Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 09:41 AM

The amendment proposed by Hilary Benn to Ms May's Dec 11 motion specifically rules out a no- deal .The amendment is winning support from a cross -party group of pro-remain MPs ;it would if passed be a "staging post to a new referendum" according to Jack Straw . If Theresa May’s motion fails and Benn’s amendment is carried , “parliament essentially takes over from the executive" according to the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg.Reading between the lines of an article in the UK’s Independent during the week, Benn’s parliamentary move may have been initiated the other end of Pall Mall :ihttps://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-deal-vote-no-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-queen-remain-mps-new-coalition-government-a8

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 04:25 AM

I don't think the leavers actually voted for opting out of any scientific cooperation or for damaging the economy, DMcG.

Nor do I. But there are those who will claim that, even though the precise consequences were not known, the risks were known and were included as part of their decision.

If you wanted my entirely speculative guess on what most leavers voted for, it was for everything to carry on exactly as it was, but with the additional rights to make new trade deals, to change any laws we wanted without referring to anyone else, including immigration and to pay less to the EU.   In the line of a song that I knew as a child but is so often apposite "Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die."


Our private Galileo will cost £92million just to work out what to do, and then we can expect to overall costs to be a big multiple of the 1.4 billion euro which was our share of the project if we end up having to build a new one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 03:07 AM

The whole sorry mess is the result of the Tories trying to go it alone, instead of creating a cross-party 'Brexit Team'. Of course, they didn't want a cross-party team, because they might not have got their own way and achieved what they're really after, which is a crash-out 'Hard-Brexit' in order to enable the immensely-wealthy cadre who give the party its instructions to avoid EU anti-tax-avoidance regulations which come into effect in 2019.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 02:24 AM

BTW, I still believe that the referendum was a massive mistake and that Cameron's government abdicated their responsibility. I have always said that referendums are wrong and argued against any more but I cannot see any other way out of this mess. Except maybe a coalition government deciding to do the right thing for the country and cancelling the whole sorry affair.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 02:10 AM

I don't think the leavers actually voted for opting out of any scientific cooperation or for damaging the economy, DMcG. I do think that many did not realise that the impact of their vote would have any such consequences because they were told that leaving would be easy and have no downsides. The remain campaign's warnings were, and still are, called "project fear". It is a testament to the duplicity of Farage, Johnson, Gove and co. that they managed to con so many and shame on the remainers for not going far enough to dispel such errant nonsense.

For that reason and many others the terms of the deal should be put to the country either in another referendum or a general election.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 07:18 PM

I see I was right about the fiercely pro-May cleric on Newsnight being a lady - but wrong about her being a vicar. In fact she's a pastor in a very strange "Seeds for Wealth" church - "give us your money and we guarantee God will make you very wealthy" - and is also professional who's had parts in a Star Trek film and in Eastenders among other performances. The BBC has denied hiring her for Newsnight to liven up the discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 06:42 PM

(Damn spell checker that thinks it knows better...)

Of course any moves towards greater clearly democratic institutions in the EU would be seen as trying to turn it into a federal nation analogous to the US or India. The existing rather clunky system is a consequence of trying to avoid that while enabling communal harmony. It's a complicated business doing that, and there's room for improvements. It's work still to be done.

The "reforms" David Cameron failed to achieve weren't anthing to do with that, they were merely about getting further UK opt outs and exceptions.

As a citizen of another EU country I think I'd be pretty pleased to see the end of UK membership. Aside, that is, from the potential damage to Ireland arising from the special circumstances of the Northern Ireland involvement in the UK.

A Norway style deal makes a lot of sense, freeing the EU from the UK as members, and vice versa, but retaining a fair degree of harmonisation, and freedom of travel for both UK and EU citizens. And ending the troublesome fishery and agricultural policy links which underlay a fair chunk of the Leave vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 06:37 PM

Of course any moves towards greater clearly democratic instructions in the EU would be seen as trying to turn it into a federal nation analogous to the US or India. The existing rather clunky system is a consequence of trying to avoid that while enabling communal harmony. It's a complicated business doing that, and there's room for improvements. It's work still to be done.

The "reforms" David Cameron failed to achieve weren't anthing to do with that, they were merely about getting further UK opt outs and exceptions.

As a citizen of another EU country I think I'd be pretty pleased to see the end of UK membership. Aside, that is, from the potential damage to Ireland arising from the special circumstances of the Northern Ireland involvement in the UK.

