Brexit...

[Chach]

that was intended as the royal we. It could be done under the UN if enough nations agreed and were prepared to finance it. it would spread the cost globally, generate growth in previously barren areas and provide a huge boost to the job market. what's not to like?

 

Yeah, sounds like something you plan when you're part of an ever growing union of countries whose raison d'etre is to spread economic prosperity, peace and liberal democracy for the benefit of mankind.

Not so much a small island, getting divorced from every partner its ever had and pursuing its own brand of quasi-nationalism

[Guest rusty747]

 

Yeah, sounds like something you plan when you're part of an ever growing union of countries whose raison d'etre is to spread economic prosperity, peace and liberal democracy for the benefit of mankind.

Not so much a small island, getting divorced from every partner its ever had and pursuing its own brand of quasi-nationalism

indeed! but when you compare the UN (the clue is in the N) with the EU, it becomes very obvious imho that the UN would actually stick to the script.

it is not necessary to be bound by EU rules and political in fighting to be a force for good in the world. in fact, handled properly, we could do more good in my view out of the EU than the EU itself can manage in the short-medium term due no need for agreement across 28 countries - usually hijacked for individual national reasons. i believe the Italian tomato growers were the latest to throw a spanner in the works!

Edited April 19, 2017 by rusty747

[johnh]

Prior to Brexit, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast that a Brexit vote would lead to a possible recession and a stock market collapse. Their upgraded forecast for the UK this year of 2pc, up from a prediction of 1.5pc in January. This is the biggest upgrade of any major economy and means the UK is expected to grow faster than France, Germany and all other G7 economies this year apart from the US.

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned a second referendum and expressed a view that 'remain' would win. With no basis for 'project fear' (and with Blair joining the remainers) the 'leave' vote would comfortably exceed 60%

[Matt]

Prior to Brexit, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast that a Brexit vote would lead to a possible recession and a stock market collapse. Their upgraded forecast for the UK this year of 2pc, up from a prediction of 1.5pc in January. This is the biggest upgrade of any major economy and means the UK is expected to grow faster than France, Germany and all other G7 economies this year apart from the US.

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned a second referendum and expressed a view that 'remain' would win. With no basis for 'project fear' (and with Blair joining the remainers) the 'leave' vote would comfortably exceed 60%

Can you give me the lottery numbers for the weekend John?

 

I would've thought after all the lies being mostly highlighted, Remain would walk it. Then consider all the broken promises since the vote from the Leavers, and the sharp fall in the GBP and people would be very wary indeed

[Chach]

Prior to Brexit, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast that a Brexit vote would lead to a possible recession and a stock market collapse. Their upgraded forecast for the UK this year of 2pc, up from a prediction of 1.5pc in January. This is the biggest upgrade of any major economy and means the UK is expected to grow faster than France, Germany and all other G7 economies this year apart from the US.

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned a second referendum and expressed a view that 'remain' would win. With no basis for 'project fear' (and with Blair joining the remainers) the 'leave' vote would comfortably exceed 60%

 

"When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir?" (there's no real evidence he ever said that by the way)

 

Bank Of England intervention and improvement in the terms of trade after Sterling fell of a cliff, it was just a vote, not a single law/regulation/anything has changed yet.

[holystove]

 

"When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir?" (there's no real evidence he ever said that by the way)

 

Bank Of England intervention and improvement in the terms of trade after Sterling fell of a cliff, it was just a vote, not a single law/regulation/anything has changed yet.

 

Yes the BoE intervention was significant, rightfully so .. but they've now done pretty much all they can do. Also very true the UK is still in the EU and therefor still benefits from the Single Market. (for probably up to 5 more years including the transition deal)

 

The reason economists got it wrong about an immediate collapse of the UK economy is because consumer spending was very strong. The British people were not alarmed in the slightest by the referendum result. However, right now, consumer spending is slowing as real wage growth has become negative, savings rate is very low, ... As I understand, most economists claim they weren't wrong about the effects of brexit, just about the timing.

