From the Guido Fawkes website for all who trust Treasury predictions:
'The new Treasury-led Brexit forecasts have to be read in the context of their record at predicting what would happen in the immediate aftermath of a Leave vote.
The HMT prediction for GDP 3 months after the referendum was that “the UK economy would fall into recession” and contract up to -1%. It grew +0.5% in this period.
The Treasury told us: “The analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into a recession, with four quarters of negative growth.” The reality has been positive growth every single quarter since.
HMT forecast that in the two years following a Leave vote GDP would fall between -3% and -6%. GDP grew by 1.9% in 2016 and 1.8% in 2017, with better than expected growth in the final quarter. There is now no recession forecast.
On unemployment, they infamously said it would rise by between 500,000 and 820,000 in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Unemployment fell again last week to a four-decade low.
And the Treasury said government borrowing would rise by up to £39 billion immediately after the vote. Instead borrowing for the financial year to date is down 12% on the same period last year. That’s the lowest year-to-date total since 2007.
Why would anyone believe the people who predicted this nonsense ever again?'
So, the many people forecasting problems post Brexit are biased. But then you quote from the Guido Fawkes website to support your argument???????????????????????????????????????
Okay, right...
I think we've found a level. I'll leave it there for now. Probably pop back on in a few weeks when news of the the next bit of avoidable misery is published.
From experts with mountains of evidence i hope... Btw... Evidence means you know already
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Only 37% voted leave. Not a majority. Not the will of the people.
I've seen this figure mentioned regularly and really don't understand the logic behind it. I'm not saying I agree with the decision but the bottom line is, the majority of people who voted on the issue, voted leave.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
Come on, you aren't that silly.
There was a vote which is how the will of the people is exoressed, leave won - it's absolutely accurate to say that leaving the EU is the democratic will of the people.
The argument is over how we leave now.
This was not a general election where the will of the people is expressed via our particular version of a parliamentary democracy. This was a straightforward Referendum. Leave won by a small margin. But 37% of the electorate cannot be interpreted as the 'will of the people'. It is simple maths. An incontrovertible fact. Brexit is the will of a minority of the people. Only Donald Trump could try and argue otherwise.
And by your logic, the fact that 43% voted Remain in 1975 means what exactly?
It means that although Remain narrowly lost the Referendum in 2016 we should not accept the result and should campaign tirelessly until the result has been reversed, even if it takes 40 years. Or are you advocating that only the Leave voters have the right to campaign to reverse a Referendum result?
"I refuse to believe people who are experts in their field because they are all biased. So instead I'll believe an alt-right blogger for unbiased accurate information."
I checked the Treasury figures in that blog-suggest you do too
So you're not swayed by the huge swathes from evidence from experts because it does not align with your blatant political bias;
But you trust a discredited alt-right blogger who is knowingly cherry picking a handful of figures in order to win internet points from his thick shit-eating fanbase because it does align with your political view.
Two points of order:
1) Financial forecasts aren't always correct but they are usually generally in the right ballpark. Hence why there is a whole marketplace for financial predictions and why many people are able to make lots of money by following the predictions again and again to predict which way the market is going to go and invest accordingly. To deny that forecasts are accurate is to deny why we even have an investment industry.
2) Your rubbish blogger is cherry-picking his figures from the Treasury, when the reports disclosed this week came from a completely different department.
So basically you don't even bother actually reading Brexit news properly, you only believe the stories that back up your completely inaccurate view.
"I refuse to believe people who are experts in their field because they are all biased. So instead I'll believe an alt-right blogger for unbiased accurate information."
I checked the Treasury figures in that blog-suggest you do too
So you're not swayed by the huge swathes from evidence from experts because it does not align with your blatant political bias;
But you trust a discredited alt-right blogger who is knowingly cherry picking a handful of figures in order to win internet points from his thick shit-eating fanbase because it does align with your political view.
Two points of order:
1) Financial forecasts aren't always correct but they are usually generally in the right ballpark. Hence why there is a whole marketplace for financial predictions and why many people are able to make lots of money by following the predictions again and again to predict which way the market is going to go and invest accordingly. To deny that forecasts are accurate is to deny why we even have an investment industry.
2) Your rubbish blogger is cherry-picking his figures from the Treasury, when the reports disclosed this week came from a completely different department.
So basically you don't even bother actually reading Brexit news properly, you only believe the stories that back up your completely inaccurate view.
Lol swathes instead of mountains... Great comeback.. Love it.
"I refuse to believe people who are experts in their field because they are all biased. So instead I'll believe an alt-right blogger for unbiased accurate information."
