It feels like the time when the government puts its deal or no deal to the commons will be the moment of truth. It is difficult to predict exactly what will happen. I think if there is no deal it will most likely lead us to another referendum. Where it might be more complicated is if there is a deal. I suspect in that case the government will say it is either vote for their deal or no deal. I think this is where there could be a forced general election.
Commons vote will be difficult for all the political parties to negotiate. Chequers is a non starter so any deal must make more concessions. Anything May can deliver will not be acceptable to half her own party, the DUP and must also satisfy Labours six tests. Good luck with that. The SNP won’t support a no deal and would broadly vote in line with Labour I believe. A stark choice of deal or no deal would be catastrophic. Any honourable politician would stand aside and call an election but I really doubt the Tories to be honourable enough. They will cling to power like shit to a blanket. Interesting times.
Referendums should ask for confirmation of specific actions. So I guess the next question should be something like.
"The UK government has negotiated an exit treaty with the EU. You can read the treaty at www.ourtreaty.com. The EU have indicated that it will not negotiate any further. Should the government sign the treaty?"
It seems pretty clear to me!
If the answer is "Yes" Theresa May signs the bloody thing the next morning.
If the answer is "No" the government either resigns or comes up with another proposal.
Referendums should ask for confirmation of specific actions. So I guess the next question should be something like.
"The UK government has negotiated an exit treaty with the EU. You can read the treaty at www.ourtreaty.com. The EU have indicated that it will not negotiate any further. Should the government sign the treaty?"
It seems pretty clear to me!
If the answer is "Yes" Theresa May signs the bloody thing the next morning.
If the answer is "No" the government either resigns or comes up with another proposal.
Which would be fine, except for the fact that few, if any UK politicians have been considering the exit treaty - all the debate that I keep seeing is about the post-exit relationship, not arranging the departure or, in the case of the Northern Ireland backstop, the travel insurance.
Personally, I do not believe that a referendum on leaving, at this stage, is either possible or even desirable. There really is not enough time to bring it all together, and it allows Johnson and his ilk continue to abrogate that responsibility for which they were elected.
It is up to Parliament to determine whether the agreement that Mrs May's team negotiates is acceptable or not. Continued talk of a further leave/remain referendum allows politicians act and speak irresponsibly about their fantasy future relationship models, without the slightest concern for what has to be agreed now. They need to grow up and recognise the importance of addressing each phase of the negotiations properly, because failure to engage with what should already have been agreed by now, even at this late stage, will have significant negative impact on the economy and peoples' lives.
Parliament will need to decide whether to accept or reject the exit agreement that may be arrived at by May & co.; with the knowledge that, unless Article 50 notification can be unilaterally revoked, the UK will leave without any agreement if what is placed before it is rejected. So, what MPs should be doing, now, is seeking to influence the Prime Minister's approach to the Brexit negotiations and the political statement - the language and mood music of which will clearly have an influence on what is to follow.
Where, I believe, there is a potential for a referendum would be in seeking a popular mandate for negotiating the future UK-EU relationship - because the one thing that Theresa May does not have, at the moment is such a mandate beyond that of the last election (where the Labour and Conservative manifestos committed both parties to respecting the vote to leave the EU - which I still firmly believe was wrong-headed and profoundly damaging to the UK economically, politically and socially).
So, for me, we can have a two part referendum sometime in the New Year.
The first is a simple majority for a single question, and that is "Should the Government have full plenipotentiary powers to negotiate a future trading relationship with the EU?"
Followed then by a series of PR questions (only counted if the answer is "No" to the first question), along the lines of:
"The Government should seek to agree with the European Union: Single Market Membership Customs Union Membership An Enhanced Free Trade Agreement A Free Trade Agreement Bilateral Sectoral Arrangements No Agreement"
Obviously, if there is no Brexit agreement, if things go horribly badly (which I really hope it doesn't, for all my fears for over here), and it was this time next year someone might sneakily add the option of rejoin the EU to the choices in Part 2.
Where do we go from here? On this thread alone, it varies from Armageddon to Nirvana. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I do not believe this is over yet … in fact, far from it.
The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity.
