David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
As the quotes are from the Guardian few people will read it. It is interesting that they criticise Sunak's tax and spend policies with a straught face.
HMRC needs to recruit more old people. To play with your tax online, you need to answer two questions chosen from:-
Choose 2 items we can ask you about
UK passport
P60
Credit reference questions eg year you took out a credit card or phone contract
Northern Ireland driving licence
And no, I do not live in Northern Ireland. But look at number 3, which has presumably been written by a very recent graduate. Most of us have had credit cards and even phones for as long as we can remember, not three years ago when we left mum and dad to go off to university. Doesn't anyone check this rubbish?
You want bonkers.
Citibank took me through setting up security questions. One of the ones it wanted me to use was:
"What is the name of your youngest child?"
How retarded do you have to be not to realise that this might change?
I hope you gave the bank Little Bobby Tables full name.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
A quick thought on the UC taper. Reducing it to 50p or so (as happened to an extent yesterday) helps benefit claimants on the lowest three income deciles in particular.
Further reductions in the taper rate have very little additional impact on people in those deciles. They do, however, start to help people on or just below median income, almost as much as the initial cut helped people on lower incomes.
If you were to cut the taper rate to around 45p, the cost per annum would be roughly the same as the £20 uplift (compared with 63p). Would Sunak consider making that change before the next election? (The downside to this is the huge number of people who would then be UC claimants, which might not be good for the Conservatives in the long run).
This doesn't take into account behavioural responses.
That's the issue here - you really don't want people receiving UC or any tax credits when you start reaching median wages - especially because it will start to become regional then - people up north (low housing costs) wouldn't qualify and large numbers of people down south (higher housing / LHA rates) would.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Just because they lost doesn’t mean they have to shut up Big G.
No but it does mean we can discount their sour grapes.
The thing that struck me as most interesting yesterday is how much better the UK's outturn already is versus the OBR's predictions the Budget was made on. And they've "forecast" a 4% Brexit dip too . . . laughable, absolutely laughable.
Sunak really is clever. Next year he's going to be able to go to the despatch box and say the economy has gone even stronger than the last set of predictions and so he has more money available for either new spending or new tax cuts.
These arbitrary percentages are going to be irrelevant if the middle classes are decimated by stagnating wages and high inflation.
Middle England wins elections remember.
Sounds like an argument in favour of slavery for the poorest in society so that we can keep a contented middle class?
If that's what's required to win an election, I'd rather not win.
A quick thought on the UC taper. Reducing it to 50p or so (as happened to an extent yesterday) helps benefit claimants on the lowest three income deciles in particular.
Further reductions in the taper rate have very little additional impact on people in those deciles. They do, however, start to help people on or just below median income, almost as much as the initial cut helped people on lower incomes.
If you were to cut the taper rate to around 45p, the cost per annum would be roughly the same as the £20 uplift (compared with 63p). Would Sunak consider making that change before the next election? (The downside to this is the huge number of people who would then be UC claimants, which might not be good for the Conservatives in the long run).
This doesn't take into account behavioural responses.
That's the issue here - you really don't want people receiving UC or any tax credits when you start reaching median wages - especially because it will start to become regional then - people up north (low housing costs) wouldn't qualify and large numbers of people down south (higher housing / LHA rates) would.
The problem then is the ridiculous housing costs, rather than the taper rate.
A quick thought on the UC taper. Reducing it to 50p or so (as happened to an extent yesterday) helps benefit claimants on the lowest three income deciles in particular.
Further reductions in the taper rate have very little additional impact on people in those deciles. They do, however, start to help people on or just below median income, almost as much as the initial cut helped people on lower incomes.
If you were to cut the taper rate to around 45p, the cost per annum would be roughly the same as the £20 uplift (compared with 63p). Would Sunak consider making that change before the next election? (The downside to this is the huge number of people who would then be UC claimants, which might not be good for the Conservatives in the long run).
This doesn't take into account behavioural responses.
That's the issue here - you really don't want people receiving UC or any tax credits when you start reaching median wages - especially because it will start to become regional then - people up north (low housing costs) wouldn't qualify and large numbers of people down south (higher housing / LHA rates) would.
Just how much taxpayer subsidy is going to landlords in the southeast now ?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
They'll blame Covid. They already are, and it's already working.
For all that it might be true, desperately trying to convince Leave voters that it's Brexit to blame is not a message they will be receptive to. As a strategy it's a way of ensuring Tory governments until at least 2040.
There is a lot in that and it is why those who attempt to paint all the countries woes down to brexit will lose
I have no doubt the public see brexit as an element in the debate, but it is simply untrue it is the single issue at the heart of the countries problems
In fact this is a pretty crappy budget, short termist and utterly failing to address the structural crisis that the Tory Hard Brexit is creating for UK PLC.
The MoD got fucked. They are looking at real term cuts for the next three years plus unfunded commitments like the 1.25% employer NI rise and the National Flegship.
The manifesto promise of 0.5% above inflation annual adjustment to defence spending has been casually discarded.
What's new? Tories have been cutting the armed forces since the 1980s, secure in the knowledge that voters will blame Labour for being weak on defence.
It is amazing how many of the UK's problems are blamed on Labour when the Tories have been in power for the last 11 years and 29 of the last 42. I am sure there is no bias in such analysis at all.
But each time, the Tories inherit an economy broken by Labour. Of course we blame Labour for our ills. They are bloody useless managers.
"There is no money" will be on Labour's tombstone.
People reliant on food banks in 2010: 40,000. People reliant on food banks now: 2.5 million. Fixing the economy, Tory style.
People receiving free food is not the same as people being reliant upon it.
Talk to a school dinner lady and you'll hear some tales about food thrown away and given away.
The ONS has food inflation of 13% between 2010 and 2020.
Compared with food inflation of 40% between 2000 and 2010:
I rather suspect that food banks are giving away so much stuff that they're adding to obesity among the poor:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Culture*. There are chunks of the poorest parts of society where fitness is highly prized. And large sections where it is not.
Going to the gym x times a week is practically mandatory to be allowed into the middle class, of course.
*In a rather interesting sense - it seems to cut across racial origin lines, and be more about layers of social culture.
That's a very good observation.
Far too often 'the poor' are regarded as an amorphous block when in fact they can be separated into different segments, each with its different issues and each with its different solutions.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Just because they lost doesn’t mean they have to shut up Big G.
No but it does mean we can discount their sour grapes.
The thing that struck me as most interesting yesterday is how much better the UK's outturn already is versus the OBR's predictions the Budget was made on. And they've "forecast" a 4% Brexit dip too . . . laughable, absolutely laughable.
Sunak really is clever. Next year he's going to be able to go to the despatch box and say the economy has gone even stronger than the last set of predictions and so he has more money available for either new spending or new tax cuts.
These arbitrary percentages are going to be irrelevant if the middle classes are decimated by stagnating wages and high inflation.
Middle England wins elections remember.
Sounds like an argument in favour of slavery for the poorest in society so that we can keep a contented middle class?
If that's what's required to win an election, I'd rather not win.
Well, if we extend the idea that mass immigration is vital and so is low wages, then mass immigration combined with zero wages is the awesomest, isn't it?
We could certainly solve all the issues with the Channel crossing stuff....
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
Can you explain why Brexit means the government has to spend ~£500bn? What are they spending it on?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
1. If Brexit is so wonderful why is it anyone’s fault?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
Ok, so we blame remainers for the negative consequences of Brexit. Got it.
I do hope we also thank them for the positive consequences too. We will be doing that, won't we?
A quick thought on the UC taper. Reducing it to 50p or so (as happened to an extent yesterday) helps benefit claimants on the lowest three income deciles in particular.
Further reductions in the taper rate have very little additional impact on people in those deciles. They do, however, start to help people on or just below median income, almost as much as the initial cut helped people on lower incomes.
If you were to cut the taper rate to around 45p, the cost per annum would be roughly the same as the £20 uplift (compared with 63p). Would Sunak consider making that change before the next election? (The downside to this is the huge number of people who would then be UC claimants, which might not be good for the Conservatives in the long run).
