That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.
The Tories will promise anything you like..... but they never keep their promises once they have got themselves elected.
I think the country is starting to see through the Tory guff. The Trump campaign was an eye-opener for many.
That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.
The Tories will promise anything you like..... but they never keep their promises once they have got themselves elected.
I think you will find that was the Lib Dems as well.
Brian Clough won two European cups with an unfashionable side.Maybe Farage will win two European referendums when we vote on Brexit deal.
Did Farage win the Referendum? Wasn't it mainly the Boris/Gove show?
Boris and maybe Gove did not really want to win .They did not want to blow the doors off ,just have a close defeat so they could get a better deal and improve their personal position.Farage really wanted to win and without him there would have been no referendum. Boris was and still will be hoping for another referendum on the deal. Farage from the leader of UKIP and MEP has had the greatest influence on British politics for a generation.
That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.
It will only satisfy those who admire creative accounting.
And those who don't understand creative accounting. Remember Osborne halving a £1.7bn payment to the EU a couple of years ago? He didn't, we paid the lot, half by handing over £850m in cash and half by giving up £850m of rebate, which is exactly equivalent to paying a further £850m. And he pretty much got away with it, because people find it too difficult to understand that equivalence. The objection to the £350m claim is the same - that it stated a gross figure for a net figure. If anyone is to be held to account over the claim (and I don't see who will be - to fight "the Leave campaign" is to engage in shadow boxing), fudging their way out of it will be a piece of cake. Like everything else, arithmetic is in a post-truth phase.
the second point is whether or not any extra money will be available from leaving the EU. Obviously most people, quite reasonably, believe that it will be
Only if you believe in the Brexit dividend bullshit.
If we take a financial hit from leaving there will not be any extra money for anything, especially the NHS
You spent all last year telling us when we take a financial hit, not if.
You also said it would start immediately and require an Emergency Budget. Excuse me if I treat your knowledge on this area with as much lack of confidence as I do on your geography of the Birmingham area....
That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.
The Tories will promise anything you like..... but they never keep their promises once they have got themselves elected.
I think the country is starting to see through the Tory guff. The Trump campaign was an eye-opener for many.
if increased by 4.9% in 17/18 that would be: £2,433 mil
and again in 18/19: £2,552 mil
and in 19/20 (the first full year after Brexit!) £2,678 mil
2,678 - 2320 = 358 mil
Considering some of that 4.9% increase will be accounted for by, inflation and rise in population anyway. I am surprised that May/Hamond don't do it anyway, and reap a massive popularity bones
While I'm not normally a fan a populism in any form, it would allow them to implement some of the good but unpopular, reforms the economy would benefit form!
Brian Clough won two European cups with an unfashionable side.Maybe Farage will win two European referendums when we vote on Brexit deal.
Did Farage win the Referendum? Wasn't it mainly the Boris/Gove show?
Boris and maybe Gove did not really want to win .They did not want to blow the doors off ,just have a close defeat so they could get a better deal and improve their personal position.Farage really wanted to win and without him there would have been no referendum. Boris was and still will be hoping for another referendum on the deal. Farage from the leader of UKIP and MEP has had the greatest influence on British politics for a generation.
I don't believe Farage wanted to win. His primary goal is to destroy the EU and a successful Brexit takes away his platform. That's why he's been all at sea since the vote.
That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.
It will only satisfy those who admire creative accounting.
And those who don't understand creative accounting. Remember Osborne halving a £1.7bn payment to the EU a couple of years ago? He didn't, we paid the lot, half by handing over £850m in cash and half by giving up £850m of rebate, which is exactly equivalent to paying a further £850m. And he pretty much got away with it, because people find it too difficult to understand that equivalence. The objection to the £350m claim is the same - that it stated a gross figure for a net figure. If anyone is to be held to account over the claim (and I don't see who will be - to fight "the Leave campaign" is to engage in shadow boxing), fudging their way out of it will be a piece of cake. Like everything else, arithmetic is in a post-truth phase.
On the 1.7bn "'We are not going suddenly to get out our cheque book and write a cheque for two billion euros. It is not going to happen"
On triggering A50 "the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away"
On immigration "We would like to see net immigration in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands. I don’t think that’s unrealistic"
not after we left nor after Artcle 50 was triggered.