One thing we all agree on, as do most Europeans, is that the EU needs an overhaul – it is no longer fit for purpose. The most recent announcements were made by Macron, not a person I particularly trust, but he talks a lot of sense about how the EU must change to progress – and Merkel feels the same way. But it is not going to be easy for the EU to metamorphose – decades of building the complex and myriad layers cannot be unpicked simply or quickly.
In order for all countries to be in accord, political union is a must – this implies monetary, banking and fiscal union – which I do not support. I do not see how the EU, with its current infrastructure and policies, can survive otherwise.
My vision of the EU has always been about trade. I have previously provided my thoughts in some detail as to why I do not support the EU ‘trade’ approach. It should be reconciled with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). I intensely dislike trade tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
I am aware others have argued with me on this point, but I do not accept that the EU is a free trade area in the real sense. If it were, I would be much more supportive. In fact, the EU is alone in its particular concept of a Free Trade Area. EFTA, NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, all allow free movement of goods and services but differentiate in that they do not force members’ tariffs or other trade barriers to be the same. Just as importantly, they allow members to independently negotiate trade agreements with countries outside their own trade zone. In other words, all other Free Trade Areas outside the EU do not prevent members from making Free Trade Agreements with other countries.
There is a way to make the EU/UK relationship work and I am far from being the first to mention it. As Nick Clegg stated recently, the Brexit vote, in an ironic twist of fate, may help to provoke the very EU reforms that many of us have been seeking. In fact, this is exactly the reason why we could still stay close to the EU and … say it quietly … not leave.
If we can get to the stage where our membership is purely about trade, and the EU becomes a real Free Trade Area as I outlined above, I would certainly have a re-think. But to make that work means that we must no longer have a ‘single-track’ EU. To be fair, it has already been proved that not all countries can be treated the same nor can all countries work in the same way. So why not accept that not all countries within the EU have the same aim? Some may want fiscal union, others may not. Some will want the Euro, others will not. We do not all have to go for the exact same objectives. The idea, as a number of commentators have raised in the past, is a ‘multi-speed’ EU. Twenty plus years ago, the French PM propounded that the EU should be made up of three concentric circles, an inner core of the single currency, a middle tier of those in the EU but not the single currency, and an outer circle of non-members with close links to the EU. This is an idea that I like – many have suggested it since, but it has never obtained the requisite support. Maybe it will now?
In his book, Nick Clegg highlights that the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published, in August 2016, a paper calling for a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK and other non-EU countries that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. Then, in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas - this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’.
So I am open to changing my mind despite what some have said. The key is that the EU must look and feel different in order for us to stay a part of it. And it needs to change anyway, so why can it not happen? I worry that the EU will prove to be too intractable to change but I also have an inward optimism that it will.
The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes. True negotiation means compromise … on all sides.
Oh, and by the way, I am sure that this will also solve the Northern Ireland issue.
Schopenhauer stated that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. The truth is that there is an answer … the question is, do we have the will to take it forward?
What a bloody disaster ... one year on and my comments - emboldened above - still not resolved.
I have a question or two for those advocates of another EU referendum.
What would the question/s be? Would it be a simple majority? Would it be binding? Will the result be nullified if the winning vote only has 37% of the total of eligible voters? Do you honestly believe it will resolve the differences of the two sides?
a) It depends on whether the government gets a deal or not. If no deal, in or out. If a deal question has to be in two parts - in or out - and for everybody - if out, deal or no deal out. b) Yes, although hopefully a large enough majority to quell some of the divisions that have been damaging this country since the referendum. c) If out yes in terms of leaving, if staying in, nobody can rule out another vote in the future. d) Of course not e) Not unless there is a clear majority for either side. Ideally around 7-10%.
One obvious reason why the EU has not made much progress is that too much of its time and energy has been wasted on Brexit. A more mature UK would instead have been joining with like minded fellow members to drive change.
Still, once it is clearer what form Brexit takes, that will as you suggest allow the EU to focus on reform. Just dont expect that reform to include a reformed relationship with the UK. The damage wreaked by the politiicans you endorsed in voting Leave, will take years to mend. And that is assuming that you dont actually end up with PM Johnson or Rees-Mogg.