This doesn't take into account behavioural responses.
That's the issue here - you really don't want people receiving UC or any tax credits when you start reaching median wages - especially because it will start to become regional then - people up north (low housing costs) wouldn't qualify and large numbers of people down south (higher housing / LHA rates) would.
Just how much taxpayer subsidy is going to landlords in the southeast now ?
More than I would prefer...
But less than it will be next year because a lot of areas (outside London) have seen rents increase dramatically.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
In fact this is a pretty crappy budget, short termist and utterly failing to address the structural crisis that the Tory Hard Brexit is creating for UK PLC.
The MoD got fucked. They are looking at real term cuts for the next three years plus unfunded commitments like the 1.25% employer NI rise and the National Flegship.
The manifesto promise of 0.5% above inflation annual adjustment to defence spending has been casually discarded.
What's new? Tories have been cutting the armed forces since the 1980s, secure in the knowledge that voters will blame Labour for being weak on defence.
It is amazing how many of the UK's problems are blamed on Labour when the Tories have been in power for the last 11 years and 29 of the last 42. I am sure there is no bias in such analysis at all.
But each time, the Tories inherit an economy broken by Labour. Of course we blame Labour for our ills. They are bloody useless managers.
"There is no money" will be on Labour's tombstone.
People reliant on food banks in 2010: 40,000. People reliant on food banks now: 2.5 million. Fixing the economy, Tory style.
People receiving free food is not the same as people being reliant upon it.
Talk to a school dinner lady and you'll hear some tales about food thrown away and given away.
The ONS has food inflation of 13% between 2010 and 2020.
Compared with food inflation of 40% between 2000 and 2010:
I rather suspect that food banks are giving away so much stuff that they're adding to obesity among the poor:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Culture*. There are chunks of the poorest parts of society where fitness is highly prized. And large sections where it is not.
Going to the gym x times a week is practically mandatory to be allowed into the middle class, of course.
*In a rather interesting sense - it seems to cut across racial origin lines, and be more about layers of social culture.
That's a very good observation.
Far too often 'the poor' are regarded as an amorphous block when in fact they can be separated into different segments, each with its different issues and each with its different solutions.
For example, near where I live, there are 2 cycling culture on the housing estates. One is young gentlemen (nearly all) riding mountain bikes with tires that are fat enough to use on a moped. The other (more equally mixed across the sexes) is about building the leanest, lightest bike out of scrounged bits - think fixies.
A chap at the local high end bike shop says that any vaguely usable second hand part is snapped up, when he offers it for sale - he does a good trade in cast off/damaged stuff being recycled like this.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
A quick thought on the UC taper. Reducing it to 50p or so (as happened to an extent yesterday) helps benefit claimants on the lowest three income deciles in particular.
Further reductions in the taper rate have very little additional impact on people in those deciles. They do, however, start to help people on or just below median income, almost as much as the initial cut helped people on lower incomes.
If you were to cut the taper rate to around 45p, the cost per annum would be roughly the same as the £20 uplift (compared with 63p). Would Sunak consider making that change before the next election? (The downside to this is the huge number of people who would then be UC claimants, which might not be good for the Conservatives in the long run).
This doesn't take into account behavioural responses.
That's the issue here - you really don't want people receiving UC or any tax credits when you start reaching median wages - especially because it will start to become regional then - people up north (low housing costs) wouldn't qualify and large numbers of people down south (higher housing / LHA rates) would.
Just how much taxpayer subsidy is going to landlords in the southeast now ?
More than I would prefer...
But less than it will be next year because a lot of areas (outside London) have seen rents increase dramatically.
And the work allowance/taper subsidises employers. Yet in-work poverty remains exceptionally high in the UK.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
They'll blame Covid. They already are, and it's already working.
For all that it might be true, desperately trying to convince Leave voters that it's Brexit to blame is not a message they will be receptive to. As a strategy it's a way of ensuring Tory governments until at least 2040.
There is a lot in that and it is why those who attempt to paint all the countries woes down to brexit will lose
I have no doubt the public see brexit as an element in the debate, but it is simply untrue it is the single issue at the heart of the countries problems
But is anyone here saying that Brexit is the single issue? That's just a fantasy Remainiac that someone has invented to scare you.
And as for "They will lose"... A reminder of the latest polling on that;
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?
Any suggestions for a couple going to London for a long weekend? Doing the Abbey tomorrow morning, but feel we have exhausted all the other main attractions (done Wallace Collection in the past, etc)
Also restaurants that won't empty two twenty-somethings bank accounts.
On one of those fancy new blue trains. It is nice.
Not a restaurant (and not romantic candle-lit dinner for two), but there's good food to be had here, of all types: https://www.mercatometropolitano.com/
I've only been to Elephant and Castle one, south side of the river, not far from Tate Modern, Southwark Cathedral, the Globe, Borough Market etc if any of those float your boat so to speak. There are two others apparently.
Otherwise, a wander round Greenwich including Greenwich Park is quite nice. Could go on the airline if you want to channel your inner Boris. The parliament tours are also interesting if you've not done one of those (might also depend on your other half's interests!)
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
1. If Brexit is so wonderful why is it anyone’s fault?
2. Why are Remainers to be blamed?
1 - Brexit benefits will grow year by year despite those wishing it to be a total failure
2 - If you support the EU then the case should have been won to retain the membership
A quick thought on the UC taper. Reducing it to 50p or so (as happened to an extent yesterday) helps benefit claimants on the lowest three income deciles in particular.
Further reductions in the taper rate have very little additional impact on people in those deciles. They do, however, start to help people on or just below median income, almost as much as the initial cut helped people on lower incomes.
If you were to cut the taper rate to around 45p, the cost per annum would be roughly the same as the £20 uplift (compared with 63p). Would Sunak consider making that change before the next election? (The downside to this is the huge number of people who would then be UC claimants, which might not be good for the Conservatives in the long run).
This doesn't take into account behavioural responses.
That's the issue here - you really don't want people receiving UC or any tax credits when you start reaching median wages - especially because it will start to become regional then - people up north (low housing costs) wouldn't qualify and large numbers of people down south (higher housing / LHA rates) would.
The problem then is the ridiculous housing costs, rather than the taper rate.
The other problem is the perversity of Landlord Benefit as Housing Benefit should really be called.
If the funding was really to pay for people's housing then they'd have a budget and be able to spend it however they choose to spend it and if that means putting it towards a mortgage which can be much cheaper than paying for a landlord's mortgage plus profit for the landlord then great.
But its not. That's forbidden. Even if its cheaper to pay for your own home, you can only claim the benefit if you give it to someone else. Even if that's at a higher cost to the Exchequer. Its perverse and it screws up the housing market.
If the rules were reversed so Housing Benefit could only go towards a mortgage (or a Council House) and not to a Landlord then you'd completely transform the housing market and a lot of the parasites buying other people's homes would leave the sector. But I wouldn't propose that, if you're going to have a housing allowance for people then I'd support a free market solution - let people choose how to spend that housing allowance, no restrictions. If that means buying their own home instead of letting off someone else, then great, what's wrong with that?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
Trade with the sclerotic US has flatlined since 2007. If only Bush hadn't signed America up to join the EUSSR! Out out out!
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
Ok, so we blame remainers for the negative consequences of Brexit. Got it.
I do hope we also thank them for the positive consequences too. We will be doing that, won't we?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
1. If Brexit is so wonderful why is it anyone’s fault?
2. Why are Remainers to be blamed?
1 - Brexit benefits will grow year by year despite those wishing it to be a total failure
2 - If you support the EU then the case should have been won to retain the membership
Surely even you don't dispute the fundamental dishonesty of the NHS claim? Most of your lot applaud the cleverness of the lie. Classic Dom, overstating the sum because he knew that would keep it in the news.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
They'll blame Covid. They already are, and it's already working.