A Norway style deal makes a lot of sense, freeing the EU from the UK as members, and vice versa, but retaining a fair degree of harmonisation, and freedom of travel for both UK and EU citizens. And ending the troublesome fishery and agricultural policy links which underlay a fair chunk of the Leave vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 06:19 PM

Goodbye, Galileo

I suppose some think the leavers voted for this, as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 05:48 PM

Oh, and I should have added that if the EU is all those things you say it is then the UK must shoulder a lot of the responsibility. It is not an "us and them" situation. We have been a major part of the EU since 1973 and if it was in anything like the state you suggest then we have helped to make the mess. Shitting on your partner's floor and then leaving others to clean up the mess is hardly the act of a decent country is it? But luckily, flawed as it is, it is nothing like the picture you paint. You have fallen for the EU smear campaign hook, line and sinker.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 05:24 PM

Point 1. You work on the basis that we give money to the EU in return for nothing. That is nonsense.

Point 2. The government we currently have is incompetent. You need only look at the mismanagement of the NHS. How will leaving the EU make that better?

Point 3. What is your evidence of the EU being dishonest? Have 'they' ever been tried and convicted?

Point 4. The EU is not undemocratic. It is run by elected officials including ones from the UK who have considerably more power than the representatives of some other member states.

Point 5 (%). How are you measuring this "train wreck"? Compared to how many economies are being run now, including ours, the EU seems to be faring far better.

So, all your points are disputed but even if they were partially true the fact still remains that there is a mass of evidence confirming that we will be considerably worse off outside the EU. If your points did hold water, think how much better it would be if we stayed in and resolved all those issues!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 05:11 PM

The link explains that accurate means it is a correct accounting of all income and expenditure but that errors relate to the authorisation of that expenditure. So you might use the link in support of your corruption charges, perhaps, but not that the audits were not signed off.

Of course, the authorisation issues do not necessarily it was actually unauthorised overall; sometimes it might be spent in a later quarter than it was approved for, for example. This is not to say the EU is corruption free - the UK isn't either - but you need to be careful you are not distorting the position.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 04:20 PM

50 plus years of absent, erroneous, corrupt or disputed accounts might be seen as OK if we were a country which received EU money but as a country that paid in more than it got out it was a bad deal. It was our taxed money, despite opinions that say it was only a little bit. Once we are truly out it will be ZERO!


As to the post following mine, that showed little to me other than skills of misdirection and avoidance.

My first point, corruption, was answered with the words "Classic non sequitur." That is, itself, a classic non sequitur that has nothing to do with corruption.

Point two was incompetence. This was answered with a condemnation of David Cameron, a 'Little Englander' insult and bad language. Not my idea of an argument.

Point three was about EU dishonesty. This was answered with the accusation that the Leave campaign was dishonest, an irrelevance, and the fact that we have a veto. I'm not sure if that is another irrelevance or a non sequitur, but it is not a counter argument. A denial maybe.

Point four was about the EU being undemocratic. The answer to this was an animal reference and a denial that an unelected Commission could be undemocratic.

Point %, or 5 as it should have been, was not addressed.

Non sequiturs, insults, bad language, denials, avoidance and no arguments.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 03:59 PM

Nice link.
The main 'conclusion' given is:
Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007. But they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995. In the most recent year, they found a significant part of the EU’s spending was largely error-free for the first time.

How can 2016 be the first year to be largely error-free, if the accounts have been accurate since 2007?
My understanding of 'accurate' would include the accounts being 'error-free'. Clearly the EU auditors work to a different lexicon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 02:11 PM

The claim the accounts have never been signed off Is also disputed but it seems 2016 - before the poat - was free of material errors.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 02:03 PM

Oh, and 1500!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 02:03 PM

For those who cannot be bothered to look back at Stanron's quoted post, here it is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron - PM
Date: 20 Aug 18 - 05:49 PM

1. The EU is corrupt, It has failed to produce audited accounts for approximately ever. Good News! we will no longer have to pay for their gravy train.
2. The EU is incompetent. Had the EU offered any kind of effective reform before the referendum we may not have voted to leave. Good News! We will no longer have our common sense subordinated to their doctrinaire incompetencies.
3. The EU is dishonest. It disguised the plan to transform into a United States of Europe because it knew no one would vote for that. Good News! We will no longer be deceived in this particular fashion.
4. The EU is undemocratic. We were never allowed to vote on stuff they reckoned we would reject. We cannot elect any of the people who originate policy. Good News! We will become a Democracy again.
%. The EU is a train wreck in the process of happening. Good News! The light at the end of the tunnel is our escape, not a train coming the other way.