I checked the Treasury figures in that blog-suggest you do too
So you're not swayed by the huge swathes from evidence from experts because it does not align with your blatant political bias;
But you trust a discredited alt-right blogger who is knowingly cherry picking a handful of figures in order to win internet points from his thick shit-eating fanbase because it does align with your political view.
Two points of order:
1) Financial forecasts aren't always correct but they are usually generally in the right ballpark. Hence why there is a whole marketplace for financial predictions and why many people are able to make lots of money by following the predictions again and again to predict which way the market is going to go and invest accordingly. To deny that forecasts are accurate is to deny why we even have an investment industry.
2) Your rubbish blogger is cherry-picking his figures from the Treasury, when the reports disclosed this week came from a completely different department.
So basically you don't even bother actually reading Brexit news properly, you only believe the stories that back up your completely inaccurate view.
Are you saying that unemployment has gone up not down?
"I refuse to believe people who are experts in their field because they are all biased. So instead I'll believe an alt-right blogger for unbiased accurate information."
I checked the Treasury figures in that blog-suggest you do too
So you're not swayed by the huge swathes from evidence from experts because it does not align with your blatant political bias;
But you trust a discredited alt-right blogger who is knowingly cherry picking a handful of figures in order to win internet points from his thick shit-eating fanbase because it does align with your political view.
Two points of order:
1) Financial forecasts aren't always correct but they are usually generally in the right ballpark. Hence why there is a whole marketplace for financial predictions and why many people are able to make lots of money by following the predictions again and again to predict which way the market is going to go and invest accordingly. To deny that forecasts are accurate is to deny why we even have an investment industry.
2) Your rubbish blogger is cherry-picking his figures from the Treasury, when the reports disclosed this week came from a completely different department.
So basically you don't even bother actually reading Brexit news properly, you only believe the stories that back up your completely inaccurate view.
So expert from one man in the guardian everyday is acceptable. Chizz can answer that.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Only 37% voted leave. Not a majority. Not the will of the people.
I've seen this figure mentioned regularly and really don't understand the logic behind it. I'm not saying I agree with the decision but the bottom line is, the majority of people who voted on the issue, voted leave.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
Come on, you aren't that silly.
There was a vote which is how the will of the people is exoressed, leave won - it's absolutely accurate to say that leaving the EU is the democratic will of the people.
The argument is over how we leave now.
This was not a general election where the will of the people is expressed via our particular version of a parliamentary democracy. This was a straightforward Referendum. Leave won by a small margin. But 37% of the electorate cannot be interpreted as the 'will of the people'. It is simple maths. An incontrovertible fact. Brexit is the will of a minority of the people. Only Donald Trump could try and argue otherwise.
And by your logic, the fact that 43% voted Remain in 1975 means what exactly?
It means that although Remain narrowly lost the Referendum in 2016 we should not accept the result and should campaign tirelessly until the result has been reversed, even if it takes 40 years. Or are you advocating that only the Leave voters have the right to campaign to reverse a Referendum result?
Narrowly.... If someone in your office got 4%more pay rise than you, you would be ok with that.
"I refuse to believe people who are experts in their field because they are all biased. So instead I'll believe an alt-right blogger for unbiased accurate information."
I checked the Treasury figures in that blog-suggest you do too
So you're not swayed by the huge swathes from evidence from experts because it does not align with your blatant political bias;
But you trust a discredited alt-right blogger who is knowingly cherry picking a handful of figures in order to win internet points from his thick shit-eating fanbase because it does align with your political view.
Two points of order:
1) Financial forecasts aren't always correct but they are usually generally in the right ballpark. Hence why there is a whole marketplace for financial predictions and why many people are able to make lots of money by following the predictions again and again to predict which way the market is going to go and invest accordingly. To deny that forecasts are accurate is to deny why we even have an investment industry.
2) Your rubbish blogger is cherry-picking his figures from the Treasury, when the reports disclosed this week came from a completely different department.
So basically you don't even bother actually reading Brexit news properly, you only believe the stories that back up your completely inaccurate view.
Are you saying that unemployment has gone up not down?
Clearly not. I already said sometimes predictions aren't right. But most of the time they are in the right ballpark. But you seem to be conveniently ignoring the point that your fuckwit blogger made the mistake of cherry-picking Treasury figures whereas the reports being discussed were from a different department. So the points raised by the biased, alt-right blogger, who wrote that article specifically to mislead people who don't understand how economics works, are completely invalid.
To be honest, it’s immaterial whether or not these latest figures are correct or erroneous.
Until we know the actual terms of our departure from the EU, then none of the figures are relevant.
Once our political class gets their act together ... ok, if ... we will have a better outline of the actual bespoke deal that is being sought.
We all have thoughts on this but no-one can possibly know at this stage what the deal will look like.