For all that it might be true, desperately trying to convince Leave voters that it's Brexit to blame is not a message they will be receptive to. As a strategy it's a way of ensuring Tory governments until at least 2040.
There is a lot in that and it is why those who attempt to paint all the countries woes down to brexit will lose
I have no doubt the public see brexit as an element in the debate, but it is simply untrue it is the single issue at the heart of the countries problems
But is anyone here saying that Brexit is the single issue? That's just a fantasy Remainiac that someone has invented to scare you.
And as for "They will lose"... A reminder of the latest polling on that;
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
Ok, so we blame remainers for the negative consequences of Brexit. Got it.
I do hope we also thank them for the positive consequences too. We will be doing that, won't we?
Time for you to move on from patronising comments
I'm just asking you to treat yourself fairly. By all means beat yourself up for failing to convince more people to join you in the remain lobby, but if you're going to self-flagellate over the Brexit harms, you could at least slap yourself on the back for the Brexit benefits. Your and Gauke's failure to convince the country has unlocked a trove of independence, retrieved the lagan of sovereignty from the sunken depths. What an achievement!
Hip hip hurrah for David Gauke! Three red, white, and blue cheers for Big_G!
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
They'll blame Covid. They already are, and it's already working.
For all that it might be true, desperately trying to convince Leave voters that it's Brexit to blame is not a message they will be receptive to. As a strategy it's a way of ensuring Tory governments until at least 2040.
There is a lot in that and it is why those who attempt to paint all the countries woes down to brexit will lose
I have no doubt the public see brexit as an element in the debate, but it is simply untrue it is the single issue at the heart of the countries problems
But is anyone here saying that Brexit is the single issue? That's just a fantasy Remainiac that someone has invented to scare you.
And as for "They will lose"... A reminder of the latest polling on that;
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
1. If Brexit is so wonderful why is it anyone’s fault?
2. Why are Remainers to be blamed?
1 - Brexit benefits will grow year by year despite those wishing it to be a total failure
2 - If you support the EU then the case should have been won to retain the membership
Surely even you don't dispute the fundamental dishonesty of the NHS claim? Most of your lot applaud the cleverness of the lie. Classic Dom, overstating the sum because he knew that would keep it in the news.
The money going into the NHS exceeds the bus quote but the remain camp should have been able to win the case and did not
The country is out of the EU and many cannot accept that which is fair enough
However, the arguments are tedious, the UK is changing in many ways and it is significant that apart from the SNP and Plaid, no political party is promoting re-joining the EU
Even the Lib Dems are scared of standing on an honest re-join commitment
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
Ok, so we blame remainers for the negative consequences of Brexit. Got it.
I do hope we also thank them for the positive consequences too. We will be doing that, won't we?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
I think it’s a terrible sign of idiocy when people reject commentators saying something perfectly lucid just because they were/are “pro Remain”*
*”pro-Remain”, rather than “pro-EU”, because to describe Remainers as EU partisans is another sign of idiocy.
It’s not a lucid comment though - it’s a conflation of two different things (AIUI) to make a political point
COVID has caused a 2% decline in GDP as a one time shock. It *has* occurred and is expected to be caught up over time
The Brexit calculation is a *prediction* about future output gap. GDP isn’t smaller as a result of Brexit, but the OBR thinks the economy will grow less fast. They may be right but they may not
I think you are disingenuously trying to undermine the tweet because the logical argument is rather inconvenient to you.
No. The Tweet is misleading.
There is a reasonable argument about whether Brexit will reduce GDP in future. Quite possibly it will (although GDP per capita is more complicated). People determined that cost was acceptable as a trade off for other perceived advantages
But a predicted output gap is not the same as a one time impact. It just isn’t.
Gauke’s tweet (and others like it) are disingenuous and manipulative.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
Ok, so we blame remainers for the negative consequences of Brexit. Got it.
I do hope we also thank them for the positive consequences too. We will be doing that, won't we?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
Can you explain why Brexit means the government has to spend ~£500bn? What are they spending it on?
You might say that Covid definitely hits the economy harder than brexit. The OBR says the opposite. Tories insist the OBR is a studiously neutral observer and the definitive voice on economics. So it must be true. Which unfortunately means you are wrong on this one.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
1. If Brexit is so wonderful why is it anyone’s fault?
2. Why are Remainers to be blamed?
1 - Brexit benefits will grow year by year despite those wishing it to be a total failure
2 - If you support the EU then the case should have been won to retain the membership
Surely even you don't dispute the fundamental dishonesty of the NHS claim? Most of your lot applaud the cleverness of the lie. Classic Dom, overstating the sum because he knew that would keep it in the news.
The money going into the NHS exceeds the bus quote but the remain camp should have been able to win the case and did not
The country is out of the EU and many cannot accept that which is fair enough
However, the arguments are tedious, the UK is changing in many ways and it is significant that apart from the SNP and Plaid, no political party is promoting re-joining the EU
Even the Lib Dems are scared of standing on an honest re-join commitment
You think the extra money going to the NHS is genuine net gain from Brexit? And you don't mind being lied to?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
Can you explain why Brexit means the government has to spend ~£500bn? What are they spending it on?
You might say that Covid definitely hits the economy harder than brexit. The OBR says the opposite. Tories insist the OBR is a studiously neutral observer and the definitive voice on economics. So it must be true. Which unfortunately means you are wrong on this one.
No, that is not what the OBR is saying. The tax rises to pay for covid have nothing to do with OBR forecasts but about real costs already incurred.
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
Can you explain why Brexit means the government has to spend ~£500bn? What are they spending it on?
You might say that Covid definitely hits the economy harder than brexit. The OBR says the opposite. Tories insist the OBR is a studiously neutral observer and the definitive voice on economics. So it must be true. Which unfortunately means you are wrong on this one.
We’ve been down this road several times.
The stock response is to denounce the OBR as liars, or, if that doesn’t work, simply say that all projections must be bunk by definition.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
My position on this was - as is - identical to BigG's. Very much a reluctant remainer - a narrow pragmatic remainer if you like - who is now at peace with the new status quo.
Those who want to rejoin the EU from here need to say what they mean. Do they mean with no rebate? Giving up our currency? Do they mean at any cost?
Any suggestions for a couple going to London for a long weekend? Doing the Abbey tomorrow morning, but feel we have exhausted all the other main attractions (done Wallace Collection in the past, etc)
Also restaurants that won't empty two twenty-somethings bank accounts.
On one of those fancy new blue trains. It is nice.
Not a restaurant (and not romantic candle-lit dinner for two), but there's good food to be had here, of all types: https://www.mercatometropolitano.com/
I've only been to Elephant and Castle one, south side of the river, not far from Tate Modern, Southwark Cathedral, the Globe, Borough Market etc if any of those float your boat so to speak. There are two others apparently.
Otherwise, a wander round Greenwich including Greenwich Park is quite nice. Could go on the airline if you want to channel your inner Boris. The parliament tours are also interesting if you've not done one of those (might also depend on your other half's interests!)
Yes, Greenwich is well worth a visit if the weather is decent. Basing the weekend around markets works well. Borough Market and Maltby Street, Portobello Road, Camden, Columbia Road (on Sunday), Brixton. They all have decent affordable food around too.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
My position on this was - as is - identical to BigG's. Very much a reluctant remainer - a narrow remainer if you like - who is now at peace with the new status quo.
Those who want to rejoin the EU from here need to say what they mean. Do they mean with no rebate? Giving up our currency? Do they mean at any cost?
Nobody on here this morning, and nor does Gauke’s tweet, suggests rejoining the EU.
It’s another straw man set up by Brexiters who increasingly find themselves having to explain away reality (see Philip’s utter tosh above).
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
1. If Brexit is so wonderful why is it anyone’s fault?
2. Why are Remainers to be blamed?
1 - Brexit benefits will grow year by year despite those wishing it to be a total failure
2 - If you support the EU then the case should have been won to retain the membership
Surely even you don't dispute the fundamental dishonesty of the NHS claim? Most of your lot applaud the cleverness of the lie. Classic Dom, overstating the sum because he knew that would keep it in the news.