Let's see if this gets deleted.

Well, thing is, Stanron, that does not give anyone any reason to believe that being out of the EU will be any better. In fact, as we still will have to trade with them but have no control over what goes on, it will be decidedly worse. If that was your reason for voting leave, fine. I think you got it wrong, as Steve's post following yours showed, and how do you still justify your vote in the light of what has subsequently transpoired about the dishonesty of the referendum campaign and the obvious damage it is going to do to both the economy and social structure of the UK?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 01:30 PM

Dave the Gnome wrote: Give us good, quantifiable reasons why you decided to vote leave

Again? See post

Date: 20 Aug 18 - 05:49 PM

It's even got a typo.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:58 PM

Things are normally ruled out before they are ruled in. Remember May repeatedly saying that there would not be a General Election until 2021. Or Cameron repeatedly saying that if by any possibility there was a vote to leave the EU he would stick around as Prime Minister while the mess was cleared up? Or every single LibDem candidate making an individual pledge to oppose tuition fees irrespective of how the election turned out? Pledges and promises by politicians are almost invariably written in water.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:50 PM

it seems that a third referendum has been ruled out.

I think that is a bit premature. Let's see what happens after around Dec 12th. I agree May is trying to rule it out, but equally there are amendments being proposed that as Laura K puts it:

The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg says it supports what "some in Number 10 suspect - that is vote falls, Parliament essentially takes over from the executive".

And if that happens, any options could arise, whether Mrs May agrees or not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:44 PM

Spot on, Kevin, but sadly it seems that a third referendum has been ruled out. Yes, I do mean third. The first was in 1975 when we voted remain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:42 PM

to be 'free of' or 'free from' Europe ..

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:40 PM

What I can't understand is why a vote in June 2016 is the fixed and unchangeably valid expression of the will of the people’s of the UK, while a vote in Spring 2018 would be a a mortal blow to democracy and an insult to the people of the UK.

There are two indeed rational bases for opposing such a vote. For committed Brexiters it would entail a risk that this time the vote might go against them. For MPs in constituencies where there was a strong vote for Brexit last time there is a risk that, if they supported a fresh vote, this might entail a risk of losing their seats in the next election, especially if it turned out that the will of the UK as a whole was to remain in the EU. But neither of these reasons are anything at all to do with democratic principles.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:39 PM

I can't answer for Stanron, of course, but one 'reason' I have started hearing more often is that "our parents/grandparents fought to be from of Europe and you dishonour their memory if you do not want to leave."

Pure emotion, of course. No regard for or interest in whether we will be better, worse, or completely collapse. No factual basis at all. Just armchair warriors who somehow think they are doing their bit in the last war.

But I think quite a lot of people could be persuaded by it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:17 PM

Yes, we know that you want to leave, Stanron. Tell us why. Give us good, quantifiable reasons why you decided to vote leave, against the advice of almost 100% of economists and most business leaders. Now that the body of evidence saying that leaving will be a bad thing is overwhelming do you still think it was the right choice? This is what we are trying to learn. We are hoping for some glimmer of hope amongst the gloom. 'We will be out of the EU' just does not cut it. Iains and Nigel have failed to come with any good justification of how we will be in any way better off. I know I am clutching at straws but maybe you will fare better.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:04 PM

A long and barely coherent rant (not my word) which ends by accusing me of making 'claims'. What claims? Read my last post again. I was reporting a comment made on a TV show. If you have access to BBCiPlayer you can watch it for yourself, if you can be bothered to trawl through 45 minutes for a single sentence. Mind you there were quite a few pro remain points of view which you would no doubt enjoy.

I know why I wanted, and still want, to leave. There is more than one reason. I don't know what every one else thought and to claim to know would be stupid.

I happily embrace the conceit that I am not stupid. Can you?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 11:53 AM

I have a friend who runs a small haulage company - 5 drivers. She is desperately worried about whether her company will survive a no deal (and a Brexiteer has posted to her Facebook page that she is being selfish!)