It feels like the time when the government puts its deal or no deal to the commons will be the moment of truth. It is difficult to predict exactly what will happen. I think if there is no deal it will most likely lead us to another referendum. Where it might be more complicated is if there is a deal. I suspect in that case the government will say it is either vote for their deal or no deal. I think this is where there could be a forced general election.
Commons vote will be difficult for all the political parties to negotiate. Chequers is a non starter so any deal must make more concessions. Anything May can deliver will not be acceptable to half her own party, the DUP and must also satisfy Labours six tests. Good luck with that. The SNP won’t support a no deal and would broadly vote in line with Labour I believe. A stark choice of deal or no deal would be catastrophic. Any honourable politician would stand aside and call an election but I really doubt the Tories to be honourable enough. They will cling to power like shit to a blanket. Interesting times.
If they don't offer a referendum and insist on their deal or no deal, I think there may be Tories willing to bring the government down and force an election. If they don't get a deal, there is no way I can see the Commons allowing that to happen without another referendum given the Remain and Brexit Mp numbers.
Where do we go from here? On this thread alone, it varies from Armageddon to Nirvana. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I do not believe this is over yet … in fact, far from it.
The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity.
One thing we all agree on, as do most Europeans, is that the EU needs an overhaul – it is no longer fit for purpose. The most recent announcements were made by Macron, not a person I particularly trust, but he talks a lot of sense about how the EU must change to progress – and Merkel feels the same way. But it is not going to be easy for the EU to metamorphose – decades of building the complex and myriad layers cannot be unpicked simply or quickly.
In order for all countries to be in accord, political union is a must – this implies monetary, banking and fiscal union – which I do not support. I do not see how the EU, with its current infrastructure and policies, can survive otherwise.
My vision of the EU has always been about trade. I have previously provided my thoughts in some detail as to why I do not support the EU ‘trade’ approach. It should be reconciled with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). I intensely dislike trade tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
I am aware others have argued with me on this point, but I do not accept that the EU is a free trade area in the real sense. If it were, I would be much more supportive. In fact, the EU is alone in its particular concept of a Free Trade Area. EFTA, NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, all allow free movement of goods and services but differentiate in that they do not force members’ tariffs or other trade barriers to be the same. Just as importantly, they allow members to independently negotiate trade agreements with countries outside their own trade zone. In other words, all other Free Trade Areas outside the EU do not prevent members from making Free Trade Agreements with other countries.
There is a way to make the EU/UK relationship work and I am far from being the first to mention it. As Nick Clegg stated recently, the Brexit vote, in an ironic twist of fate, may help to provoke the very EU reforms that many of us have been seeking. In fact, this is exactly the reason why we could still stay close to the EU and … say it quietly … not leave.
If we can get to the stage where our membership is purely about trade, and the EU becomes a real Free Trade Area as I outlined above, I would certainly have a re-think. But to make that work means that we must no longer have a ‘single-track’ EU. To be fair, it has already been proved that not all countries can be treated the same nor can all countries work in the same way. So why not accept that not all countries within the EU have the same aim? Some may want fiscal union, others may not. Some will want the Euro, others will not. We do not all have to go for the exact same objectives. The idea, as a number of commentators have raised in the past, is a ‘multi-speed’ EU. Twenty plus years ago, the French PM propounded that the EU should be made up of three concentric circles, an inner core of the single currency, a middle tier of those in the EU but not the single currency, and an outer circle of non-members with close links to the EU. This is an idea that I like – many have suggested it since, but it has never obtained the requisite support. Maybe it will now?
In his book, Nick Clegg highlights that the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published, in August 2016, a paper calling for a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK and other non-EU countries that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. Then, in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas - this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’.
So I am open to changing my mind despite what some have said. The key is that the EU must look and feel different in order for us to stay a part of it. And it needs to change anyway, so why can it not happen? I worry that the EU will prove to be too intractable to change but I also have an inward optimism that it will.
The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes. True negotiation means compromise … on all sides.
Oh, and by the way, I am sure that this will also solve the Northern Ireland issue.
Schopenhauer stated that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. The truth is that there is an answer … the question is, do we have the will to take it forward?
What a bloody disaster ... one year on and my comments - emboldened above - still not resolved.
No need to worry, Arlene's on the case.....
It's not as if she makes errors of judgement, or anything.
Have you seen David Davis's letter to all Tory MPs.