The money going into the NHS exceeds the bus quote but the remain camp should have been able to win the case and did not
The country is out of the EU and many cannot accept that which is fair enough
However, the arguments are tedious, the UK is changing in many ways and it is significant that apart from the SNP and Plaid, no political party is promoting re-joining the EU
Even the Lib Dems are scared of standing on an honest re-join commitment
You think the extra money going to the NHS is genuine net gain from Brexit? And you don't mind being lied to?
I do not think being lied to is solely a brexit matter, it happens across politics all the time
Re the French hysteria Re a small number of fishing licences how feasible is it for the UK Gov to start having talks with the Belgians and Dutch (as the next closest countries geographically in the channel) to boost their port operations to the point that all EU/UK trade carries on through their ports to end need for French ports?
Whilst French fishers are a noisy bunch the locals authorities and Unions reliant on UK French trade at Calais etc represent far more people and a far larger part of the economy and so if their livelihoods are threatened by idiotic behaviour by the French then it might be the pressure point needed.
If Ireland worked on increasing shipping around the UK which is a longer route then surely it’s feasible to divert to Belgium/Netherlands and am sure they would welcome the economic boost…..
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
This is word salad.
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
Can you explain why Brexit means the government has to spend ~£500bn? What are they spending it on?
You might say that Covid definitely hits the economy harder than brexit. The OBR says the opposite. Tories insist the OBR is a studiously neutral observer and the definitive voice on economics. So it must be true. Which unfortunately means you are wrong on this one.
No, that is not what the OBR is saying. The tax rises to pay for covid have nothing to do with OBR forecasts but about real costs already incurred.
It is literally what the Chair of the OBR is saying. Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
We've taken a short term hit due to Covid. Taxes going up. Its because of Covid says the government. We're seeing the start of the Brexit impact which the OBR says will be twice as expensive. Which will mean more tax rises - if we're lucky we can inflate away some of it.
Re the French hysteria Re a small number of fishing licences how feasible is it for the UK Gov to start having talks with the Belgians and Dutch (as the next closest countries geographically in the channel) to boost their port operations to the point that all EU/UK trade carries on through their ports to end need for French ports?
Whilst French fishers are a noisy bunch the locals authorities and Unions reliant on UK French trade at Calais etc represent far more people and a far larger part of the economy and so if their livelihoods are threatened by idiotic behaviour by the French then it might be the pressure point needed.
If Ireland worked on increasing shipping around the UK which is a longer route then surely it’s feasible to divert to Belgium/Netherlands and am sure they would welcome the economic boost…..
Interestingly the Belgians have been trying to win UK Shipping trade. The thing is now the negotiations are over post-Brexit we're now customers to be won to them, not someone to be negotiated with as a bloc.
The French have responded by trying to illegally build windfarms in the shipping lane to bloc the lane.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
All the tariffs that UK businesses have to pay. And even when they don't have to pay the reams of paperwork they have to prepare to show that the product is in a zero tariff class. Which then has to be checked adding to cost and delivery time.
"No tariffs" is either ignorance or stupidity. I don't think you are either yet you say something demonstrably false. Why?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
Can you explain why Brexit means the government has to spend ~£500bn? What are they spending it on?
You might say that Covid definitely hits the economy harder than brexit. The OBR says the opposite. Tories insist the OBR is a studiously neutral observer and the definitive voice on economics. So it must be true. Which unfortunately means you are wrong on this one.
No, that is not what the OBR is saying. The tax rises to pay for covid have nothing to do with OBR forecasts but about real costs already incurred.
It is literally what the Chair of the OBR is saying. Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
We've taken a short term hit due to Covid. Taxes going up. Its because of Covid says the government. We're seeing the start of the Brexit impact which the OBR says will be twice as expensive. Which will mean more tax rises - if we're lucky we can inflate away some of it.
Taxes are not going up because of overall the impact on GDP from covid but because the government had to borrow and spend real money to pay for it.
A quick thought on the UC taper. Reducing it to 50p or so (as happened to an extent yesterday) helps benefit claimants on the lowest three income deciles in particular.
Further reductions in the taper rate have very little additional impact on people in those deciles. They do, however, start to help people on or just below median income, almost as much as the initial cut helped people on lower incomes.
If you were to cut the taper rate to around 45p, the cost per annum would be roughly the same as the £20 uplift (compared with 63p). Would Sunak consider making that change before the next election? (The downside to this is the huge number of people who would then be UC claimants, which might not be good for the Conservatives in the long run).
This doesn't take into account behavioural responses.
That's the issue here - you really don't want people receiving UC or any tax credits when you start reaching median wages - especially because it will start to become regional then - people up north (low housing costs) wouldn't qualify and large numbers of people down south (higher housing / LHA rates) would.
The problem then is the ridiculous housing costs, rather than the taper rate.
The other problem is the perversity of Landlord Benefit as Housing Benefit should really be called.
If the funding was really to pay for people's housing then they'd have a budget and be able to spend it however they choose to spend it and if that means putting it towards a mortgage which can be much cheaper than paying for a landlord's mortgage plus profit for the landlord then great.
But its not. That's forbidden. Even if its cheaper to pay for your own home, you can only claim the benefit if you give it to someone else. Even if that's at a higher cost to the Exchequer. Its perverse and it screws up the housing market.
If the rules were reversed so Housing Benefit could only go towards a mortgage (or a Council House) and not to a Landlord then you'd completely transform the housing market and a lot of the parasites buying other people's homes would leave the sector. But I wouldn't propose that, if you're going to have a housing allowance for people then I'd support a free market solution - let people choose how to spend that housing allowance, no restrictions. If that means buying their own home instead of letting off someone else, then great, what's wrong with that?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
My position on this was - as is - identical to BigG's. Very much a reluctant remainer - a narrow pragmatic remainer if you like - who is now at peace with the new status quo.
Those who want to rejoin the EU from here need to say what they mean. Do they mean with no rebate? Giving up our currency? Do they mean at any cost?
You might be at peace with the status quo, but it's evident Big_G isn't, since any time anything critical appears he declaims it as people "not moving on". Which would be a ridiculous thing even when it's true. Often it isn't even true.
Unreconciled remainers ARE allowed to criticise aspects of Brexit. And reconciled ones. And dyed-in-the-wool Brexiters, and regretful ones too. All sources of opinion are valid. I can't really believe I even have to make this argument, that's how bloody obvious it is.
Re the French hysteria Re a small number of fishing licences how feasible is it for the UK Gov to start having talks with the Belgians and Dutch (as the next closest countries geographically in the channel) to boost their port operations to the point that all EU/UK trade carries on through their ports to end need for French ports?
Whilst French fishers are a noisy bunch the locals authorities and Unions reliant on UK French trade at Calais etc represent far more people and a far larger part of the economy and so if their livelihoods are threatened by idiotic behaviour by the French then it might be the pressure point needed.
If Ireland worked on increasing shipping around the UK which is a longer route then surely it’s feasible to divert to Belgium/Netherlands and am sure they would welcome the economic boost…..
I believe that may already be happening with Ostend very keen to pick up cross channel trade with the UK
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
This is word salad.
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
So you're incapable of addressing a single issue where our trade is more complicated than non-Customs Union nations in the EFTA?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
All the tariffs that UK businesses have to pay. And even when they don't have to pay the reams of paperwork they have to prepare to show that the product is in a zero tariff class. Which then has to be checked adding to cost and delivery time.
"No tariffs" is either ignorance or stupidity. I don't think you are either yet you say something demonstrably false. Why?
So that doesn't happen in Norway or Switzerland then? What are all the Norwegian customs posts doing?
You're the one who kept singing like a canary about how much customs paperwork was needed at those borders as part of why we had to keep a customs union. Now you're discounting it. Have you had another Damascene conversion?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
Can you explain why Brexit means the government has to spend ~£500bn? What are they spending it on?
