyke and while you're at it tell me what isn't xenophobic about discounting someone's views be cause of where they happen to live, you ape others on this site have been doing it for some time. It's uncanny how they have similar opinions.
This is regardless that your argument is baseless and fact free. That everything you apparently stand for gets washed away because of your vote or non-vote doesn't seem to register with you at all. With an tanking economy, how is that going to help those on the bottom rung?
Why don't you explain how your vote has changed Britain for the better and why you didn't see any of this slow train wreck happening, it was predicted. Please try and keep it simple old chap.
-
So when, before the referendum, Farage, Johnson and lots of others campaigning for the Leave vote were saying that it didn't mean that we would leave the SM and that the Norwegian option (ie in the SM but not the EU), you knew they were lying to you.
Please provide evidence of this being said by prominent Leave campaigners during the the official campaign period for the 2016 referendum from 15 April 2016 until the day of the poll on 23 June 2016 to support your point.
-
Unfortunately Glyn it's my opinion that it was yourself who were subject to BS by the politicians and Establishment as soon as the result came through .
This talk emerged following the confirmation of the result and the narrative was changed , changed to leaving in name only if they could get away with it .
Two options
Do you want to remain in the EU ? , which meant every aspect of EU membership .
So what is the exact opposite of that in the second option then ?
Do you want to leave the EU ?
I mean c'mon how simple do you want it ?
You've got two problems with that latest slice of BS.
Firstly, I wasn't influenced by 'the Establishment' after the result when I was warning people on here about it before the result! And even then it was because of my experience as an International Trade Officer and not 'the Establishment'.
Secondly, membership of the SM and CU are not an aspect of EU membership. Just ask Norway and Switzerland.
-
Branton - your evidence that the Leave campaign(s) were adamant that a No Vote meant leaving the CU & SM is: the Remain Campaign and that noted purveyor of truth & honesty, Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson - saying something different to one tv programme that he said in another.
You must have loads more than that if it was so clear?
There is a Fact Check saying they rarely mention it and weren't clear when they did to help you:
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
-
The claim that the 2016 referendum decision was not a mandate to leave the Single Market is the single worst, most invidious lie in recent British political history.
A lie that doesn't just threaten an overturn, by stealth, of a democratic vote but citizen's faith in politicians and democracy and faith in the purest form of democracy - the referendum.
For those with foggy memories the historical evidence from the referendum campaign is clear. Let's take, for instance, interviews on the UK's premier political interview program of the time the Andrew Marr show: -
With leader of the Remain campaign David Cameron 12/6/16: Cameron "What the British public would be voting for, if we leave, would be to leave the EU and leave the Single Market"
De facto leader of the Leave campaign Boris Johnson 5/6/16: Marr "I had Michael Gove in that chair and I asked
after Brexit will we be in the Single Market yes or no. He said no". Johnson "And he was right". Marr "So we won't be in the EU Single Market?" Johnson "Absolutely".
To ignore, forget or misremember this evidence and claim otherwise to meet a political agenda is nothing short of despicable. To campaign to rejoin, without a referendum, the Single Market on the basis of this pernicious lie is equally despicable. The very epitome of 'post-truth'.
I have no problem with people who campaigned or voted to Remain in the EU, though I disagreed with them. I'd have no problem with people campaigning for a referendum to rejoin the EU. That is the honest, decent path Remainers/Rejoiners should have the moral courage and respect for democracy to follow.
Funny int it?
When the Remain campaign said that a vote to Leave would damage our economy, put the GFA at risk and endanger European solidarity and embolden Putin, the Brexit Death Cult insisted that was all Project Fear. But when Cameron said that Leave meant leaving the SM, he was the very Oracle itself.
-
Unfortunately Glyn it's my opinion that it was yourself who were subject to BS by the politicians and Establishment as soon as the result came through .
This talk emerged following the confirmation of the result and the narrative was changed , changed to leaving in name only if they could get away with it .
Exactly correct - the pejorative term 'Hard' Brexit and cuddly 'Soft' Brexit were invented after the referendum together with the lie that vote did not mandate leaving the Single Market.
-
Branton - your evidence that the Leave campaign(s) were adamant that a No Vote meant leaving the CU & SM is: the Remain Campaign and that noted purveyor of truth & honesty, Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson - saying something different to one tv programme that he said in another.
You must have loads more than that if it was so clear?
There is a Fact Check saying they rarely mention it and weren't clear when they did to help you:
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
Wilts I talk about the lie re Brexit not meaning leaving the Single Market you provide a link re the Customs Union but as the very first line of the article "Key figures from both the Remain and Leave campaigns said before the referendum that voting to leave meant leaving the single market" backs up my point exactly. Thank You.
-
Unfortunately Glyn it's my opinion that it was yourself who were subject to BS by the politicians and Establishment as soon as the result came through .
This talk emerged following the confirmation of the result and the narrative was changed , changed to leaving in name only if they could get away with it .
Exactly correct - the pejorative term 'Hard' Brexit and cuddly 'Soft' Brexit were invented after the referendum together with the lie that vote did not mandate leaving the Single Market.
Being able to remain in the Single Market after Brexit isn't a lie though.
If you and Tyke want to imagine that voting to leave the EU also de facto meant leaving the SM, go right ahead. But don't try to force that fantasy on the rest of the country.
PS Membership of the CU isn't dependent on membership of the EU either. Just ask Turkey - and they're not members of the SM at the same time.
-
The claim that the 2016 referendum decision was not a mandate to leave the Single Market is the single worst, most invidious lie in recent British political history.
A lie that doesn't just threaten an overturn, by stealth, of a democratic vote but citizen's faith in politicians and democracy and faith in the purest form of democracy - the referendum.
For those with foggy memories the historical evidence from the referendum campaign is clear. Let's take, for instance, interviews on the UK's premier political interview program of the time the Andrew Marr show: -
With leader of the Remain campaign David Cameron 12/6/16: Cameron "What the British public would be voting for, if we leave, would be to leave the EU and leave the Single Market"
De facto leader of the Leave campaign Boris Johnson 5/6/16: Marr "I had Michael Gove in that chair and I asked
after Brexit will we be in the Single Market yes or no. He said no". Johnson "And he was right". Marr "So we won't be in the EU Single Market?" Johnson "Absolutely".
To ignore, forget or misremember this evidence and claim otherwise to meet a political agenda is nothing short of despicable. To campaign to rejoin, without a referendum, the Single Market on the basis of this pernicious lie is equally despicable. The very epitome of 'post-truth'.
I have no problem with people who campaigned or voted to Remain in the EU, though I disagreed with them. I'd have no problem with people campaigning for a referendum to rejoin the EU. That is the honest, decent path Remainers/Rejoiners should have the moral courage and respect for democracy to follow.
Funny int it?
When the Remain campaign said that a vote to Leave would damage our economy, put the GFA at risk and endanger European solidarity and embolden Putin, the Brexit Death Cult insisted that was all Project Fear. But when Cameron said that Leave meant leaving the SM, he was the very Oracle itself.
Billy. So easy to get caught out in a lie isn't it? More evidence that the EU referendum campaign mandated a departure from the Single Market - the bits highlighted stemming from the risks of leaving the Single Market predominantly. Thank You too
You also seem confused on the difference between giving an opinion or asserting a fact.
Even in arguing against my crystal clear and undeniably true assertion that the Brexit vote was a mandate to leave the Single Market now 2 of the Remainers-in-chief on here provide further evidence of this self-evident truth.
-
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2017/08/take-it-vote-leave-staffer-there-no-mandate-quit-single-market
-
Being able to remain in the Single Market after Brexit isn't a lie though.
If you and Tyke want to imagine that voting to leave the EU also de facto meant leaving the SM, go right ahead. But don't try to force that fantasy on the rest of the country.
PS Membership of the CU isn't dependent on membership of the EU either. Just ask Turkey - and they're not members of the SM at the same time.
Of course you can be out of the EU and in the SM and/or CU.
That's not my point. My point is what was clearly and categorically framed in the referendum campaign - a vote to leave meant leaving the SM.
How about answering the below question
"So when, before the referendum, Farage, Johnson and lots of others campaigning for the Leave vote were saying that it didn't mean that we would leave the SM and that the Norwegian option (ie in the SM but not the EU), you knew they were lying to you."
Please provide evidence of this being said by prominent Leave campaigners during the the official campaign period for the 2016 referendum from 15 April 2016 until the day of the poll on 23 June 2016 to support your point.
-
Being able to remain in the Single Market after Brexit isn't a lie though.
If you and Tyke want to imagine that voting to leave the EU also de facto meant leaving the SM, go right ahead. But don't try to force that fantasy on the rest of the country.
PS Membership of the CU isn't dependent on membership of the EU either. Just ask Turkey - and they're not members of the SM at the same time.
Of course you can be out of the EU and in the SM and/or CU.
That's not my point. My point is what was clearly and categorically framed in the referendum campaign - a vote to leave meant leaving the SM.
How about answering the below question
"So when, before the referendum, Farage, Johnson and lots of others campaigning for the Leave vote were saying that it didn't mean that we would leave the SM and that the Norwegian option (ie in the SM but not the EU), you knew they were lying to you."
Please provide evidence of this being said by prominent Leave campaigners during the the official campaign period for the 2016 referendum from 15 April 2016 until the day of the poll on 23 June 2016 to support your point.
The campaign is irrelevant regarding any mandate, that only comes from the referendum itself when people actually placed their vote. Were was the question about the SM or the CU on the ballot paper?
As for what prominent Leave campaigners were saying, there's the entire Leave.EU manifesto. Even though it was published in January 2016, it was still extant during the official campaign and still their official position.
"Leave.EU agreed a detailed plan for leaving the EU that outlined a careful separation over two decades, membership of the single market in the medium term and, most astonishing of all, a second referendum to approve the withdrawal agreement."
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2019/11/08/when-he-supported-norway-the-brexit-policy-farage-would-rather-forget/
-
''Brexit Would Increase Security Threats To Britain, Former Top Military Leaders Warn In Letter''
''A British exit from the European Union would limit the UK’s capacity to deal with international dangers, including the threat from members of the so-called Islamic State group and the rise of Russian nationalism under Vladimir Putin, according to top former military commanders.
In a letter to the Telegraph newspaper on Wednesday, the former top brass highlighted the “grave security” risks facing Europe, which they said the UK would be better able to deal with as part of the EU.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/23/brexit-increase-security-threats-britain_n_9302886.html
Russian nationalism, who'd have thought ...............
-
The campaign is irrelevant regarding any mandate, that only comes from the referendum itself when people actually placed their vote. Were was the question about the SM or the CU on the ballot paper?
This made me laugh out loud!!!! PMSL
So what politicians state on campaign is irrelevant and the public shouldn't expect them to fulfil any campaign pledges/promises?!
At a General Election all that is relevant and mandated is the name of the candidate, the party' name and the candidates address because that is all that appears on the ballot paper?!
Good God the arguments on my central assertion that the leave vote was a mandate to leave the SM are either contradictory or pathetically weak here chaps. I wonder why that is? It's difficult to argue against the objective truth of course.
-
A general election is a vote for a representative.
A referendum is a vote on a specific question. Not a nebulous supposition. The specific question was about EU membership. Nothing else, no matter what you want to fantasise.
-
''Brexit Would Increase Security Threats To Britain, Former Top Military Leaders Warn In Letter''
''A British exit from the European Union would limit the UK’s capacity to deal with international dangers, including the threat from members of the so-called Islamic State group and the rise of Russian nationalism under Vladimir Putin, according to top former military commanders.
In a letter to the Telegraph newspaper on Wednesday, the former top brass highlighted the “grave security” risks facing Europe, which they said the UK would be better able to deal with as part of the EU.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/23/brexit-increase-security-threats-britain_n_9302886.html
Russian nationalism, who'd have thought ...............
SR, did you vote to remain or leave, Oh wait a minute…….
-
Even one of your heroes Tyke has recently admitted the best thing that could be done with bexit is to delay it. For all the bluster from your leader, johnson hasn't got it done by a long chalk, there is a long way to go yet and none of it is looking good.
Heroes ??
That's interesting given I didn't emigrate to the other side of the world to settle in a country that's had a right wing government for 20 of the last 26 years and with it some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world .
Makes you wonder who your heroes are Syd .
Maybe you're not a racist but you appear to be a xenophobe tyke and therefore not acceptable here so that bit's academic.
Unfortunately Syd those are the kind of playing the last card retorts that make you look like a complete idiot when it comes to political debate , instead of playing an ace you played the Joker .
The politics of the so called Progressive Left which is the tribe you tend to stick your hat on are the people of " the right thing to do " or " it's the decent thing to do " when it comes to the subject of immigration .
Except the " Right Thing To Do " isn't necessarily right politically .
Immigration also comes with problems .
The EU policy of open borders I find extremely dehumanising , a pool of 450m workers available to the top hats across Europe the majority of the cheap Labour variety lends itself to the citizens of anywhere ready to move around Europe filling in market shortages so the man with the Top hat on continues to keep the majority of the wealth created for himself without so much as leaving his top floor office .
Why should you expect your morning coffee on the High Street to be prepared for you by a migrant , is that your reality ? .
This trend then places downward pressure on wages , when there is an abundance of anything the price goes down , basic economics .
Not only that it then creates a lack of enthusiasm in governments , you could even call it laziness to not skill up and train it's workforce .
I've mentioned in the past the pressure it creates on our NHS , schools and housing I've no need to underline that .
So " The Decent Thing To Do " doesn't necessarily reconcile with reality and can make things worse .
I'll actually take the xenophobic comment on the chin because it says much more about you than it does me .
Maybe then you shouldn't throw insults around if you're so thinned skinned tyke and while you're at it tell me what isn't xenophobic about discounting someone's views be cause of where they happen to live, you ape others on this site have been doing it for some time. It's uncanny how they have similar opinions.
This is regardless that your argument is baseless and fact free. That everything you apparently stand for gets washed away because of your vote or non-vote doesn't seem to register with you at all. With an tanking economy, how is that going to help those on the bottom rung?
Why don't you explain how your vote has changed Britain for the better and why you didn't see any of this slow train wreck happening, it was predicted. Please try and keep it simple old chap.
Did you not digest anything at all in my last post that linked your comments about the other side of immigration .
Why don't you instead make the case against my comments ?
Now then is the current state of the economy the first time we've seen it slide ?
No it isn't , the worst recessions I've experienced were whilst members of the EU .
But you continue with your one man crusade around the internet looking to pin everything on leaving the EU .
The Wizz one was a classic by the way .
-
you're wizzing in the wind Tyke
-
Being able to remain in the Single Market after Brexit isn't a lie though.
If you and Tyke want to imagine that voting to leave the EU also de facto meant leaving the SM, go right ahead. But don't try to force that fantasy on the rest of the country.
PS Membership of the CU isn't dependent on membership of the EU either. Just ask Turkey - and they're not members of the SM at the same time.
Of course you can be out of the EU and in the SM and/or CU.
That's not my point. My point is what was clearly and categorically framed in the referendum campaign - a vote to leave meant leaving the SM.
How about answering the below question
"So when, before the referendum, Farage, Johnson and lots of others campaigning for the Leave vote were saying that it didn't mean that we would leave the SM and that the Norwegian option (ie in the SM but not the EU), you knew they were lying to you."
Please provide evidence of this being said by prominent Leave campaigners during the the official campaign period for the 2016 referendum from 15 April 2016 until the day of the poll on 23 June 2016 to support your point.
You are being deliberately obtuse if you think Farage saying "Wouldn't it be awful if we were like Norway and Switzerland? Really?!?" over and over and over again in the months and years before the campaign had no effect. The "campaign" didn't start when The Campaign started. It was going on for years.
Similarly when a prominent ex-Minister said "You'd have to be insane to think we'd leave The Market" on TV, you'd have to be very obtuse to think some people didn't think he was referring to our membership of the SM. Or when Gove said "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will remain in this zone" it takes a particular form of bias to think that some people didn't read that as an indication that we could have a relationship with the EU like Iceland's.
Your thesis is predicated on every voter processing every (deliberate or accidental) comment that muddied the waters and seeing a clear conclusion.
And bear in mind that the key policy of Cummings as the director of the Vote Leave campaign was (successfully) to target precisely the people who had little interest in political detail and urge them to vote on gut instinct.
The whole point of Ref2 would have been to check if the Brexit that the Tory Right finally landed on was indeed what the electorate wanted. There is absolutely zero evidence that it was.
-
Anyway. You lot who've been so happy the we Got Brexit Done. Watch the news on Monday evening.
-
Tt makes sense rather than getting employees from across the channel?
https://uk.jooble.org/jobs-fruit-and-veg-picker
''UK farmers turn to Nepal and Tajikistan for fruit pickers''
Bal Kumar Khatri has worked harvesting rice and beans in his native Nepal before, and been a trekking guide in the Himalayas.
But this year, instead, the 26-year-old is in a polytunnel in north Nottinghamshire picking strawberries.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61603429
''Fruitful Jobs is recruiting in 37 countries from South Africa to Kurdistan, Canada to Mongolia. But recruits have to find £244 for a visa plus their return air fare. That, plus the bureaucracy and language barriers, means it's not a quick process to recruit from new, far-flung places''
-
David Davis eh? He's always talked utter b*llocks but he used to do it persuasively. Sad to see him descend to Old Man Shouting At Clouds mode.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Channel4/status/1536055162560724992
-
sounds like he was briefed by the brexiteers on here.
-
Jan 2020. Davis votes in Parliament for the Brexit deal.
Jun 2022. Davis says Brexit is failing because it was a Remainer Brexit. And COVID. Come back in a year he says.
Jun 2052. David Davis says, Brexit is not working because of the economic damage caused by the ten days of Bank Holiday to mark the Queen's Centenary. Come back next year and see, he says.
-
Don't forget by the way. This is the same David Davis who, when Brexit Secretary, was asked if the Govt had done forecasts on the economic effect of Brexit.
He said no.
But that was a lie. The Govt had done detailed economic forecasts of everything from remaining in the SM, through a free trade agreement to a hard Brexit with no deal.
Every one of them said we'd be poorer for the foreseeable future than if we stayed in the EU.
Why on earth would the Brexit Secretary deny their existence? Almost as if ...
-
I did say a while back that most of those that voted for brexit will be dead before there are any benefits
-
''The multimillionaire Brexit backer Arron Banks has lost his libel action against the Observer and Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr, which was criticised as an attack on free speech.
Banks, who funded the pro-Brexit Leave.EU campaign group, sued Cadwalladr personally over two instances in which she said the businessman was lying about his relationship with the Russian state – one in a Ted Talk and the other in a tweet.
Her lawyer Gavin Millar QC had argued the case was an attempt to silence the journalist’s reporting on “matters of the highest public interest”, namely campaign finance, foreign money and the use of social media messaging and personal data in the context of the EU referendum''
-
RD
It is clear now this Brexit cannot happen without causing untold damage in Northern Ireland. We were warned of this but I always thought we could fudge it.
Two points.
1) Think who the politicians were who told you it was a problem that could be managed.
2) Watch the news on Monday.
I just saw the Monday lunchtime news.
Starmer to be investigated again for a potential further breach of the rules.
Not declaring gifts and other things.
But, but, but, he has apologised so I suppose it is ok.
-
Good for the goose........
Unlike the Goose Starmer does have principles and will resign
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
-
Looks very much like the MSM are trying to make something out of nothing here, Starmer was very confident that this is just an administrative error on his part and will be rectified.
Funny that for someone who trades on being whiter than white seems to be a darker shade of grey more often than not.
Not the image his PR team are trying to cultivate, must try harder Keith!
-
Wasn’t the blame for Raynor allegedly not being at the beergate gathering blamed on an underling as well.
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Lost me on that one Hound
-
Honest mistake made in good faith, nothing to see here…………
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Lost me on that one Hound
Ok mate, I’m sorry if I sound like bst here, but I will simplify for you.
I mentioned Starmer being investigated and you said “good for the goose” which I took to be a reference to Johnson being investigated previously.
I read your post as though you were saying if it was good enough for Johnson then it is good enough for Starmer (to be investigated).
Soooo, then I said “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
You must have heard that phrase before as it was a common one amongst our generation many years ago, used when someone tried to justify someone doing wrong because someone else had done the same thing.
Apologies if that sounds a bit condescending.
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Boris has committed way more than two wrongs and hasn't made a right yet!
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Lost me on that one Hound
Ok mate, I’m sorry if I sound like bst here, but I will simplify for you.
I mentioned Starmer being investigated and you said “good for the goose” which I took to be a reference to Johnson being investigated previously.
I read your post as though you were saying if it was good enough for Johnson then it is good enough for Starmer (to be investigated).
Soooo, then I said “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
You must have heard that phrase before as it was a common one amongst our generation many years ago, used when someone tried to justify someone doing wrong because someone else had done the same thing.
Apologies if that sounds a bit condescending.
Then why is it that all the Boris defenders immediately point to Starmer having supposedly done something just as bad as Boris as if it did make a right then? And that you never pick them up on it?
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Boris has committed way more than two wrongs and hasn't made a right yet!
So you are a Starmer apologist then Glyn.
I don’t disagree with what you have said there by the way. way.
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Lost me on that one Hound
Ok mate, I’m sorry if I sound like bst here, but I will simplify for you.
I mentioned Starmer being investigated and you said “good for the goose” which I took to be a reference to Johnson being investigated previously.
I read your post as though you were saying if it was good enough for Johnson then it is good enough for Starmer (to be investigated).
Soooo, then I said “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
You must have heard that phrase before as it was a common one amongst our generation many years ago, used when someone tried to justify someone doing wrong because someone else had done the same thing.
Apologies if that sounds a bit condescending.
Then why is it that all the Boris defenders immediately point to Starmer having supposedly done something just as bad as Boris as if it did make a right then? And that you never pick them up on it?
I can’t speak for anyone else but I don’t think that Johnson has done no wrong.
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Boris has committed way more than two wrongs and hasn't made a right yet!
So you are a Starmer apologist then Glyn.
I don’t disagree with what you have said there by the way. way.
Apologist for what? If the police determine tghat he's done wrong I certainly won't apologise for him, I'd expect him to do the honorable thing.
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Lost me on that one Hound
Ok mate, I’m sorry if I sound like bst here, but I will simplify for you.
I mentioned Starmer being investigated and you said “good for the goose” which I took to be a reference to Johnson being investigated previously.
I read your post as though you were saying if it was good enough for Johnson then it is good enough for Starmer (to be investigated).
Soooo, then I said “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
You must have heard that phrase before as it was a common one amongst our generation many years ago, used when someone tried to justify someone doing wrong because someone else had done the same thing.
Apologies if that sounds a bit condescending.
Then why is it that all the Boris defenders immediately point to Starmer having supposedly done something just as bad as Boris as if it did make a right then? And that you never pick them up on it?
I can’t speak for anyone else but I don’t think that Johnson has done no wrong.
I'm not asking you to speak for anyone else: "And that you never pick them up on it?"
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Boris has committed way more than two wrongs and hasn't made a right yet!
So you are a Starmer apologist then Glyn.
I don’t disagree with what you have said there by the way. way.
Having re read your above post I have changed my mind on your suggestion that Johnson hasn’t done anything right yet.
I think that quite a few businesses and workers would have been in a mess had it not been for the furlough scheme.
Some pensioners will be very happy to receive the no repayable amounts they are going to get towards fuel bills too.
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Boris has committed way more than two wrongs and hasn't made a right yet!
So you are a Starmer apologist then Glyn.
I don’t disagree with what you have said there by the way. way.
Having re read your above post I have changed my mind on your suggestion that Johnson hasn’t done anything right yet.
I think that quite a few businesses and workers would have been in a mess had it not been for the furlough scheme.
Some pensioners will be very happy to receive the no repayable amounts they are going to get towards fuel bills too.
Which of his wrongs made those right then?
I thought the first one was Rishi's idea anyway.
-
Raven, I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Boris has committed way more than two wrongs and hasn't made a right yet!
So you are a Starmer apologist then Glyn.
I don’t disagree with what you have said there by the way. way.
Having re read your above post I have changed my mind on your suggestion that Johnson hasn’t done anything right yet.
I think that quite a few businesses and workers would have been in a mess had it not been for the furlough scheme.