Apart from all the other "back me as leader" grandstanding he states that "literally the only person raising the prospect of one [hard border in NI] recently is the chancellor Phillip Hammond." Err... No it's not?!
I’m not sure how Davis even has the nerve to comment on Brexit after he spent 18 months achieving the square root of nothing as Brexit Secutary. I’m even less clear about who would actually want to listen to what he has to say about Brexit.
When you are given a job by the prime minister you don't petulantly threaten to resign as he did even before he actually resigned. You try to implement the will of your government. He always seemed to me to be following his own agenda and shouldn't have taken the role on in the first place!
When you are given a job by the prime minister you don't petulantly threaten to resign as he did even before he actually resigned. You try to implement the will of your government. He always seemed to me to be following his own agenda and shouldn't have taken the role on in the first place!
Weren’t there lots of rumours that he was thick, as in actually stupid thick?
It’s not a second referendum, it’s a third. The first referendum was in 1975.
And the first was so long ago even us old-uns never had the chance to vote on it.
so, according to all current logic that says we should be giving all 16 yr old the vote in the "peoples vote" as it directly affects them, then the 1975 Referendum should be null & void because us 80's kids didnt get a chance to vote on it then.
It’s not a second referendum, it’s a third. The first referendum was in 1975.
And the first was so long ago even us old-uns never had the chance to vote on it.
so, according to all current logic that says we should be giving all 16 yr old the vote in the "peoples vote" as it directly affects them, then the 1975 Referendum should be null & void because us 80's kids didnt get a chance to vote on it then.
gah !!
Oi! Who are you calling an old'un? I voted in 1975!
It’s not a second referendum, it’s a third. The first referendum was in 1975.
And the first was so long ago even us old-uns never had the chance to vote on it.
so, according to all current logic that says we should be giving all 16 yr old the vote in the "peoples vote" as it directly affects them, then the 1975 Referendum should be null & void because us 80's kids didnt get a chance to vote on it then.
When you are given a job by the prime minister you don't petulantly threaten to resign as he did even before he actually resigned. You try to implement the will of your government. He always seemed to me to be following his own agenda and shouldn't have taken the role on in the first place!
Weren’t there lots of rumours that he was thick, as in actually stupid thick?
Yeah, the pesky right left wing press. Don't forget all the babies he ate.... Landed gentry, too.
When you are given a job by the prime minister you don't petulantly threaten to resign as he did even before he actually resigned. You try to implement the will of your government. He always seemed to me to be following his own agenda and shouldn't have taken the role on in the first place!
Weren’t there lots of rumours that he was thick, as in actually stupid thick?
Yeah, the pesky right left wing press. Don't forget all the babies he ate.... Landed gentry, too.
Are you suggesting he is as wildly and unfairly misrepresented and vilified as Tony Blair?
David davis is just incredibly lazy. He threw away the tory leadership and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when david cameron ended up winning it when davis was far away the favourite.
I have always said (no doubt unfairly) that anyone who had the opportunity to vote in the ‘75 referendum should not have been allowed a vote in the latest one as we had our say and frankly in my opinion it’s a vote for the youngsters who will have to suffer the consequences. No one took any notice so probably not a good idea,
When you are given a job by the prime minister you don't petulantly threaten to resign as he did even before he actually resigned. You try to implement the will of your government. He always seemed to me to be following his own agenda and shouldn't have taken the role on in the first place!
Weren’t there lots of rumours that he was thick, as in actually stupid thick?
Yeah, the pesky right left wing press. Don't forget all the babies he ate.... Landed gentry, too.
Are you suggesting he is as wildly and unfairly misrepresented and vilified as Tony Blair?
No. That would be laughable. Davis hasn't yet started any wars or been directly responsible for death, mutilation and broken families.
When you are given a job by the prime minister you don't petulantly threaten to resign as he did even before he actually resigned. You try to implement the will of your government. He always seemed to me to be following his own agenda and shouldn't have taken the role on in the first place!
Weren’t there lots of rumours that he was thick, as in actually stupid thick?
Yeah, the pesky right left wing press. Don't forget all the babies he ate.... Landed gentry, too.
Are you suggesting he is as wildly and unfairly misrepresented and vilified as Tony Blair?