 

I understand John highlighting elements that predict a bright future, but it's going to be really interesting to see what happens as you can still find both sides of the argument defended by many economists. For example here's what the "World Economic Forum" wrote on the 12th of April 2017:

"According to our calculations, based on direct costs such as job losses from the finance sector, as well as inflation eroding incomes and savings, Brexit will cost Britain £140 billion (7.5% of GDP) or the equivalent of £300 million a week over eight years,"

 

 

And here's what Bank of America Merrill Lynch predicts will happen to trade post-brexit:

 

Also, just because the UK economy grows post-brexit doesn't mean brexit was economically a good idea. You have to compare it to how much it would have grown without brexit.

[johnh]

Quote: (one of these days I'll learn how to highlight the bit of the quote I'm referring to) 'Also, just because the UK economy grows post-brexit doesn't mean Brexit was economically a good idea. You have to compare it to how much it would have grown without Brexit'

 

That was not the purpose of my post. After all, we are still in the EU. The purpose of my post was to emphasise just how wide of the mark project fear was with Cameron, Osborne, Carney (Bank of England) IMF et al getting it massively wrong - deliberately or not.

[Chach]

Quote: (one of these days I'll learn how to highlight the bit of the quote I'm referring to) 'Also, just because the UK economy grows post-brexit doesn't mean Brexit was economically a good idea. You have to compare it to how much it would have grown without Brexit'

 

That was not the purpose of my post. After all, we are still in the EU. The purpose of my post was to emphasise just how wide of the mark project fear was with Cameron, Osborne, Carney (Bank of England) IMF et al getting it massively wrong - deliberately or not.

 

To be fair though John you had misrepresented the IMF's position, they had modelled a lot of scenarios and discussed them but they had never forecast negative growth for the UK in 2016 or 2017 pre Brexit vote.

Also as previously discussed, growth in nominal GDP is a poor indicator of how well people are doing when inflation is above growth levels and wages are stagnant.

[Guest rusty747]

Slight thread creep here but the following link is well worth a read.

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-could-collapse

 

The problem with the excellent points the link raises, imho, (talking about the need for global cooperation etc) is that it doesn't recognise or offer a solution to the problem of how to deal with the high, and ever increasing number of people, who are (and would continue to) take advantage of open borders, social welfare etc to further extreme political and religious agendas.

 

In short, if you believe the article, we are stuffed!

[holystove]

Slight thread creep here but the following link is well worth a read.

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-could-collapse

 

The problem with the excellent points the link raises, imho, (talking about the need for global cooperation etc) is that it doesn't recognise or offer a solution to the problem of how to deal with the high, and ever increasing number of people, who are (and would continue to) take advantage of open borders, social welfare etc to further extreme political and religious agendas.

 

In short, if you believe the article, we are stuffed!

 

The over-population problem is added to by the fact that it is mostly the poor countries that have an ever increasing number of people .. As those countries can't provide for them, the problem of mass-immigration is created.

Meanwhile, in Europe, where countries are rich enough to provide for a bigger number of people, the populations of most countries are decreasing (if you discount immigration).

 

I don't know if these two elements are directly related though. Any sociologist Evertonians on here?

 

I like the conclusion of your article:

 

"Western civilisation is not a lost cause, however. Using reason and science to guide decisions, paired with extraordinary leadership and exceptional goodwill, human society can progress to higher and higher levels of well-being and development, Homer-Dixon says. Even as we weather the coming stresses of climate change, population growth and dropping energy returns, we can maintain our societies and better them. But that requires resisting the very natural urge, when confronted with such overwhelming pressures, to become less cooperative, less generous and less open to reason."

[holystove]

The Telegraph with a brilliant sketch.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/20/hail-theresa-may-british-stonewalling-champion-2016/

 

Following up on this. After the Telegraph rightly making fun of May for not making clear what her strategy is (or not having one), today The Times calls her out.

 

 

How this women is set to have one of the biggest majorities in recent memory is beyond me. I understand the sentiment of respecting the referendum result, wanting to get on with it, but there really should be more pressure put on British leaders to present a vision of what post-brexit Britain will look like.

[Matt]

 

Following up on this. After the Telegraph rightly making fun of May for not making clear what her strategy is (or not having one), today The Times calls her out.