Which bit of this is confusing you? If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
the second point is whether or not any extra money will be available from leaving the EU. Obviously most people, quite reasonably, believe that it will be
Only if you believe in the Brexit dividend bullshit.
If we take a financial hit from leaving there will not be any extra money for anything, especially the NHS
You spent all last year telling us when we take a financial hit, not if.
You also said it would start immediately and require an Emergency Budget. Excuse me if I treat your knowledge on this area with as much lack of confidence as I do on your geography of the Birmingham area....
I think that we can all agree that the fall in the pound was caused by the Leave result, or at least was engineered by the BoE to take the sting out of the Leave result reaction. It worked but is storing up pain in the form of inflation, after a time lag.
Did anybody else watch the 9pm BBC4 programme last night? Think it was called Sword, Musket and Gun, or similar. All about weapons, the first part focusing on medieval ones.
I found it very interesting. Use of ancient manuals reminded me a bit of HEMA. Also good to learn the origin of the terms freelance (a non-affiliated knight in 12th century France/Angevin Empire open to being hired) and swashbuckling (from when chaps fought with a sword and buckler [small shield]).
Brian Clough won two European cups with an unfashionable side.Maybe Farage will win two European referendums when we vote on Brexit deal.
Did Farage win the Referendum? Wasn't it mainly the Boris/Gove show?
Boris and maybe Gove did not really want to win .They did not want to blow the doors off ,just have a close defeat so they could get a better deal and improve their personal position.Farage really wanted to win and without him there would have been no referendum. Boris was and still will be hoping for another referendum on the deal. Farage from the leader of UKIP and MEP has had the greatest influence on British politics for a generation.
I don't believe Farage wanted to win. His primary goal is to destroy the EU and a successful Brexit takes away his platform. That's why he's been all at sea since the vote.
Farage knows that once big business whispers in mrs doubtfire ear as always the conservative leaders play to that tune not the voters in Sunderland, The betrayal rhetoric will kick in and UKIP will be the beneficiaries.
That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.
It will only satisfy those who admire creative accounting.
And those who don't understand creative accounting. Remember Osborne halving a £1.7bn payment to the EU a couple of years ago? He didn't, we paid the lot, half by handing over £850m in cash and half by giving up £850m of rebate, which is exactly equivalent to paying a further £850m. And he pretty much got away with it, because people find it too difficult to understand that equivalence. The objection to the £350m claim is the same - that it stated a gross figure for a net figure. If anyone is to be held to account over the claim (and I don't see who will be - to fight "the Leave campaign" is to engage in shadow boxing), fudging their way out of it will be a piece of cake. Like everything else, arithmetic is in a post-truth phase.
The problem with the £350 million claim is not that it quoted gross instead of net. It quoted monies we did not and do not pay. Monies we are not liable for. The rebate is not a rebate at all. To call it such implies we pay it and then get it back. It is not even officially called a rebate but an abatement since the monies never leave the UK.
If you want to use gross figures then the UK budget contribution is around £15 billion gross (£288 million a week) or £10.2 billion net (around £196 million a week).
not after we left nor after Artcle 50 was triggered.
Which bit of this is confusing you? If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
Nothing except the relevance to what I wrote. We were told after a vote to leave there would be an immediate financial hit, that hasn't happened. We were not told after Article 50 is triggered (which is an arcane technicality devoid of reality to 99.99% of people and business) nor after we actually leave (which was never going to happen immediately). We were told after we voted there would be an immediate hit and it hasn't happened.
the second point is whether or not any extra money will be available from leaving the EU. Obviously most people, quite reasonably, believe that it will be
Only if you believe in the Brexit dividend bullshit.
If we take a financial hit from leaving there will not be any extra money for anything, especially the NHS
You spent all last year telling us when we take a financial hit, not if.
You also said it would start immediately and require an Emergency Budget. Excuse me if I treat your knowledge on this area with as much lack of confidence as I do on your geography of the Birmingham area....
I think that we can all agree that the fall in the pound was caused by the Leave result, or at least was engineered by the BoE to take the sting out of the Leave result reaction. It worked but is storing up pain in the form of inflation, after a time lag.
Explain again why inflation is still below target please. When do we expect the Bank of England to finally hit its inflation target?
That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.
It will only satisfy those who admire creative accounting.