No. That would be laughable. Davis hasn't yet started any wars or been directly responsible for death, mutilation and broken families.
When you are given a job by the prime minister you don't petulantly threaten to resign as he did even before he actually resigned. You try to implement the will of your government. He always seemed to me to be following his own agenda and shouldn't have taken the role on in the first place!
Weren’t there lots of rumours that he was thick, as in actually stupid thick?
I don't buy this thick (as in stupidly thick) politician business. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I don't think they are as prevalent or as prominent as they get painted. They might not be the intelligentsia, but I'm sure the vast majority have perfectly reasonable levels of comprehension. In the case of Davis he's got a degree from Warwick, a masters from the London Business School and went on to study at Harvard. I don't think he'd have managed that being 'stupid thick'. Of course, that could have been paid for by having a privileged birthright, but it seems doubtful as he was brought up by a single mother on a council estate. I have no desire to sit here and defend tory bexiteers, but I think the remain camp can do far better than passing on cheap slanders.
When you are given a job by the prime minister you don't petulantly threaten to resign as he did even before he actually resigned. You try to implement the will of your government. He always seemed to me to be following his own agenda and shouldn't have taken the role on in the first place!
Weren’t there lots of rumours that he was thick, as in actually stupid thick?
I don't buy this thick (as in stupidly thick) politician business. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I don't think they are as prevalent or as prominent as they get painted. They might not be the intelligentsia, but I'm sure the vast majority have perfectly reasonable levels of comprehension. In the case of Davis he's got a degree from Warwick, a masters from the London Business School and went on to study at Harvard. I don't think he'd have managed that being 'stupid thick'. Of course, that could have been paid for by having a privileged birthright, but it seems doubtful as he was brought up by a single mother on a council estate. I have no desire to sit here and defend tory bexiteers, but I think the remain camp can do far better than passing on cheap slanders.
I also think that Davis has been undermined and subverted by May and her gaggle of pro-EU Cabinet Office advisers like Oliver Robbins who've basically by-passed the actual Whitehall department set up to deal with Brexit. He hasn't helped himself by showing a 'what's the point' attitude to the negotiations, but that's what you get when your boss cuts you out of your job and you're rendered somewhat useless.
But he should have realised that was always going to be the case. Either that or indeed he is stupid, which I am sure he isn't. What the problem has been for the government is that you have the two sides vying for the available positions of power and they demand their people and because of that 'their' people follow the agenda of the faction rather than the agenda of the government.
But he should have realised that was always going to be the case. Either that or indeed he is stupid, which I am sure he isn't. What the problem has been for the government is that you have the two sides vying for the available positions of power and they demand their people and because of that 'their' people follow the agenda of the faction rather than the agenda of the government.
I wouldn't say stupid, but perhaps naive about the 'deep state' forces he would be up against.
When you are given a job by the prime minister you don't petulantly threaten to resign as he did even before he actually resigned. You try to implement the will of your government. He always seemed to me to be following his own agenda and shouldn't have taken the role on in the first place!
Weren’t there lots of rumours that he was thick, as in actually stupid thick?
I don't buy this thick (as in stupidly thick) politician business. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I don't think they are as prevalent or as prominent as they get painted. They might not be the intelligentsia, but I'm sure the vast majority have perfectly reasonable levels of comprehension. In the case of Davis he's got a degree from Warwick, a masters from the London Business School and went on to study at Harvard. I don't think he'd have managed that being 'stupid thick'. Of course, that could have been paid for by having a privileged birthright, but it seems doubtful as he was brought up by a single mother on a council estate. I have no desire to sit here and defend tory bexiteers, but I think the remain camp can do far better than passing on cheap slanders.
I agree that politicians are not "thick" by any reasonable standards of those of us in this or similar general public forums. In Johnson's case the charge is rather that he cannot be arsed with detail, but prefers his "visions". That is arrogance, entitlement, but certainly not thickness. Davis seems to have a problem of not being sufficiently neurotic to see the problems that might lurk around the corner. So he too does not do the detail but for a slightly different reason. Thus he though Brexit would be a breeze.