Some pensioners will be very happy to receive the no repayable amounts they are going to get towards fuel bills too.
Which of his wrongs made those right then?
I thought the first one was Rishi's idea anyway.
I have to laugh when if Johnson is blamed for something that one of his Ministers gets wrong but when one of them has a good idea (like Sunak for example) then it has nothing to do with Johnson.
-
Johnson has enough to be blamed for on his own account without anything anyone else has done being added to it. I can't remember anyone else's cock-up not being pinned on them and onto Johnson instead anyway.
-
So, a bit like Starmer blaming his minions then.
-
Not in the slightest.
-
I saw there were a lot of recent replies to this thread and was sure you would be discussing the reasons that UK GDP has fallen for the second consecutive month.
But no, seems, Starmer forgetting to declare he had gone to watch Arsenal is more relevant to Brexit.
Funny old world.
-
Well, he has apologised wilts.
-
Anyway. You lot who've been so happy the we Got Brexit Done. Watch the news on Monday evening.
Well bst, I took your advice and watched the news.
What were you saying we should have looked out for ?
-
Anyway. You lot who've been so happy the we Got Brexit Done. Watch the news on Monday evening.
Well bst, I took your advice and watched the news.
What were you saying we should have looked out for ?
…..
-
Unfortunately it looks like another brexit election
-
You are being deliberately obtuse if you think Farage saying "Wouldn't it be awful if we were like Norway and Switzerland? Really?!?" over and over and over again in the months and years before the campaign had no effect. The "campaign" didn't start when The Campaign started. It was going on for years.
Similarly when a prominent ex-Minister said "You'd have to be insane to think we'd leave The Market" on TV, you'd have to be very obtuse to think some people didn't think he was referring to our membership of the SM. Or when Gove said "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will remain in this zone" it takes a particular form of bias to think that some people didn't read that as an indication that we could have a relationship with the EU like Iceland's.
Your thesis is predicated on every voter processing every (deliberate or accidental) comment that muddied the waters and seeing a clear conclusion.
I remember a BBC radio “Gotcha” interview of Corbyn ahead of the '17 GE. He was queried on his prior support for abolishing the monarchy and unilateral nuclear disarmament. His response was simple, succinct and superb: “These are not policies Labour are campaigning on.”
When the referendum campaign began Leave and, just as importantly, Remain both coalesced around the fact that leaving the EU also would mean leaving the Single Market. This is borne out by the explicit and implicit evidence from the plethora of speeches, interviews, debates, leaflets etc. the public were bombarded with during a long, hugely publicised campaign.
Your abject failure to provide a single example from during the campaign of anyone claiming leaving the EU would entail staying in the SM says everything about the bankruptcy of your argument.
To dismiss this huge weight of evidence or suggest it is irrelevant or to put greater store on individual's personal opinions expressed months in advance of the campaign is crass, pathetic and frankly Trumpian.
It would take a particular form of either idealogical blinkeredness or dishonesty for someone to express the opinion that the electorate did not vote to leave the SM.
-
Or when Gove said "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will remain in this zone" it takes a particular form of bias to think that some people didn't read that as an indication that we could have a relationship with the EU like Iceland's.
Funny int it?
Not only are people who voted for Brexit stupid but their specific ignorances coincide exactly with your deliberate misinterpretations. So stupid they can't differentiate between the Single Market and a free trade zone, yet not so stupid to recognize Iceland is in the SM but strangely too stupid to realise Turkey is not.
Gove of course was talking up the UK's chances of obtaining a post-Brext free trade deal – thereby his speech was wholly consistent with us leaving the SM after Brexit – just like virtually every other campaign speech, debate, interview etc. etc. during the referendum.
Here's another quote from Gove on The Andrew Marr show 8/5/16 having been asked whether Brexit would involve leaving the Single Market: “We would be outside the Single Market.” Even the stupidest of Leave voting retards couldn't misinterpret that.
-
and davis has put truth to the lie of there being any benefits to brexit priod
-
Branton Red ignores Leave.EU printed manifesto shocker.
-
So much to chose from today, NHS continues to be undermined, tick, food standards eroded as predicted, tick ...................
-
Branton.
You just, twice, done exactly what I said you were doing. You've totally ignored my point about how the Leave side gave plenty of mixed messages about what the situation would be after Brexit. You assume every voter is a political analyst, able to cut through the smoke and see with precision what the politicians are saying implicitly and explicitly.
Your point on Give perfectly sums this up.
YOU know that Give was alluding to a free trade agreement. I know that. But where we differ is that you miss the blindingly obvious point - that Gove was giving examples of countries who ALL have better integration into the EU market than we could have (and that we have ended up with) outside both the SM and CU.
The clear inference was, "You can have your Brexit but there'll be no economic penalty." Which could only happen had we stayed in both the SM and CU.
You base your argument on the assumption that everyone who heard that from Gove, or the line from Farage for years about Norway or the outburst from the Brexit supporting ex Minister that it would be madness to leave "the market"...you assume that in all cases, every Leave Voter scratched their chin sagaciously and said, "yes I understand the nuances of this language. I appreciate that they are clearly and unambiguously saying we will leave the SM and CU."
In a vote where 1.7% of the electorate voting the other way would have given a different result, I admire your certainty that you are 100% right on this.
-
PS Branton. I've got the put-it-to-bed stinger to come on this issue. Bit busy right now but be patient.
-
How can there possibly be more than what's happened already, lies, lies, and yet more lies, really?
-
Gareth Keenan is alive and well and living down under.
-
Branton
If I understand you correctly, your argument is that the Leave side in the 2016 campaign made it clear that a vote for Leave clearly and unambiguously meant that we would leave the SM and CU. Therefore the concept of leaving the EU but staying in the SM and CU was clearly ruled out after the referendum. I disagree because I think there was considerable ambiguity, but let's accept your argument as a starting point.
(By the way, what the Remain side said on that topic is irrelevant. Most of what the Remain side warned could come to pass was vociferously rejected by Leave as Project Fear, so there is absolutely no justification in assuming the Leave voters accepted Remain's warnings.)
You'll recall I'm sure that the Leave side consistently and strenuously argued in 2016 that there was no possibility of us leaving the EU without a deal.
Leave made it clear that we would get a great trade deal.
"The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want" said Michael Gove. He also insisted "The In campaign often argues is that we would find it impossible to reach a trading agreement with the EU nations after we vote leave. There are, of course, some questions up for negotiation which will occupy our highly skilled foreign office civil servants, resolving them full and properly won't be any more complicated or onerous than the day-to-day work that they undertake now."
"Our trade (with the EU) is not at risk" said the intellectual giant John Redwood.
"I think we could very easily get a better trade deal than we have at the moment." said Douglas Carswell, the UKIP MP.
The official Vote Leave manifesto said "We will have a new UK-EU trading relationship. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. The heart of what we all want is the continuation of tariff-free trade with minimal bureaucracy. Countries as far away as Australia have Mutual Recognition agreements with the EU that deal with complex customs (and other ‘non-tariff barrier’) issues. We will do the same."
Leave.EU's campaign leaflet said "You don't have to be a member of the EU to trade with it. Switzerland is not in the EU and it exports more per person to the EU than we do." Switzerland of course is a member of the SM, so giving them as an example was clearly not proposing a No Deal.
No Deal simply wasn't on the table. No one could seriously claim that the vote in 2016 was a mandate for No Deal.
And yet...soon afterwards, May was saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal."
By 2018, No Deal was being pushed hard by many leave supporters.
By Autumn 2019, the Govt had published a No Deal readiness strategy.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/no-deal-readiness-report
That comprehensively puts to bed the argument that what was said in 2016 tied our hands in subsequent years.
The vote in 2016 evidently did not in any way tie the UK Govt's hands in choosing what the outcome of Brexit would be. Our Govt chose to interpret the vote as meaning that membership of the SM and CU were out of the question, but they were happy to leave No Deal on the table.
That decision was made as a means of dealing with the ongoing civil war in the Tory party. If you are going to insist that the SM/CU decision was an inevitability after the vote, you must square that with the Govt's position on No Deal.
-
''UK food sceptical as government insists 'no dilution of standards' for post-Brexit trade deals''
''The UK government’s food and farming minister has insisted that environmental, animal welfare and safety standards will not be put on the line in trade deals struck after Brexit. But calls for a food standards commission to scrutinise future agreements suggest the sector remains unconvinced''
https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2020/01/10/UK-food-sceptical-as-government-insists-no-dilution-of-standards-for-post-Brexit-trade-deals
You just can't convince some people aye?
-
Who said this .......................
............ ''because we are going to restore trust in our democracy
and we are going to fulfil the repeated promises of parliament to the people and come out of the EU on October 31
no ifs or buts
and we will do a new deal, a better deal that will maximise the opportunities of Brexit while allowing us to develop a new and exciting partnership with the rest of Europe
based on free trade and mutual support''
A/ toad of toad hall
B/ paul the octopus
C/ you can't catch me out like that
-
Or this ......................
............... ''and for the values we stand for around the world
Everyone knows the values that flag represents
It stands for freedom and free speech and habeas corpus and the rule of law
and above all it stands for democracy
and that is why we will come out of the EU on October 31
because in the end Brexit was a fundamental decision by the British people that they wanted their laws made by people that they can elect
and they can remove from office
and we must now respect that decision
and create a new partnership with our European friends – as warm and as close and as affectionate as possible''
A/ kermit
B/ dot cotton
C/ peter foster
D/ I can't remember
-
I saw there were a lot of recent replies to this thread and was sure you would be discussing the reasons that UK GDP has fallen for the second consecutive month.
But no, seems, Starmer forgetting to declare he had gone to watch Arsenal is more relevant to Brexit.
Funny old world.
So Keith's an Arsenal fan. Bloody hell, I hope he's not there when they play my fave PL team, Liverpool.
If the Pool win, he'll want a replay because he doesn't agree with the result.
-
I saw there were a lot of recent replies to this thread and was sure you would be discussing the reasons that UK GDP has fallen for the second consecutive month.
But no, seems, Starmer forgetting to declare he had gone to watch Arsenal is more relevant to Brexit.
Funny old world.
So Keith's an Arsenal fan. Bloody hell, I hope he's not there when they play my fave PL team, Liverpool.
If the Pool win, he'll want a replay because he doesn't agree with the result.
Yes, long term Arsenal fan and season ticket holder. Even goes to away matches, the tickets he didn't declare in time were for two away games.
-
I saw there were a lot of recent replies to this thread and was sure you would be discussing the reasons that UK GDP has fallen for the second consecutive month.
But no, seems, Starmer forgetting to declare he had gone to watch Arsenal is more relevant to Brexit.
Funny old world.
So Keith's an Arsenal fan. Bloody hell, I hope he's not there when they play my fave PL team, Liverpool.
If the Pool win, he'll want a replay because he doesn't agree with the result.
Yes, long term Arsenal fan and season ticket holder. Even goes to away matches, the tickets he didn't declare in time were for two away games.
I bet he doesn't sit with the lads. He doesn't like socialists.
-
Fintan O'Toole exposes the political gymnastics with the protocol to a bit of sunlight.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/15/britain-ni-protocol-brexit-ministers-deal
-
Billy
If that's your stinger you've placed it on the wrong road at the wrong time of day.
Firstly deal or no trade deal we'd still be out of the SM so your point is irrelevant.
Secondly though Leave campaigners expressed preference for a deal your assertion that they ruled out the possibility of no deal (particularly those, Farage et al, pushing for such in 2018) is simply false. Farage on ITV prime time Cameron v Farage 6/6/16 “no deal is better than the rotten deal that we’ve got at the moment.”
Thirdly you're claiming a false comparative. There could be no mandate for either deal or no deal from a leave vote as it wasn't solely in UK hands – the EU would need to sign up as well and to something acceptable. (Or were Leave voters too stupid to recognise this too?!)
Hence there was a genuine debate on whether there would be a trade deal with Leavers bullish and (some) Remainers sceptical.
Voters had to weigh up from said debate the likelihood of a trade deal being struck plus the scale of the damage of any potential no deal.
There was no such debate on whether we would still be in the SM after a leave vote as both campaigns expressly stated we would not be so as I've already clearly established. (And as you have proven to be correct by your abject failure to provide any evidence from the campaign to the contrary).
The real “put-it-to-bed stinger” on this topic was on post 425 on this thread where I gave direct quotes from the de facto leaders of both the Remain and Leave, on BBC1 TV, stating categorically that a vote to leave entailed leaving the SM. What more proof is needed?!
If there was a kernel of truth in your claims you'd be able to direct me to a campaign quote stating leaving the EU did not entail leaving the SM. You failed to do this. Your juggernaut of untruth has been stopped dead in its' tracks.
-
"Branton Red still ignores Leave.EU printed campaign manifesto double shocker!"
-
Branton.
Forgive me for pointing this out. Perhaps I thought it so obvious that I didn't make it clear before.
My point was that no single person on the Leave side said that OUR policy choice would be to embrace No Deal.
Your Farage quote is entirely out of context. He was saying (admittedly in a hectoring stream of consciousness rant) that if the EU imposed a No Deal on us, it would be better than the existing situation where we stayed in the EU. He said "If the French and Germans decide to cut their noses off and put tariffs on us, those tariffs will be significantly lower than our net financial contribution, so No Deal is significantly better than the rotten deal we have at the moment."
The logic of that is utter crap of course, but that's not the point.
No one was saying OUR policy should be to leave the EU and then actively embrace, as a matter of our own choice, a No Deal.
No-one went into the ballot box on 23 June 2016 thinking they were mandating our country to embrace a No Deal outcome. Yet within a few months, our national position was that No Deal was perfectly acceptable.
THAT is my point. That the vote left it up to a small group of right wing politicians to ignore what they had promised in the campaign, and to actively promote No Deal as a UK policy choice. To the extent that Johnson illegally prorogued Parliament to give himself the freedom to conclude the negotiations with a No Deal outcome if he chose to do so.
That establishes my point. Nothing said in the campaign tied the hands of the right wing of the Tory party to take whatever path they wanted in the negotiations. That small group chose the interpretation that leaving the SM and CU was demanded by the vote, but avoiding No Deal as a policy choice wasn't. That, despite the overwhelming polling evidence that No Deal was always roundly rejected by the overwhelming majority of the population.
You are choosing to sanctify their choice as a matter of democratic sanctity. It wasn't. It was a political choice.
Of course, we didn't end up with No Deal. We could well have done though. Not because it was imposed on us as a decision by the EU. Because we could have chosen it as being mandated by the 2016 vote. Farage himself was demanding that as his price for an electoral pact with the Tories by August 2019. Would that have been a democratic outcome?
But if you don't like hypotheticals, look at what actually happened. We ended up with a deal, the detail of which was systematically lied about by the Tories throughout the 2019 General Election campaign. Do you not find that an egregious abuse of the democratic process?
-
PS.
Farage of course went on to lie about what he'd said during the campaign
In May 2019 he told Andrew Marr "No deal is better than a bad deal – I was using (that exact phrase) every day for the last two weeks of that campaign."
He didn't. Not once.
-
"Branton Red still ignores Leave.EU printed campaign manifesto double shocker!"
Published in Jan 2016; dumped in Feb 2016 when Grassroots Out manifesto superceded on it; never campaigned on by any leading figure - certainly not during the official campaign period.
Think it deserves ignoring.
Still not found any evidence for anyone saying a leave vote didn't necessarily involve leaving the SM during the Brexit campaign?
Your argument is dead in the water
-
Billy to sum up your position on this: -
1) You ignore that both Leave and Remain campaigned on the basis that a leave vote meant leaving the SM – despite the evidence from 1000's of speeches, debates, leaflets etc.
2) You ignore that this instructed a huge portion of the debate from Leave's benefits of ending freedom of movement to Remain's economic warnings based explicitly by Osbourne at the time as impacts of leaving the SM – which all Remain campaigners endorsed.
3) You fail to find a single piece of evidence from the campaign of the electorate being told leaving the EU did not mean leaving the SM yet fail to acknowledge the significance of this.
4) You summarily dismiss quotes from the most senior figures on our most watched TV station stating categorically a leave vote meant leaving the SM
5) Instead you focus on a small number of obscure quotes (in a long campaign there was bound to be some such) where leaving the SM was not explicitly stated and claim 'ambiguity' throughout the whole campaign.
6) Typically of an ideologue who pays democracy lip service you use these quotes to claim the opposition were deliberately misleading the electorate – in spite your side saying the same thing and points 1, 2 and esp 4 above
7) Typically of an ideologue who pays democracy lip service you claim no mandate for leaving the SM (despite points 1-4 above) because people were too stupid to understand on the assumption they only saw your 'ambiguous' points and not the more prominent/numerous explicit ones (point 4)
8) You claim the Remain campaigning vociferously against leaving the EU and SM together is irrelevant because Leave voters can't have been listening – otherwise they'd have surely voted differently. Again typical of a defeated idealogue.
9) You ignore the fact that there was no debate during the campaign on whether or not leaving the EU meant leaving the SM – as this had already been settled (points 1&2)
10) You then draw false equivalence with an issue which was hotly debated – whether we would get a free trade deal post-Brexit. (Ironically a debate framed by the fact both sides accepted leaving the EU meant leaving the SM).
You're ignoring and/or dismissing the basic truth in order to maintain a lie seeking to subvert our democracy simply because it suits you're idealogical viewpoint.
You are a UK Europhile version of a Donald Trump acolyte.
-
Of course as has been said how many political parties are putting rejoining the single market on the table? How do we think that would play out in an election campaign?
-
BFYP - I believe the Lib Dems, Green Party & SNP all have re-join the EU (in one form or another) as part of their manifesto or future programme. They all gained in the last local elections.
The Lib Dems of course overturned a large Tory majority in North Shropshire (a Leave area). Tiverton (another big Tory majority in a Leave area) should be interesting this week.
As I have mentioned a couple of times, the way the polls are going at the moment, the next government will be Labour in coalition with (at least one) pro re-join party.
People should be very careful what they wish for.
-
"Branton Red still ignores Leave.EU printed campaign manifesto double shocker!"
Published in Jan 2016; dumped in Feb 2016 when Grassroots Out manifesto superceded on it; never campaigned on by any leading figure - certainly not during the official campaign period.
Think it deserves ignoring.
Still not found any evidence for anyone saying a leave vote didn't necessarily involve leaving the SM during the Brexit campaign?
Your argument is dead in the water
Greenshoots Out was a completely separate organisation: anything they published could not supercede anything published by another organisation.
Leave.EU's manifesto was not withdrawn, it was still extant during the whole campaign.
-
Branton
You make a long list again that misses my point.
My point being that literally no-one said before the vote that leaving with no deal should be our chosen policy. When the Remain side said that was a possibility, they were shouted down as Project Fear.
Yet within days of the vote, a prominent Leave campaigner, Richard Rice, said we should aim for that. Within months Govt policy was to throw that in the table as something we could accept that as a position. By 2019, we had Parliament closed down specifically so the Govt could embrace it, despite a deal being clearly available.
My point is that this demolishes the argument that what was said in the campaign in any way tied the hands of anyone after the vote. Either legally or morally. What we did after the vote was a matter of political choice. You accept that because it was the outcome you wanted. Don't try to claim it was inevitable.
-
Wet-leasing aircraft? can anybody explain .......... tyke?
-
Anyway. You lot who've been so happy the we Got Brexit Done. Watch the news on Monday evening.
Well bst, I took your advice and watched the news.
What were you saying we should have looked out for ?
…..
Does anyone know what bst was telling us all to look out for on last Mondays news.
He posted about it three or four times so I made a point of watching but there didn’t seem to be anything remarkable.
-
New work from the Resolution Foundation on the economic consequences of brexit;
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/brexit-has-damaged-britains-competitiveness-and-will-make-us-poorer-in-the-decade-ahead/
If only we had known!
-
Yep, if only someone had spoken up!
''A late plea for voters to back the remain option in this week’s EU referendum has been issued by 1,285 business leaders who say in a letter to The Times that Brexit would damage Britain’s economy''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/22/1200-business-leaders-back-remain-eu-referendum-vote
-
Branton
You make a long list again that misses my point.
My point being that literally no-one said before the vote that leaving with no deal should be our chosen policy. When the Remain side said that was a possibility, they were shouted down as Project Fear.
Yet within days of the vote, a prominent Leave campaigner, Richard Rice, said we should aim for that. Within months Govt policy was to throw that in the table as something we could accept that as a position. By 2019, we had Parliament closed down specifically so the Govt could embrace it, despite a deal being clearly available.
My point is that this demolishes the argument that what was said in the campaign in any way tied the hands of anyone after the vote. Either legally or morally. What we did after the vote was a matter of political choice. You accept that because it was the outcome you wanted. Don't try to claim it was inevitable.
A long list which is a sad indictment of the untruthfulness inherent in your position.
See point 10 on making false comparatives.
It was never Government policy to pursue no deal. It was policy to keep the threat of no deal on the table in order to obtain the best possible deal. As you well know.
We have proven (myself through fact yourself through omission) that the public were told by both sides explicitly, implicitly and by dint of the framing of the debate that a leave vote would entail leaving the SM. So this is not about what I want but what the public were clearly and unarguably told. Leaving the SM was not legally enforceable true but don't try to claim there was no democratic, and therefore moral, mandate for it just because it's not what you want.
-
"Branton Red still ignores Leave.EU printed campaign manifesto double shocker!"
Published in Jan 2016; dumped in Feb 2016 when Grassroots Out manifesto superceded on it; never campaigned on by any leading figure - certainly not during the official campaign period.
Think it deserves ignoring.
Still not found any evidence for anyone saying a leave vote didn't necessarily involve leaving the SM during the Brexit campaign?
Your argument is dead in the water
Greenshoots Out was a completely separate organisation: anything they published could not supercede anything published by another organisation.
Leave.EU's manifesto was not withdrawn, it was still extant during the whole campaign........
......... and nobody campaigned on it.
Still not found any evidence for anyone saying a leave vote didn't necessarily involve leaving the SM during the Brexit campaign?
Your argument is dead in the water
-
Happy Brexit anniversary day everybody, the most important day of your lives, its the day that made you what you are, can you remember being happy?
-
Well Branton, we're clearly not going to agree on this. You think that the vote mandated us to withdraw from the SM and CU and that was a red line. I don't.
I guess we are going to have to agree to di....
Hang on a minute though. Do you recall the precise wording on the ballot paper?
-
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
Given the SM and CU are part of the Eu the inference is leaving the Meant leaving it’s schemes by defeat. Regardless of what people hoped for in negotiating an exit deal.
-
Thanks Ldr.
"United Kingdom". Not "Great Britain".
-
Point being, the UK left the EU, but the UK didn't leave the SM and CU. GB did...
-
Geographically accurate
-
I think you mean "accurate".
-
Point being (at the risk of someone once again accusing me of being condescending for saying it, because it really ought o be bleeding obvious) Branton's insistence that leaving the SM and CU was non-negotiably decided once we voted to Leave, and there was no way that could possibly be entertained as an option is not just wrong in principle - we actually DID leave a part of the UK in the SM and CU!
-
Happy Brexit Day and congratulations to all our Brexiteers for the benefits they have brought us.
In other news the OBR (thats the offical Tory government budget forecasters) confirmed that is still expects us to loose 4% of GDP per year (£100 billion per year) every year.
As our contrbution to the EU was roughly £13 billion per year that means Johnson's Brexit Deal is set to cost the country £87 BILLION per year, every year, for the foreseable future.
Have a great day.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1539993719440547842
-
The Labour Party have announced through David Lammy they will not seek to rejoin the SM or Euro bloc as of half n hour ago .
-
Can’t be true tyke, they wouldn’t announce a policy plan this far ahead of a GE.
-
Point being (at the risk of someone once again accusing me of being condescending for saying it, because it really ought o be bleeding obvious) Branton's insistence that leaving the SM and CU was non-negotiably decided once we voted to Leave, and there was no way that could possibly be entertained as an option is not just wrong in principle - we actually DID leave a part of the UK in the SM and CU!
So Boris didn't 'get Brexit done'! He's betrayed the Referendum result. According to Branton's weird logic, anyway.
-
Can’t be true tyke, they wouldn’t announce a policy plan this far ahead of a GE.
