Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 05:37 AM

Thanks, Stove. I don't usually make typos.

:D tG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 05:34 AM

"care to explain yourself gnome? Or are you just being your usual insulting piece of shit?"
An oxymoron, if ever there was one
Are you really unable to recognise your own permanently abusive attitude ?

Bank of England and Government appointed enquiry versus Guido - what a quandary eh - how ridiculous can you get ?
Not very good at this, are you ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:41 AM

"...Iains, a convicted criminal and one of two others telling us the opposite."

Good English, perfectly clear in its meaning (bar the typo "of", barely noticeable in the flow of the sentence). Perhaps you thought he meant "Iains (a convicted criminal) and one or two others telling us the opposite" or "Iains, a convicted criminal, and one or two others telling us the opposite." I recommend a strong coffee and the donning of reading glasses, along with resort to a tome on English grammar and punctuation!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:25 AM

If you do not understand a comma separated list yet I am not going to bother explaining it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:16 AM

"Iains, a convicted criminal"

care to esplain yourself gnome? Or are you just being your usual insulting piece of shit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:14 AM

"As has been pointed out, these predictions have been verified by The Bank of England"
you are 'aving a laugh. Erroneous predictions backed up by further erroneous predictions

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/984559/brexit-news-mark-carney-bank-of-england-uk-economy-mistake-latest

The simple remainiacs cannot recognize project fear round two and believe everything fed to them. Baaaaaaaah humbug!

If you read guido's links it may perhaps cure your sheep like behaviour

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 02:56 AM

"forecasts which can never be either verified, or proved false"
As has been pointed out, these predictions have been verified by The Bank of England
Economies work on being able to plan based on such predictions as these - you are dismissing them as you would a horse race result - "better luck next time"
It may be ok from the safety of a discussion group - doesn't work for running a country
What serious investor is going to invest in a lame-duck country where economists are making such serious predictions?
You have been asked over and over again to produce benefits of leaving Europe - you take a vow of silence, Iains scurries behind Staines the Sihtbag Blogger
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:54 PM

Well, Nigel, you leavers absolutely can't see through the smoke and mirrors. Polish the mirror and blow away the smoke. No-one in a position to know is telling us that the country wouldn't be worse off if we leave the EU. Of course, by some miracle we just might be better off but forgive the one or two of us who doubt that just a little. And, of course, you and Iains may well know something that the rest of us don't know. But the omens are closing in on you. Of course, there are still people who think that Brussels dictates our laws (which it doesn't) and that we will get £350 million back every week (which we won't) and that we can stop nasty foreigners coming in (including doctors and nurses, etc., who are already being severely put off, the kind of people we don't train ourselves). You forgot to tell those people that the EU is tied up with just one percent of our GDP, that we wholeheartedly agree with almost all EU laws and regulations (all of which, without exception, are democratically arrived at) and that the EU is very likely to be, in future years, the only major democratic bulwark on the planet against increasing far-right populism (well, unless you think that Donald is a rabid socialist). Enjoy your ideology, Nigel. Some of us prefer pragmatism, principle, and, above all, reality.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:22 PM

There was a guy on Newsnight in Derby questioned about another referendum who said that he voted remain before but would definitely vote leave if there was such a referendum 'because of the way the EU has walked all over us." While that is a purely emotional response that does not have any bearing on our long term future, I suspect it could be common enough to result in another Leave vote. It would be very unwise of anyone to make assumptions about how th2 voting would go.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:16 PM

17.4 million people voted to leave. If the reality of the effects of leaving had been known to them would they have still voted that way?

They were told that there was no downside to leaving by the leave campaign. Had the leave campaign admitted there would be short term disruption but insisted it would be sorted quickly it is not impossible the 700,000 necessary to alter the result would have voted differently: it does not need all 17.4 million to reconsider.