It happens at every level in politics. I say this having assiduously watched some GLA meetings in connection with the Olympic Stadium. Gareth Bacon is not thick. He is a Johnson man, and he is sharp. He just has the typical mentality of a certain type Tory politician. Len Duvall seems to me to be genuinely thick, or otherwise doing an impression of a taxi-driver, but I am assured he is neither. Some of the other Assembly people who were discussing the Stadium in the committee for the first time and clearly had not bothered to master the detail. Caroline Pidgeon on the other hand is both intelligent (n the sense of quick on the uptake) and master of her brief. That's an ideal politician for me.
"Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people one of whom says the world is flat and the other one says the world is round. That is not balanced, impartial journalism.”
It is why I stopped watching Question Time. The BBC seem to make it a priority to give equal air time to experts/professionals and completely wacko Brexit nut jobs.
"Peston said he consistently said on ITV News that leaving the EU would make the UK poorer. “Not massively poorer. I thought the Project Fear bit of the government’s campaign was overdone. But poorer.”
The hysteria of the Remain camp is based on the Project Fear message from the Establishment that "poorer" means the UK economy will be trashed if we leave the EU. So Peston would agree with me, it's misinformation. The projected drag on GDP over 30 years with a no deal Brexit was calculated by the Treasury in 2016 as a 6% drag on GDP which was presented as every household being £4,300 worse off. It has now moved to 8% over 15 years.
On the same basis the Treasury could have told us in 2008, had it been able to predict the drag on GDP of 20% to date, that every household will be £14,000 worse off by 2018. (£14k is a bit of guesstimate but it would be of that sort of order). That drag is the result of none of the anticipated 3% wage growth emerging and the prevailing levels of company investment not increasing in line with historic rates. Nor does GDP growth correlate to growth in spendable income - more misinformation avidly bought into unchallenged by Remainers. Instead of intelligently challenging the propaganda, Brexiteers made the mistake of saying the figures were made up. It's the propaganda use of the numbers which is the problem, not the numbers themselves.
An 8% drag over 15 years is liable to be impacted by 101 other events within and without our control. So fixating on Brexit as the number one danger for our economy is just plain Project Fear, but it seems an entrenched belief that Brexit will destroy any possibility of the UK economy growing.
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
The difference between the rate of GDP drag with a deal or no-deal is, according to the Treasury forecasts, a few percentage points, a few hundred pounds "per household" nonsense if you like, hardly worth accepting a half-baked Brexit for. The main difference will be on the extent of disruption in reorganisation of services and procedures for business.
Comments
"The UK government has negotiated an exit treaty with the EU. You can read the treaty at www.ourtreaty.com. The EU have indicated that it will not negotiate any further. Should the government sign the treaty?"
It seems pretty clear to me!
If the answer is "Yes" Theresa May signs the bloody thing the next morning.
If the answer is "No" the government either resigns or comes up with another proposal.
Personally, I do not believe that a referendum on leaving, at this stage, is either possible or even desirable. There really is not enough time to bring it all together, and it allows Johnson and his ilk continue to abrogate that responsibility for which they were elected.
It is up to Parliament to determine whether the agreement that Mrs May's team negotiates is acceptable or not. Continued talk of a further leave/remain referendum allows politicians act and speak irresponsibly about their fantasy future relationship models, without the slightest concern for what has to be agreed now. They need to grow up and recognise the importance of addressing each phase of the negotiations properly, because failure to engage with what should already have been agreed by now, even at this late stage, will have significant negative impact on the economy and peoples' lives.
Parliament will need to decide whether to accept or reject the exit agreement that may be arrived at by May & co.; with the knowledge that, unless Article 50 notification can be unilaterally revoked, the UK will leave without any agreement if what is placed before it is rejected. So, what MPs should be doing, now, is seeking to influence the Prime Minister's approach to the Brexit negotiations and the political statement - the language and mood music of which will clearly have an influence on what is to follow.
Where, I believe, there is a potential for a referendum would be in seeking a popular mandate for negotiating the future UK-EU relationship - because the one thing that Theresa May does not have, at the moment is such a mandate beyond that of the last election (where the Labour and Conservative manifestos committed both parties to respecting the vote to leave the EU - which I still firmly believe was wrong-headed and profoundly damaging to the UK economically, politically and socially).
So, for me, we can have a two part referendum sometime in the New Year.