And they still haven't Hound in reality , they voted for Johnson's deal .
-
They voted for his lies.
-
The Labour Party have announced through David Lammy they will not seek to rejoin the SM or Euro bloc as of half n hour ago .
Is there more to it than this? Doesn't seem to amount to much.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/23/labour-unveil-plans-to-seek-limited-changes-to-brexit-deal
-
None other than David Frost doesn't have a clue
-
The Labour Party have announced through David Lammy they will not seek to rejoin the SM or Euro bloc as of half n hour ago .
That could be an issue once there is a coalition Lib Dem/ Labour govt.
-
The Labour Party have announced through David Lammy they will not seek to rejoin the SM or Euro bloc as of half n hour ago .
Is there more to it than this? Doesn't seem to amount to much.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/23/labour-unveil-plans-to-seek-limited-changes-to-brexit-deal
Is this Labours start to try to instil into the electorate some sort of admission that they were wrong to tie the hands of the government during the brexit negotiations with the Benn bill ?
Could be i suppose or it could just be DL demonstrating to the whole country how duplicitous and hypocritical someone can be, when you remember some of the things this man was going to do to ensure the will of the people would be trampled upon.
Labour breaks ground with a policy anouncment, how long will this one last before Keith decides to ignore it?
-
The Labour Party have announced through David Lammy they will not seek to rejoin the SM or Euro bloc as of half n hour ago .
Is there more to it than this? Doesn't seem to amount to much.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/23/labour-unveil-plans-to-seek-limited-changes-to-brexit-deal
Thoughts and prayers to BST
-
The Labour Party have announced through David Lammy they will not seek to rejoin the SM or Euro bloc as of half n hour ago .
Is there more to it than this? Doesn't seem to amount to much.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/23/labour-unveil-plans-to-seek-limited-changes-to-brexit-deal
Thoughts and prayers to BST
:ohmy:
-
The Labour Party have announced through David Lammy they will not seek to rejoin the SM or Euro bloc as of half n hour ago .
Is there more to it than this? Doesn't seem to amount to much.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/23/labour-unveil-plans-to-seek-limited-changes-to-brexit-deal
Thoughts and prayers to BST
No need. I'm not advocating for us to rejoin the SM and CU yet. We WILL do, one day, but only when the economic pain has hurt enough people for long enough to make them see sense. That'll be a decade or more.
My arguments in this thread have been on the theme that this never needed to have happened in the first place, not that it should be reversed now it has happened.
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
-
I have spoken against those saying johnson is a gift for labour as it's not good for the country. But as has already been said a new leader wouldn't have much truck with the residue and the bench looks well underdone, so the country will go on being led by donkeys. Stay or go I don't think it matters much, roll on the election.
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
-
middle stump that one!
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Like others have said, that ship has sailed and it would be in no parties interest to campaign to reverse anything.
What they should do now is to work to achieve the best possible outcome from the decision taken, if the Labour party had spent the last parliament working to ensure we had the very best outcome from the negotiations instead of running to Brussels and in effect sabotaging everything that could be achieved from leaving the SM and CU we would be in a very much stronger position now.
As to their "current position to honour the Brexit vote" means a great many different things to different people. If they win the next GE they have in effect made their task a great deal harder to implement meaningful and sustainable change due to their weasel words and actions during the negotiations.
Smokescreen to enable a large enough voting swing comes to mind before wholesale changes to their policy.
How many people could trust Starmer?
-
A lot more than would trust Boris.
-
brexit is still labour's fault!
busadvertising
Brexit was labour's fault
Vote tory
-
I dont know anyone who trust's Johnson.
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Like others have said, that ship has sailed and it would be in no parties interest to campaign to reverse anything.
What they should do now is to work to achieve the best possible outcome from the decision taken, if the Labour party had spent the last parliament working to ensure we had the very best outcome from the negotiations instead of running to Brussels and in effect sabotaging everything that could be achieved from leaving the SM and CU we would be in a very much stronger position now.
As to their "current position to honour the Brexit vote" means a great many different things to different people. If they win the next GE they have in effect made their task a great deal harder to implement meaningful and sustainable change due to their weasel words and actions during the negotiations.
Smokescreen to enable a large enough voting swing comes to mind before wholesale changes to their policy.
How many people could trust Starmer?
And what would be better for this country than what we have been left with now? What 'could be achieved' from leaving the SM and CU without resorting to the unicorns the ERG kept spewing out?
We have left. That has consequences. Those consequences can't be wished away.
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Like others have said, that ship has sailed and it would be in no parties interest to campaign to reverse anything.
What they should do now is to work to achieve the best possible outcome from the decision taken, if the Labour party had spent the last parliament working to ensure we had the very best outcome from the negotiations instead of running to Brussels and in effect sabotaging everything that could be achieved from leaving the SM and CU we would be in a very much stronger position now.
As to their "current position to honour the Brexit vote" means a great many different things to different people. If they win the next GE they have in effect made their task a great deal harder to implement meaningful and sustainable change due to their weasel words and actions during the negotiations.
Smokescreen to enable a large enough voting swing comes to mind before wholesale changes to their policy.
How many people could trust Starmer?
I have no idea about your last point DD but as I have said several times (and we are going to hear a lot more from now on) unless Starmer wins an outright majority in the next GE he will be in a coalition with a pro-rejoin party (maybe more than 1).
People need to be careful what they wish for.
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Like others have said, that ship has sailed and it would be in no parties interest to campaign to reverse anything.
What they should do now is to work to achieve the best possible outcome from the decision taken, if the Labour party had spent the last parliament working to ensure we had the very best outcome from the negotiations instead of running to Brussels and in effect sabotaging everything that could be achieved from leaving the SM and CU we would be in a very much stronger position now.
As to their &quot;current position to honour the Brexit vote&quot; means a great many different things to different people. If they win the next GE they have in effect made their task a great deal harder to implement meaningful and sustainable change due to their weasel words and actions during the negotiations.
Smokescreen to enable a large enough voting swing comes to mind before wholesale changes to their policy.
How many people could trust Starmer?
And what would be better for this country than what we have been left with now? What 'could be achieved' from leaving the SM and CU without resorting to the unicorns the ERG kept spewing out?
We have left. That has consequences. Those consequences can't be wished away.
What should of happened after the referendum was for the democratic process to be allowed to run its course, To persist and continue with a lost cause by the remainer cabal only resulted in the negotiation being high jacked and disrupted by Quislings and agitators which resulted in the final agreement being sub optimal.That was the time for all of parliament to get behind the deal and ensure we got he best deal possible, after all, we all as a nation now have to live by this process until as such time the electorate decide differently.
The time for agitation and protest in parliament would of been after this had been given its democratic mandate to run its course. Let the people of the country decide at the next GE.
After all is it not still the case that this demographic is supposed to "die out" before the next election and the new young intake of eligible voters will give it its just deserts?
Is this not the way the democratic process is supposed to work in this country?
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Like others have said, that ship has sailed and it would be in no parties interest to campaign to reverse anything.
What they should do now is to work to achieve the best possible outcome from the decision taken, if the Labour party had spent the last parliament working to ensure we had the very best outcome from the negotiations instead of running to Brussels and in effect sabotaging everything that could be achieved from leaving the SM and CU we would be in a very much stronger position now.
As to their &quot;current position to honour the Brexit vote&quot; means a great many different things to different people. If they win the next GE they have in effect made their task a great deal harder to implement meaningful and sustainable change due to their weasel words and actions during the negotiations.
Smokescreen to enable a large enough voting swing comes to mind before wholesale changes to their policy.
How many people could trust Starmer?
I have no idea about your last point DD but as I have said several times (and we are going to hear a lot more from now on) unless Starmer wins an outright majority in the next GE he will be in a coalition with a pro-rejoin party (maybe more than 1).
People need to be careful what they wish for.
Im sure you understood my last point very well, Starmer will say one thing to placate the leave voters of the left to persuade them to vote the correct way, Its not going to be beyond this ardent remainer to change his mind when he has a mandate that will enable him to have a large enough majority to enact his deceitful intentions.
Keith cannot be trusted to lie straight in bed never mind an election manifesto.
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Like others have said, that ship has sailed and it would be in no parties interest to campaign to reverse anything.
What they should do now is to work to achieve the best possible outcome from the decision taken, if the Labour party had spent the last parliament working to ensure we had the very best outcome from the negotiations instead of running to Brussels and in effect sabotaging everything that could be achieved from leaving the SM and CU we would be in a very much stronger position now.
As to their &amp;quot;current position to honour the Brexit vote&amp;quot; means a great many different things to different people. If they win the next GE they have in effect made their task a great deal harder to implement meaningful and sustainable change due to their weasel words and actions during the negotiations.
Smokescreen to enable a large enough voting swing comes to mind before wholesale changes to their policy.
How many people could trust Starmer?
I have no idea about your last point DD but as I have said several times (and we are going to hear a lot more from now on) unless Starmer wins an outright majority in the next GE he will be in a coalition with a pro-rejoin party (maybe more than 1).
People need to be careful what they wish for.
Im sure you understood my last point very well, Starmer will say one thing to placate the leave voters of the left to persuade them to vote the correct way, Its not going to be beyond this ardent remainer to change his mind when he has a mandate that will enable him to have a large enough majority to enact his deceitful intentions.
Keith cannot be trusted to lie straight in bed never mind an election manifesto.
As I said I have no idea on your last point DD. I understand it but am unable to put a number on it. It was just under 50% of the people who voted in Wakefield yesterday if that helps.
My other point still stands. The Lib Dems/SNP & Labour in Wales will take away Johnson's majority. Unless Starmer gets his own majority he will be in coaltion with a least one of these explicit pro re-join parties.
Its up to you how you vote when the time comes - but strong rumours that this could be as early as this Autumn (before cost of living really kicks in/ the standards enquiry & covid enquiry. Good luck.
-
Still claiming you're politically neutral DD?
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Wilts, I have been saying for some time now that those people bleating on about how bad Brexit is should accept the outcome of the vote and get on with their lives.
Those of us in the UK have to get on with things as we can’t change anything for the foreseeable future.
I have been bombed with expletives for daring to say that.
I voted remain by the way.
Out of interest, do you think we should honour the outcome of the vote?
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Like others have said, that ship has sailed and it would be in no parties interest to campaign to reverse anything.
What they should do now is to work to achieve the best possible outcome from the decision taken, if the Labour party had spent the last parliament working to ensure we had the very best outcome from the negotiations instead of running to Brussels and in effect sabotaging everything that could be achieved from leaving the SM and CU we would be in a very much stronger position now.
As to their &amp;quot;current position to honour the Brexit vote&amp;quot; means a great many different things to different people. If they win the next GE they have in effect made their task a great deal harder to implement meaningful and sustainable change due to their weasel words and actions during the negotiations.
Smokescreen to enable a large enough voting swing comes to mind before wholesale changes to their policy.
How many people could trust Starmer?
And what would be better for this country than what we have been left with now? What 'could be achieved' from leaving the SM and CU without resorting to the unicorns the ERG kept spewing out?
We have left. That has consequences. Those consequences can't be wished away.
What should of happened after the referendum was for the democratic process to be allowed to run its course, To persist and continue with a lost cause by the remainer cabal only resulted in the negotiation being high jacked and disrupted by Quislings and agitators which resulted in the final agreement being sub optimal.That was the time for all of parliament to get behind the deal and ensure we got he best deal possible, after all, we all as a nation now have to live by this process until as such time the electorate decide differently.
The time for agitation and protest in parliament would of been after this had been given its democratic mandate to run its course. Let the people of the country decide at the next GE.
After all is it not still the case that this demographic is supposed to "die out" before the next election and the new young intake of eligible voters will give it its just deserts?
Is this not the way the democratic process is supposed to work in this country?
Now that you've got all that waffle out of your system, perhaps you'll tell us all what we would have got different - and better - to what we have now, which is what I asked in the first place.
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Wilts, I have been saying for some time now that those people bleating on about how bad Brexit is should accept the outcome of the vote and get on with their lives.
Those of us in the UK have to get on with things as we can’t change anything for the foreseeable future.
I have been bombed with expletives for daring to say that.
I voted remain by the way.
Out of interest, do you think we should honour the outcome of the vote?
That's the problem tho DD - people esp politicians know that Johnson's Brexit deal is one of the factors making life worse for ordinary people - and will do for some time to come. What do they do about it?
Yes - but we should ammend Johnson's deal to get better trading conditions with the EU - is my answer btw (which is the current Labour policy I believe)
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Wilts, I have been saying for some time now that those people bleating on about how bad Brexit is should accept the outcome of the vote and get on with their lives.
Those of us in the UK have to get on with things as we can’t change anything for the foreseeable future.
I have been bombed with expletives for daring to say that.
I voted remain by the way.
Out of interest, do you think we should honour the outcome of the vote?
The 'vote' as you put it was advisory only, not mandatory. So, in honouring the vote what SHOULD have happened was that a detailed set of proposals should have been drawn up by a Working Party comprising members of all parliamentary parties as to the mechanisms of exactly how and when we would leave the EU, with fully costed benefits and costed impacts of our doing so. These should then have been debated and amended in parliament with input from all parties before finally being put back to the public for confirmation.
But we are where we are, and the blame for the mess we're in falls firmly on the shoulders of the Tories for pressing ahead on their own agenda, regardless of the consequences! But tell me, if you keep banging your head against a hard object do you continue to do so hoping the pain will eventually stop and things will improve because someone told you they would, or do you go back to what you were doing before you started doing something that it was clear was always going to hurt for a very very long time and have a rethink?
Of course, if you want to take honouring the referendum at face value, the only option to do that was to walk away from the EU in total; no negotiations, no deal of any kind, WTO rules, and a hard border between NI and the Republic with the associated breaking of the Good Friday Agreement, just walk away and be done - because that was the only option on the paper.
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Wilts, I have been saying for some time now that those people bleating on about how bad Brexit is should accept the outcome of the vote and get on with their lives.
Those of us in the UK have to get on with things as we can’t change anything for the foreseeable future.
I have been bombed with expletives for daring to say that.
I voted remain by the way.
Out of interest, do you think we should honour the outcome of the vote?
Irrespective of what anyone thinks, the outcome of the vote has been honoured. We have a signed, legally binding agreement with the EU that says so.
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Wilts, I have been saying for some time now that those people bleating on about how bad Brexit is should accept the outcome of the vote and get on with their lives.
Those of us in the UK have to get on with things as we can’t change anything for the foreseeable future.
I have been bombed with expletives for daring to say that.
I voted remain by the way.
Out of interest, do you think we should honour the outcome of the vote?
Irrespective of what anyone thinks, the outcome of the vote has been honoured. We have a signed, legally binding agreement with the EU that says so.
:that:
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Wilts, I have been saying for some time now that those people bleating on about how bad Brexit is should accept the outcome of the vote and get on with their lives.
Those of us in the UK have to get on with things as we can’t change anything for the foreseeable future.
I have been bombed with expletives for daring to say that.
I voted remain by the way.
Out of interest, do you think we should honour the outcome of the vote?
Irrespective of what anyone thinks, the outcome of the vote has been honoured. We have a signed, legally binding agreement with the EU that says so.
It's clearly not. Johnson has been saying for weeks that he disagrees with the person who agreed and signed the deal - because he disagrees with some of the things in it and wants to/is going to/ change it.
In fact I notice in on of the interviews today he said that this deal has not 'got Brexit done' - but is instead only the beginning of what could be a long process. Hmmm...
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
Wilts, you have picked up the wrong end of the stick matey.
Read the the opening sentence of Katos volley at me and he says “the vote, as you put it”.
I was explaining to him that you had used the expression (vote) and asked him why he hadn’t jumped on you, rather than me, for calling the vote, the vote, so to speak.
I never suggested that people should be reprimanded for asking questions.
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
Wilts, you have picked up the wrong end of the stick matey.
Read the the opening sentence of Katos volley at me and he says “the vote, as you put it”.
I was explaining to him that you had used the expression (vote) and asked him why he hadn’t jumped on you, rather than me, for calling the vote, the vote, so to speak.
I never suggested that people should be reprimanded for asking questions.
I have picked up exactly on what you wrote hound. I asked a very simple question and you asked Kato why he didn't repremand me for asking it.
If you want to argue with Kato thats between you and him, dont go dragging me into it just for the sake of it - or you will need to justify doing it.
-
So in effect your thinking is.
I want a Labour government installed in 2024,
They will not be able to enact any policy that will reverse your belief that leaving the SM and CU had created.
They will need over a decade to undo all the polices in place that the Tories have implemented and bring forward coherent and workable policies that will enable this country to decide that being back in the SM and CU is worth the effort.
Why would we be voting for another decade and more of regurgitated upheaval after this last one, that MAY put us in a position we were last in two decades ago?
Is this going to be your selling point going forwards, are you expecting the country to vote for that!!
Do you think Labour should campaign to reverse Brexit DD? Or do you agree with their current position to honour the Brexit vote?
Wilts, I have been saying for some time now that those people bleating on about how bad Brexit is should accept the outcome of the vote and get on with their lives.
Those of us in the UK have to get on with things as we can’t change anything for the foreseeable future.
I have been bombed with expletives for daring to say that.
I voted remain by the way.
Out of interest, do you think we should honour the outcome of the vote?
Irrespective of what anyone thinks, the outcome of the vote has been honoured. We have a signed, legally binding agreement with the EU that says so.
Legally binding until it doesn't suit you mean
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
Wilts, you have picked up the wrong end of the stick matey.
Read the the opening sentence of Katos volley at me and he says “the vote, as you put it”.
I was explaining to him that you had used the expression (vote) and asked him why he hadn’t jumped on you, rather than me, for calling the vote, the vote, so to speak.
I never suggested that people should be reprimanded for asking questions.
I have picked up exactly on what you wrote hound. I asked a very simple question and you asked Kato why he didn't repremand me for asking it.
If you want to argue with Kato thats between you and him, dont go dragging me into it just for the sake of it - or you will need to justify doing it.
But I am justifying it wilts.
None of my comment was aimed at you.
I simply asked Kato why he jumped on me for saying “the vote”,instead of jumping on you for saying “the vote.”
You are being very sensitive about something that doesn’t exist.
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
Wilts, you have picked up the wrong end of the stick matey.
Read the the opening sentence of Katos volley at me and he says “the vote, as you put it”.
I was explaining to him that you had used the expression (vote) and asked him why he hadn’t jumped on you, rather than me, for calling the vote, the vote, so to speak.
I never suggested that people should be reprimanded for asking questions.
I have picked up exactly on what you wrote hound. I asked a very simple question and you asked Kato why he didn't repremand me for asking it.
If you want to argue with Kato thats between you and him, dont go dragging me into it just for the sake of it - or you will need to justify doing it.
But I am justifying it wilts.
None of my comment was aimed at you.
I simply asked Kato why he jumped on me for saying “the vote”,instead of jumping on you for saying “the vote.”
You are being very sensitive about something that doesn’t exist.
Hound, I haven’t ‘jumped’ on anyone. I simply stated what I believed should have happened given the scenario of the 2016 referendum, and the reason we are in the mess we currently are with respect to leaving the EU. It was you who asked should we honour the result of the referendum, I simply gave my view on that question - or are you suggesting I should be barred from giving my opinion?
I stand by my response to your question, wholeheartedly.
-
And the head banging continues.
-
I know it's for the Sunday media but ...............
''On 23 June 2016, Geoffrey Betts, the managing director of a small office supplies business in Marlow, Buckinghamshire, had high hopes for his firm, and the British economy, when he voted for Brexit.
“I thought we would be like … ‘here we go, here we go. We are going to become the most competitive country in Europe and we are going to be encouraging business.’ Now I think: ‘What have we done?’”
His firm, Stewart Superior, has survived, but not without major restructuring and huge efforts to get around obstacles that Brexit has put in the way of the export side of the business.
In late 2020 Betts decided there was no option but to set up a depot inside the EU single market – in the Netherlands – at considerable expense, to avoid costly delays in transit, mountains of Brexit-related paperwork at the border, and VAT issues when sending goods to customers on the continent.
The switch means that, 18 months on, he has retained a decent slice of trade with customers inside the EU. But because his goods are now distributed from the Dutch depot, tax revenues which would have gone to the UK exchequer now go to the Dutch government instead. Jobs have been created in Holland, not here. Goods that would have been transported from the UK – and created work and employment here – are instead sent direct from the Netherlands to EU destinations, including Ireland.
Last year, with Covid adding to its problems, Stewart Superior lost money for the first time in 20 years''
The bit I don't get is why he would have ever thought that in the first place.
I know, I know, the stories about the sunny uplands and unicorns ........ but hard headed business sense should have come to the fore, surely, and alarm bells should have been ringing ........
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/25/what-have-we-done-six-years-on-uk-counts-the-cost-of-brexit
-
And from the same link above .........
''Last week the chief executive of easyJet, Johan Lundgren, contradicted claims by the aviation minister Robert Courts (and Tyke) that it was “not likely” Brexit had caused staff shortages which have led to disruption at airports. Lundgren countered that 8,000 job applications from EU citizens had been rejected by his firm because candidates did not have permission to work in the UK''
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
Wilts, you have picked up the wrong end of the stick matey.
Read the the opening sentence of Katos volley at me and he says “the vote, as you put it”.
I was explaining to him that you had used the expression (vote) and asked him why he hadn’t jumped on you, rather than me, for calling the vote, the vote, so to speak.
I never suggested that people should be reprimanded for asking questions.
I have picked up exactly on what you wrote hound. I asked a very simple question and you asked Kato why he didn't repremand me for asking it.
If you want to argue with Kato thats between you and him, dont go dragging me into it just for the sake of it - or you will need to justify doing it.
But I am justifying it wilts.
None of my comment was aimed at you.
I simply asked Kato why he jumped on me for saying “the vote”,instead of jumping on you for saying “the vote.”
You are being very sensitive about something that doesn’t exist.
Yes - and you think I should be reprimanded for asking a question - which you then deny.
You are writing these things down for eveyone to read hound.
-
And from the same link above .........
''Last week the chief executive of easyJet, Johan Lundgren, contradicted claims by the aviation minister Robert Courts (and Tyke) that it was “not likely” Brexit had caused staff shortages which have led to disruption at airports. Lundgren countered that 8,000 job applications from EU citizens had been rejected by his firm because candidates did not have permission to work in the UK''
And yet Johan Lundgren told investors only last month .
" strong momentum and optimism as we are flying at near level pre pandemic capacity "
" We are benefiting from pent up demand and the removal of travel restrictions "
" The Easter holiday period saw us carrying 250k passengers a day "
-
this one
https://londonairtravel.com/2022/06/13/monday-briefing-13-june-2022/
or this one
https://www.ft.com/content/52633077-89f8-4e95-a3aa-a60128b367c5
Do I have to guess?
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
Wilts, you have picked up the wrong end of the stick matey.
Read the the opening sentence of Katos volley at me and he says “the vote, as you put it”.
I was explaining to him that you had used the expression (vote) and asked him why he hadn’t jumped on you, rather than me, for calling the vote, the vote, so to speak.
I never suggested that people should be reprimanded for asking questions.
I have picked up exactly on what you wrote hound. I asked a very simple question and you asked Kato why he didn't repremand me for asking it.
If you want to argue with Kato thats between you and him, dont go dragging me into it just for the sake of it - or you will need to justify doing it.
But I am justifying it wilts.
None of my comment was aimed at you.
I simply asked Kato why he jumped on me for saying “the vote”,instead of jumping on you for saying “the vote.”
You are being very sensitive about something that doesn’t exist.
Hound, I haven’t ‘jumped’ on anyone. I simply stated what I believed should have happened given the scenario of the 2016 referendum, and the reason we are in the mess we currently are with respect to leaving the EU. It was you who asked should we honour the result of the referendum, I simply gave my view on that question - or are you suggesting I should be barred from giving my opinion?
I stand by my response to your question, wholeheartedly.
Kato, in my previous reply to you I said that I agreed with most of what you had written.
But then you have slightly altered the context of my post.
Your words were “it was you who asked if we should honour the result of the referendum”.
But I didn’t , I simply asked wilts that question, not everyone else, in my direct reply to him after he quoted my post.