Therefore, this particular ‘bespoke’ scenario has not been forecast and costed. And until the actual details are known, it cannot be costed.
Arguing about the current figures is a redundant exercise. I know very little and yet I have been saying for months that a ‘soft’ Brexit means we will lose money. I didn’t need the Treasury to tell me so.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Only 37% voted leave. Not a majority. Not the will of the people.
I am sure if you took out people with cats, dogs, goldfish and drove silver cars you could probably knock a few more percent off.
To be honest, it’s immaterial whether or not these latest figures are correct or erroneous.
Until we know the actual terms of our departure from the EU, then none of the figures are relevant.
Once our political class gets their act together ... ok, if ... we will have a better outline of the actual bespoke deal that is being sought.
We all have thoughts on this but no-one can possibly know at this stage what the deal will look like.
Therefore, this particular ‘bespoke’ scenario has not been forecast and costed. And until the actual details are known, it cannot be costed.
Arguing about the current figures is a redundant exercise. I know very little and yet I have been saying for months that a ‘soft’ Brexit means we will lose money. I didn’t need the Treasury to tell me so.
The only bespoke deal that might possibly not have a negative impact on the UK economy is tariff free access to the EU market without obligations of CU and SM and without obligation to pay into EU budget. This was a complete fantasy 18 months ago. Can you point to a single piece of evidence in the things the EU negotiators and the 27 countries they represent have said or done that suggest this idea is not even more of a fantasy today than it was 18 months ago?
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Only 37% voted leave. Not a majority. Not the will of the people.
I am sure if you took out people with cats, dogs, goldfish and drove silver cars you could probably knock a few more percent off.
Like people that have died since the referendum?
How do you know they voted.
Well, my late Mum did. She broke my heart.
Sad to hear her passing... As did my mother she also voted out, always was a sensible woman.. But she is alive gladly. Sorry for some she's not in that lurid statistic.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Well, there is clearly a majority for Brexit within the government, and sadly the main opposition. Otherwise why are they continually saying Brexit is going ahead no matter what, so why you claim them in your list is a mystery?
As for the other groups you mention, Bournemouth Addick has answered that perfectly. If they all believe remaining is the right thing to do, with inside knowledge and years of experience, maybe they are worth listening to rather than the small minority (by your definition) who don't?
You and your ilk will continue to ignore wave after wave of evidence that it isn't going to end well, of course, without actually saying anything more constructive than "nobody knows".
There is no majority for Brexit in either main party-just a lot of MPs who have been trying to find a way out of it since referendum day. We will either end up staying or have a ridiculous Brexit in name only which will satisfy nobody.
The 'wave after wave of evidence' is coming from people who never wanted to leave. It is going to be, with the best will in the world, biased towards the outcome they want. If you know anything about human nature you will know that to be true.
I am afraid that what many of the expert Remainers have in common is a distrust of democracy and of us, the electorate-we who are in the end the final guardians and guarantors of democracy.
Interesting but, I might argue, wrong (but I'd only do such a thing because I believe it to be fundamentally bonkers).
I'm not an expert, but I think that what is happening is that experts are seeking to minimise the risks, for their areas of expertise, associated with the vote to leave the EU (even to the extent of wishing to to remain, though I am not sure that that is necessarilty what they want).
Where there are close and efficient, intertwined even, working relationships, as a result of EU membership, that benefit the UK (such as in finance, medicine, aerospace, etc.), those working in such sectors would be absolutely remiss if they failed to fight their corners and seek to retain as much as possible of the current benefits.
Just because Civil Servants, for example, put together a model of the most likely potential economic impacts that suggests that the UK will have reduced growth as a result of Brexit, this does not mean that they are attempting to stop Brexit.
They are obliged to provide free and frank advice to their political masters, but they do not set the political agenda. The Government has made clear its (in my opinion contradictory) agenda for Brexit, and Civil Servants are seeking to implement it. But it would be wrong if they did not seek to highlight potential, possible or even probable outcomes - it is, after all, their job.
There is nothing to suggest that any experts distrust democracy. It is, after all, philosophically a lovely idea. I'd be inclined to suggest, however that it is not unreasonable to be cynical about the outworkings of the various forms of democracy available to the average voter.
Of course, they may distrust the electorate, but that is just to recognise that people are human, subject to the same frailties and failings as themselves, and that historically "the people" have managed to enthusiastically support some of the most appalling episodes in human history, without any seeming inclination to act as the final guardians and guarntors of democracy (and, in the Common Law system, or any system wherein there is a real separation of powers, "the people" are only one of the guarantors of democracy).