 

 

 

How this women is set to have one of the biggest majorities in recent memory is beyond me. I understand the sentiment of respecting the referendum result, wanting to get on with it, but there really should be more pressure put on British leaders to present a vision of what post-brexit Britain will look like.

Exactly this

[Bailey]

But that wasn't the case, I shared the link that shows the UK did not follow the EUs guideline and that they had the power to control it case by case. If

 

 

We always had control. The "balance" you speak of, I can see why people want it addressed. But the fact is that the UK already had the power to do just that, and it seems to me that the EU was made the scapegoat for our own politicians failings (who will now have "complete" power).

It might not say it in the extract you quoted but if the UK didn't allow freedom of movement they wouldn't be allowed the same privileges as they got from the EU (such as the single market).

[Matt]

It might not say it in the extract you quoted but if the UK didn't allow freedom of movement they wouldn't be allowed the same privileges as they got from the EU (such as the single market).

So they were given the exception but didn't implement it because they were worried it would affect their privilages? I don't buy that. But even if that's true, it's going to be exactly the same post-Brexit so the whole immigration argument was completely moot, and only used to serve as a falsehood to trick people.

[Formby]

 

I understand the sentiment of respecting the referendum result, wanting to get on with it, but there really should be more pressure put on British leaders to present a vision of what post-brexit Britain will look like.

 

Unfortunately, we have Corbyn and Farron as the ineffective opposition in this country, so it's not going to change. The Tories can do what they want. Corbyn's speech today is still talking to his core constituency and not the country at large. Ergo, we're stuck.

[johnh]

 

Following up on this. After the Telegraph rightly making fun of May for not making clear what her strategy is (or not having one), today The Times calls her out.

 

 

How this women is set to have one of the biggest majorities in recent memory is beyond me. I understand the sentiment of respecting the referendum result, wanting to get on with it, but there really should be more pressure put on British leaders to present a vision of what post-brexit Britain will look like.

 

My eye's aren't that bad even without glasses!

[Bailey]

So they were given the exception but didn't implement it because they were worried it would affect their privilages? I don't buy that. But even if that's true, it's going to be exactly the same post-Brexit so the whole immigration argument was completely moot, and only used to serve as a falsehood to trick people.

I do as it goes against the whole Freedom of Movement part of the EU, one of their core principles.

 

The fact that pro-EU supporters haven't countered with such a point suggests that we can't just stop letting people into the country without good reason (ie criminals).

[holystove]

Freedom of Movement is actually a misleading term. It is Freedom of Movement for workers. You have the right to work in another member state (or actively look for a job there). Consequently, the right to reside in a member state is dependent on being employed in that member state (or qualify as a "jobseeker"). Pensioners and students have to prove they have sufficient income to be able to pay for their stay, and they have to have comprehensive health insurance in the host state.

 

Also any member state can deport EU nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

 

Freedom of Movement has been mis-represented in the UK as the right to settle of any EU-national in the UK. It is in reality much stricter and is predicated on being completely self-sufficient. Various member state apply tougher standards than others; UK coincidentally quite lenient (something British eurosceptis then blame the EU for).

[Matt]

I do as it goes against the whole Freedom of Movement part of the EU, one of their core principles.

 

The fact that pro-EU supporters haven't countered with such a point suggests that we can't just stop letting people into the country without good reason (ie criminals).

But they were given the option by the EU

 

I'd need to find out what "case by case" is, but for the moment I can only assume it's with good reason

[holystove]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trump-puts-eu-ahead-of-britain-in-trade-queue-l7t8zwn7k

 

today's frontpage The Times.

 

should actually be in the Trump thread. the ignorance of this man and those that surround him is staggering. it took 11 tries to explain what the EU is.

[Bailey]

Holy and Matt I stand corrected. Thank you.

[Palfy]

Holy and Matt I stand corrected. Thank you.

Now you concede that we did have a choice on immigration but didn't choose to use our right to stop people coming into the country, wether from within the E.U or the rest of the world, can I ask would you have voted differently if you new this, because immigration seems to near the top of your concerns within the E.U.

And I apologise now if I have misunderstood your posts.