I had earlier said that I think we have to honour the result of the referendum because there isn’t anything we can do right now to change that decision.
This is getting really silly and drawn out now.
You wrote the words below and directed them to me:
“The 'vote' as you put it”
You and I have a history on here of not getting along, probably due to you being an avid Labour supporter and me not agreeing with some of the stuff you sometimes write.
I do sometimes agree with what you write by the way.
When you wrote what you did about “the vote” part of a post of mine I had thought how odd it was that you didn’t pick up on wilts using “the vote” but chose to do so to me.
That’s it, that’s all it was.
Oh, and by the way, no I don’t think you should be barred from giving your opinion on stuff.
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
Wilts, you have picked up the wrong end of the stick matey.
Read the the opening sentence of Katos volley at me and he says “the vote, as you put it”.
I was explaining to him that you had used the expression (vote) and asked him why he hadn’t jumped on you, rather than me, for calling the vote, the vote, so to speak.
I never suggested that people should be reprimanded for asking questions.
I have picked up exactly on what you wrote hound. I asked a very simple question and you asked Kato why he didn't repremand me for asking it.
If you want to argue with Kato thats between you and him, dont go dragging me into it just for the sake of it - or you will need to justify doing it.
But I am justifying it wilts.
None of my comment was aimed at you.
I simply asked Kato why he jumped on me for saying “the vote”,instead of jumping on you for saying “the vote.”
You are being very sensitive about something that doesn’t exist.
Yes - and you think I should be reprimanded for asking a question - which you then deny.
You are writing these things down for eveyone to read hound.
Also out of context wilts.
Do you REALLY think that I was suggesting you should be reprimanded for asking a question.
No way on this Earth can my posts to you be considered to be saying that.
This is all about two words, “the vote”.
I am saddened if you think I am doing as you say.
-
this one
https://londonairtravel.com/2022/06/13/monday-briefing-13-june-2022/
or this one
https://www.ft.com/content/52633077-89f8-4e95-a3aa-a60128b367c5
Do I have to guess?
Have you found it tyke?
-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/counting-the-cost-of-the-brexit-vote-six-years-on-rd2pns2wp
A very good summary of the economic impact of Brexit from the Sunday Times economist.
I read it and wept.
-
And from the same link above .........
''Last week the chief executive of easyJet, Johan Lundgren, contradicted claims by the aviation minister Robert Courts (and Tyke) that it was “not likely” Brexit had caused staff shortages which have led to disruption at airports. Lundgren countered that 8,000 job applications from EU citizens had been rejected by his firm because candidates did not have permission to work in the UK''
You'd think those staff would have easily got jobs in the EU countries in that sector struggling to get staff wouldn't you? Or they could easily operate the planes from the non UK leg of their airline if it was such an issue (like wizzair do). I wonder why the issue persists in Europe too then.
-
And from the same link above .........
''Last week the chief executive of easyJet, Johan Lundgren, contradicted claims by the aviation minister Robert Courts (and Tyke) that it was “not likely” Brexit had caused staff shortages which have led to disruption at airports. Lundgren countered that 8,000 job applications from EU citizens had been rejected by his firm because candidates did not have permission to work in the UK''
You'd think those staff would have easily got jobs in the EU countries in that sector struggling to get staff wouldn't you? Or they could easily operate the planes from the non UK leg of their airline if it was such an issue (like wizzair do). I wonder why the issue persists in Europe too then.
Some airlines are 'wet leasing' plane and staff in Europe.
''Legal Loophole: The UK Airlines Leasing European Aircraft To Avoid Brexit-Related Recruitment Issues''
https://simpleflying.com/uk-airlines-leasing-european-aircraft-avoid-brexit-recruitment-issues/
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
Wilts, you have picked up the wrong end of the stick matey.
Read the the opening sentence of Katos volley at me and he says “the vote, as you put it”.
I was explaining to him that you had used the expression (vote) and asked him why he hadn’t jumped on you, rather than me, for calling the vote, the vote, so to speak.
I never suggested that people should be reprimanded for asking questions.
I have picked up exactly on what you wrote hound. I asked a very simple question and you asked Kato why he didn't repremand me for asking it.
If you want to argue with Kato thats between you and him, dont go dragging me into it just for the sake of it - or you will need to justify doing it.
But I am justifying it wilts.
None of my comment was aimed at you.
I simply asked Kato why he jumped on me for saying “the vote”,instead of jumping on you for saying “the vote.”
You are being very sensitive about something that doesn’t exist.
Hound, I haven’t ‘jumped’ on anyone. I simply stated what I believed should have happened given the scenario of the 2016 referendum, and the reason we are in the mess we currently are with respect to leaving the EU. It was you who asked should we honour the result of the referendum, I simply gave my view on that question - or are you suggesting I should be barred from giving my opinion?
I stand by my response to your question, wholeheartedly.
Kato, in my previous reply to you I said that I agreed with most of what you had written.
But then you have slightly altered the context of my post.
Your words were “it was you who asked if we should honour the result of the referendum”.
But I didn’t , I simply asked wilts that question, not everyone else, in my direct reply to him after he quoted my post.
I had earlier said that I think we have to honour the result of the referendum because there isn’t anything we can do right now to change that decision.
This is getting really silly and drawn out now.
You wrote the words below and directed them to me:
“The 'vote' as you put it”
You and I have a history on here of not getting along, probably due to you being an avid Labour supporter and me not agreeing with some of the stuff you sometimes write.
I do sometimes agree with what you write by the way.
When you wrote what you did about “the vote” part of a post of mine I had thought how odd it was that you didn’t pick up on wilts using “the vote” but chose to do so to me.
That’s it, that’s all it was.
Oh, and by the way, no I don’t think you should be barred from giving your opinion on stuff.
You have me wrong Hound, I'm not a Labour supporter. Rather, I'm a supporter of what I believe is best for the, 'majority' - as you can't please everyone - of the people of this country. I have particular concern for those less well off; and it is them who will suffer the worst effect of Brexit the most. I am also an advocate of Proportional Representation as a means of achieving better representation for everyone and making each vote count.
At this point in time, given our First Past The Post voting system and the lack of depth of parties other than Labour and the Conservatives then I currently see Labour as the better of the two main options to better represent the people of this country.
The Tories have been extremely poor in everything other than the vaccine roll-out. The lies, cronyism and deceit are clear for all to see, (though it appears an awful lot of people in the country don't WANT to see it); and I have said many times that if Johnson were to walk up to some of them and kick them in the groin they'd actually thank him for doing so! The final sentence in Oliver Dowden's resignation letter is a classic example of this where he says, without qualification, "I will, as always, remain loyal to the Conservative Party". So, without any qualification, he's actually saying that it doesn't really matter what the Party do, however corrupt it continues to be, he will always remain loyal to it. Very 1984, Julia would be proud.
Then there's Russia's part in the Brexit 'Vote', (that word again!); the lack of an independent enquiry and report into the subject is very telling, as is the redacted report the Government themselves produced - particularly in light of the amount of money the Tory Party receives from wealthy Russians and the election of a Russian with links to the FSB to the House of Lords!
But Labour are not without their issues. They need a clear policy, or set of policies, that will address all the failings of the Tory Party - and I see no clear sign of that at present, sadly. They seem to be relying on highlighting the continuing gaffs and failings of Johnson in particular and the Cabinet in general to garner support. Whilst this is highlighting the problems the country faces and can be seen as 'scoring points', it does nothing to address them. Starmer's stance on reviewing membership of the EU in some form or other is also disheartening as any form of partnership or move to PR will be fraught with conflict, particularly with the Liberal Democrats and the SNP who are both ardent re-joiners.
Hope the above clears up my political leanings.
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
Wilts, you have picked up the wrong end of the stick matey.
Read the the opening sentence of Katos volley at me and he says “the vote, as you put it”.
I was explaining to him that you had used the expression (vote) and asked him why he hadn’t jumped on you, rather than me, for calling the vote, the vote, so to speak.
I never suggested that people should be reprimanded for asking questions.
I have picked up exactly on what you wrote hound. I asked a very simple question and you asked Kato why he didn't repremand me for asking it.
If you want to argue with Kato thats between you and him, dont go dragging me into it just for the sake of it - or you will need to justify doing it.
But I am justifying it wilts.
None of my comment was aimed at you.
I simply asked Kato why he jumped on me for saying “the vote”,instead of jumping on you for saying “the vote.”
You are being very sensitive about something that doesn’t exist.
Hound, I haven’t ‘jumped’ on anyone. I simply stated what I believed should have happened given the scenario of the 2016 referendum, and the reason we are in the mess we currently are with respect to leaving the EU. It was you who asked should we honour the result of the referendum, I simply gave my view on that question - or are you suggesting I should be barred from giving my opinion?
I stand by my response to your question, wholeheartedly.
Kato, in my previous reply to you I said that I agreed with most of what you had written.
But then you have slightly altered the context of my post.
Your words were “it was you who asked if we should honour the result of the referendum”.
But I didn’t , I simply asked wilts that question, not everyone else, in my direct reply to him after he quoted my post.
I had earlier said that I think we have to honour the result of the referendum because there isn’t anything we can do right now to change that decision.
This is getting really silly and drawn out now.
You wrote the words below and directed them to me:
“The 'vote' as you put it”
You and I have a history on here of not getting along, probably due to you being an avid Labour supporter and me not agreeing with some of the stuff you sometimes write.
I do sometimes agree with what you write by the way.
When you wrote what you did about “the vote” part of a post of mine I had thought how odd it was that you didn’t pick up on wilts using “the vote” but chose to do so to me.
That’s it, that’s all it was.
Oh, and by the way, no I don’t think you should be barred from giving your opinion on stuff.
You have me wrong Hound, I'm not a Labour supporter. Rather, I'm a supporter of what I believe is best for the, 'majority' - as you can't please everyone - of the people of this country. I have particular concern for those less well off; and it is them who will suffer the worst effect of Brexit the most. I am also an advocate of Proportional Representation as a means of achieving better representation for everyone and making each vote count.
At this point in time, given our First Past The Post voting system and the lack of depth of parties other than Labour and the Conservatives then I currently see Labour as the better of the two main options to better represent the people of this country.
The Tories have been extremely poor in everything other than the vaccine roll-out. The lies, cronyism and deceit are clear for all to see, (though it appears an awful lot of people in the country don't WANT to see it); and I have said many times that if Johnson were to walk up to some of them and kick them in the groin they'd actually thank him for doing so! The final sentence in Oliver Dowden's resignation letter is a classic example of this where he says, without qualification, "I will, as always, remain loyal to the Conservative Party". So, without any qualification, he's actually saying that it doesn't really matter what the Party do, however corrupt it continues to be, he will always remain loyal to it. Very 1984, Julia would be proud.
Then there's Russia's part in the Brexit 'Vote', (that word again!); the lack of an independent enquiry and report into the subject is very telling, as is the redacted report the Government themselves produced - particularly in light of the amount of money the Tory Party receives from wealthy Russians and the election of a Russian with links to the FSB to the House of Lords!
But Labour are not without their issues. They need a clear policy, or set of policies, that will address all the failings of the Tory Party - and I see no clear sign of that at present, sadly. They seem to be relying on highlighting the continuing gaffs and failings of Johnson in particular and the Cabinet in general to garner support. Whilst this is highlighting the problems the country faces and can be seen as 'scoring points', it does nothing to address them. Starmer's stance on reviewing membership of the EU in some form or other is also disheartening as any form of partnership or move to PR will be fraught with conflict, particularly with the Liberal Democrats and the SNP who are both ardent re-joiners.
Hope the above clears up my political leanings.
Kato, thanks for that honest and well made response to me.
You may be surprised to hear that I agree with most of that but perhaps not surprised to hear that FPTP or PR don’t enter my thoughts as I am not particularly interested in politics.
I know a bit about it but certainly don’t allow it to dominate my day as appears to be the case with some of our posters.
I am with you all the way on Johnson’s failings and think he has to go if the Conservatives want to have a chance of winning the GE, which I think is what will happen because I can’t see a split Labour support getting behind the Party in their current guise.
Just a point on Oliver Dowdens words that you highlight, I read it as him saying that he backs the Party but not Johnson.
I may be wrong of course.
Anyway, I’m glad we appear to have ended what was a daft argument and hope we can get on better in the future.
-
Back a little on topic. The best way of assessing the Brexit dividend/cost is to compare UK economic performance against similar sized economies who stayed in the EU. Now European economies have fully opened up after Covid we can assess how Brexit Britain has performed comparatively over 2020-21/early 22. Here goes: -
GDP growth 1/1/20 to 31/3/22: - UK 0.7%; France 1.0%; Germany -1.0%; Italy -0.4%; Eurozone 0.5%
So following on from 2019, which showed the same trends, the UK is performing marginally better than the rest of Western Europe as a whole, marginally worse than France and fairly significantly better than Germany and Italy.
www.oecd.org/newsroom/gdp-growth-first-quarter-2022-oecd.htm
-
Interesting thanks Branton.
Meanwhile taking the figures back to 2016
https://www.newstatesman.com/chart-of-the-day/2022/06/uk-economy-fallen-behind-eu-since-brexit
-
''These laws that you want changed, abolished or written, can you tell me what they are so I have an idea how far you are willing to go, you must have an idea if they are so abhorrent that you would impoverish the UK 'to get it done' show me your list Branton, surely you had an idea when you voted for something so central to your belief in brexit''
Still looking?
-
Kato, did I ever mention I'm not interested in politics either? I just happened upon this political thread and made a gazillion posts is all.
-
And from the same link above .........
''Last week the chief executive of easyJet, Johan Lundgren, contradicted claims by the aviation minister Robert Courts (and Tyke) that it was “not likely” Brexit had caused staff shortages which have led to disruption at airports. Lundgren countered that 8,000 job applications from EU citizens had been rejected by his firm because candidates did not have permission to work in the UK''
You'd think those staff would have easily got jobs in the EU countries in that sector struggling to get staff wouldn't you? Or they could easily operate the planes from the non UK leg of their airline if it was such an issue (like wizzair do). I wonder why the issue persists in Europe too then.
Some airlines are 'wet leasing' plane and staff in Europe.
''Legal Loophole: The UK Airlines Leasing European Aircraft To Avoid Brexit-Related Recruitment Issues''
https://simpleflying.com/uk-airlines-leasing-european-aircraft-avoid-brexit-recruitment-issues/
You are aware this is not a new thing and has happened for years?
As I say if it was a brexit issue why does it persist in Europe?
I flew a week and half ago and it was fairly simple. No queues at security or passport control either side. The only issue was the French security staff stealing something from us, bas**rds!
-
Brexit is a contributing factor as it is with inflation pud, it's inescapable that brexit is affecting all parts of the economy. It's part of the billions of pounds that the UK is missing every year from the economy, it's all these bits added together, the truck queues the 50000 extra customs staff required, the delays, the businesses that have lost money, the businesses that have moved to the EU zone the money that has been lost to treasury it just goes on and on.
Here's data on labour shortages up to around Dec last year, you may have something more up to date. The government has repeated told various industries to get used and only relent when public opinion forces their hand.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2021/12/15/labour-shortages-have-become-widespread-this-is-how-firms-are-responding/
-
Kato, there are some things in your post that I agree with and I have always said that the public at large shouldn’t have been the people responsible for deciding whether we left the EU but I noticed that you didn’t reprimand wilts for mentioning “the vote” in his post that I quoted and responded to.
Maybe because he is on your side?
People should be repremanded for asking questions should they hound?
Well, what can you say...
The question to DD (in response to his question to BST about future Labour policy on trade with Europe) was about what he thinks future Labour Party policy should be. Clearly they have to have one.
Wilts, you have picked up the wrong end of the stick matey.
Read the the opening sentence of Katos volley at me and he says “the vote, as you put it”.
I was explaining to him that you had used the expression (vote) and asked him why he hadn’t jumped on you, rather than me, for calling the vote, the vote, so to speak.
I never suggested that people should be reprimanded for asking questions.
I have picked up exactly on what you wrote hound. I asked a very simple question and you asked Kato why he didn't repremand me for asking it.
If you want to argue with Kato thats between you and him, dont go dragging me into it just for the sake of it - or you will need to justify doing it.
But I am justifying it wilts.
None of my comment was aimed at you.
I simply asked Kato why he jumped on me for saying “the vote”,instead of jumping on you for saying “the vote.”
You are being very sensitive about something that doesn’t exist.
Hound, I haven’t ‘jumped’ on anyone. I simply stated what I believed should have happened given the scenario of the 2016 referendum, and the reason we are in the mess we currently are with respect to leaving the EU. It was you who asked should we honour the result of the referendum, I simply gave my view on that question - or are you suggesting I should be barred from giving my opinion?
I stand by my response to your question, wholeheartedly.
Kato, in my previous reply to you I said that I agreed with most of what you had written.
But then you have slightly altered the context of my post.
Your words were “it was you who asked if we should honour the result of the referendum”.
But I didn’t , I simply asked wilts that question, not everyone else, in my direct reply to him after he quoted my post.
I had earlier said that I think we have to honour the result of the referendum because there isn’t anything we can do right now to change that decision.
This is getting really silly and drawn out now.
You wrote the words below and directed them to me:
“The 'vote' as you put it”
You and I have a history on here of not getting along, probably due to you being an avid Labour supporter and me not agreeing with some of the stuff you sometimes write.
I do sometimes agree with what you write by the way.
When you wrote what you did about “the vote” part of a post of mine I had thought how odd it was that you didn’t pick up on wilts using “the vote” but chose to do so to me.
That’s it, that’s all it was.
Oh, and by the way, no I don’t think you should be barred from giving your opinion on stuff.
You have me wrong Hound, I'm not a Labour supporter. Rather, I'm a supporter of what I believe is best for the, 'majority' - as you can't please everyone - of the people of this country. I have particular concern for those less well off; and it is them who will suffer the worst effect of Brexit the most. I am also an advocate of Proportional Representation as a means of achieving better representation for everyone and making each vote count.
At this point in time, given our First Past The Post voting system and the lack of depth of parties other than Labour and the Conservatives then I currently see Labour as the better of the two main options to better represent the people of this country.
The Tories have been extremely poor in everything other than the vaccine roll-out. The lies, cronyism and deceit are clear for all to see, (though it appears an awful lot of people in the country don't WANT to see it); and I have said many times that if Johnson were to walk up to some of them and kick them in the groin they'd actually thank him for doing so! The final sentence in Oliver Dowden's resignation letter is a classic example of this where he says, without qualification, "I will, as always, remain loyal to the Conservative Party". So, without any qualification, he's actually saying that it doesn't really matter what the Party do, however corrupt it continues to be, he will always remain loyal to it. Very 1984, Julia would be proud.
Then there's Russia's part in the Brexit 'Vote', (that word again!); the lack of an independent enquiry and report into the subject is very telling, as is the redacted report the Government themselves produced - particularly in light of the amount of money the Tory Party receives from wealthy Russians and the election of a Russian with links to the FSB to the House of Lords!
But Labour are not without their issues. They need a clear policy, or set of policies, that will address all the failings of the Tory Party - and I see no clear sign of that at present, sadly. They seem to be relying on highlighting the continuing gaffs and failings of Johnson in particular and the Cabinet in general to garner support. Whilst this is highlighting the problems the country faces and can be seen as 'scoring points', it does nothing to address them. Starmer's stance on reviewing membership of the EU in some form or other is also disheartening as any form of partnership or move to PR will be fraught with conflict, particularly with the Liberal Democrats and the SNP who are both ardent re-joiners.
Hope the above clears up my political leanings.
Kato, thanks for that honest and well made response to me.
You may be surprised to hear that I agree with most of that but perhaps not surprised to hear that FPTP or PR don’t enter my thoughts as I am not particularly interested in politics.
I know a bit about it but certainly don’t allow it to dominate my day as appears to be the case with some of our posters.
I am with you all the way on Johnson’s failings and think he has to go if the Conservatives want to have a chance of winning the GE, which I think is what will happen because I can’t see a split Labour support getting behind the Party in their current guise.
Just a point on Oliver Dowdens words that you highlight, I read it as him saying that he backs the Party but not Johnson.
I may be wrong of course.
Anyway, I’m glad we appear to have ended what was a daft argument and hope we can get on better in the future.
And thank you for your words also Hound, appreciated. I have had an interest in politics since I was a teenager - I was reading one of the daily's, (as I did every day at the time), when my Dad asked me what I was doing. I responded that I was trying to keep up with what was happening in the world. Dad simply asked me "Do you not stop to question why only so many things happen in the world to fill the same number of pages every day? If you reject that impossibility then do you not wonder what they are not telling you? And do you not question why they are telling you what they do?" Since that day I learned to question and not accept things at face value, it seems to have stood me well.
In respect of Oliver Dowden's final sentence though, I was questioning the lack of any form of qualification re his support, for without such qualification it can be interpreted as I read it or as you read it, which is fine; unless you question it, and when you do, in the light of his whole resignation letter, IMO, it can only be interpreted as 'I don't like what Johnson is doing to the party but I'm happy to turn a blind eye to all the other current failings of the Party. Far better to remove any ambiguity by qualifying his support with terms such words as 'so long as the Party returns to traditional Conservative values', or such like - then it becomes completely unambiguous.
Oh, and I didn't see it as an argument, rather a discussion; and I certainly agree we should all try to get on better.
-
https://www.amazon.co.uk/photos/share/N3uqv7l7WeAzr3Y7EnX7idOCwNgBFidB6EXGyVkQCXA
-
Project Reality:
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/a31b4b8e-f9fc-4f1e-84c1-3632f194d05a
The UK’s trade performance this year fell to its worst level since records began, heaping more pressure on sterling in international currency markets.
The country’s current account deficit was calculated at 8.3 per cent of gross domestic product in the first quarter of 2022, a deterioration from an average of 2.6 per cent across all of 2021.
It was the worst figure on record since quarterly balance of payments data was first published in 1955.
The weak performance of UK exports and a surge in imports highlight the economic effects of Brexit. The figures tally with academic studies that show a decline in exports since 2021, when the UK left the EU single market and new border controls were introduced.
From the Financial Times - free to view here:
https://www.ft.com/content/a31b4b8e-f9fc-4f1e-84c1-3632f194d05a
-
That trade deficit (remember, the Brexit Death Cult told us Brexit would be great because we exported less to the EU than we imported from them so making it harder to do business with them would be a net benefit for us...)
Let's see.
1st quarter of 2016, our trade deficit was £7.3bn.
1st quarter of 2022....
£32.5bn.
That's right. The difference between how much we export to the world and how much we import is now 4.5 times worse than it was before the Brexit vote.
-
''It was the worst figure on record since quarterly balance of payments data was first published in 1955''
£32.5bn.
but it's taken 6 years to get here ............... just nitpicking is all
-
(https://i.imgur.com/mYUCEfy.jpg)
-
Meanwhile. The consequence of Austerity and Brexit.
https://twitter.com/toby_n/status/1542560637930405890
Of course, our retired friends don't feel the effect of this unprecedented depression in wages for working people. But out there in the working world, this is the consequence of a decade of catastrophically bad economic choices.
-
Meanwhile. The consequence of Austerity and Brexit.
https://twitter.com/toby_n/status/1542560637930405890
Of course, our retired friends don't feel the effect of this unprecedented depression in wages for working people. But out there in the working world, this is the consequence of a decade of catastrophically bad economic choices.
This being a Brexit thread I thought I'd test the validity of the underlined bit of the above assertion i.e. Brexit depressing wages. The graph below answers the question: -
https://www.statista.com/statistics/933075/wage-growth-in-the-uk/#:~:text=In%20the%20three%20months%20to%20April%202022%2C%20total,percent%20while%20regular%20pay%20shrank%20by%202.2%20percent.
So total real wages consistently falling between Jul 08 and Oct 14 accounts for the UK's 2% fall in real wages over the decade to 2018 highlighted. This, together with the international comparisons, confirms with great certainty the assertion that Austerity was to blame for this.
However in the 6 years to 30/4/22 (encompassing the referendum) real wages have grown 6.3%. A healthy 1%+ per year.
In the 3 years to 30/4/22 (encompassing leaving the EU) real wages have grown 4.6%. A strong 1.5%+ per year.