As for civil servants not setting the political agenda-according to the press today the 'economic impact' document was deliberately leaked this week by the civil service to do exactly that.
I have no objection to people fighting to save their vested interests, of course they will do that-and that is why we must distrust what they say, or at least understand what their bias will be.
In the 100th anniversary of some women finally getting the vote, we should all reflect that were it not for the struggles of the Suffragettes and before them the Chartists most of us would have as much say in our political system as the average North Korean. It is only the willingness of ordinary people to stand up for themselves that enables any kind of democracy, even a flawed one like our own, to continue to exist. That is why the referendum result has to be defended.
Sorry but I think it's hypocrisy in the extreme for someone, who continually supports the use of Henry VIII executive powers by individual ministers, to start quoting the previous historic struggles to ensure parliamentary representation. I'm pretty sure the suffragette movement would not be in favour of handing executive control of laws to the likes of Boris and Moggy.
"I refuse to believe people who are experts in their field because they are all biased. So instead I'll believe an alt-right blogger for unbiased accurate information."
I checked the Treasury figures in that blog-suggest you do too
So you're not swayed by the huge swathes from evidence from experts because it does not align with your blatant political bias;
But you trust a discredited alt-right blogger who is knowingly cherry picking a handful of figures in order to win internet points from his thick shit-eating fanbase because it does align with your political view.
Two points of order:
1) Financial forecasts aren't always correct but they are usually generally in the right ballpark. Hence why there is a whole marketplace for financial predictions and why many people are able to make lots of money by following the predictions again and again to predict which way the market is going to go and invest accordingly. To deny that forecasts are accurate is to deny why we even have an investment industry.
2) Your rubbish blogger is cherry-picking his figures from the Treasury, when the reports disclosed this week came from a completely different department.
So basically you don't even bother actually reading Brexit news properly, you only believe the stories that back up your completely inaccurate view.
So expert from one man in the guardian everyday is acceptable. Chizz can answer that.
Mate, like a lot of what you post, I can't even understand it, let alone answer it.
"But if you do, it's reasonable to be asked what advantages you think we will gain that outweigh the fact that - apart from a tiny minority of people, like Jacob Rees Mogg - we will all be worse off than if we stay. There must be something we will gain that's worth the economic hit. What is it, in your opinion? "
I think you are missing my point. There is no way of knowing whether we will be worse off if we stay or go-as the economy does not work like a piece of clockwork and is , in the end, the sum product of what millions of people decide to do individually and collectively and which is in a constant state of flux.
What we will gain, were we ever to properly leave, would be the ability to elect and then unelect governments which would have sole control of our political and economic affairs. Brexit in name only ( aka soft Brexit) will not settle this matter, and is a guarantee of ongoing political and probably economic instability (although obviously I canniot predict the latter). It would be the worst of all worlds, giving us neither political or economic sovereignty.
Sole control of our political and economic affairs?
No country on earth has sole control of either of those.
One of the weakest justifications for brexit in my opinion is the sovereignty and democracy debate.
The UK 'in house' sovereignty has hardly and sadly not been shifted to a better place by being a member of the EU, and yet the UK's membership of the EU has allowed the country to participate in a perfectly democratic, even a better democratic system than that of the UK alone.
The notion of sovereignty in the UK collapses in my view as soon as the words 'ours' or 'we' are uttered.
The unstated implication of these words demand that 'we' are the four countries of the UK, where Welsh 'sovereignty' for example is subsumed. 'Our' House of Lords is unelected and contains people only there because of their bloodline, and is about to get a kicking from sections of the media who try to bend and shape the debate and the sovereignty according to self interest. The way some of the media went after the rebel Tory MP's, the Judges, Gina Miller and as we speak are attempting to re shape the Tory party, does not seem like the actions of people concerned about preserving democracy and sovereignty. At PMQ's today the Tory was asked what the logical case was for not having votes at 16, the Tories oppose the idea. As an exercise in examining 'democracy', or because it is not politically desirable for one particular party to allow more youngsters to vote?
The EU, lined up against the sceptic state of the UK, appears a shining example of decency and cooperation. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel said lauded Englishman Samuel Johnson, and he certainly had a point.
To be honest, it’s immaterial whether or not these latest figures are correct or erroneous.
Until we know the actual terms of our departure from the EU, then none of the figures are relevant.
Once our political class gets their act together ... ok, if ... we will have a better outline of the actual bespoke deal that is being sought.
We all have thoughts on this but no-one can possibly know at this stage what the deal will look like.
Therefore, this particular ‘bespoke’ scenario has not been forecast and costed. And until the actual details are known, it cannot be costed.
Arguing about the current figures is a redundant exercise. I know very little and yet I have been saying for months that a ‘soft’ Brexit means we will lose money. I didn’t need the Treasury to tell me so.