[Bailey]

Now you concede that we did have a choice on immigration but didn't choose to use our right to stop people coming into the country, wether from within the E.U or the rest of the world, can I ask would you have voted differently if you new this, because immigration seems to near the top of your concerns within the E.U.

And I apologise now if I have misunderstood your posts.

 

I didnt vote as I didnt think I had enough evidence to make an educated decision however I am mainly in favour of Brexit for a multitude of reasons, that mainly boils down to having control of our own destiny (in a variety of ways in which this was one).

 

Without doubt though, it would have affected the outcome of the vote as immigration was one of the main arguments. I have learnt more from some of the posters in this thread over the months, than I had learnt from politicians on both sides which tells you all you need to know about the referendum itself.

[Matt]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39730326

[holystove]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39730326

 

There should be no surprise this is the position of the member states and the union itself. They have not changed their stance since the first respond to the referendum result. Tusk said himself, early on, that, given the UK (and EU) red lines, the only alternative to hard brexit is no brexit.

 

There is a great three parter about this in the FT today: (written by a lawyer/journalist who is a former aide to Bill Cash, and former colleague of Dan Hannan - so not really a pro-EU guy)

 

Brexit by timetable - the EU and Brexit Three-parter at @FT : http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2017/04/25/brexit-by-timetable-part-1-the-evolution-of-the-eus-position/ … http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2017/04/26/brexit-by-timetable-the-evolution-of-the-eus-position-part-2/ … http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2017/04/27/brexit-by-timetable-the-evolution-of-the-eus-position-part-3/ …

[MikeO]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39739546

[johnh]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39739546

What has that got to do with anything? I'd ask you to step outside only its too cold. :I surrender:

[MikeO]

What has that got to do with anything? I'd ask you to step outside only its too cold. :I surrender:

 

I'm just trying to demonstrate that not all of the Johnson family is as mad as a box of frogs .

[holystove]

excerpt from politico. not good, but expected.

 

"EU leaders expressed mounting alarm Friday that U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May and her team are in a dangerous state of denial about the consequences of leaving the bloc.

 

The worry over Britains unrealistic expectations was a main topic of discussion at background briefings all across Brussels European Quarter on the eve of an extraordinary European Council summit on Brexit.

 

Saturdays summit is the first official gathering of the 27 EU leaders without Britain since May sent a letter formally triggering the Article 50 withdrawal process in late March.

 

Diplomats said the concerns were tied directly to a dinner that May hosted in London Wednesday night with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, the EUs chief negotiator Michel Barnier, and other senior officials.

 

Participants in the dinner were extraordinarily tight-lipped about it afterward, but an EU diplomat said Juncker called Chancellor Angela Merkel at 7:30 a.m. the day after the dinner. And in a speech to the German parliament on Thursday, Merkel sent a pointed wake-up call, saying the U.K. cannot and will not have the same rights as EU members and that Britain should have no illusions.

 

May, responding to Merkels comments, said that the 27 were lining up to oppose the U.K., and she noted, Weve seen that actually there will be times when these negotiations are going to get tough.

 

One senior EU official said there was some relief that even hard-line Brexiteers were no longer suggesting that leaving the EU without a formal withdrawal agreement might be a good idea. Officials on both sides generally agree that would lead to chaos.

 

But EU officials, who in recent months have worked hard to build uncharacteristic unity among the 27 on Brexit, suggested it was not clear the U.K. had come to grips with the fact that EU businesses, particularly in the financial sector, were likely to suffer as a result of Brexit or that Britain has substantial financial obligations to the EU budget that must be fulfilled.

 

Those obligations are not a Brexit bill or an exit fee, one senior EU official said, but simply reflect joint budget commitments that the U.K. agreed as a full-fledged EU member.

 

That issue will not go away, the official said. Were telling them it will be a problem.

 

One EU diplomat, asked how things went at the dinner in London, said: Badly. Really badly. The diplomat added: Thats what I think we have a possible scenario of great difficulty.

 

Pressed on different views of the U.K.s financial obligations, the diplomat said: Im not going to tell you their number, because you are going to laugh.

 

The diplomats overall verdict on the Brits? They are in a different galaxy.

[johnh]

So now they know their threats since Brexit are not working.