In that context here is a clip from the BBC live feeds"

Northern Ireland will be allowed to operate just 60 lorries in the Republic of Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, threatening disaster for businesses on both sides of the Irish border.

In a no-deal scenario, all commercial drivers in the UK would be reclassified as third-country operators requiring special permits to operate in the EU.

This spells chaos for the Dover-Calais route, which 11,000 trucks cross each day, and has special consequences in Ireland, where 13,000 cross-border journeys are made daily, transporting everything from bread to Guinness to cement.

The Department for Transport told the Freight Transport Association (FTA) this week that only 984 annual European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) permits would be issued for 2019.

It has warned hauliers that if the UK leaves the EU with no deal then they may need these permits to transport goods within the EU or EEA, but the Department for Infrastructure in Belfast has said just 60 permits will be issued in Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 10:21 AM

Sorry, I meant to say that people who imagined that the Tory Government would spend any 'profit' from leaving the EU on public services and/or the NHS wanted their heads looking at, but didn't quite manage it.

But a lot of people I spoke to did, and they were not voting for what Stanron claims they were voting for.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 10:17 AM

I also think DMG's post of 1.55 am was excellent. I would quite like some intelligent discussion of the options, but it seems clear that we are not going to get that via Ians or Stanron.

The question on the referendum said

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

The papers available to the public at the time stated that there would be a lengthy process of negotiation following a decision to leave, with the UK having lost the right to influence EU decisions. The 'treaties' would cease to apply to us either when withdrawal was agreed or when two years were up.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503908/54538_EU_Series_No2_Accessible.pdf

It may be the case that people who voted 'leave' did so for various reasons included the spurious arguments about vacuum cleaners I remember hearing discussed even on Radio 4, and Borish Johnson's nonsense about bendy bananas, but we cannot know.

On the topic of EU people coming to live in the UK, EU people from the Irish Republic have rights agreed by early instruments to come and live here and it seems that this will continue. Not sure how many qualified doctors are among them.

Our GP practice cannot recruit enough GPs. This is a scandal. Anybody who imagined that a Tory government, some of whose members are ideologically opposed to the very idea of the NHS, wanting to do trade deals with the USA whose big businesses have been wanting to get their teeth into our health service for a long time, and many of whom are ideologically opposed to national health services (look at how they claimed Obama's health care actually KILLED people) wants their heads looking at. But I met people who thought that government spending on local stuff like street cleaning would improve after Brexit because we would not be sending money to the EU. These clowns had no doubt never heard of 'austerity', or the food banks which are now needed to make up for the total mess of benefit changes. They were no doubt aware of the Tory habit of cutting taxes for the rich and cutting state support for the jobless and the working poor. And the rest of us will be paying the price for their stupidity.


Here endeth the rant.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 08:29 AM

Equally inconsistent is the way that, while still refusing to entertain the suggestion of asking ordinary people to express their wishes about this deal of hers directly and collectively, she charges around the place calling for the public to put pressure on their MPs to do what she wants.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 08:15 AM

Interesting interview on the news just now
Teresa May, when questioned, has refused to rule out a second vote on her Brexit proposals if she cannot get Parliamentary acceptance next week
It appears she is prepared to accept for politicians what she is refusing to allow the British people - a chance to reconsider their decision
Some are more equal than others, as the man said !
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 07:59 AM

Good post, McG, and absolutely spot-on, of course.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 07:54 AM

I find it strange that people believe that the deal the May has cobbled together represents the EU treating treating the UK unfavourably.

It seems to me that the EU negotiators have bent over backwards to accommodate unreasonable demands made by the UK. Right from the start that said that clearly leaving the EU must mean losing the privileges provided to member states.

As for the £39 billion being paraded as being some kind of fine for leaving, it's nothing of the sort. It's money which we owe because of existing commitments we made before there was any prospect of leaving, and it's a figure that represents only a part payment, because the EU negotiators were able to fiddle the real debt down to make it easier for Theresa May.

Denying us a fresh chance to vote is presented as being democratic. In two countries, Ireland and Denmark, where an initial referendum voted against the EU the people were given a second chance, and voted the other way - and in both cases there is now overwhelming support forEU membership. It's rather as if we were being told that once a government has been elected it is our duty to support that government, and not seek a chance to throw it out. And of course the number of people who have been added to the electoral register since the referendum is significantly higher than the Brexit majority over Remain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 04:35 AM

Watch the respones Backie
Billy Coonolly used to claim that if you wanted to confuse a policeman - ask him a question
Seems to be the case here
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 03:36 AM

"Denials are not arguments, Abuse and insults likewise."