That just doesn't stack up! Are you suggesting that the Cabinet fly blind without any guidance as to the impact of the options in front of them and that they make vital decisions this year based upon the toss of a coin?! The reality is that they have and have always held the following options: A) WTO (disastrous) Canada (mildly disastrous) C) Norway (vassal state) D) No Brexit - abort the process
The whole point is that the UK is going through this process backwards. First the referendum, then invoking article 50 and finally an evaluation of the options ahead - and there has to be a decision on this within nine months. Or no deal at all which has the worst impact of all as per all experts and forecasts. If you ask me somebody has deliberately leaked this so as to colour the discussions ahead.
Although GDP is a somewhat abstract number when it comes to the electorate and their daily lives, the cost of 8% over 15 years or 1/2% per annum can be calculated and it equates to an awful lot of nurses, teachers and even replacing unsafe cladding on high rise! The austerity nonsense of the last seven years was to tell ordinary people that the screw ups with risk management of the big banks should be paid for by all.
So option C is the best as it is consistent with the referendum and the least damaging. So of course the forecasts matter, since they are what the cabinet is working with and they will influence how they position themselves with both the EU27 and the Tory sponsors / members. The "no deal - let's get out asap before people change their minds" crowd are rapidly running out of road. This "they need us more than we need them" mantra has gone up in smoke as the EU rejects any special deal for the City or any other group. "Choose, don't choose" is the message from M.Barnier but as he said last year "the clock is ticking". The UK needs to put cards on the table.
To be honest, it’s immaterial whether or not these latest figures are correct or erroneous.
Until we know the actual terms of our departure from the EU, then none of the figures are relevant.
Once our political class gets their act together ... ok, if ... we will have a better outline of the actual bespoke deal that is being sought.
We all have thoughts on this but no-one can possibly know at this stage what the deal will look like.
Therefore, this particular ‘bespoke’ scenario has not been forecast and costed. And until the actual details are known, it cannot be costed.
Arguing about the current figures is a redundant exercise. I know very little and yet I have been saying for months that a ‘soft’ Brexit means we will lose money. I didn’t need the Treasury to tell me so.
That just doesn't stack up! Are you suggesting that the Cabinet fly blind without any guidance as to the impact of the options in front of them and that they make vital decisions this year based upon the toss of a coin?! The reality is that they have and have always held the following options: A) WTO (disastrous) Canada (mildly disastrous) C) Norway (vassal state) D) No Brexit - abort the process
The whole point is that the UK is going through this process backwards. First the referendum, then invoking article 50 and finally an evaluation of the options ahead - and there has to be a decision on this within nine months. Or no deal at all which has the worst impact of all as per all experts and forecasts. If you ask me somebody has deliberately leaked this so as to colour the discussions ahead.
Although GDP is a somewhat abstract number when it comes to the electorate and their daily lives, the cost of 8% over 15 years or 1/2% per annum can be calculated and it equates to an awful lot of nurses, teachers and even replacing unsafe cladding on high rise! The austerity nonsense of the last seven years was to tell ordinary people that the screw ups with risk management of the big banks should be paid for by all.
So option C is the best as it is consistent with the referendum and the least damaging. So of course the forecasts matter, since they are what the cabinet is working with and they will influence how they position themselves with both the EU27 and the Tory sponsors / members. The "no deal - let's get out asap before people change their minds" crowd are rapidly running out of road. This "they need us more than we need them" mantra has gone up in smoke as the EU rejects any special deal for the City or any other group. "Choose, don't choose" is the message from M.Barnier but as he said last year "the clock is ticking". The UK needs to put cards on the table.
None of us know the deal ... if any ... that will materialise.
If it is one of the four options you have mentioned then the figures are there for us to make a decision.
But there is no way any of us can be sure that the deal will correspond with those you have mentioned.
Not sure why you are putting words in my mouth. It is quite clear that I did not state that the Cabinet are flying blind without any guidance.
Not sure why I need to repeat it but I am stating that it is likely it will be a bespoke deal ... which has not yet been costed.
To be honest, it’s immaterial whether or not these latest figures are correct or erroneous.
Until we know the actual terms of our departure from the EU, then none of the figures are relevant.
Once our political class gets their act together ... ok, if ... we will have a better outline of the actual bespoke deal that is being sought.
We all have thoughts on this but no-one can possibly know at this stage what the deal will look like.
Therefore, this particular ‘bespoke’ scenario has not been forecast and costed. And until the actual details are known, it cannot be costed.
Arguing about the current figures is a redundant exercise. I know very little and yet I have been saying for months that a ‘soft’ Brexit means we will lose money. I didn’t need the Treasury to tell me so.