You might say that Covid definitely hits the economy harder than brexit. The OBR says the opposite. Tories insist the OBR is a studiously neutral observer and the definitive voice on economics. So it must be true. Which unfortunately means you are wrong on this one.
No, that is not what the OBR is saying. The tax rises to pay for covid have nothing to do with OBR forecasts but about real costs already incurred.
It is literally what the Chair of the OBR is saying. Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
We've taken a short term hit due to Covid. Taxes going up. Its because of Covid says the government. We're seeing the start of the Brexit impact which the OBR says will be twice as expensive. Which will mean more tax rises - if we're lucky we can inflate away some of it.
Taxes are not going up because of overall the impact on GDP from covid but because the government had to borrow and spend real money to pay for it.
Costs have gone up - Covid. Revenues have gone down - Covid. Its both. As set out in simple terms by the OBR.
I don't get it. Either the OBR are the official government repository of truth or they are not. You can't say "that part is true" and then "that part is false".
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
This is word salad.
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
So you're incapable of addressing a single issue where our trade is more complicated than non-Customs Union nations in the EFTA?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
This is word salad.
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
So you're incapable of addressing a single issue where our trade is more complicated than non-Customs Union nations in the EFTA?
Are we still in the single market, yes or no?
No.
Are Norway, Switzerland etc in the Customs Union, yes or no?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
My position on this was - as is - identical to BigG's. Very much a reluctant remainer - a narrow pragmatic remainer if you like - who is now at peace with the new status quo.
Those who want to rejoin the EU from here need to say what they mean. Do they mean with no rebate? Giving up our currency? Do they mean at any cost?
You might be at peace with the status quo, but it's evident Big_G isn't, since any time anything critical appears he declaims it as people "not moving on". Which would be a ridiculous thing even when it's true. Often it isn't even true.
Unreconciled remainers ARE allowed to criticise aspects of Brexit. And reconciled ones. And dyed-in-the-wool Brexiters, and regretful ones too. All sources of opinion are valid. I can't really believe I even have to make this argument, that's how bloody obvious it is.
I've liked both this post and the one from Stocky that you were replying too. I think this implies one or more of: - I'm indecisive - I'm confused - Possibly the two of you are not really disagreeing
Edit: some bits of the discussion (not yours or Stocky's posts) are really odd. I can criticise the government without people accusing me of not accepting the 2019 election result. I'd even be allowed to do that if I'd voted Conservative. Should apply to Brexit too, obviously.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
This is word salad.
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
So you're incapable of addressing a single issue where our trade is more complicated than non-Customs Union nations in the EFTA?
Are we still in the single market, yes or no?
No.
Are Norway, Switzerland etc in the Customs Union, yes or no?
No.
Although that has nothing to do with my original post. You just started talking about it because you think throwing in irrelevancies will help your argument.
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Mobile phone broken. Not charging. Done all the usual stuff to see if can get it working. New one coming in 1-3 days assuming DPD can find a delivery driver to swim here.
But I - being a hardy country soul these days - am going to venture out to visit my local techie guru and see what miracles he can perform in the interim.
Then I must do some serious work and also prepare for my starring role this weekend as the Quiz Mistress in the Village Halloween Quiz! I know - life is so exciting here. I bet you're all envious.
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
A gentle reminder that the invasion of France was Morris Dancer Party policy way back when Brown was PM. Once again, the wiffle stick visionaries are decades ahead of the mainstream!
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
This is word salad.
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
So you're incapable of addressing a single issue where our trade is more complicated than non-Customs Union nations in the EFTA?
Are we still in the single market, yes or no?
No.
Are Norway, Switzerland etc in the Customs Union, yes or no?
No.
Although that has nothing to do with my original post. You just started talking about it because you think throwing in irrelevancies will help your argument.
It does have to do with your original post, since your original post tried to lump in the non-Customs Union nations into a discussion about the EU.
The rest of the Single Market isn't a part of the EU and has to deal with border pedantry, just like we do. So frigging what?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
This is word salad.
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
So you're incapable of addressing a single issue where our trade is more complicated than non-Customs Union nations in the EFTA?
Are we still in the single market, yes or no?
No.
Are Norway, Switzerland etc in the Customs Union, yes or no?
No.
Although that has nothing to do with my original post. You just started talking about it because you think throwing in irrelevancies will help your argument.
It does have to do with your original post, since your original post tried to lump in the non-Customs Union nations into a discussion about the EU.
The rest of the Single Market isn't a part of the EU and has to deal with border pedantry, just like we do. So frigging what?
Because the status quo ante was low friction with those countries - over 50% of our trade - and now we have more friction.
By all means tell me that more friction is less important than is suggested, but don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
Mobile phone broken. Not charging. Done all the usual stuff to see if can get it working. New one coming in 1-3 days assuming DPD can find a delivery driver to swim here.
But I - being a hardy country soul these days - am going to venture out to visit my local techie guru and see what miracles he can perform in the interim.
Then I must do some serious work and also prepare for my starring role this weekend as the Quiz Mistress in the Village Halloween Quiz! I know - life is so exciting here. I bet you're all envious.
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
This is word salad.
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
So you're incapable of addressing a single issue where our trade is more complicated than non-Customs Union nations in the EFTA?
Are we still in the single market, yes or no?
No.
Are Norway, Switzerland etc in the Customs Union, yes or no?
No.
Although that has nothing to do with my original post. You just started talking about it because you think throwing in irrelevancies will help your argument.
It does have to do with your original post, since your original post tried to lump in the non-Customs Union nations into a discussion about the EU.
The rest of the Single Market isn't a part of the EU and has to deal with border pedantry, just like we do. So frigging what?
Because the status quo ante was low friction with those countries - over 50% of our trade - and now we have more friction.
By all means tell me that more friction is less important than is suggested, but don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
Actually we did have to deal with that friction with Norway etc.
The only ones we didn't have to deal with that friction over are the EU. Which were less than 50% of our trade.
You can't lump non-EU nations into a discussion over friction when they deal with the friction too and the status quo ante was we had friction with them. 🤦♂️
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
Can you explain why Brexit means the government has to spend ~£500bn? What are they spending it on?
You might say that Covid definitely hits the economy harder than brexit. The OBR says the opposite. Tories insist the OBR is a studiously neutral observer and the definitive voice on economics. So it must be true. Which unfortunately means you are wrong on this one.
No, that is not what the OBR is saying. The tax rises to pay for covid have nothing to do with OBR forecasts but about real costs already incurred.
It is literally what the Chair of the OBR is saying. Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
We've taken a short term hit due to Covid. Taxes going up. Its because of Covid says the government. We're seeing the start of the Brexit impact which the OBR says will be twice as expensive. Which will mean more tax rises - if we're lucky we can inflate away some of it.
Taxes are not going up because of overall the impact on GDP from covid but because the government had to borrow and spend real money to pay for it.
Costs have gone up - Covid. Revenues have gone down - Covid. Its both. As set out in simple terms by the OBR.
I don't get it. Either the OBR are the official government repository of truth or they are not. You can't say "that part is true" and then "that part is false".
Forecasts are not "truth".
Suppose the OBR had said the overall impact from covid on GDP was zero. The government would still need to cover the cost of it. Your logic seems to be "smaller GDP = higher taxes", but that's not why taxes are rising.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
They won you over
I was very conflicted in the referendum and on balance voted to remain but really had no love of the EU, but as a democratic vote was held and leave won I back that vote and am very much settled in the view I do not want to re-join the EU
So? You voted remain. Thou citizen of nowhere, thou enemy of the people. You can't regain your purity now by shutting down anything that your fellow-traveller Gauke says, even if you do it from here to eternity. Thy political soul is damned!
I am not shutting down Gauke, I am criticising him and his fellow travellers for not making the case to remain and win
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
1. If Brexit is so wonderful why is it anyone’s fault?
2. Why are Remainers to be blamed?
1 - Brexit benefits will grow year by year despite those wishing it to be a total failure
2 - If you support the EU then the case should have been won to retain the membership
Surely even you don't dispute the fundamental dishonesty of the NHS claim? Most of your lot applaud the cleverness of the lie. Classic Dom, overstating the sum because he knew that would keep it in the news.