This strong real wage growth is in spite of the impact of Covid on delaying pay rises/damaging the economy.
Therefore in fact we can say with some certainty that Brexit has had a positive impact on real wage growth. Billy's assertion being tested is clearly false.
-
Meanwhile. The consequence of Austerity and Brexit.
https://twitter.com/toby_n/status/1542560637930405890
Of course, our retired friends don't feel the effect of this unprecedented depression in wages for working people. But out there in the working world, this is the consequence of a decade of catastrophically bad economic choices.
But there's also the bigger picture. More young people active in the economy, lower unemployment etc etc.
It would be interesting to see how the wage changes since 2010 have been spread over the economy and added alongside that the impact of tax cuts too.
-
I have to disagree with everybody here (whats new eh) and say the economic situation has been far to complicated since 2016 to put wage growth/depression down to any one thing other than the Tory government(s) mis-managment of the economy.
Actual real wage growth in 2021 is thought to be lower than the published figures due to the ending of the furlough scheme (and workers going back to their original salaries - other than in BA)
https://www.ft.com/content/169bc232-6d9f-4006-b60e-9b7c2809026f
But undoubably this growth has been uneven. Public sector workers have seen a 6% fall year on year. And since the whole economy opened up in January real wage growth has seen the biggest fall on record - 3.4%:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-14/uk-cost-of-living-squeeze-intensifies-as-wage-growth-slows
Which it shouldn't have done according to any orthodox economic theory (including the Brexiteers who said EU workers going home would raise wages/living standards for UK workers) as we have 1 1/2 million job vacancies - so wages should be rising?
Brexit has not caused this fall in living standards - but nor has it helped wage growth as people said it would.
-
Ok Branton. Let's look at the big picture of real wages rather than picking fixed periods. To really understand how policy choices affect wages, it's better to look at a graphical representation.
First of all, let's put to bed your claim that 1% growth in real wages since 2016 was "healthy" or that 1.5% growth from 2019 was "strong".
It isn't. Not by historical comparison.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsLuGF8CAAA2RGS.png)
In the 62 years from the end of WWII to the Great Financial crash, real wages slightly more than quadrupled.
That's equivalent to an annual growth R of about 2.3%. (The formula is total increase factor = (1+R/100)^n, where n is the number of years. R at 2.3% gives a total increase over 62 years of 4.10.
So the recent real wage growth is very weak by long term historical standards. It's only "healthy" and "strong" by comparison to the appalling Austerity years.
So...let's have a look at recent years.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpsprodpb/B4BD/production/_108296264_optimised-real.wages-2019-aug-13-nc.png)
This graph shows the utterly unprecedented collapse in real wages after the GFC. But look carefully at the left hand side. The fall up to early 2010 was small and had bottomed out by the 2010 election. We'd had a gut punch from the GFC but we were about to recover.
Then came Austerity. Half a decade of collapsing real wages. Annual drop of 2% for 4 years. Nothing like it had been seen in the recovery from a recession since the Napoleonic Wars. THAT is how damaging Austerity was to people's pockets.
Of course, when you stop smashing your head into a wall, you have a chance to stop the pain. And Osborne did, without trumpeting it, stop Austerity late 2014. And of course, the economy rebounded and so did real wages.
Look at the graph. For two years before the Brexit vote, real wages grew strongly. How strongly? Have a guess.
Yep.
2.3% per year. Bang on the long term trend.
Then the Brexit vote.
Sterling collapsed by 20% overnight.
And when your currency collapses, inflation goes up. Which it did. Up from around 1% to above 3%.
So real wage growth had the brakes jammed on for two years before that inflation effect work through the system.
And after that, growth has been insipid at best. 1.5% as you helpfully point out Branton. Way below our long term trend. It's a difference that will mean a 10% loss of real wage level if it carries on for a decade, as the BoE suggested it will, just this week.
-
Billy
Thank you for the interesting if irrelevant history lesson.
Irrelevant to this debate as I wholeheartedly agree with you on Austerity's impact on real wages.
Irrelevant in fact because the 2.3% long term average you cite is sadly no longer applicable. In Western Europe since the '08 crash real wage growth has stubbornly averaged around 1% pa. 2.3% in modern times would be exceptional.
See graph half way down this article https://www.ft.com/content/ed477fe9-46fa-43d0-b315-4170763261c2
It is in considering this much more relevant statistic that I describe 1% growth as healthy and 1.5% growth as strong.
Given Covid this 1.5% average real wage growth experienced in the UK over the last 3 years looks particularly strong.
Consider how whilst over the last 3 years real wage growth was 4.6% in the UK it was in Germany (1.7%); France (1.4%); and the Eurozone (2.6%).
I therefore maintain that Brexit has had a positive impact on real wage growth.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/04/labour-keir-starmer-vows-cut-red-tape-not-unpick-brexit
Starmer announcing new Labour policy to not seek membership of the SM or the CU and seeking a new arrangement with the NIC, that sounds very much like what the Tories are suggesting.
Sounds like ToryLite policy, is he right? or is this a pledge that will be conveniently forgotten and kicked into the long grass after he's bagged the votes, this from a man who was a staunch remainer, can he be taken at his word? or is he just a typical politician.
-
It's called political reality.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/04/labour-keir-starmer-vows-cut-red-tape-not-unpick-brexit
Starmer announcing new Labour policy to not seek membership of the SM or the CU and seeking a new arrangement with the NIC, that sounds very much like what the Tories are suggesting.
Sounds like ToryLite policy, is he right? or is this a pledge that will be conveniently forgotten and kicked into the long grass after he's bagged the votes, this from a man who was a staunch remainer, can he be taken at his word? or is he just a typical politician.
I think he is trying to appeal to people who are never going to vote for him - but I guess its up to the people who he is trying to appeal to comment on that.
However as I have said for a while now - this position only stands if he gets a majority for the next Labour government. If as looks likely he doesn't get enough votes and has to form a coalition with a pro-rejoin party - well...
-
and no party states they will form a coalition before an election, unless it's a permanent fixture as with the Oz federal Lib-Nats
-
There's no way we can or should reopen the wounds on this at this moment.
We WILL end up back in the SM and CU. Maybe back in the EU.
But that will only be feasible when enough people in this country realise what damage they have done to our economic prospects by Brexit.
And of course the following should go without saying but, y'know.
I would be delighted for Labour to be able to make a success of Brexit and restore our prosperity in a way that made rejoining European institutions unnecessary. But I'm a realist. They won't because it ain't possible.
-
There's no way we can or should reopen the wounds on this at this moment.
We WILL end up back in the SM and CU. Maybe back in the EU.
But that will only be feasible when enough people in this country realise what damage they have done to our economic prospects by Brexit.
And of course the following should go without saying but, y'know.
I would be delighted for Labour to be able to make a success of Brexit and restore our prosperity in a way that made rejoining European institutions unnecessary. But I'm a realist. They won't because it ain't possible.
Never say never BST, ANYTHING is possible whilst your still alive and kicking.
-
Wilts,
"I think he is trying to appeal to people who are never going to vote for him - but I guess its up to the people who he is trying to appeal to comment on that."
This is the nub of the Starmer problem, leaning to the right for marginal gains and ignoring the much larger gains to be had from those who do not vote.
In addition, ruling out working with other parties is complete madness;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/03/talk-to-the-snp-keir-starmer-tory
Keith does not understand politics, and has a very poor grasp of the possibilities under the current system.
He is toast once the Tories cull Bozo.
-
Plenty didn't back him to get to this position aye Albie?
-
Back in the EU, say goodbye to £ hello euro
-
Back to Brexit. According to the OECD - since the vote per capita income in the UK has fallen 4% compared with the EU where it has risen by 15%. The UK is getting poorer compared with the EU:
https://twitter.com/JohnRow64286327/status/1541307479602118656/photo/1
-
And your only way to change that is vote lib Dem. No other way it could get even close to changing.
-
There's no way we can or should reopen the wounds on this at this moment.
We WILL end up back in the SM and CU. Maybe back in the EU.
But that will only be feasible when enough people in this country realise what damage they have done to our economic prospects by Brexit.
And of course the following should go without saying but, y'know.
I would be delighted for Labour to be able to make a success of Brexit and restore our prosperity in a way that made rejoining European institutions unnecessary. But I'm a realist. They won't because it ain't possible.
Regarding that last paragraph, BST, it suggests that Keith is either a fool or a liar. Which one?
-
Neither SS
Labour will attempt to make a better fist of Brexit than this bunch.
But they will not be able to make us as well off as we could have been if we'd stayed in the SM and CU.
Both those things can be true.
-
Back to Brexit. According to the OECD - since the vote per capita income in the UK has fallen 4% compared with the EU where it has risen by 15%. The UK is getting poorer compared with the EU:
https://twitter.com/JohnRow64286327/status/1541307479602118656/photo/1
Probably not unconnected to this
-
Labour had been put in a bind by Brexit, that's for sure. And it will take more political genius than they, or anyone has to square this circle.
1) They have to throw out the option of rejoining the EU at the next election. Not because it's wrong economically. Because it's prudent politically. (and Branton, saying that they should have had this take in 19 ignores the thing that people on the Left who support Brexit always ignore - what would have happened to the great mass of Labour supporters who didn't want Brexit. You always harp on about the support Labour lost by the Ref2 policy. But you ignore the support they would have lost without the Ref2 policy. Even though the polling evidence was smacking Labour in the face in Spring 19 when Corbyn finally fully embraced Brexit. The difference now of course is that Brexit has happened. So the political landscape is totally different. Any party that tries to churn up that ground again so soon would be pilloried.)
2) But no matter what we do, our economic performance will struggle through to the end of this decade at least. Because of Brexit. So, if Labour win in 24, they will be blamed for the limp performance through to 29.
Very tough one to deal with.
In the very long term, it might actually be better for both Labour and the country if the Tories win a majority in 24. Let them own the long term economic consequences of Brexit. And set the scene for a rejoin referendum by popular demand sometime in the early 30s.
-
Labour had been put in a bind by Brexit, that's for sure. And it will take more political genius than they, or anyone has to square this circle.
1) They have to throw out the option of rejoining the EU at the next election. Not because it's wrong economically. Because it's prudent politically. (and Branton, saying that they should have had this take in 19 ignores the thing that people on the Left who support Brexit always ignore - what would have happened to the great mass of Labour supporters who didn't want Brexit. You always harp on about the support Labour lost by the Ref2 policy. But you ignore the support they would have lost without the Ref2 policy. Even though the polling evidence was smacking Labour in the face in Spring 19 when Corbyn finally fully embraced Brexit. The difference now of course is that Brexit has happened. So the political landscape is totally different. Any party that tries to churn up that ground again so soon would be pilloried.)
2) But no matter what we do, our economic performance will struggle through to the end of this decade at least. Because of Brexit. So, if Labour win in 24, they will be blamed for the limp performance through to 29.
Very tough one to deal with.
In the very long term, it might actually be better for both Labour and the country if the Tories win a majority in 24. Let them own the long term economic consequences of Brexit. And set the scene for a rejoin referendum by popular demand sometime in the early 30s.
Not wanting to reopen previous debates but suffice to say I agree thoroughly with the bits I've underlined and I consider everything else you've written to be complete and utter tosh.
-
Labour had been put in a bind by Brexit, that's for sure. And it will take more political genius than they, or anyone has to square this circle.
1) They have to throw out the option of rejoining the EU at the next election. Not because it's wrong economically. Because it's prudent politically. (and Branton, saying that they should have had this take in 19 ignores the thing that people on the Left who support Brexit always ignore - what would have happened to the great mass of Labour supporters who didn't want Brexit. You always harp on about the support Labour lost by the Ref2 policy. But you ignore the support they would have lost without the Ref2 policy. Even though the polling evidence was smacking Labour in the face in Spring 19 when Corbyn finally fully embraced Brexit. The difference now of course is that Brexit has happened. So the political landscape is totally different. Any party that tries to churn up that ground again so soon would be pilloried.)
2) But no matter what we do, our economic performance will struggle through to the end of this decade at least. Because of Brexit. So, if Labour win in 24, they will be blamed for the limp performance through to 29.
Very tough one to deal with.
In the very long term, it might actually be better for both Labour and the country if the Tories win a majority in 24. Let them own the long term economic consequences of Brexit. And set the scene for a rejoin referendum by popular demand sometime in the early 30s.
By God, that last paragraph is highly speculative, and for a staunch Labour supporter, somewhat defeatist.
Are you starting to lose confidence in Keith?
-
Branton
As well argued as ever...
Still. At least you've stopped banging on about how the 2016 vote made it inevitable that the UK had to leave the SM and CU.
SS.
I had this discussion with my grandad after the 1992 election when I was distraught that Labour had lost again.
He said "It's a poisoned chalice. Just wait and see. Best thing Labour could have done, losing this one."
He was the smartest person I've ever known, despite him leaving school at 14 and going straight to work at the pit. Bang on the money on that one. Sometimes it's the big, long term fight that really matters.
-
There are some pre election defeat excuses being made already.
-
Can anyone name any uk government in modern times that could not be classed as a poisoned chalice? Seriously. Let’s look at the list.
Johnson.
May
Cameron
Cameron clegg alliance.
Brown
Blair
Major
Thatcher
Callahan
Wilson
Heath.
Left right or in between. Anyone and everyone can pick fault with every single government this country has had over the last 60 years. And every PM. And every opposition leader. Without fail.
And probably every single one before them.
-
Branton
As well argued as ever...
Still. At least you've stopped banging on about how the 2016 vote made it inevitable that the UK had to leave the SM and CU.
Only since you've run out of your increasingly desperate, illogical and pathetic arguments to the contrary for me to bat away
(It was only the SM I was referring to not the CU)
-
Branton.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that I was being desperate and illogical.
I've simply pointed out that the Brexit vote asked whether the UK should leave the EU and you said that meant by definition leaving the SM. But the UK didn't leave the SM. GB did. And the vote never asked if GB should leave the EU or SM, but not the UK.
How on earth is it illogical to point out an objective fact?
-
(a) I think he is trying to appeal to people who are never going to vote for him - (b) but I guess its up to the people who he is trying to appeal to comment on that.
(a) I disagree this is a response to Labour's underwhelming performance in 'red wall' areas in the local elections, the Wakefield by-election not seeing as big a swing as the Lib Dems got in Tiverton and Labour's inability to gain clear ground in the polls. All despite the huge unpopularity of the PM following partygate.
I.e. it's an attempt to win back support from former Labour voters who voted for Brexit esp those in marginal red wall seats. So people like me.
No, how can it be aimed at you as you voted Labour anyway. He hasn't done this to make you feel better about voting for him!
He is trying to change people's minds. There are plenty of ex-Labour Brexiteers on here who have said they will never vote for Labour again under Starmer because of his stance on Brexit in 2019 - I doubt this has changed their minds.
Still they must have focused grouped it in those seats, so good luck to him.
-
NR.
I agree that every incoming PM faces serious problems. That's inevitable. I don't agree that each one necessarily inherits a poisoned chalice.
Thatcher and Blair both came to power at a time that the other party had run out of steam and descended into internal fighting for the best part of a decade. And in both cases, the background political environment had moved towards them.
Cameron didn't inherit a poisoned chalice. He made his own by insisting on Austerity which led to the rise of UKIP, and forced him into the Brexit vote.
Even Wilson had a decent inheritance in that the Tories were old and tired and new ideas were needed. He didn't make a fantastic job of it, but that wasn't inevitable.
Callaghan, Major, Brown and May were always going to struggle, given how economics and politics were moving. But it's not always the way.
I suspect if Labour do win in 24 (and I'd put that at 50/50) they are going to cop the blame for Brexit not working. Whereas if the Tories win, they'll have no excuse when the inevitable problems become undeniable. They can blame COVID and Ukraine and inflation for a few years. But not for 10 or 15.
-
As it is it's all Labour and the civil service's fault anyway
-
Bigger things going on atm but I thought this was interesting.
More people support Starmer's Brexit policy than don't. And more Tory voters than Labour voters support it:
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1544325156079865856
-
Bigger things going on atm but I thought this was interesting.
More people support Starmer's Brexit policy than don't. And more Tory voters than Labour voters support it:
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1544325156079865856
I touched on this earlier wilts.
I am wondering whether some of our prominent Labour supporters who are avid remainers will still vote Labour at the next GE.
-
Some of them have already said they will hound, at least one has been arguing that this is the right policy.
I am in a safe Tory seat so doesnt really matter who I vote for - unless one of the parties looked as though they might challenge then I would vote tactically.
-
Branton.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that I was being desperate and illogical.
I've simply pointed out that the Brexit vote asked whether the UK should leave the EU and you said that meant by definition leaving the SM. But the UK didn't leave the SM. GB did. And the vote never asked if GB should leave the EU or SM, but not the UK.
How on earth is it illogical to point out an objective fact?
I give evidence of the voting public clearly being told before the referendum that a leave vote would include leaving the SM.
You counter by suggesting the vote gave no such mandate because of something that happened after the vote.
Democracy has many advantages but clairvoyancy of the electorate is not one of them.
Perhaps, if you don't want to be accused of being illogical, you should make points that don't defy basic laws of physics.
Still. Well argued as ever.....
-
Branton
"I give evidence of the voting public clearly being told before the referendum that a leave vote would include leaving the SM."
Yes. I know you did. And the ballot paper only mentioned the UK's relationship to the EU.
But the UK didn't leave the SM did it? A political choice was made on that issue with no reference to what the Leave vote meant.
Which was my entire point all along. The vote tied no hands. Never did. Never could. How it was interpreted was a matter of political choice.
"You counter by suggesting the vote gave no such mandate because of something that happened after the vote."
I honestly haven't got a Scooby what you are on about here. I'm saying the vote clearly gave no mandate for the UK to leave the SM, for the blindingly obvious reason that the UK didn't leave the SM.
-
All you Brexiters who were so chuffed when Johnson Got Brexit Done.
Grab your popcorn. Mordaunt is going to Get Brexit Re-done.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/status/1548593906257989633
-
All you Brexiters who were so chuffed when Johnson Got Brexit Done.
Grab your popcorn. Mordaunt is going to Get Brexit Re-done.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/status/1548593906257989633
Well Mordant went West, now let's get on with the Great Push back,
All of you Leftie elitist green socialists who actually don't speak for
At least 95% of the Population need to take a long hard look at yourselves and then get some electro therapy , Brexit is probably going to go down in history as the best thing any country on this planet ever did!
A Bunch of Left wing Greenie Coffee Aunties trying to force 300 million plus people into poverty and deprivation with their 'Nanny
state idealism'.
If you want an example look at some recent posts by the 'Chartists!"
On this thread.
Germany facing a bleak future as their Greenie govt closed down Nuclear energy, "we will be ok with Solar and Wind"!, they said!
What a load of hot air, the Dutch Nanny state elite trying to force their farmers into reducing their Carbon foot print to the point that their farms will be un profitable! By the way The Netherlands is a world super power in relation to food exports ranking 2,behind the United States. Just think of the long term consequences of that sort of policy.
By the way It's actually ok not to give two hoots about Transgender,
Most of us dont' ! no you are not a Nazi if you display your National flag on your social media account!, Yes it ok to worry about immigration and the effect it will have on you and your children and children's children,most of us do!
The 'Great push back has begun' I wouldn't slash your wrists over Brexit, quite a few other countries will be leaving the EU in the future.
-
NR.
I agree that every incoming PM faces serious problems. That's inevitable. I don't agree that each one necessarily inherits a poisoned chalice.
Thatcher and Blair both came to power at a time that the other party had run out of steam and descended into internal fighting for the best part of a decade. And in both cases, the background political environment had moved towards them.
Cameron didn't inherit a poisoned chalice. He made his own by insisting on Austerity which led to the rise of UKIP, and forced him into the Brexit vote.
Even Wilson had a decent inheritance in that the Tories were old and tired and new ideas were needed. He didn't make a fantastic job of it, but that wasn't inevitable.
Callaghan, Major, Brown and May were always going to struggle, given how economics and politics were moving. But it's not always the way.
I suspect if Labour do win in 24 (and I'd put that at 50/50) they are going to cop the blame for Brexit not working. Whereas if the Tories win, they'll have no excuse when the inevitable problems become undeniable. They can blame COVID and Ukraine and inflation for a few years. But not for 10 or 15.
I’m not suggesting all of the above govts inherited a poisoned chalice. I suggest the the governance has either become, or developed into one.
The next pm is inheriting a crock a sure.
And on the subject of a rejoin referendum, if, god forbid that were even to be tabled by the Labour Party, then that would be the end of them as a political entity imo.
64% of lower and upper working class people who voted in the ref chose to leave.
(Statista.com) that’s a lot of Labour voters potentially.
Corbyn sat on the fence over Brexit and that was a large part of his demise.
It would be a very brave and stupid Labour PM who pushes a rejoin agenda.
As has been suggested, in 10 -15 years the EU membership won’t look like it does now.
-
I see many of those who wanted a hard border with France are now complaining and angry that we've got a hard border with France.
-
I see many of those who wanted a hard border with France are now complaining and angry that we've got a hard border with France.
Yep, and most of them would rather follow the MSM and Tories and blame it all on France than face the truth!
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1551464675711324160?s=21&t=6j1H57IodnHQqcWk8P9RsQ
-
Kato, the Brexit deniers, the British haters, and the Irish are being used as useful idiots by the EU, and are that intelligent they don't know it.
-
It's interesting that there was an issue at Dover. No issue at any of the airports I've flown in to and one didn't stamp our passports either. Strange.
-
It's interesting that there was an issue at Dover. No issue at any of the airports I've flown in to and one didn't stamp our passports either. Strange.
Very obvious that the EU (with the sulky French leading)are determined to ensure that the UK make no noticeable gains from leaving their sphere of influence, they cannot allow us to demonstrate that being free from this sclerotic organisation will in future allow us to move on and develop our own way in the world, it may in some instances resemble some of their successes but allows us to not to have to partake in their committe speak excesses.
They are serious in wanting to cause maximum damage to our individual requirements and are desperate to have us back i the fold under their suffocating control.
We don't want it, we have made it very clear and we will not be asking for any sort of alignment that requires us to tow their distorted line.
This will become more apparent in the next 2 years to the extent that whatever happens after that, reunification will be not one of them, then or in the future.
-
Danumdon, we are are being treated like all other countries outside the EU, no different. The French were never controlling us, we had vetoes, in fact, I would say the French wanted us to balance the economic might of Germany. Unfortunately this government needs an enemy as Brexit isn’t going well, so we’ve chosen the French as they have a common border. We could say the same about all the EU countries.
-
Danumdon, we are are being treated like all other countries outside the EU, no different. The French were never controlling us, we had vetoes, in fact, I would say the French wanted us to balance the economic might of Germany. Unfortunately this government needs an enemy as Brexit isn’t going well, so we’ve chosen the French as they have a common border. We could say the same about all the EU countries.
We are being treated in exactly the same way we treated non-EU countries when we were in the EU.
And people like danumdon are surprised when we get the same treatment and are happy to swallow Mogg's b*llocks about us being targeted.
-
Danumdon, we are are being treated like all other countries outside the EU, no different. The French were never controlling us, we had vetoes, in fact, I would say the French wanted us to balance the economic might of Germany. Unfortunately this government needs an enemy as Brexit isn’t going well, so we’ve chosen the French as they have a common border. We could say the same about all the EU countries.
If what you say is correct about the EU and specifically the French then it's not been the case that The French president has stated that it was his aim to personally make life difficult for the UK outside the EU .
If the EU and the French are treating the UK like any other none member then why did they de facto blockade the border crossing between England and France at Christmas and new year two years ago? have the EU changed their modus operandum to do this to any other none member?
If you could let me know please, thanks.
-
Danumdon, we are are being treated like all other countries outside the EU, no different. The French were never controlling us, we had vetoes, in fact, I would say the French wanted us to balance the economic might of Germany. Unfortunately this government needs an enemy as Brexit isn’t going well, so we’ve chosen the French as they have a common border. We could say the same about all the EU countries.
If what you say is correct about the EU and specifically the French then it's not been the case that The French president has stated that it was his aim to personally make life difficult for the UK outside the EU .