The only bespoke deal that might possibly not have a negative impact on the UK economy is tariff free access to the EU market without obligations of CU and SM and without obligation to pay into EU budget. This was a complete fantasy 18 months ago. Can you point to a single piece of evidence in the things the EU negotiators and the 27 countries they represent have said or done that suggest this idea is not even more of a fantasy today than it was 18 months ago?
The UK, as you know, is seeking a bespoke deal. That is not a fantasy.
Whether they have the negotiating skills to achieve it is arguable. But it is the aim.
You believe it will not happen. I believe it can happen.
Neither of us can prove a future event when there is so much that can happen over the coming year.
Personally I do not think our political class are up to it. That does not mean it is unachievable.
On the daily politics today the Tory bloke said that the Irish border question would probably have to be a 'fudge'. I took that as moronspeak for 'I haven't got a clue'.
To be honest, it’s immaterial whether or not these latest figures are correct or erroneous.
Until we know the actual terms of our departure from the EU, then none of the figures are relevant.
Once our political class gets their act together ... ok, if ... we will have a better outline of the actual bespoke deal that is being sought.
We all have thoughts on this but no-one can possibly know at this stage what the deal will look like.
Therefore, this particular ‘bespoke’ scenario has not been forecast and costed. And until the actual details are known, it cannot be costed.
Arguing about the current figures is a redundant exercise. I know very little and yet I have been saying for months that a ‘soft’ Brexit means we will lose money. I didn’t need the Treasury to tell me so.
That just doesn't stack up! Are you suggesting that the Cabinet fly blind without any guidance as to the impact of the options in front of them and that they make vital decisions this year based upon the toss of a coin?! The reality is that they have and have always held the following options: A) WTO (disastrous) Canada (mildly disastrous) C) Norway (vassal state) D) No Brexit - abort the process
The whole point is that the UK is going through this process backwards. First the referendum, then invoking article 50 and finally an evaluation of the options ahead - and there has to be a decision on this within nine months. Or no deal at all which has the worst impact of all as per all experts and forecasts. If you ask me somebody has deliberately leaked this so as to colour the discussions ahead.
Although GDP is a somewhat abstract number when it comes to the electorate and their daily lives, the cost of 8% over 15 years or 1/2% per annum can be calculated and it equates to an awful lot of nurses, teachers and even replacing unsafe cladding on high rise! The austerity nonsense of the last seven years was to tell ordinary people that the screw ups with risk management of the big banks should be paid for by all.
So option C is the best as it is consistent with the referendum and the least damaging. So of course the forecasts matter, since they are what the cabinet is working with and they will influence how they position themselves with both the EU27 and the Tory sponsors / members. The "no deal - let's get out asap before people change their minds" crowd are rapidly running out of road. This "they need us more than we need them" mantra has gone up in smoke as the EU rejects any special deal for the City or any other group. "Choose, don't choose" is the message from M.Barnier but as he said last year "the clock is ticking". The UK needs to put cards on the table.
To be honest, it’s immaterial whether or not these latest figures are correct or erroneous.
Until we know the actual terms of our departure from the EU, then none of the figures are relevant.
Once our political class gets their act together ... ok, if ... we will have a better outline of the actual bespoke deal that is being sought.
We all have thoughts on this but no-one can possibly know at this stage what the deal will look like.
Therefore, this particular ‘bespoke’ scenario has not been forecast and costed. And until the actual details are known, it cannot be costed.
Arguing about the current figures is a redundant exercise. I know very little and yet I have been saying for months that a ‘soft’ Brexit means we will lose money. I didn’t need the Treasury to tell me so.
The only bespoke deal that might possibly not have a negative impact on the UK economy is tariff free access to the EU market without obligations of CU and SM and without obligation to pay into EU budget. This was a complete fantasy 18 months ago. Can you point to a single piece of evidence in the things the EU negotiators and the 27 countries they represent have said or done that suggest this idea is not even more of a fantasy today than it was 18 months ago?
The UK, as you know, is seeking a bespoke deal. That is not a fantasy.
Whether they have the negotiating skills to achieve it is arguable. But it is the aim.
You believe it will not happen. I believe it can happen.
Neither of us can prove a future event when there is so much that can happen over the coming year.
Personally I do not think our political class are up to it. That does not mean it is unachievable.
For what it's worth, I am surprised that the leaked paper did not include an assessment for something approaching what the Government is seeking - not that I believe that that deal is achievable (my, admittedly imperfect, understanding is that the EU is constrained by some of its other trade agreements, such as CETA, and the reasonable expectations of major trading partners, which mean that preferential trading arrangements, for services in particular, will have to be extended to other countries if afforded to the UK).