The money going into the NHS exceeds the bus quote but the remain camp should have been able to win the case and did not
The country is out of the EU and many cannot accept that which is fair enough
However, the arguments are tedious, the UK is changing in many ways and it is significant that apart from the SNP and Plaid, no political party is promoting re-joining the EU
Even the Lib Dems are scared of standing on an honest re-join commitment
Like you Mr G, I've seen, and even worked in, quite a lot of elections. I was also very active in the 1975 Referendum campaign. And the Remain campaign was outstanding in my mind for the lack of passion and effort on the part of those at the top, especially on the Government side, who appeared for much of the time to assume that everything would go their way.
Mobile phone broken. Not charging. Done all the usual stuff to see if can get it working. New one coming in 1-3 days assuming DPD can find a delivery driver to swim here.
But I - being a hardy country soul these days - am going to venture out to visit my local techie guru and see what miracles he can perform in the interim.
Then I must do some serious work and also prepare for my starring role this weekend as the Quiz Mistress in the Village Halloween Quiz! I know - life is so exciting here. I bet you're all envious.
As for the budget - meh .....
Perhaps you should aspire to be compere of Mistressmind? BBC are always on the lookout for new talent.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
This is word salad.
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
So you're incapable of addressing a single issue where our trade is more complicated than non-Customs Union nations in the EFTA?
Are we still in the single market, yes or no?
No.
Are Norway, Switzerland etc in the Customs Union, yes or no?
No.
Although that has nothing to do with my original post. You just started talking about it because you think throwing in irrelevancies will help your argument.
It does have to do with your original post, since your original post tried to lump in the non-Customs Union nations into a discussion about the EU.
The rest of the Single Market isn't a part of the EU and has to deal with border pedantry, just like we do. So frigging what?
Because the status quo ante was low friction with those countries - over 50% of our trade - and now we have more friction.
By all means tell me that more friction is less important than is suggested, but don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
Actually we did have to deal with that friction with Norway etc.
The only ones we didn't have to deal with that friction over are the EU. Which were less than 50% of our trade.
You can't lump non-EU nations into a discussion over friction when they deal with the friction too and the status quo ante was we had friction with them. 🤦♂️
All true, apart from the fact we were in the single market alongside Norway and (de facto) Switzerland.
Re the French hysteria Re a small number of fishing licences how feasible is it for the UK Gov to start having talks with the Belgians and Dutch (as the next closest countries geographically in the channel) to boost their port operations to the point that all EU/UK trade carries on through their ports to end need for French ports?
Whilst French fishers are a noisy bunch the locals authorities and Unions reliant on UK French trade at Calais etc represent far more people and a far larger part of the economy and so if their livelihoods are threatened by idiotic behaviour by the French then it might be the pressure point needed.
If Ireland worked on increasing shipping around the UK which is a longer route then surely it’s feasible to divert to Belgium/Netherlands and am sure they would welcome the economic boost…..
Interestingly the Belgians have been trying to win UK Shipping trade. The thing is now the negotiations are over post-Brexit we're now customers to be won to them, not someone to be negotiated with as a bloc.
The French have responded by trying to illegally build windfarms in the shipping lane to bloc the lane.
I don't know why we treat France as an ally, we have more problems with France than the rest of Europe put together. If it's feasible to do trade with other European countries instead we should pursue it, because France is not a friend of the UK.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
Can you explain why Brexit means the government has to spend ~£500bn? What are they spending it on?
You might say that Covid definitely hits the economy harder than brexit. The OBR says the opposite. Tories insist the OBR is a studiously neutral observer and the definitive voice on economics. So it must be true. Which unfortunately means you are wrong on this one.
No, that is not what the OBR is saying. The tax rises to pay for covid have nothing to do with OBR forecasts but about real costs already incurred.
It is literally what the Chair of the OBR is saying. Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
We've taken a short term hit due to Covid. Taxes going up. Its because of Covid says the government. We're seeing the start of the Brexit impact which the OBR says will be twice as expensive. Which will mean more tax rises - if we're lucky we can inflate away some of it.
Taxes are not going up because of overall the impact on GDP from covid but because the government had to borrow and spend real money to pay for it.
Costs have gone up - Covid. Revenues have gone down - Covid. Its both. As set out in simple terms by the OBR.
I don't get it. Either the OBR are the official government repository of truth or they are not. You can't say "that part is true" and then "that part is false".
Forecasts are not "truth".
Suppose the OBR had said the overall impact from covid on GDP was zero. The government would still need to cover the cost of it. Your logic seems to be "smaller GDP = higher taxes", but that's not why taxes are rising.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
That's a failure of the EU, not a failure of Brexit.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
I very much doubt a “sclerotic” EU explains away the significant gap already opening up this year.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
The non-EU elements of the Single Market shouldn't be included in comparisons on customs etc because they're not a part of the Customs Union and so not subject to the Common External Tariff etc
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Astonishingly false.
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Apart from customs, which Switzerland etc have to deal with, then how have we meaningfully increased friction when we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal?
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
If you really think trading conditions with the single market are the same as before, it explains a hell of a lot.
I don't think they're the same as before, nor do I think they should be the same as before. That's not what I said, are you incapable of reading?
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
This is word salad.
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
So you're incapable of addressing a single issue where our trade is more complicated than non-Customs Union nations in the EFTA?
Are we still in the single market, yes or no?
No.
Are Norway, Switzerland etc in the Customs Union, yes or no?
No.
Although that has nothing to do with my original post. You just started talking about it because you think throwing in irrelevancies will help your argument.
It does have to do with your original post, since your original post tried to lump in the non-Customs Union nations into a discussion about the EU.
The rest of the Single Market isn't a part of the EU and has to deal with border pedantry, just like we do. So frigging what?
Because the status quo ante was low friction with those countries - over 50% of our trade - and now we have more friction.
By all means tell me that more friction is less important than is suggested, but don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
Actually we did have to deal with that friction with Norway etc.
The only ones we didn't have to deal with that friction over are the EU. Which were less than 50% of our trade.
You can't lump non-EU nations into a discussion over friction when they deal with the friction too and the status quo ante was we had friction with them. 🤦♂️
All true, apart from the fact we were in the single market alongside Norway and (de facto) Switzerland.
And now we ain’t.
So, 100% false, then.
The friction comes primarily from customs and not the Single Market, so yes the friction was there too.
Can you name one non-customs element of friction you're bothered about? All that you and Rochdale etc have been able to name so far are customs - and that was frictionfree with below 50% of our trade.
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Except that the Office of Budget Responsibility has proven that this is not true. Brexit costs twice as much as Covid costs. So sayeth the OBR.
Can you explain why Brexit means the government has to spend ~£500bn? What are they spending it on?
You might say that Covid definitely hits the economy harder than brexit. The OBR says the opposite. Tories insist the OBR is a studiously neutral observer and the definitive voice on economics. So it must be true. Which unfortunately means you are wrong on this one.
No, that is not what the OBR is saying. The tax rises to pay for covid have nothing to do with OBR forecasts but about real costs already incurred.
It is literally what the Chair of the OBR is saying. Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
We've taken a short term hit due to Covid. Taxes going up. Its because of Covid says the government. We're seeing the start of the Brexit impact which the OBR says will be twice as expensive. Which will mean more tax rises - if we're lucky we can inflate away some of it.
Taxes are not going up because of overall the impact on GDP from covid but because the government had to borrow and spend real money to pay for it.
Costs have gone up - Covid. Revenues have gone down - Covid. Its both. As set out in simple terms by the OBR.
I don't get it. Either the OBR are the official government repository of truth or they are not. You can't say "that part is true" and then "that part is false".
Forecasts are not "truth".
Suppose the OBR had said the overall impact from covid on GDP was zero. The government would still need to cover the cost of it. Your logic seems to be "smaller GDP = higher taxes", but that's not why taxes are rising.
So you are right, and the OBR are wrong.