Hilarious, coming as it does from a crony of Iains - the most abusive and insulting poster on this thread or, for that matter, any thread he infects.

BrexShitters, Know Thyselves.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 03:26 AM

"Denials are not arguments, Abuse and insults likewise."
You have been given arguments by the score
Ignoring them is not argument - it's ignoring them
You coose to ignore the most prolific and abusive insulter on this forum because he is on your side
That is hypocrisy, impure and simple
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 01:55 AM

The argument is clear enough. The Remain campaign said 'A' would happen if the leave side won. The Leave side said 'stuff and nonsense, 'A' will never happen so go ahead and vote leave."

The absurdity is a claim that those who voted leave were therefore voting for 'A' to happen.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 10:24 PM

Raggytash wrote: Arrant nonsense Stanron, and more to the point you know it is.

Backwoodsman wrote: "It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted."

The standard Stanron horse-shit. Never let us down, do you?
It was actually a vote despite 'all the worse stuff the Leave campaign predicted' - you lot were the Village-idiots who declared you were 'fed up with experts' weren't you?

Denials are not arguments, Abuse and insults likewise.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:52 PM

Luckily most of knew it was a con and those that did not are now begining to see it, Steve. At least immigrants were not turned into the type of scapegoats that were created in 1930's Germany. Although Farage and his hateful crew tried there best to emulate that. Very sadly, they nearly pulled it off :-(

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 03:29 PM

people with valuable skills

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 03:28 PM

According to the ONS net migration from the EU has plummeted and has now actually turned negative. At the same time net migration from non-EU countries has reached its highest level since 2004. So now the government is going to relax restrictions on non-EU doctors wanting to come here. So we piss off EU citizens to such an extent that we're being forced to increase the raid on non-EU doctors (that we didn't train).

As I said, this "controlling-our-borders" malarkey doesn't work for people leaving or for valuable skills choosing to come here. All it does is stop whichever EU citizens we select from coming here, and it makes EU citizens, either here or on the continent, see this country as an unwelcoming and undesirable place to be. It doesn't even stop non-EU citizens coming here, something that we presumably could control but don't. You really couldn't make this stuff up. One of the main reasons, if not THE main reason, for people voting leave turns out to be the con of the century.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 08:47 AM

"It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted."
As far as the effect on race relations, that immediately happened
Nobody discussed the economic effects that have now been suggested
Nobody even considered the effects that leaving would have on Northern Ireland and the possible repercussions on the peace process

This is what I predicted earlier - the supporters of the Government are now blaming "the people" for what is likely to go wrong
The incredibly stupid irresponsibility of allowing a referendum without planning for such a momentous move for Britain is beyond belief
The British people entered into this with no information as to what might happen - Farage's racist poster won the day, not common sense based on real information
Now, it transpires, there was not even a 'plan B'
I've never been a great fan of Murdoch's 'Times', but today's leader seems to lay out everything the voters should have known about leaving Europe before they were asked to vote.
That was not thw case, so people need to be given the right to make a decision based on what is now known
Jim Carroll

Today's 'Times' leader
Brexit’s Costs
The UK will not have a cost-free or jobs-first exit from the EU
Brexit will make Britain worse off than it would be remaining within the European Union. That is not a partisan claim. It is the stated position of the government that is intent on executing the policy, as set out in an 83-page cross-departmental study published yesterday. The projections are inherently uncertain but the only credible position is for policymakers to be upfront. Brexit has inherent economic risks and trade-offs. Politicians and voters need to be clear what these are.

Forecasts have admittedly been wrong before. In the 2016 referendum campaign the British Treasury estimated that there would be an “immediate and profound" economic shock in the event of a Brexit vote. George Osborne, then chancellor, said it would tip the economy into a re¬cession and cost up to 820,000 jobs within two years. The outcome was very different. Economic growth has decelerated but continued Employment has continued at record levels. The hit to consumption that economists generally expected did not happen, as households drew down savings.
That is the necessary caution when considering the new study. It sets out 15-year projections of the economic impact of four scenarios for Brexit. These are: Theresa May’s scheme of exit from the customs union and single market, with frictionless trade, a negotiated UK-EU free-trade agreement; a Nor- way-type arrangement, under which the UK remains within the single market and retains freedom of movement; and a no-deal Brexit.