Almost by definition, any Free Trade Agreement between the EU and UK will be bespoke, but it is unlikely to be as bespoke as the UK Government would like - in the time available (even with a transition period to the end of 2020), agreeing any deal, other than a tweaked off the shelf arrangement, and even that, would be a huge achievement.
And, for what it's worth, I believe that whatever is the outcome for the Irish border will determine the the wider relationship (the commitment made with regards to a no agreement outcome seems, to me, to be the most interesting - I don't think it is possible to achieve it without, de facto, accepting all EU rules and the supremacy of European Law).
Hmm. Now actually I agree with the UK gov. position on this. It's perfectly reasonable. So I am extremely suspicious about the idea that this will create a huge negotiating stand -off. I think it is an easy win, and here is why.
Right across the CEE region, where most of the most supposedly undesirable EU migrants come from, economies are booming, and there is now a chronic labour shortage.. Romania and Bulgaria don't want to lose any more of their people, and as for the Poles, many of them are returnng already. They really are not going to put up a big fight on this.
Plays well in the Brexit media, though, this "issue".
All these links, the winners knew exactly what they were voting for including all these stats and so on, they allowed for it all. What they have no excuse for is to say the equivalent of 'nobody knows' and 'wait and see'. Those who voted brexit knew, because they accuse anybody who suggests otherwise of being disrespectful.
All these links, the winners knew exactly what they were voting for including all these stats and so on, they allowed for it all. What they have no excuse for is to say the equivalent of 'nobody knows' and 'wait and see'. Those who voted brexit knew, because they accuse anybody who suggests otherwise of being disrespectful.
On this note Seth, I’m still fully expecting quite a few people in my social circle who voted brexit to come out with the ‘we weren’t given all the facts’ argument should brexit turn out to be the disaster more and more people are predicting. I’m not saying this is all brexiters, or generalising, I just expect that to be a standard line we hear a lot, post brexit, should it have an adverse affect
After that, I expect to hear a lot of blame being laid at the Tory party re: how they’ve conducted negotiations (which to an extent I agree), but ultimately I feel that because this was such a monumental choice, if it does turn out to be detrimental, I would hope that the people who I know who voted for it, actually take some responsibility and say ‘we made our bed, we’ve now got to lie in it’, and refrain from whinging or complaining that ‘we’ haven’t made it work
Comments
But you trust a discredited alt-right blogger who is knowingly cherry picking a handful of figures in order to win internet points from his thick shit-eating fanbase because it does align with your political view.
Two points of order:
1) Financial forecasts aren't always correct but they are usually generally in the right ballpark. Hence why there is a whole marketplace for financial predictions and why many people are able to make lots of money by following the predictions again and again to predict which way the market is going to go and invest accordingly. To deny that forecasts are accurate is to deny why we even have an investment industry.
2) Your rubbish blogger is cherry-picking his figures from the Treasury, when the reports disclosed this week came from a completely different department.
So basically you don't even bother actually reading Brexit news properly, you only believe the stories that back up your completely inaccurate view.
Until we know the actual terms of our departure from the EU, then none of the figures are relevant.
Once our political class gets their act together ... ok, if ... we will have a better outline of the actual bespoke deal that is being sought.
We all have thoughts on this but no-one can possibly know at this stage what the deal will look like.
Therefore, this particular ‘bespoke’ scenario has not been forecast and costed. And until the actual details are known, it cannot be costed.
Arguing about the current figures is a redundant exercise. I know very little and yet I have been saying for months that a ‘soft’ Brexit means we will lose money. I didn’t need the Treasury to tell me so.
I think you are missing my point. There is no way of knowing whether we will be worse off if we stay or go-as the economy does not work like a piece of clockwork and is , in the end, the sum product of what millions of people decide to do individually and collectively and which is in a constant state of flux.
What we will gain, were we ever to properly leave, would be the ability to elect and then unelect governments which would have sole control of our political and economic affairs. Brexit in name only ( aka soft Brexit) will not settle this matter, and is a guarantee of ongoing political and probably economic instability (although obviously I canniot predict the latter). It would be the worst of all worlds, giving us neither political or economic sovereignty.
Sole control of our political and economic affairs?
No country on earth has sole control of either of those.
The UK 'in house' sovereignty has hardly and sadly not been shifted to a better place by being a member of the EU, and yet the UK's membership of the EU has allowed the country to participate in a perfectly democratic, even a better democratic system than that of the UK alone.
The notion of sovereignty in the UK collapses in my view as soon as the words 'ours' or 'we' are uttered.