Right.
I haven't said that the OBR are wrong, just that you and David Gauke are wrong, and the inference you are making isn't supported by the OBR.
In grassroots politics news I finally attended a parish council meeting last week.
I was unpleasantly and aggressively disruptive until we passed a motion of support for the anarchists of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. 🅐
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Where can I find the tariffs for EU-produced goods?
The tables are for third countries.
They are our tables. We have now applied a zero-rate tariff on all categories. But that is massively different to "zero tariff".
On every product that you import you have to assign it to a tariff class. Do the paperwork. Submit it for inspection. If you have the wrong tariff class then your import gets rejected and HMRC hold it up. When that's one product in the middle of a mixed pallet on a truck with 32 mixed pallets, that is a problem.
Philip keeps saying zero tariff zero quota like stuff just crosses the border seamlessly and unchecked. That is simply not true. When you have products that are zero-rate and quota-free and zero-rate for import VAT and it takes 4 attempts to get products across the border before they are out of life, that's a massive problem.
Re the French hysteria Re a small number of fishing licences how feasible is it for the UK Gov to start having talks with the Belgians and Dutch (as the next closest countries geographically in the channel) to boost their port operations to the point that all EU/UK trade carries on through their ports to end need for French ports?
Whilst French fishers are a noisy bunch the locals authorities and Unions reliant on UK French trade at Calais etc represent far more people and a far larger part of the economy and so if their livelihoods are threatened by idiotic behaviour by the French then it might be the pressure point needed.
If Ireland worked on increasing shipping around the UK which is a longer route then surely it’s feasible to divert to Belgium/Netherlands and am sure they would welcome the economic boost…..
Interestingly the Belgians have been trying to win UK Shipping trade. The thing is now the negotiations are over post-Brexit we're now customers to be won to them, not someone to be negotiated with as a bloc.
The French have responded by trying to illegally build windfarms in the shipping lane to bloc the lane.
I don't know why we treat France as an ally, we have more problems with France than the rest of Europe put together. If it's feasible to do trade with other European countries instead we should pursue it, because France is not a friend of the UK.
Sigh.
It is simply that the French regard their own national interest very highly. And also pay quite close attention to certain special interest groups within their society.
For example, the CAP won't get touched - farmers.
On the Calais immigrants, they will not be stopped. Ever. Because the locals in that region hate them, and the regional (and national) government regards each one in a RIB as a problem solved.
The fisherman are similarly placed in the French politics, to the farmers.
The other thing to understand is that in France, national interest overrides promises to other countries - and this is supported by people across the political spectrum.
Hence the aggressive rudeness to Blair when he had the temerity to ask for the CAP negotiations he had been promised. What kind of stupid moron would expect a French President to harm the interest of his farmers?
Or the Greenpeace ship/bombing/New Zealand thing - yes, they promised to keep the imprisoned French agents in prison when transferred to French custody. But obviously they were going to let them go when they got them - loyal agents of the French state? Why keep them in prison?
David Gauke, part of the group of pro EU politicians who failed to win the case to remain and just cannot concede they lost
Maybe if they had made a better case they could have won it
Yes, but back to the point he raises. The official numbers show the cost of Brexit being double the cost of Covid. We need tax rises and they're blaming Covid. Logically we will need bigger tax rises and they won't blame Brexit...
It's a fallacious argument. The reason covid implies tax rises is because of the amount of government borrowing. Any direct costs of Brexit are nothing compared to furlough, etc.
Brexit is lost revenue. Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all. Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
These figures are abject nonsense. It is Remoanery idiocy piled on idiocy to cite them
Brexit is like having a baby. So saying ‘Brexit will cost 3.9% of GDP’ is akin to one of those mad articles which says ‘having a child will cost you £540,000 by the time the child reaches adulthood’.
There so many confounding factors. How much does NOT having a child cost? Can you compare it financially to buying a donkey? Exactly how many disposable nappies will be used? What if the child becomes a YouTube yoghurt influencer and earns £7m?
Having a baby and not having a baby are such fundamentally opposed and differing life choices there can be no meaningful comparison in terms of ‘financial outcome’. Life changes in a profound way. You take a different path. Many good and bad things will happen, which could not have happened before
We decided to Brexit. We chose a wildly different path. There is no going back and no point in Remainers tormenting themselves with What If
In grassroots politics news I finally attended a parish council meeting last week.
I was unpleasantly and aggressively disruptive until we passed a motion of support for the anarchists of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. 🅐
"Today North and East Syria, tomorrow Brent South!"
Comments
Those who support the EU are not getting a free pass on Brexit by saying it was someone else's fault
It just reflects badly on you, that’s all.
Furlough is lost revenue *and* increased cost.
Brexit is mostly projected, but not all.
Exports to EU are already failing to follow Rest of World performance.
If that's what's required to win an election, I'd rather not win.
I have no doubt the public see brexit as an element in the debate, but it is simply untrue it is the single issue at the heart of the countries problems
Far too often 'the poor' are regarded as an amorphous block when in fact they can be separated into different segments, each with its different issues and each with its different solutions.
We could certainly solve all the issues with the Channel crossing stuff....
Or am I missing something?
2. Why are Remainers to be blamed?
I do hope we also thank them for the positive consequences too. We will be doing that, won't we?
But less than it will be next year because a lot of areas (outside London) have seen rents increase dramatically.
Not that long ago trade with the EU was worth two-thirds of all trade, RoW was only one third, but by 2016 it was down to a minority of trade already.
The Rest of the World is growing faster than the sclerotic EU. We should expect our exports to grow accordingly with the Rest of the World. Hence why severing our bonds to the Common External Tariff and being in control of our own trade policy was such a good idea.
A chap at the local high end bike shop says that any vaguely usable second hand part is snapped up, when he offers it for sale - he does a good trade in cast off/damaged stuff being recycled like this.
It’s worth noting too that even in 2016, the single market (if not EU) was actually over 50% of our trade.
And as for "They will lose"... A reminder of the latest polling on that;
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?
38% Right, 49% Wrong
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
Those who say we're currently doing a foolish thing in a foolish way have got the support of a lot of people.
https://www.mercatometropolitano.com/
I've only been to Elephant and Castle one, south side of the river, not far from Tate Modern, Southwark Cathedral, the Globe, Borough Market etc if any of those float your boat so to speak. There are two others apparently.
Otherwise, a wander round Greenwich including Greenwich Park is quite nice. Could go on the airline if you want to channel your inner Boris. The parliament tours are also interesting if you've not done one of those (might also depend on your other half's interests!)
2 - If you support the EU then the case should have been won to retain the membership
If the funding was really to pay for people's housing then they'd have a budget and be able to spend it however they choose to spend it and if that means putting it towards a mortgage which can be much cheaper than paying for a landlord's mortgage plus profit for the landlord then great.
But its not. That's forbidden. Even if its cheaper to pay for your own home, you can only claim the benefit if you give it to someone else. Even if that's at a higher cost to the Exchequer. Its perverse and it screws up the housing market.
If the rules were reversed so Housing Benefit could only go towards a mortgage (or a Council House) and not to a Landlord then you'd completely transform the housing market and a lot of the parasites buying other people's homes would leave the sector. But I wouldn't propose that, if you're going to have a housing allowance for people then I'd support a free market solution - let people choose how to spend that housing allowance, no restrictions. If that means buying their own home instead of letting off someone else, then great, what's wrong with that?
All those nations outside of the Customs Union have had higher growth, and are considerably richer per capita than the EU. Coincidence or cause and effect?
We have a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with Europe. All we lack is free movement and a customs union - well the EFTA/EEA nations don't have a customs union either so don't drag them into an attempt at point scoring.
Hip hip hurrah for David Gauke!
Three red, white, and blue cheers for Big_G!
We left the single market, and increased friction both for goods and services trade.
Bit of Brit bashing won't hurt him
Not enough to reverse you-know-what, but hardly a signal for opponents of you-know-what to leave the debate.