All of these, according to the study, are economically damaging for Britain to varying degrees. And the first (the Chequers plan) is not even on offer. The impact of Brexit on GDP in the first 15 years is estimated to be a hit of 2.5 per cent under Mrs May’s preferred scheme, up to a decline of 9.3 per cent under a no-deal scenario. The Bank of England has warned that a no-deal scenario might cause greater damage than the financial crash.
The long-term nature of these projections and their specificity are bound to elicit scepticism. Economists cannot see the future but they do know the impact on growth of cross-border flows of goods, services, capital and labour. Brexit is set to constrain these flows. Hence the British government concludes that a negotiated deal would reduce GDP by between 2 and 4 per cent compared with staying within the EU. Leaving without a deal would be considerably worse.

There is no doubt that both sides in the referendum campaign made flawed claims and that economists did not in the main expect growth to re¬main as robust after the vote. Yet the effects of Brexit are now more visible, as measured in an enduringly lower level for sterling, weaker investment intentions and emerging labour shortages.
Philip Hammond, the British chancellor, acknowledged that a deal would make Britain's economy smaller than if it were inside the EU but argued there were countervailing political benefits. That is a plausible case, as it sets out trade-offs between sovereignty and economic growth. It is not the case made by Brexiteers during the referendum campaign, who argued that Britain outside the EU would benefit from access to faster-growing markets while retaining access to Europe s single market. So long as the costs are widely understood and acknowledged by policymakers and voters then Brexit is a democratic course. But there is no cost-free or jobs-first Brexit to be had. Britain must face and make its choice.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 08:10 AM

"It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted."

The standard Stanron horse-shit. Never let us down, do you?
It was actually a vote despite 'all the worse stuff the Leave campaign predicted' - you lot were the Village-idiots who declared you were 'fed up with experts' weren't you?

A liar as well as a buffoon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 08:01 AM

Arrant nonsense Stanron, and more to the point you know it is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:58 AM

Raggytash wrote: Yesterday I asked do you really believe that 17.4 million people voted to leave fully accepting that they would be worse of after Brexit?

I'm currently watching Politics Live where one panel member pointed out that despite the 'Project Fear' predictions of financial disaster, massive loss of jobs and all the rest, the vote was to leave. It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:51 AM

Nigel was the Bank of England has said when taken in conjuction with what the Chancellor had said earlier in the day paints a very bleak picture.

Yesterday I asked do you really believe that 17.4 million people voted to leave fully accepting that they would be worse of after Brexit?

Another little snippet for you to consider below.

London to lose £700 Billion

I first mentioned this as a distinct possible 2 1/2 years ago. I was told I was talking nonsense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:40 AM

So, Nigel. You tell us what is most likely to happen. Preferably with some research to back it up. Has anything changed in the last two and half years to make us believe your scenarios are more likely to happen than those of the experts?

I do not usually defer to experts so strongly but when they all seem to agree I think I still believe them above a few posters to a folk music web site and a right wing loudmouth. Unless of course you can demonstrate why I should not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:39 AM

"These are scenarios not forecasts. "
Both are based on what is on the table Nigel - they are forecasts of what would happen in Brexit goes ahead on the present agreement and wout could happen with no deal
It is sheer stupidity to write them off a "scenarios" if there is no alternative on offer - you have never offered one
This has moved from a leap in the dark to a plunge into the abyss
Had any of this ben predicted no sane politician would have allowed it to happen, nor would any self-respecting economist
The public would certainly have never voted for it, which is why a re-vote is vital
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:33 AM

From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:09 PM
Chuffing marvelous news today.
The warnings from the Bank of England suggest that the government warnings are the tip of the Brexit Iceberg.
Bad news again
Now who should we listen to, our two resident Brexiteers or the Bank of England?

Read the article again. The headline (for once) seems clear: Bank warns no-deal could see UK sink into recession
The report itself makes clear:
These are scenarios not forecasts. They illustrate what could happen not necessarily what is most likely to happen.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 06:10 AM

WE really don't have to respond to this moronic behaviour
Like paying attention to the behaviour of dysfunctional children, the longer we do the more it encourages them - and the closer we get to having this otherwise interesting thread closed
Memo - must stop feeding the trolls - after all, we'll hardly miss the thoughts (sic) of Chairman Guido
Jim Carroll