The unstated implication of these words demand that 'we' are the four countries of the UK, where Welsh 'sovereignty' for example is subsumed. 'Our' House of Lords is unelected and contains people only there because of their bloodline, and is about to get a kicking from sections of the media who try to bend and shape the debate and the sovereignty according to self interest. The way some of the media went after the rebel Tory MP's, the Judges, Gina Miller and as we speak are attempting to re shape the Tory party, does not seem like the actions of people concerned about preserving democracy and sovereignty.
At PMQ's today the Tory was asked what the logical case was for not having votes at 16, the Tories oppose the idea. As an exercise in examining 'democracy', or because it is not politically desirable for one particular party to allow more youngsters to vote?
The EU, lined up against the sceptic state of the UK, appears a shining example of decency and cooperation. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel said lauded Englishman Samuel Johnson, and he certainly had a point.
A) WTO (disastrous)
C) Norway (vassal state)
D) No Brexit - abort the process
The whole point is that the UK is going through this process backwards. First the referendum, then invoking article 50 and finally an evaluation of the options ahead - and there has to be a decision on this within nine months. Or no deal at all which has the worst impact of all as per all experts and forecasts. If you ask me somebody has deliberately leaked this so as to colour the discussions ahead.
Although GDP is a somewhat abstract number when it comes to the electorate and their daily lives, the cost of 8% over 15 years or 1/2% per annum can be calculated and it equates to an awful lot of nurses, teachers and even replacing unsafe cladding on high rise! The austerity nonsense of the last seven years was to tell ordinary people that the screw ups with risk management of the big banks should be paid for by all.
So option C is the best as it is consistent with the referendum and the least damaging. So of course the forecasts matter, since they are what the cabinet is working with and they will influence how they position themselves with both the EU27 and the Tory sponsors / members. The "no deal - let's get out asap before people change their minds" crowd are rapidly running out of road. This "they need us more than we need them" mantra has gone up in smoke as the EU rejects any special deal for the City or any other group. "Choose, don't choose" is the message from M.Barnier but as he said last year "the clock is ticking". The UK needs to put cards on the table.
If it is one of the four options you have mentioned then the figures are there for us to make a decision.
But there is no way any of us can be sure that the deal will correspond with those you have mentioned.
Not sure why you are putting words in my mouth. It is quite clear that I did not state that the Cabinet are flying blind without any guidance.
Not sure why I need to repeat it but I am stating that it is likely it will be a bespoke deal ... which has not yet been costed.
Whether they have the negotiating skills to achieve it is arguable. But it is the aim.
You believe it will not happen. I believe it can happen.
Neither of us can prove a future event when there is so much that can happen over the coming year.
Personally I do not think our political class are up to it. That does not mean it is unachievable.
The British Government make you an offer you can't understand"
Apparently the joke going round Brussels now, according to Barry Gardiner MP
I took that as moronspeak for 'I haven't got a clue'.
Almost by definition, any Free Trade Agreement between the EU and UK will be bespoke, but it is unlikely to be as bespoke as the UK Government would like - in the time available (even with a transition period to the end of 2020), agreeing any deal, other than a tweaked off the shelf arrangement, and even that, would be a huge achievement.
And, for what it's worth, I believe that whatever is the outcome for the Irish border will determine the the wider relationship (the commitment made with regards to a no agreement outcome seems, to me, to be the most interesting - I don't think it is possible to achieve it without, de facto, accepting all EU rules and the supremacy of European Law).
Hmm. Now actually I agree with the UK gov. position on this. It's perfectly reasonable. So I am extremely suspicious about the idea that this will create a huge negotiating stand -off. I think it is an easy win, and here is why.
Right across the CEE region, where most of the most supposedly undesirable EU migrants come from, economies are booming, and there is now a chronic labour shortage.. Romania and Bulgaria don't want to lose any more of their people, and as for the Poles, many of them are returnng already. They really are not going to put up a big fight on this.
Plays well in the Brexit media, though, this "issue".
And our National Health Service will benefit from the increased cash available.
And the coast of Brexit will only be £200,000,000 a week.
https://infacts.org/carney-clarifies-brexit-economic-burden-quadruples/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
What they have no excuse for is to say the equivalent of 'nobody knows' and 'wait and see'.
Those who voted brexit knew, because they accuse anybody who suggests otherwise of being disrespectful.
After that, I expect to hear a lot of blame being laid at the Tory party re: how they’ve conducted negotiations (which to an extent I agree), but ultimately I feel that because this was such a monumental choice, if it does turn out to be detrimental, I would hope that the people who I know who voted for it, actually take some responsibility and say ‘we made our bed, we’ve now got to lie in it’, and refrain from whinging or complaining that ‘we’ haven’t made it work