The country is out of the EU and many cannot accept that which is fair enough
However, the arguments are tedious, the UK is changing in many ways and it is significant that apart from the SNP and Plaid, no political party is promoting re-joining the EU
Even the Lib Dems are scared of standing on an honest re-join commitment
The two economic impacts are both predictions - issued by the OBR:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/28/brexit-worse-for-the-uk-economy-than-covid-pandemic-obr-says
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/28/brexit-worse-for-the-uk-economy-than-covid-pandemic-obr-says
or
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/28/brexit-will-hit-economy-harder-covid-says-obr-chairman/
You might say that Covid definitely hits the economy harder than brexit. The OBR says the opposite. Tories insist the OBR is a studiously neutral observer and the definitive voice on economics. So it must be true. Which unfortunately means you are wrong on this one.
And considering we export considerably more than we import, then how concerned should we be? Have exports or imports fallen more?
The stock response is to denounce the OBR as liars, or, if that doesn’t work, simply say that all projections must be bunk by definition.
Those who want to rejoin the EU from here need to say what they mean. Do they mean with no rebate? Giving up our currency? Do they mean at any cost?
EDIT: If we could bolt this on to that...
Basing the weekend around markets works well. Borough Market and Maltby Street, Portobello Road, Camden, Columbia Road (on Sunday), Brixton. They all have decent affordable food around too.
The non-EU Single Market nations aren't in the Customs Union and have friction of Customs checks. So what meaningful difference is there between us and them, not us and before. 🤦♂️
It’s another straw man set up by Brexiters who increasingly find themselves having to explain away reality (see Philip’s utter tosh above).
Whilst French fishers are a noisy bunch the locals authorities and Unions reliant on UK French trade at Calais etc represent far more people and a far larger part of the economy and so if their livelihoods are threatened by idiotic behaviour by the French then it might be the pressure point needed.
If Ireland worked on increasing shipping around the UK which is a longer route then surely it’s feasible to divert to Belgium/Netherlands and am sure they would welcome the economic boost…..
We are no longer in the single market.
Trade with single market countries - ie over 50% of our trade - has become more complicated than it was
That’s all there is to it, really, despite your gobbledegook.
We've taken a short term hit due to Covid. Taxes going up. Its because of Covid says the government. We're seeing the start of the Brexit impact which the OBR says will be twice as expensive. Which will mean more tax rises - if we're lucky we can inflate away some of it.
The French have responded by trying to illegally build windfarms in the shipping lane to bloc the lane.
"No tariffs" is either ignorance or stupidity. I don't think you are either yet you say something demonstrably false. Why?
Letting from..
Unreconciled remainers ARE allowed to criticise aspects of Brexit. And reconciled ones. And dyed-in-the-wool Brexiters, and regretful ones too. All sources of opinion are valid. I can't really believe I even have to make this argument, that's how bloody obvious it is.
You're the one who kept singing like a canary about how much customs paperwork was needed at those borders as part of why we had to keep a customs union. Now you're discounting it. Have you had another Damascene conversion?
I don't get it. Either the OBR are the official government repository of truth or they are not. You can't say "that part is true" and then "that part is false".
Are Norway, Switzerland etc in the Customs Union, yes or no?
- I'm indecisive
- I'm confused
- Possibly the two of you are not really disagreeing
Edit: some bits of the discussion (not yours or Stocky's posts) are really odd. I can criticise the government without people accusing me of not accepting the 2019 election result. I'd even be allowed to do that if I'd voted Conservative. Should apply to Brexit too, obviously.
Although that has nothing to do with my original post. You just started talking about it because you think throwing in irrelevancies will help your argument.
Link to the reams of tariffs
THERE ARE NO COSTS
Link to the reams of tariffs
THERE ARE NO TARIFFS
Its like listening to Comical Ali denying the Americans are in Bagdad.
Mobile phone broken. Not charging. Done all the usual stuff to see if can get it working. New one coming in 1-3 days assuming DPD can find a delivery driver to swim here.
But I - being a hardy country soul these days - am going to venture out to visit my local techie guru and see what miracles he can perform in the interim.
Then I must do some serious work and also prepare for my starring role this weekend as the Quiz Mistress in the Village Halloween Quiz! I know - life is so exciting here. I bet you're all envious.
As for the budget - meh .....
As I’ve posted before, he claims to be a professional economist and it’s about the most terrifying claim I’ve heard on here.
A gentle reminder that the invasion of France was Morris Dancer Party policy way back when Brown was PM. Once again, the wiffle stick visionaries are decades ahead of the mainstream!
The rest of the Single Market isn't a part of the EU and has to deal with border pedantry, just like we do. So frigging what?
By all means tell me that more friction is less important than is suggested, but don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
The tables are for third countries.
You are not credible on this subject. Perhaps there are other areas of economics you specialise in, it is a big field I guess.
The only ones we didn't have to deal with that friction over are the EU. Which were less than 50% of our trade.
You can't lump non-EU nations into a discussion over friction when they deal with the friction too and the status quo ante was we had friction with them. 🤦♂️
Suppose the OBR had said the overall impact from covid on GDP was zero. The government would still need to cover the cost of it. Your logic seems to be "smaller GDP = higher taxes", but that's not why taxes are rising.
And the Remain campaign was outstanding in my mind for the lack of passion and effort on the part of those at the top, especially on the Government side, who appeared for much of the time to assume that everything would go their way.
https://insideevs.com/news/543595/hyundai-mobis-battery-catl-ctp/
And now we ain’t.
So, 100% false, then.
Right.
Can you name one non-customs element of friction you're bothered about? All that you and Rochdale etc have been able to name so far are customs - and that was frictionfree with below 50% of our trade.
I was unpleasantly and aggressively disruptive until we passed a motion of support for the anarchists of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. 🅐
On every product that you import you have to assign it to a tariff class. Do the paperwork. Submit it for inspection. If you have the wrong tariff class then your import gets rejected and HMRC hold it up. When that's one product in the middle of a mixed pallet on a truck with 32 mixed pallets, that is a problem.
Philip keeps saying zero tariff zero quota like stuff just crosses the border seamlessly and unchecked. That is simply not true. When you have products that are zero-rate and quota-free and zero-rate for import VAT and it takes 4 attempts to get products across the border before they are out of life, that's a massive problem.
https://slate.com/culture/2021/10/mort-sahl-death-comedian-revolutionized-standup.html
It's hard to imagine a time where political comedy didn't really exist (though one or two of the older PBers might still recall it ...).
It is simply that the French regard their own national interest very highly. And also pay quite close attention to certain special interest groups within their society.
For example, the CAP won't get touched - farmers.
On the Calais immigrants, they will not be stopped. Ever. Because the locals in that region hate them, and the regional (and national) government regards each one in a RIB as a problem solved.
The fisherman are similarly placed in the French politics, to the farmers.
The other thing to understand is that in France, national interest overrides promises to other countries - and this is supported by people across the political spectrum.
Hence the aggressive rudeness to Blair when he had the temerity to ask for the CAP negotiations he had been promised. What kind of stupid moron would expect a French President to harm the interest of his farmers?
Or the Greenpeace ship/bombing/New Zealand thing - yes, they promised to keep the imprisoned French agents in prison when transferred to French custody. But obviously they were going to let them go when they got them - loyal agents of the French state? Why keep them in prison?
Brexit is like having a baby. So saying ‘Brexit will cost 3.9% of GDP’ is akin to one of those mad articles which says ‘having a child will cost you £540,000 by the time the child reaches adulthood’.
There so many confounding factors. How much does NOT having a child cost? Can you compare it financially to buying a donkey? Exactly how many disposable nappies will be used? What if the child becomes a YouTube yoghurt influencer and earns £7m?
Having a baby and not having a baby are such fundamentally opposed and differing life choices there can be no meaningful comparison in terms of ‘financial outcome’. Life changes in a profound way. You take a different path. Many good and bad things will happen, which could not have happened before
We decided to Brexit. We chose a wildly different path. There is no going back and no point in Remainers tormenting themselves with What If