(I am still waiting for any Leaver to clarify how long short term might be. I.e. how many weeks or months before the disruption is sorted. Silence reigns)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
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?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:51 PM

No Brexiter has responded to my question would people have voted to leave the EU if they had known that they would be worse off.

17.4 million people voted to leave. If the reality of the effects of leaving had been known to them would they have still voted that way?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:12 PM

I refer back to my post of 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM once again. This latest piece is just one of a myriad of similar works by different bodies working independently yet all drawing the same conclusions.

On the one hand we have a vast body of economic and business expertise telling us one thing and on the other there is you, Iains, a convicted criminal and one of two others telling us the opposite.

Give me a good reason to believe you. Show me the research that matches the body of evidence against you. I hope you can and reassure me with something other than blind faith but as there has not been one scrap of any such in the last 30 months I suspect I will be disappointed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:06 PM

It will at least be possible to compare UK growth against other EU and non-EU countries which will go some way towards validating the forecasts.

So on the assumption you think Brexit will be an economic success, how do you propose demonstrating it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 03:52 PM

Latest government backed figures indicate that in 15 years our economy will be nearly 4% poorer if we adopt the latest deal as against staying in the EU. No deal is even worse with a predicted 9% shrinkage. This is not a pro Europe lobby nor project fear but official research by the people best placed to understand the full implications.

At least they appear to have learnt their lesson after getting their prophesies so wrong over the economic outcomes of if we voted for brexit.
This time they are making (very long-range) forecasts which can never be either verified, or proved false. Either we will remain in the EU, or we will leave with some sort of deal, or we will leave with no deal. Under any of those three possibilities, in fifteen years time they will be able to say "We were right in our forecasts", but unable to prove it as they will have no baseline figures to compare the actual outcome with.

If we leave with no deal, and the UK economy suffers serious problems they can claim that we would not have suffered, or not suffered so badly, if we'd remained in EU.
If we leave with no deal, and the UK economy does well they can claim that we would have done even better if we'd stayed in.
Similar responses can be made for the other two possibilities.

Can none of the remainers here see through this 'smoke and mirrors' act?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 02:33 PM

"So, who do we believe then?"
There are always the Leprechauns Dave
Our absentee landlord must have heard of them (might even be one)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:56 PM

So, who do we believe then?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:46 PM

or a right wing convicted criminal blogger and his fan boy?>/I>

Oh dear, we have yet another remainiac unable to differentiate between the message and the messenger! Is the plague contagious?
You know what they say: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink!

https://insight.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2018/treasury-economic-modelling-is-flawed-say-economists-from-the-centre-for-business-research-cb

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:06 PM

I refer back to my post of 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM and ask again. Who do we believe, the legions of economists and business leaders or a right wing convicted criminal blogger and his fan boy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:06 PM

The Bank of England has confirmed the predictions of the Government survey and has said that a 'no deal' Brexit will hit Britain harder than the 2008 crash
Northern Ireland is predicted to be hit hardest

"Any good news yet?"
I'm sure Guido the Gobshite will come up with some soon
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 12:39 PM

"The Treasury’s modelling is notoriously dodgy. So dodgy in fact that in 2010 George Osborne set up the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to provide less political analysis than the hyper-political plaything of the chancellor of the day.

Economist Andrew Lilico has pointed out that in its analysis, the Treasury makes three remarkable assumptions.

    Assumes there is no economic gain at all from controlling our own policy compared with the EU doing it.
    Assumes there is no gain from “Future domestic policy choices.”
    Assumes GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of what the EU estimated those gains would be.

These are clearly ludicrous assumptions as no credible economist assumes there are zero economic gains to be made from liberating companies from EU red tape. This further exposes the Treasury as a political tool not a serious economic body.

Guido remembers the Treasury’s bogus analysis during the referendum….

    “Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU, new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor shows.”

In February of this year, Cambridge academics concluded that most of the economic impact assessments before the referendum were “flawed”, and that the Treasury’s analysis was particularly bad.