The first is a simple majority for a single question, and that is "Should the Government have full plenipotentiary powers to negotiate a future trading relationship with the EU?"
Followed then by a series of PR questions (only counted if the answer is "No" to the first question), along the lines of:
"The Government should seek to agree with the European Union:
Single Market Membership
Customs Union Membership
An Enhanced Free Trade Agreement
A Free Trade Agreement
Bilateral Sectoral Arrangements
No Agreement"
Obviously, if there is no Brexit agreement, if things go horribly badly (which I really hope it doesn't, for all my fears for over here), and it was this time next year someone might sneakily add the option of rejoin the EU to the choices in Part 2.
b) Yes, although hopefully a large enough majority to quell some of the divisions that have been damaging this country since the referendum.
c) If out yes in terms of leaving, if staying in, nobody can rule out another vote in the future.
d) Of course not
e) Not unless there is a clear majority for either side. Ideally around 7-10%.
One obvious reason why the EU has not made much progress is that too much of its time and energy has been wasted on Brexit. A more mature UK would instead have been joining with like minded fellow members to drive change.
Still, once it is clearer what form Brexit takes, that will as you suggest allow the EU to focus on reform. Just dont expect that reform to include a reformed relationship with the UK. The damage wreaked by the politiicans you endorsed in voting Leave, will take years to mend. And that is assuming that you dont actually end up with PM Johnson or Rees-Mogg.
You reap what you sow, my friend...
It's not as if she makes errors of judgement, or anything.
Apart from all the other "back me as leader" grandstanding he states that "literally the only person raising the prospect of one [hard border in NI] recently is the chancellor Phillip Hammond." Err... No it's not?!
so, according to all current logic that says we should be giving all 16 yr old the vote in the "peoples vote" as it directly affects them, then the 1975 Referendum should be null & void because us 80's kids didnt get a chance to vote on it then.
gah !!
rightleft wing press.Don't forget all the babies he ate....
Landed gentry, too.
It happens at every level in politics. I say this having assiduously watched some GLA meetings in connection with the Olympic Stadium. Gareth Bacon is not thick. He is a Johnson man, and he is sharp. He just has the typical mentality of a certain type Tory politician. Len Duvall seems to me to be genuinely thick, or otherwise doing an impression of a taxi-driver, but I am assured he is neither. Some of the other Assembly people who were discussing the Stadium in the committee for the first time and clearly had not bothered to master the detail. Caroline Pidgeon on the other hand is both intelligent (n the sense of quick on the uptake) and master of her brief. That's an ideal politician for me.
"Peston said he consistently said on ITV News that leaving the EU would make the UK poorer. “Not massively poorer. I thought the Project Fear bit of the government’s campaign was overdone. But poorer.”
The hysteria of the Remain camp is based on the Project Fear message from the Establishment that "poorer" means the UK economy will be trashed if we leave the EU. So Peston would agree with me, it's misinformation. The projected drag on GDP over 30 years with a no deal Brexit was calculated by the Treasury in 2016 as a 6% drag on GDP which was presented as every household being £4,300 worse off. It has now moved to 8% over 15 years.
On the same basis the Treasury could have told us in 2008, had it been able to predict the drag on GDP of 20% to date, that every household will be £14,000 worse off by 2018. (£14k is a bit of guesstimate but it would be of that sort of order). That drag is the result of none of the anticipated 3% wage growth emerging and the prevailing levels of company investment not increasing in line with historic rates. Nor does GDP growth correlate to growth in spendable income - more misinformation avidly bought into unchallenged by Remainers. Instead of intelligently challenging the propaganda, Brexiteers made the mistake of saying the figures were made up. It's the propaganda use of the numbers which is the problem, not the numbers themselves.
An 8% drag over 15 years is liable to be impacted by 101 other events within and without our control. So fixating on Brexit as the number one danger for our economy is just plain Project Fear, but it seems an entrenched belief that Brexit will destroy any possibility of the UK economy growing.
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
The difference between the rate of GDP drag with a deal or no-deal is, according to the Treasury forecasts, a few percentage points, a few hundred pounds "per household" nonsense if you like, hardly worth accepting a half-baked Brexit for. The main difference will be on the extent of disruption in reorganisation of services and procedures for business.