If the EU and the French are treating the UK like any other none member then why did they de facto blockade the border crossing between England and France at Christmas and new year two years ago? have the EU changed their modus operandum to do this to any other none member?
If you could let me know please, thanks.
DD.
Remind me exactly what Macron said on this subject.
-
https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2020/02/01/a-letter-from-emmanuel-macron-to-the-british-people
When some one like Macron states the following,
"In this respect, I know the feeling – however you voted in 2016 – that France was “tough” from the start of the Brexit negotiation. I wanted to defend the existential principles of the way the European Union functions: compliance with our rules within the single market, European unity, and stability in Ireland. These are not bureaucratic inflexibilities but the very foundations of the European edifice. But never has France or the French people – or, I think it is fair to say, any European people – been driven by a desire for revenge or punishment."
And then has the temerity to state at the end that "never has France or the French people – or, I think it is fair to say, any European people – been driven by a desire for revenge or punishment."
When everyone knows this is exactly what he wanted and meant.
Also when have the French ever cared a jot about "stability in Ireland" except when they could weaponise it for their own political gain.
-
DD
So where did he say that the French wanted to make life tough for the UK outside the EU?
-
He wouldn't actually come out and say it, would he?
-
He wouldn't actually come out and say it, would he?
And yet...
DD
"The French president has stated that it was his aim to personally make life difficult for the UK outside the EU".
-
Irrespective of whether he said it or not is irrelevant. The evidence is in his actions. It is obvious the EU has used Brexit as an example of what happens when a country has the audacity to leave the union and no member has been more obstructive than France.
-
It’s quite simple.
We reciprocate the favour on the French side.
All non uk residents form a que at the uk border checkpoint. A big que.
And put a single border officer to check them all.
Fast track uk residents in another que.
-
Irrespective of whether he said it or not is irrelevant. The evidence is in his actions. It is obvious the EU has used Brexit as an example of what happens when a country has the audacity to leave the union and no member has been more obstructive than France.
Are you talking to me?
I think you need to have a word with DD who said that Macron had stated a certain line that he never did.
-
Strange that BST, for someone who should be able to read between the lines, you don’t !
Can you honestly say here that you don’t consider any actions that the French have fostered upon us since the referendum, and before in many cases, don’t constitute a campaign of pettiness and agitation on their behalf.
It’s obvious to me and many others that they are vexed with us because of not just the above but amongst many other things they have now lost their cash cow and will now begin to see their CAP payments reduce in real terms.
Horrible little greedy man that he is will use us to deflect his own failings.
-
So he didn't say it then, you just have to be able to 'read between the lines'!
Oh, and what actions have the French 'fostered upon us' (do we have to be able to read between the lines to understand that one too?) that they don't impose on other non-EU countries?
-
It's interesting that there was an issue at Dover. No issue at any of the airports I've flown in to and one didn't stamp our passports either. Strange.
Not stamping your passport might give you a problem in the future
-
It's interesting that there was an issue at Dover. No issue at any of the airports I've flown in to and one didn't stamp our passports either. Strange.
Not stamping your passport might give you a problem in the future
Maybe it will, it certainly didn't when I visited the same country 4 months later though.
-
The 'French' regard the UK as a silly country and have no interest in Brexit whatsoever. Only here have these myths developed to try and hide what a (totally predictable ) disaster it is.
-
Not just the French though is it, tory governments and ministers have long thought that British people are lazy, drunken criminals.
-
Meanwhile. This is aging well.
https://mobile.twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1555613306672619520
-
It reminds me of when Brass Eye was on tv.
-
Not sure why people are suprised about the chaos at Dover? It's the same as the EU-Turkey border - as you were told would happen at the time. It's the effect of putting a border in a place where there was no border:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-queues-dover-border-travel-turkey-warning-chaos-a8079011.html
'We want things to change but it's someone else's fault when they have changed'!!
-
and the Brexiteers still try to tell us ' we knew what we were voting for '. Historians will look back and say ' how could people in a 21st Century UK be so absolutely gullible ?
-
and the Brexiteers still try to tell us ' we knew what we were voting for '. Historians will look back and say ' how could people in a 21st Century UK be so absolutely gullible ?
But we took back control....
https://www.facebook.com/100002563070144/posts/5260689874026396/?flite=scwspnss
-
and the Brexiteers still try to tell us ' we knew what we were voting for '. Historians will look back and say ' how could people in a 21st Century UK be so absolutely gullible ?
But we took back control....
https://www.facebook.com/100002563070144/posts/5260689874026396/?flite=scwspnss
And not only that
''Inquiry after Avanti passengers have to scale 7ft spiked fence to leave station''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/18/inquiry-after-avanti-passengers-scale-7ft-spiked-fence-to-leave-station-lake-district
-
And that has what to do with Brexit?
-
and the Brexiteers still try to tell us ' we knew what we were voting for '. Historians will look back and say ' how could people in a 21st Century UK be so absolutely gullible ?
But we took back control....
https://www.facebook.com/100002563070144/posts/5260689874026396/?flite=scwspnss
And when you ride on the french railway you ride on British manufactured rails.etc even after brexit. It's a modern world.
-
Inflation in the EU - 8.9%. In France, 6.1%, Germany, 7.5%, Italy 7.9%
What exactly was it we took back control of again - certainly not the economy.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=g20
-
Inflation in the EU - 8.9%. In France, 6.1%, Germany, 7.5%, Italy 7.9%
What exactly was it we took back control of again - certainly not the economy.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=g20
Tell us how much they've bailed their energy companies out for?
-
Inflation in the EU - 8.9%. In France, 6.1%, Germany, 7.5%, Italy 7.9%
What exactly was it we took back control of again - certainly not the economy.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=g20
Tell us how much they've bailed their energy companies out for?
No more than we will have to do once we actually have a PM.
-
Inflation in the EU - 8.9%. In France, 6.1%, Germany, 7.5%, Italy 7.9%
What exactly was it we took back control of again - certainly not the economy.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=g20
Tell us how much they've bailed their energy companies out for?
Apparently inflation is due to the energy prices going up due to the war in Ukraine.
So why has it gone up highest in the country furthest away from Ukraine - that imports little oil and gas from Russia - and is an actual exporter of oil and gas?
-
Inflation in the EU - 8.9%. In France, 6.1%, Germany, 7.5%, Italy 7.9%
What exactly was it we took back control of again - certainly not the economy.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=g20
Tell us how much they've bailed their energy companies out for?
Apparently inflation is due to the energy prices going up due to the war in Ukraine.
So why has it gone up highest in the country furthest away from Ukraine - that imports little oil and gas from Russia - and is an actual exporter of oil and gas?
The Oil and gas industry is Private, the way Govts make money out of Oil and Gas is by taxing the profits of the Oil and Gas Industry, a hefty windfall tax may be a good idea, but one would hope that said profits are utilised by the companies to re invest in the underfunded development of the 'Demonised' Oil and Gas fields lurking in a very sinister (To all you Green and Woke idiots) in British waters,
-
Interesting that those on 100% renewable electricity have had their prices increased along with the rest of us.
-
Interesting that those on 100% renewable electricity have had their prices increased along with the rest of us.
That's market forces.
The value and therefore the price of electricity, from whatever source is the same. If there's less electricity being produced by gas but people still want to consume as much, the price of that electricity goes up. But then the producers of wind generated gas can also charge more for their product.
If we want to live in a market economy, that's how the market works.
-
Interesting that those on 100% renewable electricity have had their prices increased along with the rest of us.
That's market forces.
The value and therefore the price of electricity, from whatever source is the same. If there's less electricity being produced by gas but people still want to consume as much, the price of that electricity goes up. But then the producers of wind generated gas can also charge more for their product.
If we want to live in a market economy, that's how the market works.
Hopefully prices will come down once the North Sea Wind power energy is fully harnessed and if the Coal mine Water Schemes in Northumbria work we will be laughing but not in this decade!
-
The prices won't come down until enough countries have weaned themselves off gas for generating electricity, or until Putin has to turn the taps back on to Europe.
-
Interesting that those on 100% renewable electricity have had their prices increased along with the rest of us.
That's capitalism. Stuff that is freely available costs you lots of money to use.
-
Inflation in the EU - 8.9%. In France, 6.1%, Germany, 7.5%, Italy 7.9%
What exactly was it we took back control of again - certainly not the economy.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=g20
Tell us how much they've bailed their energy companies out for?
Apparently inflation is due to the energy prices going up due to the war in Ukraine.
So why has it gone up highest in the country furthest away from Ukraine - that imports little oil and gas from Russia - and is an actual exporter of oil and gas?
Spain? Not sure, I'm no expert on their economy.
Lots of interesting little stats though, wage growth is an interesting one. Some of those countries may have lower inflation but they also have higher unemployment, lower wage growth (decrease in Germany). It's a complicated picture.
-
Interesting that those on 100% renewable electricity have had their prices increased along with the rest of us.
That's market forces.
The value and therefore the price of electricity, from whatever source is the same. If there's less electricity being produced by gas but people still want to consume as much, the price of that electricity goes up. But then the producers of wind generated gas can also charge more for their product.
If we want to live in a market economy, that's how the market works.
That's understood, BST/Wilts but it didn't work that way prior to the energy crisis. Anyone choosing renewable electricity would have been paying more for their usage than everyone else.
-
Still works Pies.
When producing electricity by burning gas was very cheap, it cost more to produce it using renewables. A limited proportion of the population, for very sound reasons, chose to pay that premium. But most people would not, and wanted electricity as cheap as they could get it. So there was no market mechanism to move the price of gas-generated electricity up to that of renewable-generated.
You could think of that as being two separate markets. One of people who were sufficiently concerned about the environment to pay the premium. One of people who weren't.
NOW we have one market, because the renewable-generated electricity costs less to produce than gas-generation. So there's no longer a premium to pay for your conscience.
-
I am pointing out the double standard being applied in both cases, as always, to the advantage of the capitalist producers. Your explanation seems to be excusing it.
-
I'm not excusing it Pies. I'm just explaining how the market works.
A far, far more knowledgeable person than me on economics (and a more left wing one than me) said on Twitter recently that it was pointless complaining about companies maximising their profits. It's what they do. It's what their directors are pretty much legally obliged to do. He said you might as well criticise a cat for catching a mouse.
The market works how the market works. The price of renewables makes perfect sense in the context of a free market.
The real question is: should we have a free market in electricity, or should the Govt step in and control it in the national interest?
-
I'm not excusing it Pies. I'm just explaining how the market works.
A far, far more knowledgeable person than me on economics (and a more left wing one than me) said on Twitter recently that it was pointless complaining about companies maximising their profits. It's what they do. It's what their directors are pretty much legally obliged to do. He said you might as well criticise a cat for catching a mouse.
The market works how the market works. The price of renewables makes perfect sense in the context of a free market.
The real question is: should we have a free market in electricity, or should the Govt step in and control it in the national interest?
The trouble with the question is that it opens up that many catch pits where does it stop. I think we all know what happens if the gov take full control of the energy market, it doesn't stop there and before you know it we are back to the massive bureaucracy of a government trying to run every aspect of our lives. We all know where that ends, it wasn't the answer then and it would be the same now but with additional bells hung on it just for good measure.
We are locked into this capitalist model and we will still be long after this emergency has been and gone. That's not to say the government cannot help to smooth us through this period because it can and it should.
The most sensible governments of either nomination have known when to intervene and to what extent, Blair managed to do this for a good few years without upsetting the apple cart. Its not beyond the capabilities of this or the next government to do the same.
-
Yes Don, we do know what happens when government takes full control of the energy market. As MacMillan said 'you have never had it so good'.
We also know that under a capitalist free market; water companies are imposing drought restrictions whilst selling off reserviors and loosing millions of gallons a day through leakage, sewage companies are dumping raw sewage in seas and rivers and beaches that were once the cleanest in Europe are now the dirtest, gas storgae facilites were closed to save money, electricty supply companies were allowed to go bust loosing millions but for which the ordinary customer was given the bill - putting up bills for customers by £thousands while creating £millions for CEO's and £billions for shareholders.
Oh yes, we know exactly what happens when the government takes full control of the energy market.
-
The fact your talking about private companies that abuse the system is nothing to do with the principle of private enterprise running successful industries.
Lets talk about old BR, every man and his dog had a joke and a tale to tell about the efficiency and poor performance of British Rail. badly underfunded, poor rolling stock, badly maintained infrastructure, late and cramped trains very poor catering with poor old BR sandwiches becoming the thing of legend, all performed by management and staff with no accountability for the money that was being spent "its only paper money" was the big mantra.
This whole system was privatised starting in 1994, now we can all argue about the system of privatisation that they implemented and how its been managed and run since but the crux of the point is that for the next 10 to 15 years after privatisation the network had private capital introduced alongside government subsidy which heralded a massive rise in passenger numbers the highest since prior to the first world war, new rolling stock with better , smoother and longer trains to enable more passengers to travel in comfort. Private companies investing and working in the industry that was dieing on its feet.
All this could not be performed or produced under the old BR system as governments of both persuasions would not allow then to raise capital to modernise and improve the system.
Private enterprise has saved the rail network and supplied it with the tools to take on the next century of public transport.
When you look at this alongside what privatising other national assets has achieved you may very well ask, would the same developments have been achieved whilst still run by the cash starved state?
You mention water companies, the old state run system was in a situation that would of required massive amounts of capital expenditure to update and modernise the ancient Victorian sewers that were ready for collapse. The fact that the private companies invested in this infrastructure enabled the system to still be in use today, it was on a one way journey to oblivion prior to that. It was the same in many other fields, telecoms, being another that was rescued from an early pensioning off.
The fact that some of these private suppliers are creaming off the top does not mean its the same for all. Look at the innovation and progression that a company like Octopus Energy are perusing, not all the same.
-
DD.
The rail privatisation was so badly conceived that:
1) Railtrack presided over catastrophic mismanagemt of the rails, resulting in a string of accidents with mass fatalities, 3 years of the network virtually grinding to a standstill (I used to plan on a Sheffield-Lobdon train taking 4 hours minimum when travelling to the smoke for work) and Railtrack being renationalised.
2) Bigger public subsidies than ever were spent when the trains were publicly owned.
3) Several of the TOCs still going bust and having to be renationalised.
4) Foreign state owned companies taking over much of our system.
5) To add insult to injury for us, the private sector gave so few f**ks about us oop north, they continued until last year to use 40 year old Pacer trains that they couldn't even give away to Iran.
Apart from that, privatisation was grand.
-
Lets talk about old BR, every man and his dog had a joke and a tale to tell about the efficiency and poor performance of British Rail. badly underfunded, poor rolling stock, badly maintained infrastructure, late and cramped trains very poor catering with poor old BR sandwiches becoming the thing of legend, all performed by management and staff with no accountability for the money that was being spent "its only paper money" was the big mantra.
Hmm, so not much different from what we have now then!
DD, might I politely ask when you last travelled by train. To those of us who have had the misfortune to use them regularly for work could I just flag a couple of points:
- Travel before 10 am and you need to take out another mortgage; it's often cheaper to fly
- In peak hours you will struggle to get a seat unless you hold a reservation
- Delays are regular and for all sorts of reasons; signal failure, a broken down train in front, lack of staff...
- Commuter trains have too few carriages
- Some journey times e.g. Liverpool to Manchester take longer now than 100 years ago
- £4k a season ticket if you live in the S East; that's out of net income by the way
- 'Catering' is no better than a Tesco meal deal but costs twice as much
Seriously, we have one of the worst, most underfunded, mismanaged rail networks of any 'top rank' western nation.
-
Inflation in the EU - 8.9%. In France, 6.1%, Germany, 7.5%, Italy 7.9%
What exactly was it we took back control of again - certainly not the economy.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=g20
Tell us how much they've bailed their energy companies out for?
Apparently inflation is due to the energy prices going up due to the war in Ukraine.
So why has it gone up highest in the country furthest away from Ukraine - that imports little oil and gas from Russia - and is an actual exporter of oil and gas?
Because we're more reliant on gas for our energy than the eurozone - particularly France for instance thanks to them embracing nuclear.
Thanks for the link Wilts - always interesting to compare UK economic performance vs other countries. Using that resource: -
Latest inflation figures: UK - 10.1%; Eurozone - 8.9%. In France, 6.1%, Germany, 7.5%, Italy 7.9%
Latest wage growth figures: UK: 5.1%; Eurozone: 2.7%; France: 0.5%; Germany: -1.4%; Italy: 1%
So real wages are falling more quickly in the Eurozone, France, Germany and Italy than they are in the UK
This is an ongoing trend - from a post I put up on this thread several weeks ago: -
"Over the 3 years to April 2022 real wage growth was 4.6% in the UK - it was in Germany (1.7%); France (1.4%); and the Eurozone (2.6%)."
So why is it that real wages have grown quickest and now, with major global price inflation, are falling slowest in the only major Western European economy outside the European Union?
-
DD.
The rail privatisation was so badly conceived that:
1) Railtrack presided over catastrophic mismanagemt of the rails, resulting in a string of accidents with mass fatalities, 3 years of the network virtually grinding to a standstill (I used to plan on a Sheffield-Lobdon train taking 4 hours minimum when travelling to the smoke for work) and Railtrack being renationalised. Railtrack was the fall guy who took the rap for the botched privatisation that allowed the profitable assets to be sold off separately whilst this company was set up to manage the rotten infrastructure that years of government under funding had created., i did say in my piece that we can argue till the cows come home about the methodology used to carry out the sale but it doesn't change the fact that it needed open heart surgery The three major crashes with fatalities were caused by the under funding and mismanagement of the railway infrastructure whilst in government hands, one was thought to be a suicidal drivers fault but it could never be proven. The Midland Mainline from Sheffield to St Pancras was always the bridesmaid line when compared to the East and West cost Mainlines, it had the least funding and was neglected badly both during and after privatisation, its now finally getting money spent on it and will be electrified to bring it up to scratch with the other main lines./color]
2) Bigger public subsidies than ever were spent when the trains were publicly owned.This increase in the public subsidy was to kick start the modernisation of the network, its a known fact that large parts of the network would never stand on their own in financial terms and had to be subsidised, this enabled private money to come in and provide the capital that was needed to kick start the upgrades that the state on its own had refused to do for the period of up to 30 years before right until it was all signed off to go private,
3) Several of the TOCs still going bust and having to be renationalised.This is true because the franchising model was never the correct way to deal with the privatisation, at the time only a very few routes made a profit, the rest had to be granted subsidies to enable the private sector to take on these loss making concerns, up until 2018 most where starting to turn to profit with reducing subsidies written into the contracts,the pandemic finished off a good few, but the initial franchise was a flawed method.
4) Foreign state owned companies taking over much of our system.The reason many foreign state railways have taken over much of our system is because they could see that there was money to be made, most of these (DB, SNCF, NS, Swedish) now use the profits they make here to subsides their own networks at home. The fact they outbid British companies to buy into railways should tell you plenty.
5) To add insult to injury for us, the private sector gave so few f**ks about us oop north, they continued until last year to use 40 year old Pacer trains that they couldn't even give away to Iran.True, but money is finally being spent and has been spent on upgrading the infrastructure in the north, the pacers are now long gone more than a year ago and new stock now covers these tub road railways.
Apart from that, privatisation was grand. If you ask people who dont have political axes to grind about the state of the railways now compared to what existed before 96 they will tell you it has improved noticeably, things can always be better but knowing what was then compared to now you would have to a be very one eyed to say different, yes there is issues with the franchising model, the fares structure and the amount of money that is being wasted by the Government on its vanity project HS2 but the railways up to the pandemic were in far better shape then they had been for many years prior, very easy to knock it but i've travelled across most of the network in Europe and i can tell you that outside of the High profile intercity lines the railways in Europe on the level below this is far inferior to our national network, in punctuality, quality and frequency and that includes France, Germany, Spain and Italy the urban, cross country and local services are worse than ours../color]
-
Lets talk about old BR, every man and his dog had a joke and a tale to tell about the efficiency and poor performance of British Rail. badly underfunded, poor rolling stock, badly maintained infrastructure, late and cramped trains very poor catering with poor old BR sandwiches becoming the thing of legend, all performed by management and staff with no accountability for the money that was being spent "its only paper money" was the big mantra.
Hmm, so not much different from what we have now then!
DD, might I politely ask when you last travelled by train. To those of us who have had the misfortune to use them regularly for work could I just flag a couple of points:
- Travel before 10 am and you need to take out another mortgage; it's often cheaper to fly
- In peak hours you will struggle to get a seat unless you hold a reservation
- Delays are regular and for all sorts of reasons; signal failure, a broken down train in front, lack of staff...
- Commuter trains have too few carriages
- Some journey times e.g. Liverpool to Manchester take longer now than 100 years ago
- £4k a season ticket if you live in the S East; that's out of net income by the way
- 'Catering' is no better than a Tesco meal deal but costs twice as much
Seriously, we have one of the worst, most underfunded, mismanaged rail networks of any 'top rank' western nation.
Would you like to provide some evidence for that statement because i would be interested to see you do so.
-
To bring the discussion back on topic
Those who advocate renationalising the railways do realise that if we were in the EU or were to rejoin the EU this would not be possible under EU law?
www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/4th-railway-package/
"The 4th railway package includes the proposal to open up domestic passenger railways to new entrants and services. Companies would be able either to offer competing services, such as a new train service on a particular route, or to bid for public service rail contracts through tendering. The proposed changes would make competitive tendering mandatory for public service rail contracts in the EU."
Similar proposals are in the pipeline for other public utilities including energy markets.
So the choice to vote for parties advocating nationalisation of public services is yet another democratic right soon to be removed from the electorate in EU states.
Still Ode to Joy great tune eh?
-
This tells you much of what you need to know about rail privatisation and the management thereof:
''''The under-fire rail operator Avanti West Coast has been “rewarded for failure”, Labour said, after the company was paid more than £17m in taxpayers’ money by ministers for performance and management fees in just two years, despite being the worst-performing operator on the rail network.
The figures from 2019-20 and 2020-21 include almost £4m in bonuses to Avanti for “operational performance”, “customer experience” and “acting as a good and efficient operator”.
At the same time, the firm raised prices, with an open return from Manchester to London – barely a two-hour journey – costing £369.40''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/19/avanti-west-coast-reward-failure-says-labour
-
To bring the discussion back on topic
Those who advocate renationalising the railways do realise that if we were in the EU or were to rejoin the EU this would not be possible under EU law?
www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/4th-railway-package/
"The 4th railway package includes the proposal to open up domestic passenger railways to new entrants and services. Companies would be able either to offer competing services, such as a new train service on a particular route, or to bid for public service rail contracts through tendering. The proposed changes would make competitive tendering mandatory for public service rail contracts in the EU."
Similar proposals are in the pipeline for other public utilities including energy markets.
So the choice to vote for parties advocating nationalisation of public services is yet another democratic right soon to be removed from the electorate in EU states.
Still Ode to Joy great tune eh?
This is true but i would put a very large wager on it that the French and Germans manage to manipulate the system to ensure they don't have to adhere to any new legislation the commission put forward, they have been doing this for years in other sectors and still manage to get their way, Its funny because you never hear that the commission has managed to get any court submissions to be acted upon by these states.
-
Inflation in the EU - 8.9%. In France, 6.1%, Germany, 7.5%, Italy 7.9%
What exactly was it we took back control of again - certainly not the economy.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=g20
Tell us how much they've bailed their energy companies out for?
Apparently inflation is due to the energy prices going up due to the war in Ukraine.
So why has it gone up highest in the country furthest away from Ukraine - that imports little oil and gas from Russia - and is an actual exporter of oil and gas?
Because we're more reliant on gas for our energy than the eurozone - particularly France for instance thanks to them embracing nuclear.
Thanks for the link Wilts - always interesting to compare UK economic performance vs other countries. Using that resource: -
Latest inflation figures: UK - 10.1%; Eurozone - 8.9%. In France, 6.1%, Germany, 7.5%, Italy 7.9%
Latest wage growth figures: UK: 5.1%; Eurozone: 2.7%; France: 0.5%; Germany: -1.4%; Italy: 1%
So real wages are falling more quickly in the Eurozone, France, Germany and Italy than they are in the UK
This is an ongoing trend - from a post I put up on this thread several weeks ago: -
"Over the 3 years to April 2022 real wage growth was 4.6% in the UK - it was in Germany (1.7%); France (1.4%); and the Eurozone (2.6%)."