    “The short-term forecasts of the Treasury and OECD, which have turned out to be wrong, have further damaged the already weak public confidence in economists’ contributions to public debate.”

Wrong then, wrong now…"

I preume the treasury went to the same school of economics as the Abbacus ( The same idiot claiming it is wrong for the police to knock scooter thugs off their wheels. As Camden council leader said:    “Camden has been ground zero for moped muggings – but tough tactics has cut them by 90% in the last year, so it’s outrageous to see Abbott talk down our girls and boys in blue. Labour are tough on crime-fighters and tough on the solutions to crime.”)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 12:29 PM

Latest government backed figures indicate that in 15 years our economy will be nearly 4% poorer if we adopt the latest deal as against staying in the EU. No deal is even worse with a predicted 9% shrinkage. This is not a pro Europe lobby nor project fear but official research by the people best placed to understand the full implications.

Any good news yet?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 12:13 PM

The vast majority of our domestic laws and 99% of our GDP have nothing to do with the EU, and, of the laws and regulations we sign up to as members (most of which are arrived at by consensus and which nobody in their right minds argues with), we agree with 97% of them. And no law can ever be put into force by "unelected bureaucrats" in Brussels or anywhere else. EU law has be ratified by elected representatives of the member states, and larger states such as the UK have considerable powers of veto. So much for taking back "sovereignty." The conditionality within future trade deals with the UK's being outside the EU would sacrifice just as much "sovereignty" in any case. Sovereignty is a bogus argument and always was. As for the "control" freaks, what they never tell you is that we can never control people leaving. So after we've made our country unattractive to EU members and positively "hostile" to unskilled workers, be prepared for shortages of doctors, nurses, plumbers and electricians and for our cauliflowers and sprouts to rot in the fields. Of course, we'll have more control of our money (unless we adopt the Norway model, that is). It's just that there'll be, by all the analyses we've seen today, a lot less of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 10:01 AM

But we are taking are cuntry back BWM ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 09:43 AM

"But a lot of the arguments were about 'sovereignty', and 'control', which you cannot really put a price on."

And those arguments were, at best, misleading and, at worst, bare-faced lies.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 09:14 AM

Personally, I am getting tired of 'Brexit Bombshell' headlines. There aren't really any surprises. The latest 'bombshell' is that EU leaders are planning a No Deal summit: it seems common sense that people should plan ahead for reasonably likely scenarios. Other 'bombshells' seem similarly unsurprising.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 09:08 AM

It is plain that some Brexiters do not care why people voted for Brexit, as posts on this thread demonstrate.

I personally believe that some Brexiters did believe that some people would be better off: some people imagined that EU workers in Britain would be kicked out, resulting in more jobs being available for British people: I know this because on the day after the referendum I heard a Brexit voter saying this to somebody wearing Asian dress (not logical I know, but it happened).

Some Brexiters believe that at least some business people will make more money after Brexit because the 'red tape' which they see as holding business back can be got rid of, stuff like workers' rights, holiday entitlement, product standards, environmental rules and so on. The Leave means Leave web site mentions pharmaceuticals being hidebound by regulation, which suggests that some pharmaceutical firms want to be selling stuff that doesn't meet EU standards. But of course if you want to sell stuff to the EU it will still have to meet EU standards.

So these economic predictions don't really address the issue of who will be paying the price for UK lower performance as some business people clearly expect to do better. Given the present government my guess is that it will be as usual the lower echelons who will end up paying the lion's share of any price.   

But a lot of the arguments were about 'sovereignty', and 'control', which you cannot really put a price on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 08:32 AM

Now our resident Brexiteers have always maintained that people knew exactly what they were voting for and that a second referendum is not necessary because "the people have spoken"

Now I wonder do they really believe that 17.4 million people voted "yes please I want to be worse off"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 08:14 AM

Just come in
A new Government backed economic survey has estimated that, if May's proposals are accepted, the British economy stands to suffer around a 3% plus reduction.
If no agreement is reached, the figure is likely to be three times that amount
You lose some, you lose some, apparently
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 07:03 AM

Sorry about that
Posted to wrong thread
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM

Very nice Jim, Tommy was a great fiddle player but I don't think he had owt to do with Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM

We now have almost 100% of economists, a high majority of business leaders, the treasury and the chancellor saying that leaving the EU is worse for the country than staying in. They back up their forecasts with hard statistics. A handful of brexiteers on here are saying that leaving the EU will benefit the country and, over the course of the last 2.5 years, have not been able to provide any meaningful statistics to justify their optimism.

I wonder who we should believe...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:09 AM

INFORMATION HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:42 AM

What's become abundantly clear is that the very best deal this country can possibly have is the one we get right now as a full member of the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:35 AM

Bloody marvelous !

Even the Chancellor has now admitted there is no version of leaving the EU that will make the UK more prosperous.

Thank you to all the idiots who voted the leave, you have managed not only to shoot yourselves in the foot, you managed to shoot every single citizen of the UK in the foot **

You have also managed to shoot your children, my child and our grandchildren in the foot.

(** I'm sure a few people will make a nice sum of money out of this)

No chance of increased prosperity

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:21 AM

I see someone has spectacularly failed to mention that while the poll shows a majority oppose May's deal, there is a very similar majority support staying in the EU...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:56 AM

Guido again - really !!!!
Nothing to see here lads - move on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:35 AM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:46 AM ............

I was always taught If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Your bleating for sympathy is totally wasted on me. I have zero interest in how you spend your day.
If you cannot be bothered to check your work why should anyone here take you seriously? A rash of feeble excuses do not hack it, regardless of your domain in a bog.

Anyway to more important things. The daily wail under new management has changed it's political affiliation and is trying to mislead the readership(This probably explains why the Telegraph has had a recent jump in subscriptions)
This info is brought by the man with a finger on the pulse and leading political blogger guido:
https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/

and for those that cannot accept the pearls of wisdom from guido here is the original
https://www.survation.com/public-surveyed-on-the-draft-government-withdrawal-agreement/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 03:06 AM

'Freedom of Movement' would have been considerably less 'open to abuse' during our membership of the EU if successive UK governments had not chosen to ignore the EU's own system of controls, and enacted the recording/registration of arriving EU citizens, monitoring them during their stay, and ensuring that any who, after three months, did not have accommodation and employment, were sent back whence they came.

Uncontrolled immigration from the EU has not been the fault of the EU, but of our own governments. The means of controlling EU immigrants have always been there, but our own governments have chosen not to enact them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:34 PM

I thought the vicar on Newsnight that got up DMcG's nose was actually a lady vicar. No matter, either way an extremely irritating cleric.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:30 PM

Yes the Norway Deal would imply a degree of freedom of movement, but there was nothing in the wording of the referendum about stopping that. It would deliver on leaving Brexit, which was all that was on that ballot paper.

The way that freedom of movement was interpreted within the UK was significantly different from the way it is interpreted in many countries in the EU and also in Norway Iceland and Switzerland, and there is plenty of scope for a version that would be less open to abuse, but that would avoid the drastic devaluation of British passports that is looming.

We're all just spectators in this farce, but I suspect that there is more chance of a majority in the Commons for this deal than for any other.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:01 PM

A coprolite by any other name would smell as sweet.