So why is it that real wages have grown quickest and now, with major global price inflation, are falling slowest in the only major Western European economy outside the European Union?
Dunno Branton. Perhaps is to do with the massive fall in comparative wages prior to then? In 2018 wages in the Uk were 9% highter than in 2005? In France they were 39.8% higher and in Germany 40% higher.
Or maybe its the 30% rise in salaries in the UK finacial sector whilst Germany capped their's at 3%:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-03/u-k-pay-for-finance-workers-surges-at-double-the-national-rate#xj4y7vzkg
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/07/25/germany-is-likely-to-shift-toward-wage-restraint-as-inflation-concerns-mount/
Brexit was of course partly designed to remove restrictions from UK financial services and money markets.
What about since April? Real wages fell -3% April to June in the UK (the biggest drop on record) - how much have they fallen in the rest of Europe?
-
EU Law not a barrier to nationalising UK railways:
https://theconversation.com/renationalising-britains-railways-eu-law-not-a-barrier-96759
https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/11/would-labours-plans-to-nationalise-bt-openreach-be-legal-under-eu-rules-2
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market-restrictions-labour-a8968691.html
Anything is a good tune if you are prepared to open your ears to it.
-
This is an extremely interesting bit from your link wilts
''EU law explicitly protects the right of member states to nationalise industries. Art. 345 TFEU states “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States (MS) governing the system of property ownership.” In his book Professor Nicol argues that this provision has recently been ignored by the ECJ. This is largely correct but it does not justify the conclusion that it will always be ignored.
Art. 345 remains in the treaty. It is possible to generally promote liberal markets and operate some industries as national monopolies. Arts. 176 and 345 are not mutually exclusive. The ECJ has often been tolerant of member states accused of violating the treaties if their actions are “proportionate“, i.e. for a legitimate aim (which would include one endorsed by the electorate) and effective, but not excessive, in achieving that aim. Assuming that nationalisation was prominent in Mr Corbyn’s manifesto, conducted on a transparent timetable and proper compensation was paid, Mr Corbyn would have a strong case based on Art. 345.
-
Lets talk about old BR, every man and his dog had a joke and a tale to tell about the efficiency and poor performance of British Rail. badly underfunded, poor rolling stock, badly maintained infrastructure, late and cramped trains very poor catering with poor old BR sandwiches becoming the thing of legend, all performed by management and staff with no accountability for the money that was being spent "its only paper money" was the big mantra.
Hmm, so not much different from what we have now then!
DD, might I politely ask when you last travelled by train. To those of us who have had the misfortune to use them regularly for work could I just flag a couple of points: I use trains regularly have done for years and seen the changes.
- Travel before 10 am and you need to take out another mortgage; it's often cheaper to fly. If you have a business with a peak time element you would charge more, anyone would. I'd like to see you catch a plane from city centre to city centre.
- In peak hours you will struggle to get a seat unless you hold a reservation. All tickets now sold for inter city trains are sold with a reservation.
- Delays are regular and for all sorts of reasons; signal failure, a broken down train in front, lack of staff...Try using the M1 or A1 at the same time of morning and tell me its any different.
- Commuter trains have too few carriages. Most major commuter routes have had their platforms extended to allow for longer commute trains, 12 car trains are now the norm into most major south east termini.
- Some journey times e.g. Liverpool to Manchester take longer now than 100 years ago. That's because there are more people now who want to catch a train so they have more stops to pick up from, not much point having a train from Donny to London none stop for example.
- £4k a season ticket if you live in the S East; that's out of net income by the way. If you live in the south east and travel into London every day then you should be able to pay for that season ticket, try using a car for the same journey, the parking fees would be more.
- 'Catering' is no better than a Tesco meal deal but costs twice as much. Agreed.
Seriously, we have one of the worst, most underfunded, mismanaged rail networks of any 'top rank' western nation. Still waiting for you to provide some evidence that this is true.
-
Lets talk about old BR, every man and his dog had a joke and a tale to tell about the efficiency and poor performance of British Rail. badly underfunded, poor rolling stock, badly maintained infrastructure, late and cramped trains very poor catering with poor old BR sandwiches becoming the thing of legend, all performed by management and staff with no accountability for the money that was being spent &quot;its only paper money&quot; was the big mantra.
Hmm, so not much different from what we have now then!
DD, might I politely ask when you last travelled by train. To those of us who have had the misfortune to use them regularly for work could I just flag a couple of points:
- Travel before 10 am and you need to take out another mortgage; it's often cheaper to fly
- In peak hours you will struggle to get a seat unless you hold a reservation
- Delays are regular and for all sorts of reasons; signal failure, a broken down train in front, lack of staff...
- Commuter trains have too few carriages
- Some journey times e.g. Liverpool to Manchester take longer now than 100 years ago
- £4k a season ticket if you live in the S East; that's out of net income by the way
- 'Catering' is no better than a Tesco meal deal but costs twice as much
Seriously, we have one of the worst, most underfunded, mismanaged rail networks of any 'top rank' western nation.
Would you like to provide some evidence for that statement because i would be interested to see you do so.
Well for a start only 20% of trains are running at present.
Rather than send me on a fool’s errand why don’t you reflect on the many and various reasons why that’s the case.
-
Lets talk about old BR, every man and his dog had a joke and a tale to tell about the efficiency and poor performance of British Rail. badly underfunded, poor rolling stock, badly maintained infrastructure, late and cramped trains very poor catering with poor old BR sandwiches becoming the thing of legend, all performed by management and staff with no accountability for the money that was being spent &amp;quot;its only paper money&amp;quot; was the big mantra.
Hmm, so not much different from what we have now then!
DD, might I politely ask when you last travelled by train. To those of us who have had the misfortune to use them regularly for work could I just flag a couple of points:
- Travel before 10 am and you need to take out another mortgage; it's often cheaper to fly
- In peak hours you will struggle to get a seat unless you hold a reservation
- Delays are regular and for all sorts of reasons; signal failure, a broken down train in front, lack of staff...
- Commuter trains have too few carriages
- Some journey times e.g. Liverpool to Manchester take longer now than 100 years ago
- £4k a season ticket if you live in the S East; that's out of net income by the way
- 'Catering' is no better than a Tesco meal deal but costs twice as much
Seriously, we have one of the worst, most underfunded, mismanaged rail networks of any 'top rank' western nation.
Would you like to provide some evidence for that statement because i would be interested to see you do so.
Well for a start only 20% of trains are running at present.
Rather than send me on a fool’s errand why don’t you reflect on the many and various reasons why that’s the case.
You made the statement pal, if you can't back it up then there's no reason for me to reflect on anything.
But if you would like to substantiate your statement then i'm all ears.
-
Back on topic ...........
''UK farmers have savaged the agreement as unfair and complained that Australia’s less strict animal welfare rules put them at a disadvantage''
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/filthy-and-inhumane-trade-deal-critics-slam-australia-s-decision-to-continue-battery-farming-20220820-p5bbdh.html
-
Lets talk about old BR, every man and his dog had a joke and a tale to tell about the efficiency and poor performance of British Rail. badly underfunded, poor rolling stock, badly maintained infrastructure, late and cramped trains very poor catering with poor old BR sandwiches becoming the thing of legend, all performed by management and staff with no accountability for the money that was being spent &amp;amp;quot;its only paper money&amp;amp;quot; was the big mantra.
Hmm, so not much different from what we have now then!
DD, might I politely ask when you last travelled by train. To those of us who have had the misfortune to use them regularly for work could I just flag a couple of points:
- Travel before 10 am and you need to take out another mortgage; it's often cheaper to fly
- In peak hours you will struggle to get a seat unless you hold a reservation
- Delays are regular and for all sorts of reasons; signal failure, a broken down train in front, lack of staff...
- Commuter trains have too few carriages
- Some journey times e.g. Liverpool to Manchester take longer now than 100 years ago
- £4k a season ticket if you live in the S East; that's out of net income by the way
- 'Catering' is no better than a Tesco meal deal but costs twice as much
Seriously, we have one of the worst, most underfunded, mismanaged rail networks of any 'top rank' western nation.
Would you like to provide some evidence for that statement because i would be interested to see you do so.
Well for a start only 20% of trains are running at present.
Rather than send me on a fool’s errand why don’t you reflect on the many and various reasons why that’s the case.
You made the statement pal, if you can't back it up then there's no reason for me to reflect on anything.
But if you would like to substantiate your statement then i'm all ears.
Whereas your own diatribe contained little by way of substantiation but never mind...
Perhaps we can agree DD that we're sharing opinions here rather than doctorate theses. I will admit that the UK has a relatively good recent safety record; something like the third safest in Europe over the period since 2010. But that's as far as it goes.
To give you more 'substance' to my opinion:
https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2022/08/18/worst-performance-by-uk-rail-since-the-1970s/
https://www.ft.com/content/05fef011-f693-46a2-bfcd-fbdfffe4368d
Happy reading, Pal!
-
Lets talk about old BR, every man and his dog had a joke and a tale to tell about the efficiency and poor performance of British Rail. badly underfunded, poor rolling stock, badly maintained infrastructure, late and cramped trains very poor catering with poor old BR sandwiches becoming the thing of legend, all performed by management and staff with no accountability for the money that was being spent &amp;amp;amp;quot;its only paper money&amp;amp;amp;quot; was the big mantra.
Hmm, so not much different from what we have now then!
DD, might I politely ask when you last travelled by train. To those of us who have had the misfortune to use them regularly for work could I just flag a couple of points:
- Travel before 10 am and you need to take out another mortgage; it's often cheaper to fly
- In peak hours you will struggle to get a seat unless you hold a reservation
- Delays are regular and for all sorts of reasons; signal failure, a broken down train in front, lack of staff...
- Commuter trains have too few carriages
- Some journey times e.g. Liverpool to Manchester take longer now than 100 years ago
- £4k a season ticket if you live in the S East; that's out of net income by the way
- 'Catering' is no better than a Tesco meal deal but costs twice as much
Seriously, we have one of the worst, most underfunded, mismanaged rail networks of any 'top rank' western nation.
Would you like to provide some evidence for that statement because i would be interested to see you do so.
Well for a start only 20% of trains are running at present.
Rather than send me on a fool’s errand why don’t you reflect on the many and various reasons why that’s the case.
You made the statement pal, if you can't back it up then there's no reason for me to reflect on anything.
But if you would like to substantiate your statement then i'm all ears.
Whereas your own diatribe contained little by way of substantiation but never mind...
Perhaps we can agree DD that we're sharing opinions here rather than doctorate theses. I will admit that the UK has a relatively good recent safety record; something like the third safest in Europe over the period since 2010. But that's as far as it goes.
To give you more 'substance' to my opinion:
https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2022/08/18/worst-performance-by-uk-rail-since-the-1970s/
https://www.ft.com/content/05fef011-f693-46a2-bfcd-fbdfffe4368d
Happy reading, Pal!
So your substance is a headline that quotes worst performance since the 1970's and then explains it was due to events which in all fairness cannot be attributed to the running of a railway, i'm sure Covid and extreme weather had a big say in the "worst performance" of many a road, air or boat business during the time it was prevalent.
The FT piece is a opinion about something which has yet to occur so how this can be portrayed as something bad because the FT says so, with no knowledge or evidence to support it !!
The fact is i agree with your point about our relative opinions but it still galls me to hear the same standard put downs quickly rushed out every time something "sub optimal" happens on the railway.
I work in the industry and have seen the massive changes and challengers that are ever present, no one is saying its a world beater but as a nationwide system of transport it serves this country well, we would all love for everything to be great every day with no issues but we also live in the real world.if it did not exist im sure your daily commute would be very interesting if not also very frustrating and expensive.
At this time all modes of transport are being put through the ringer, i don't know if you are aware or have noticed, but air travel currently is horrendous , the roads are constantly being dug up with many a delay causing massive traffic congestion just about everywhere. Ferry services are being diluted of their qualified and competent staff and being replaced by agency workers who wouldn't know the port or stern of a boat if it hit then in the backside.
Life is tough for everyone just now, modes of transport are having a real hard time alongside all other businesses and industry, people need to be realistic and understanding with problems that require solutions that will take years.
-
Some good points there DD.
I agree that many of the jibes could apply just as much to other elements of our national infrastructure and utilities. And when I talk of mismanagement, I don't necessarily mean the management of each constituent organisation but management oversight from Government/Regulator downwards.
I detest the way that core infrastructure and utilities have been so heavily politicised in recent years. Yes, privatisation delivered early gains but these have long since been passed over in favour of shareholders and one or two greedy execs as the powers of the Regulators have been eroded. The energy sector being the most recent tragic example.
It's consumers and employees who've often borne the brunt of this imbalance and I think it's time it was redressed.
-
I'll give you an example of privatised services.
I've been to the match today on public transport because I didn't have the car.
I'd normally walk the 3km up the hill from Sheffield city centre to home. But I've a bad back at the moment so I thought I'd get the bus.
They are scheduled to come every 15 mins.
Tonight SIX buses have worked their way up the electronic board, all said to be on time.
Not one of them turned up. Not f**king one.
That's the service that First Bus give to South Yorkshire. And they couldn't give a f**k.
I've mailed a complaint as I have done 7 times before in the past 5 years after similar (admittedly not THIS bad) experiences. I've never received a reply. I don't expect to do this time. Because they can do what the f**k they want and never be held to account.
-
I got home 3.5 hours after full time. It's about 15 miles as the crow flies. That's privatised public transport for you.
-
I may be wrong here but I think I heard on the news this morning that some bus drivers were going on strike today.
Because I hardly ever use public transport I didn’t pay much attention but perhaps that contributed to no busses running in Sheffield.
-
On topic
Have just been talking to a bar owner in the Marais about b..... he thinks it's bonkers unsurprisingly.
-
On topic
Have just been talking to a bar owner in the Marais about b..... he thinks it's bonkers unsurprisingly.
Did you tell him Syd you were a Brexit enabler and didn't vote in 2019 to rejoin the EU ? .
-
On topic
Have just been talking to a bar owner in the Marais about b..... he thinks it's bonkers unsurprisingly.
Did you tell him Syd you were a Brexit enabler and didn't vote in 2019 to rejoin the EU ? .
He said he's read about you and thought you needed help
-
I got home 3.5 hours after full time. It's about 15 miles as the crow flies. That's privatised public transport for you.
Did you not consider to add into the equation that the way council budgets were being prioritised and reduced prior to the bus privatisation that there existed a very real possibility that you may have been using shanks's pony from the station to your abode if the private bus service was not available or whisper it quietly maybe having to jump into a taxi?
-
J P Morgan has drawn up plans to move work from German offices to London due to fear of power outages in the winter months.
If power cuts occur work will be transferred to other locations.
-
Over the last twelve months I have noticed as others must have some posters obvious love of opinion poll predictions. So the complete lack of posting about the far right coalition led by The Brothers of Italy party leading in the current Italian polls significantly in the last polls before the election surprising as it is not good news for the EU.
Polling 47% with the biggest party on the left way behind on 27% is not a good sign for the left sympathisers and could herald trouble for the EU lovies.
With Germany at somewhat of an economic crossroads and will as always look after themselves, and France just in it for what they can snaffle out of it, in the opening lines of an old song "there may be trouble ahead".
-
I would have thought the most important news on the brexit front atm is the second tory PM to be told to stick any trade deal where the sun don't shine until the NI protocol is sorted, but that's just me I guess.
-
Yes, looks like Selby would welcome a neo fascist government in Italy as long as it has the potential to harm the EU.
And yes Syd, Biden has told Truss to do one.
Quite right too.
-
It will all come down to the individual countries in the EU and who has to pick up the tab lads, what the present crop of luvies politically in charge at the moment say will get less and less notice taken of them as it get's colder over there.
-
EU Law not a barrier to nationalising UK railways:
https://theconversation.com/renationalising-britains-railways-eu-law-not-a-barrier-96759
https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/11/would-labours-plans-to-nationalise-bt-openreach-be-legal-under-eu-rules-2
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market-restrictions-labour-a8968691.html
Anything is a good tune if you are prepared to open your ears to it.
Not quite. The correct headline should read “EU not a barrier to part nationalising Railways”. Most people’s understanding of nationalised railways would be the old BR model where all parts of the system are publicly owned. Currently within EU law this cannot happen. Competition rules dictate that the same organisation, whether public or private, cannot own all parts of the rail system, eg the government couldn’t ‘own’ the tracks and the trains. Some countries have tried to work around this by creating bespoke nationalised firms to own the track network for example, whilst the government owns the train network, but these have led to heavy fines and additional cost of dismantling the ‘fake’ company.
Theoretically this isn’t a bad idea as it should prevent mass profiting of rail assets, and I do believe that the EU takes a softer approach to countries that can prove this back door method of public ownership works. Also, the EU allows those countries with an already collective national ownership (as we had with BR) the right to continue.
However, to claim that total re-nationalisation of the full rail network and a return to a BR style of public ownership while being members of the EU is possible isn’t accurate.
I’m not saying it’s a good or bad thing either, just stating facts for you to take or leave.
-
I notice that following France's nationalisation of its main energy supplier, Germany announced today it is to nationalise Uniper - its main gas importer.
But you can't nationalise critical industries when in the EU...
-
Here's a Brexit dividend.
Brexit is now enabling ex-Ministers to admit they lied about Brexit.
https://mobile.twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1592208294684557312
-
Yes, get a deal on any terms so you can tell the country we've got a great trade deal with Australia, when in truth it's total crap and you know its crap but you stand up in the Commons and say its great.
Duplicitous b**tards
-
Another Brexit dividend...
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1592246165050839040?t=OJFlCuF4zgfjC4ln7XrYjQ&s=19
-
Those denying the harm brexit has done to the economy will be able to meet in a phone box soon.
-
Those denying the harm brexit has done to the economy will be able to meet in a phone box soon.
Looks like it:
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?
Right to Leave: 32% (-3)
Wrong to Leave: 56% (+4)
Via @YouGov, 9-10 Nov.
Changes w/ 1-2 Nov.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1592925035739877376
-
Those denying the harm brexit has done to the economy will be able to meet in a phone box soon.
Which makes it all the more strange then, that your man, Keith, isn't going to apply to re-join the EU, and insists it's time we all move on from Brexit.
You really should start listening to him.
-
SS.
You won. Why can't you just revel in the fact that we became the country you wanted us to be? Why always this needling?
-
SS.
You won. Why can't you just revel in the fact that we became the country you wanted us to be? Why always this needling?
BST, I never had you down as one to struggle with semantics. People on here keep quoting stats and polls that say we're worse off because of Brexit, and most people think it was a mistake; and you say I'm needling?
What part of Starmer saying we should all move on are you not getting?
I'll do a deal with you. If all the Remainers keep off this thread, and just let it drop, I'll do the same.
-
SS
Quoting stats that show that the UK is doing worse than any other G7 nation isn't needling. It's stating facts. Do you prefer to stay in blissful ignorance of the facts?
People who said Brexit would be damaging to the UK economy have an absolute right to point out that the post-Brexit economy is doing very poorly. In fact they have a duty to say it. That's kind of how democratic politics is meant to work.
If you have other evidence that things are going fine, you're free to share it. Tell us why Brexit is a success.
Regarding Starmer, he's playing realpolitik. I don't like it, but I understand it. The one and only chance the Tories have in 2024 is to keep the fault line of Brexit live. Starmer has to neutralise that.
We aren't going to rejoin the EU any time soon. So why give the Tories a free hit and let them appeal to people like you who want to cling to their Brexit?
We WILL rejoin. One day. But things will have to get a lot worse before we do. And enough people on the Leave side will have to grit their teeth and accept that they f**ked up and bought a lie. It'll happen, but not for at least ten years. So Starmer would be an idiot to push it now.
Meantime, it's still perfectly fair to point out that things ain't going well. One day even you might have to accept that.
-
SS
Quoting stats that show that the UK is doing worse than any other G7 nation isn't needling. It's stating facts. Do you prefer to stay in blissful ignorance of the facts?
People who said Brexit would be damaging to the UK economy have an absolute right to point out that the post-Brexit economy is doing very poorly. In fact they have a duty to say it. That's kind of how democratic politics is meant to work.
If you have other evidence that things are going fine, you're free to share it. Tell us why Brexit is a success.
Regarding Starmer, he's playing realpolitik. I don't like it, but I understand it. The one and only chance the Tories have in 2024 is to keep the fault line of Brexit live. Starmer has to neutralise that.
We aren't going to rejoin the EU any time soon. So why give the Tories a free hit and let them appeal to people like you who want to cling to their Brexit?
We WILL rejoin. One day. But things will have to get a lot worse before we do. And enough people on the Leave side will have to grit their teeth and accept that they f**ked up and bought a lie. It'll happen, but not for at least ten years. So Starmer would be an idiot to push it now.
Meantime, it's still perfectly fair to point out that things ain't going well. One day even you might have to accept that.
I'll take that as a no to my deal then.
-
Of course I'm not taking that deal.
Anyone who genuinely cares about the future of this country should always be prepared to look at the consequences of the decisions we make.
Do you think we should just close our eyes and ears to the issue?
-
SS.
You won. Why can't you just revel in the fact that we became the country you wanted us to be? Why always this needling?
BST, I never had you down as one to struggle with semantics. People on here keep quoting stats and polls that say we're worse off because of Brexit, and most people think it was a mistake; and you say I'm needling?
What part of Starmer saying we should all move on are you not getting?
I'll do a deal with you. If all the Remainers keep off this thread, and just let it drop, I'll do the same.
I'll put it in a way that will make it easier for you to understand Steve
''Brexit will leave workers poorer than they would have been and has damaged Britain's competitiveness, new study says
The findings go on to say leaving the EU has pushed up the cost of living, seen investment fall and the UK lose market share in key areas''
''The report, in collaboration with the London School of Economics, said this was all as a result of a "depreciation-driven inflation spike" following Brexit''
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-leave-workers-poorer-than-they-would-have-been-and-has-damaged-britains-competitiveness-new-study-says-12638190
You are in good company Steve our numbers man on here refuses to accept it as does sunak.
-
SS.
You won. Why can't you just revel in the fact that we became the country you wanted us to be? Why always this needling?
BST, I never had you down as one to struggle with semantics. People on here keep quoting stats and polls that say we're worse off because of Brexit, and most people think it was a mistake; and you say I'm needling?
What part of Starmer saying we should all move on are you not getting?
I'll do a deal with you. If all the Remainers keep off this thread, and just let it drop, I'll do the same.
People are quite free to share stats and polls as to how much better off we are after Brexit, Steve - away you go.
Here's one from that well known Brexit supporting rag, the Daily Express to start you off:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1696839/Brexit-costs-business-Cheshire-Cheese-Company-sold
-
Of course I'm not taking that deal.
Anyone who genuinely cares about the future of this country should always be prepared to look at the consequences of the decisions we make.
Do you think we should just close our eyes and ears to the issue?
It looks like Keith has, seeing as he's told us all to move on from it.
You see I'm struggling here to understand why, if the EU is so economically wonderful, and we're in such sh*t because we've left, Keith doesn't want us to re-join. Ed Davey does, and I'd be fine with it.
Over to you, Keith.
-
Of course I'm not taking that deal.
Anyone who genuinely cares about the future of this country should always be prepared to look at the consequences of the decisions we make.
Do you think we should just close our eyes and ears to the issue?
It looks like Keith has, seeing as he's told us all to move on from it.
You see I'm struggling here to understand why, if the EU is so economically wonderful, and we're in such sh*t because we've left, Keith doesn't want us to re-join. Ed Davey does, and I'd be fine with it.
Over to you, Keith.
I explained why here in detail
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283698.msg1200219#msg1200219
You obviously didn't read it before you replied.
-
Couldn't find the bit about the cheesemaker having to sell up due to brexit on sky news.
-
Of course I'm not taking that deal.
Anyone who genuinely cares about the future of this country should always be prepared to look at the consequences of the decisions we make.
Do you think we should just close our eyes and ears to the issue?
It looks like Keith has, seeing as he's told us all to move on from it.