Brexit is finally starting to become a reasonable product.
Whats to worry about?
Now Parliment can iron out the final wrinkles.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 01:11 PM

Wit, not with. Blooming autotext. This is why I turn it off for long periods. I may still make typos, and I do, but at least they are mine not some computer changing things further from what I mean.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 01:07 PM

'have to sit' was supposed to be 'having the with. Apologies.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 01:04 PM

Thanks for that, Raggy. So that gives some guidance on how long "short term" could be in that area, a term that few Brexiteers are willing to give much clarity to. I noticed on Newsnight last night the phrase being bandied about and no one have to sit to say "what do you mean by that?". I found the vicar especially annoying, since he was prepared to put up with any impact however severe - he put up his hand when that absurd question was asked. I wonder how he makes the case to his parishioners some of whom are probably struggling as it is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 12:50 PM

I posted about this few days ago DMcG, the article I linked to suggested that to develop a new refrigerated site for 10,000 pallets would take about 2-3 years. A site for 100,000 pallets would take 4-5 years. *

* My figures may not be strictly accurate but they were of that magnitude.

That all available site are fully booked for the next few months which is normally (according to the article) a quiet time for this industry should set alarm bells ringing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 12:43 PM

According to the Independent:

===
Warehouses to stockpile food for a no-deal Brexit may be empty because they have been snapped up by Amazon to pounce on the UK market, an inquiry by MPs has been told.
The Food and Drink Federation warned that all available frozen and chilled space had been taken – but no one knew who had taken it and whether there was anything in it.

"What we don’t know is whether there is actual product in those places," said Ian Wright, the federation's chief executive.


And he added: "There is some gossip, and I can't stand this up, that quite a lot of this has been booked by Amazon for their entry into the food market at some point over the next few months"

===

Well, what a surprise: Of course there will be a shortage - the famed 'market forces' make the supply of space more or less match the demand, so if there is a sudden sharp rise in demand there will inevitably be a shortage. Nor is much more space likely to appear, unless suppliers are convinced this is not a short term effect, because none of them want to end up with lots of unbought space when the short term demand passes.

I doubt if it is Amazon, in particular. Every single potential purchaser is in competition with the rest for space, and Amazon just happens to be one with the resources to do what it wants. That's how it works. I do not claim Amazon are deliberately targeting the others - it is simply doing what it needs for its business plan, and that's that.

I am reminded of an event in about 1980. A friend was sent by his company on one of those teamwork and management courses. There were some six teams and they each had to build a bridge out of straws, paper, paper clips, sellotape and so on. Instead, he bought up the entire supply of straws and thereby prevented everyone else from completing the task unless they were prepared to pay his exorbitant prices. When the course leader and the other teams claimed he was cheating, he simply replied that's how capitalism works.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 10:07 AM

very nice of Trump to chuck a spanner in the works

Er, Steve, that's what - or more properly ALL - the man does, in both domestic & foreign affairs.

Looks as though Obama was a bit more prescient than folks thought, eh?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:49 AM

Whoops another typo to hide behind - should read 8 to 9 hours of the day
Never mind - save him actually responding to what has been said
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:46 AM

Before Ian decides to make this an issue (he obviously has little else to offer)
I spend 99/9 hours a day at the computer - largely working on indexing, annotating and transcribing our very large collection of traditional music recordings - Mudcat is something I involve myself in when I need a breather and have time.
I have never had a spelling problem, nor one of grammar - I have written masses for lecturing and for publication.
I don't use a spellcheck very much, because I don't need to
I'm not particularly good at multi-tasking, nor am I adept at typing at speed
Add to this a keyboard that suits my sound editing, but is not one I would choose for writing
During my time here, I have noticed that some of the best contributions have come from people who are not particularly good at expressing themselves in writing, but who have something to say of importance - that's what public fora should should be about as far as I'm concerned
In life outside the Mudcat greenhouse, in my experience, some of the most articulate and often poetic people have come from the non or pre-literate communities, like the despised (by some here) Travellers - they also display far more humanity than many of the educated elite - evidence that education does not mean intelligence
The last person I would look to for literary criticism is one who believe the Irish live in bogs, who think those who can't vote should not be allowed to post and who rely in a semi-literate extremist for their political information
Nuff said on that particular subject, I think
Jim Carroll
"Perhaps our resident pedant can point out to little jimmie the difference between semantics and veracity. The poor lad seems to be struggling a little."
See what I mean??