You see I'm struggling here to understand why, if the EU is so economically wonderful, and we're in such sh*t because we've left, Keith doesn't want us to re-join. Ed Davey does, and I'd be fine with it.
Over to you, Keith.
I explained why here in detail
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283698.msg1200219#msg1200219
You obviously didn't read it before you replied.
I did read it, and it's no more than a speculative opinion on your part.
My concern is that Starmer hasn't got the balls to make the big decisions like re-joining the EU, and taking the railways and public utilities back into public ownership where we all know they should be.
In this respect, it looks like he's going to be offering nothing much different to the Tories; and if your analysis is true, that he'll be handed a poisoned chalice in 2024, he could end up being one of the most maligned Labour Prime Ministers ever.
To be honest, I don't envy his position right now.
-
funny old world aye Steve, the government are putting red lines everywhere on brexit untouchables due to political pressure and you want Starmer (or don't want ... who knows) to do just that.
-
How about this then Brexiteers
https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1594672776639651841?t=UrDy08F8jNH
5x4q21QaWQ&s=19
'The biggest problem we have is stopping people coming across in dinghies'
F**k me sideways. This bloke's our PM.
-
SS
To be honest Starmer can't make the decision to rejoin the EU because the EU won't allow it. I doubt very much that the EU will want a disruptive UK back in the fold until there is clear evidence that there is widespread and deep support within the country for it and that the UK rejoining will be acceptable to nations like France who may well be sceptical about it.
It's interesting that Sunak has floated the idea of a Swiss type of arrangement. I think he and Hunt would like to soften this Brexit.
Whether that happens or not there is absolutely no incentive for Starmer to reopen the can of worms that is Brexit. Be under no illusion, it would tear the political consensus apart again and we'd be back to years of chaos and disruption. The country isn't in any kind of state to go through that kind of upheaval again.
-
SS
To be honest Starmer can't make the decision to rejoin the EU because the EU won't allow it. I doubt very much that the EU will want a disruptive UK back in the fold until there is clear evidence that there is widespread and deep support within the country for it and that the UK rejoining will be acceptable to nations like France who may well be sceptical about it.
It's interesting that Sunak has floated the idea of a Swiss type of arrangement. I think he and Hunt would like to soften this Brexit.
Whether that happens or not there is absolutely no incentive for Starmer to reopen the can of worms that is Brexit. Be under no illusion, it would tear the political consensus apart again and we'd be back to years of chaos and disruption. The country isn't in any kind of state to go through that kind of upheaval again.
What? Re-enter an EU institution without a referendum? How undemocratic can you get? :silly:
-
SS
To be honest Starmer can't make the decision to rejoin the EU because the EU won't allow it. I doubt very much that the EU will want a disruptive UK back in the fold until there is clear evidence that there is widespread and deep support within the country for it and that the UK rejoining will be acceptable to nations like France who may well be sceptical about it.
It's interesting that Sunak has floated the idea of a Swiss type of arrangement. I think he and Hunt would like to soften this Brexit.
Whether that happens or not there is absolutely no incentive for Starmer to reopen the can of worms that is Brexit. Be under no illusion, it would tear the political consensus apart again and we'd be back to years of chaos and disruption. The country isn't in any kind of state to go through that kind of upheaval again.
What? Re-enter an EU institution without a referendum? How undemocratic can you get? :silly:
Brexit was never well defined, it wouldn't matter.
-
SS
To be honest Starmer can't make the decision to rejoin the EU because the EU won't allow it. I doubt very much that the EU will want a disruptive UK back in the fold until there is clear evidence that there is widespread and deep support within the country for it and that the UK rejoining will be acceptable to nations like France who may well be sceptical about it.
It's interesting that Sunak has floated the idea of a Swiss type of arrangement. I think he and Hunt would like to soften this Brexit.
Whether that happens or not there is absolutely no incentive for Starmer to reopen the can of worms that is Brexit. Be under no illusion, it would tear the political consensus apart again and we'd be back to years of chaos and disruption. The country isn't in any kind of state to go through that kind of upheaval again.
What? Re-enter an EU institution without a referendum? How undemocratic can you get? :silly:
Brexit was never well defined, it wouldn't matter.
It mattered to a lot on here that a second referendum on a final brexit deal
was deemed to be 'undemocratic'!
-
How about this then Brexiteers
https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1594672776639651841?t=UrDy08F8jNH
5x4q21QaWQ&s=19
'The biggest problem we have is stopping people coming across in dinghies'
F**k me sideways. This bloke's our PM.
And why is this latest tory government in power, abject failures on the economy, cohesive society, poverty, education, health, housing, policing, pollution and more because as you say an extremely small number of people make it across the channel in small boats.
-
Watched a bit- 13mins or so until the suntan without a brain kept saying lower taxes were and are the answer to the economic woes.
https://news.sky.com/video/common-ground-has-brexit-broken-the-economy-12753518
-
Liars or idiots.
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1594622491611234305?t=tGnHvWNk7fJfhfs8NYmZnA&s=02
-
Liars or idiots.
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1594622491611234305?t=tGnHvWNk7fJfhfs8NYmZnA&s=02
So taking in what we know, that receipts to treasury are down around 40bn/annum and what that lot and others told the world what would and would and wouldn't happen and got it totally wrong by no other organisation than the OBR then you'd think there would be a huge slice of humble pie waiting for all of them, no.
Take farage (please) broker, financial advisor, still banging the brexit drum if a smidge less loudly, why would you go to someone like him that couldn't/wouldn't see the simple fact that while 27 countries in the EU lost a single trading partner (admittedly quite a large one) whereas the UK lost access to trade from 27 countries? tell me why you would put your financial future in the hands of any brexiter that refuses to admit they got it wrong? Forget the politics this is an question of economics.
-
Beaches in UK could be stripped of their Blue Flag status (which measures cleanliness and quality & achieved under EU's clean water directive) due to massive increase in pollution (allowed by UK gov 'scrapping EU laws' and allowing discharge of sewage into rivers and onto beaches).
Story brought to you by a newspaper that campaign for this to happen:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11471013/Britains-Blue-Flag-beaches-STRIPPED-status-sewage.html
-
Having never read the D Mail does it cover sport well or have other attributes, what impels people to pay for it? can anyone on the forum throw some light on this?
-
Liars or idiots.
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1594622491611234305?t=tGnHvWNk7fJfhfs8NYmZnA&s=02
So taking in what we know, that receipts to treasury are down around 40bn/annum and what that lot and others told the world what would and would and wouldn't happen and got it totally wrong by no other organisation than the OBR then you'd think there would be a huge slice of humble pie waiting for all of them, no.
Take farage (please) broker, financial advisor, still banging the brexit drum if a smidge less loudly, why would you go to someone like him that couldn't/wouldn't see the simple fact that while 27 countries in the EU lost a single trading partner (admittedly quite a large one) whereas the UK lost access to trade from 27 countries? tell me why you would put your financial future in the hands of any brexiter that refuses to admit they got it wrong? Forget the politics this is an question of economics.
Syd, I know you don't do answers, but I'll ask the question anyway.
What do you think Keith meant when he said "It's time for us all to move on now from Brexit"?
-
Beaches in UK could be stripped of their Blue Flag status (which measures cleanliness and quality & achieved under EU's clean water directive) due to massive increase in pollution (allowed by UK gov 'scrapping EU laws' and allowing discharge of sewage into rivers and onto beaches).
Story brought to you by a newspaper that campaign for this to happen:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11471013/Britains-Blue-Flag-beaches-STRIPPED-status-sewage.html
Maybe they should implement a Brown Flag standard?
-
Liars or idiots.
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1594622491611234305?t=tGnHvWNk7fJfhfs8NYmZnA&s=02
So taking in what we know, that receipts to treasury are down around 40bn/annum and what that lot and others told the world what would and would and wouldn't happen and got it totally wrong by no other organisation than the OBR then you'd think there would be a huge slice of humble pie waiting for all of them, no.
Take farage (please) broker, financial advisor, still banging the brexit drum if a smidge less loudly, why would you go to someone like him that couldn't/wouldn't see the simple fact that while 27 countries in the EU lost a single trading partner (admittedly quite a large one) whereas the UK lost access to trade from 27 countries? tell me why you would put your financial future in the hands of any brexiter that refuses to admit they got it wrong? Forget the politics this is an question of economics.
Syd, I know you don't do answers, but I'll ask the question anyway.
What do you think Keith meant when he said "It's time for us all to move on now from Brexit"?
As with many Steve you appear to be a bit politically naive, I will indulge you again, although not sure why I should bother as you are full of accusations but rarely ever reply to my questions aye?
Starmer is trying to take power, but because of the fickle nature of those that should know better, those that would rather lose the next election than support someone that doesn't fit their ideal he has to court the centre. If he makes the merest suggestion of bringing a reversal of brexit back into play the right wing media will ignore the corrupt governments of the past 12 years and tear labour to bits. It has been explained on here many times by others, what is it a politics you don't understand Steve?
-
Liars or idiots.
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1594622491611234305?t=tGnHvWNk7fJfhfs8NYmZnA&s=02
So taking in what we know, that receipts to treasury are down around 40bn/annum and what that lot and others told the world what would and would and wouldn't happen and got it totally wrong by no other organisation than the OBR then you'd think there would be a huge slice of humble pie waiting for all of them, no.
Take farage (please) broker, financial advisor, still banging the brexit drum if a smidge less loudly, why would you go to someone like him that couldn't/wouldn't see the simple fact that while 27 countries in the EU lost a single trading partner (admittedly quite a large one) whereas the UK lost access to trade from 27 countries? tell me why you would put your financial future in the hands of any brexiter that refuses to admit they got it wrong? Forget the politics this is an question of economics.
Syd, I know you don't do answers, but I'll ask the question anyway.
What do you think Keith meant when he said "It's time for us all to move on now from Brexit"?
As with many Steve you appear to be a bit politically naive, I will indulge you again, although not sure why I should bother as you are full of accusations but rarely ever reply to my questions aye?
Starmer is trying to take power, but because of the fickle nature of those that should know better, those that would rather lose the next election than support someone that doesn't fit their ideal he has to court the centre. If he makes the merest suggestion of bringing a reversal of brexit back into play the right wing media will ignore the corrupt governments of the past 12 years and tear labour to bits. It has been explained on here many times by others, what is it a politics you don't understand Steve?
He HAS to court the centre? Are you having a laugh? Since when has Keith not been a centrist?
The proof of the pudding will come this Winter, when political interviewers will press him on what he thinks about Mick Lynch, the RMT, the striking nurses, and all the other striking unions.
Incidentally, what do YOU think about all the strikes coming up this Winter?
-
Starmer didn't elect himself Steve the labour party put him in because of the dreadful mess made by the previous leader, they put him in to make the labour party electable.
-
Instead of continually demanding answers and solutions why not put up your solutions to everything Steve and tell me what you are doing to help.
https://www.easycareaustralia.com.au/collections/tilt-lift-chairs
Maybe buy a couple and hand them around to your friends.
-
Here's some interesting numbers for budding economists to get their heads around and waverers to consider ...
'' ........ As for GDP, the unweighted average annual growth for a Conservative chancellor since 1979 has been a pallid 1.34% – compared with Gordon Brown’s 2.7% during his 10 years as chancellor. It bodes ill for the already dismal Tory record that the current chancellor used the opening remarks of his autumn statement to confirm that the UK is already in recession .......''
'' ....... On the value of the pound, no Tory chancellor of the past four decades has shepherded sterling’s return to its May 1979 value of $2.07, with only Labour managing to bring it back above $2, in 2007. In the time it took the chancellor to deliver his statement, the pound actually fell by a full percentage point.
The Coalition-era chancellor, George Osborne, saw wages fall and presided over a programme of austerity that created the conditions for profound and far-reaching crises in our public services, from days-long A&E wait times to schools with huge budget shortfalls. Food banks have seen a 100-fold increase in demand since 2010. Analysis suggests that depressed incomes and chilled consumer spending from austerity delivers an annual £100bn hit to GDP ........ ''
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/27/tory-chancellors-jeremy-hunt-lawson-osborne-poverty-austerity
-
That well known lefty rag the FT pinning its colours to the mast on Brexit.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1597966802071461890
-
Cracking performance by the Re-Join EU candidate in the Chester by election , a real mandate there :rolleyes:
Chester is hardly the red wall either given its electoral history .
As you were ............
-
Cracking performance by the Re-Join EU candidate in the Chester by election , a real mandate there :rolleyes:
Chester is hardly the red wall either given its electoral history .
As you were ............
Why do you do this? What purpose does it serve you.
You WON! You, you personally, gave Johnson and Rees-Mogg and Gove and Arab the mandate they needed.
You won.
Can't you be happy with that? Do you have to keep fighting the old battle?
-
Cracking performance by the Re-Join EU candidate in the Chester by election , a real mandate there :rolleyes:
Chester is hardly the red wall either given its electoral history .
As you were ............
Why do you do this? What purpose does it serve you.
You WON! You, you personally, gave Johnson and Rees-Mogg and Gove and Arab the mandate they needed.
You won.
Can't you be happy with that? Do you have to keep fighting the old battle?
Just responsive Billy and nothing more than that to be honest .
The only demographic fighting old battles are the bitter remainers and their incessant pathetic hysterical rants .
At least at the Chester by election Rejoin managed a hundred more votes than the Monster Raving Looney Party .
Got to take the positives .
-
Nothing worse than an ungracious winner.
I'm surprised you've not given us your opinion on the Labour performance though. You never seem short of an opinion on Labour.
-
Given the apparent strength of feeling on this issue and the fact that none of the main national parties are advocating rejoining the EU currently I'm very pleased to see this Rejoin EU party contesting elections.
They are fulfilling an important democratic function in allowing people (such as the 277 of voters in Chester) who are unhappy with this area of Government policy to make their feelings known.
Of course it's interesting and enlightening to see how well they perform especially in safe seats such as Chester where voters may be more tempted to vote for single issue parties/involve themselves in 'protest' votes.
Anyone on here likely to vote for them?
-
Nothing worse than an ungracious winner.
I'm surprised you've not given us your opinion on the Labour performance though. You never seem short of an opinion on Labour.
It was a good result for Labour given the circumstances that led to the by election , that could easily have gone against them given the marginal history of the seat .
As long as Keith sticks to the plan , which is to let the Tories fall on their sword , keep the Red Wall leavers onside whilst more or less saying to the metropolitan remainers they don't have anywhere else to go he should win relatively comfortably .
-
Given the apparent strength of feeling on this issue and the fact that none of the main national parties are advocating rejoining the EU currently I'm very pleased to see this Rejoin EU party contesting elections.
They are fulfilling an important democratic function in allowing people (such as the 277 of voters in Chester) who are unhappy with this area of Government policy to make their feelings known.
Of course it's interesting and enlightening to see how well they perform especially in safe seats such as Chester where voters may be more tempted to vote for single issue parties/involve themselves in 'protest' votes.
Anyone on here likely to vote for them?
No of course people won't bite for them. Because electorally they are an irrelevance. I don't understand why anyone would ever even note their existence.
This is what I don't get about Leave supporters.
You won.
You have the world you wanted.
You wanted Remain supporters to accept that we left.
We HAVE accepted that we left. Labour's policy is now to try to make the best of the situation they will inherit. The country YOU wanted us to be. The country we now are.
I agree with Labour's policy. I think we have made a catastrophic mistake in leaving the EU, but that decision is now made. I think it WILL be overturned within my lifetime when enough people see how damaging it has been. But that's not going to happen for a decade at least. And reopening the issue as a live electoral one is not in the country's interests until the electorate demands it.
Which they will. I'm a decade or so.
I don't understand why Leave supporters have to keep baiting people on this issue. Unless of course, they define themselves by baiting people who disagree with them. They've won everything they wanted. Why not concentrate on making a success of your victory?
-
I wasn't trying to 'bait' anybody on this.
I was simply pointing out that none of the national parties are campaigning to rejoin the EU currently and given how big an issue this is/has been that it's good for our democracy that a party is standing on that platform so people can express their view if they feel so strongly on it.
It's up to the electorate whether they are an irrelevance or not.
UKIP were dismissed as an irrelevance as recently as the 2010 GE.
-
UKIP had backing from several prominent multi-millionaires. And a lot of useful support from Russian Psy-Ops.
The Rejoin party is a bunch of well-meaning nobodies, backed by nobody.
-
UKIP had backing from several prominent multi-millionaires. And a lot of useful support from Russian Psy-Ops.
The Rejoin party is a bunch of well-meaning nobodies, backed by nobody.
As their offer is currently unique they will get the backing and the votes to become electorally relevant if enough people feel strongly enough about the platform on which they're standing.
-
Aren't the Green Party campaiging on a rejoin agenda?
Presumable the Rejoin Party is for people who want to rejoin the EU but don't like the environment - so I wont be voting for them!
-
Aren't the Green Party campaiging on a rejoin agenda?
Presumable the Rejoin Party is for people who want to rejoin the EU but don't like the environment - so I wont be voting for them!
Hi Wilts
I did google the Green Party's policy on this before describing Rejoin EU as having a unique offer. Green policy is: -
"The UK should make a speedy return to the free movement of people between the UK and the European Union and re-join the customs union, to lessen the problems resulting from Brexit, say the Green Party. Members at the Party’s conference in Harrogate also voted in favour of pursuing a policy to re-join the EU “as soon as the political situation is favourable and the right terms are available [1].” " www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2022/10/02/greens-call-for-re-joining-the-eu-“as-soon-as-political-situation-is-favourable”/
So yes in favour of rejoining per se but more nuanced and not outright immediately as Rejoin EU are advocating.
-
Given the apparent strength of feeling on this issue and the fact that none of the main national parties are advocating rejoining the EU currently I'm very pleased to see this Rejoin EU party contesting elections.
They are fulfilling an important democratic function in allowing people (such as the 277 of voters in Chester) who are unhappy with this area of Government policy to make their feelings known.
Of course it's interesting and enlightening to see how well they perform especially in safe seats such as Chester where voters may be more tempted to vote for single issue parties/involve themselves in 'protest' votes.
Anyone on here likely to vote for them?
No of course people won't bite for them. Because electorally they are an irrelevance. I don't understand why anyone would ever even note their existence.
This is what I don't get about Leave supporters.
You won.
You have the world you wanted.
You wanted Remain supporters to accept that we left.
We HAVE accepted that we left. Labour's policy is now to try to make the best of the situation they will inherit. The country YOU wanted us to be. The country we now are.
I agree with Labour's policy. I think we have made a catastrophic mistake in leaving the EU, but that decision is now made. I think it WILL be overturned within my lifetime when enough people see how damaging it has been. But that's not going to happen for a decade at least. And reopening the issue as a live electoral one is not in the country's interests until the electorate demands it.
Which they will. I'm a decade or so.
I don't understand why Leave supporters have to keep baiting people on this issue. Unless of course, they define themselves by baiting people who disagree with them. They've won everything they wanted. Why not concentrate on making a success of your victory?
BST, what's the title of this thread, and who are asking the question, Remainers or Leavers? I don't see how responding to whingers can be described as "baiting".
-
Have you responded with any examples of the benefits though?
-
SS.
It's not baiting to discuss the problems that emerge as Brexit beds in.
In a sensible, mature democracy, you don't switch off after a vote and say that's history over. You consider the consequences. You weigh up evidence. You think about whether the right decision has been made. You ask yourself which politicians broadly predicted correctly how this would turn out. Which ones got it wrong.
Because if you don't do that, what on earth do you base you opinions on next time you need to make a big choice.
So discussing the pros and cons as they emerge is absolutely vital. It's genuinely sad that an intelligent person like you doesn't get that, and sees evidence of Brexit having a seriously negative effect on the economy as "baiting".
It's not. Baiting is making daft posts about irrelevant side issues to try to wind the other side up.
-
Baiting is making daft posts about irrelevant side issues to try to wind the other side up.
The Brexit referendum was secured in a period, when all major UK parties were pro-EU, because an effectively single issue Eurosceptic party started winning a significant share of the vote.
Now when the major parties accept staying in the EU it is IMO a pertinent question to ask whether a single issue Europhile party advocating rejoining the EU can have similar success in reverse.
You may consider this an irrelevant side issue - but I don't.
So your accusation that I was baiting you or winding you up by joining in this discussion, which I honestly wasn't, is based on a wholly false assumption.
-
Branton.
Apologies if I wrongly assumed you were baiting. Tyke does and was and if I misread the intention of your post then I apologise.
Trouble is, that means I have to take your post seriously. In that you're genuinely comparing this new party to UKIP, and suggesting that support for such a party might be a driver of a policy of rejoining the EU. Like UKIP was the other way round.
That, forgive me for being blunt, is daft. For this reason.
UKIP existed at a time when, not only were the POLICIES of both major parties to stay in the EU. The BELIEF of the majority of key people in both parties was that staying in the EU was best for Britain. UKIP set themselves up with the intention of dragging the Overton Window of the right wing of our politics over to the Eurosceptic position. They did that, not by convincing the key Tory figures that their argument was right. They did it by providing an electoral challenge. Apart from an ultranationalist section of the Tory party, and a few who stood to line their own pockets and advance their careers, few in the Tory party actually believed that UKIP were right. So UKIP had to be a threat to them to force the Tories to accommodate their ideas.
The Tories en masse embraced Euroscepticism not because they believed in it. Because they had no option
The current position is not remotely like that.
Labour's key people do not believe that Brexit is good for Britain. But equally, there is no appetite (currently) in the country to reopen the issue. So Labour has to have a policy of accepting Brexit and trying to make the best of it. While still knowing that "the best" will still be a lot worse than staying in the EU would have been.
Labour knows there is a long game here. It knows that, when the fact of Brexit's damage to the country becomes incontrovertible, there will be a national desire to re-engage with the EU. My best guess is that will be 10-15 years down the line. Then it will be politically possible to open the question again.
But here's the thing. Labour doesn't need to be convinced of that by a pressure party on its flank, playing the mirror image role that UKIP played. Because it doesn't need its core beliefs converted. So there is absolutely no purpose to that new party. It's a total irrelevance.
I thought that much was obvious, hence my assumption that you were baiting by bigging up the importance of the new party.
Oh and one last point. My saying Labour giesnt believe Brexit is good, doesn't imply that the Labour Govt from 2024 omwsrds will actively try to make the UK economy fail. That would be morally abhorrent and stupid in their own self interests. They will do everything they can to make the UK economy work under Brexit. But whatever they do, it will become increasingly apparent that Brexit is not helping. And then public opinion will increasingly be open to looking into the issue again.
-
The German Ambassodor made it clear that anyone joining the EU would have to accept the Euro as their currency, can't see that happening over here
-
Branton.
Apologies if I wrongly assumed you were baiting. Tyke does and was and if I misread the intention of your post then I apologise.
Thank you for your response and your apology.
Don't worry I take no offence in you calling my views daft so long as you are able to justify that with reasoning. Which you have done.
I won't go into the detail of your response. A lot of what you say is correct. However I disagree with your conclusion. I won't repeat myself as to why. If you think that makes my opinion daft then hey ho.
I think you just need to bear in mind before making accusations or insults that your view of the world may seem obvious to you but other people view the world differently - yes perhaps in your eyes daftly.
Therefore when people come to different conclusions to you on policy or on how to vote it's not necessarily because they're too stupid to make the right decision, or worse are acting out of self-interest or malice. It more often than not will be that their world view is different to yours leading to them having different conclusions than you.
People didn't vote Brexit because they saw it as you do and wanted to be part of an economic "death cult", just because elderly voters vote Tory doesn't automatically make them "detestable", neither does me expressing some interest in how the Rejoin EU party perform mean I'm "baiting" you.
Of course you're totally justified in critiquing people's opinions and indeed their world view and expressing the view that they're wrong. That's part and parcel of civilised debate in a democratic country.
I'd just suggest you be careful in making the assumption that everybody views the world in the same way you do before throwing out accusations or insults.
-
It's a question all serious political parties are going to have to face at some point - how will they improve the economic performance of the UK?
Good luck at finding an answer that doesn't involve 'having a closer relationship with the EU'. Irrspective of whether or not there is a minor pressure group/political party named Rejoin.
Just as all parties have had to tackle environmental issues, irrespective of how the Green Party is doing.