And those who don't understand creative accounting. Remember Osborne halving a £1.7bn payment to the EU a couple of years ago? He didn't, we paid the lot, half by handing over £850m in cash and half by giving up £850m of rebate, which is exactly equivalent to paying a further £850m. And he pretty much got away with it, because people find it too difficult to understand that equivalence. The objection to the £350m claim is the same - that it stated a gross figure for a net figure. If anyone is to be held to account over the claim (and I don't see who will be - to fight "the Leave campaign" is to engage in shadow boxing), fudging their way out of it will be a piece of cake. Like everything else, arithmetic is in a post-truth phase.
The problem with the £350 million claim is not that it quoted gross instead of net. It quoted monies we did not and do not pay. Monies we are not liable for. The rebate is not a rebate at all. To call it such implies we pay it and then get it back. It is not even officially called a rebate but an abatement since the monies never leave the UK.
If you want to use gross figures then the UK budget contribution is around £15 billion gross (£288 million a week) or £10.2 billion net (around £196 million a week).
Though considering every time there's a budget round (especially if there's a Labour government) the EU tries to slice and dice our rebate then it is relevant to discussion as a long term figure.
Had Blair not given away much of our rebate with nothing in return how much would our net figures be now?
That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.
The Tories will promise anything you like..... but they never keep their promises once they have got themselves elected.
I think the country is starting to see through the Tory guff. The Trump campaign was an eye-opener for many.
That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.
It will only satisfy those who admire creative accounting.
And those who don't understand creative accounting. Remember Osborne halving a £1.7bn payment to the EU a couple of years ago? He didn't, we paid the lot, half by handing over £850m in cash and half by giving up £850m of rebate, which is exactly equivalent to paying a further £850m. And he pretty much got away with it, because people find it too difficult to understand that equivalence. The objection to the £350m claim is the same - that it stated a gross figure for a net figure. If anyone is to be held to account over the claim (and I don't see who will be - to fight "the Leave campaign" is to engage in shadow boxing), fudging their way out of it will be a piece of cake. Like everything else, arithmetic is in a post-truth phase.
The problem with the £350 million claim is not that it quoted gross instead of net. It quoted monies we did not and do not pay. Monies we are not liable for. The rebate is not a rebate at all. To call it such implies we pay it and then get it back. It is not even officially called a rebate but an abatement since the monies never leave the UK.
If you want to use gross figures then the UK budget contribution is around £15 billion gross (£288 million a week) or £10.2 billion net (around £196 million a week).
But it also didn't quote money that we do pay. A significant part of our foreign aid budget for example, is remitted directly to the EU commission, and that is excluding the money that is hypothecated to specific EU projects. It's simply a payment. I researched it during the referendum, it was over a billion a year and rising, and that was in 2013 and 2014.
not after we left nor after Artcle 50 was triggered.
Which bit of this is confusing you? If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
Nothing except the relevance to what I wrote. We were told after a vote to leave there would be an immediate financial hit, that hasn't happened. We were not told after Article 50 is triggered (which is an arcane technicality devoid of reality to 99.99% of people and business) nor after we actually leave (which was never going to happen immediately). We were told after we voted there would be an immediate hit and it hasn't happened.
one more time, the Treasury were worried there would be an immediate financial hit. They told us so. They liaised extensively with the Bank of England, and, following the vote, interest rates were lowered, much to the derision of many. People (ie consumers) were reassured that we were in safe hands, kept on spending and, as we are so well aware, given the huge consumption element of GDP growth, there has been no hit.
not after we left nor after Artcle 50 was triggered.
Which bit of this is confusing you? If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
Nothing except the relevance to what I wrote. We were told after a vote to leave there would be an immediate financial hit, that hasn't happened. We were not told after Article 50 is triggered (which is an arcane technicality devoid of reality to 99.99% of people and business) nor after we actually leave (which was never going to happen immediately). We were told after we voted there would be an immediate hit and it hasn't happened.
one more time, the Treasury were worried there would be an immediate financial hit. They told us so. They liaised extensively with the Bank of England, and, following the vote, interest rates were lowered, much to the derision of many. People (ie consumers) were reassured that we were in safe hands, kept on spending and, as we are so well aware, given the huge consumption element of GDP growth, there has been no hit.
not after we left nor after Artcle 50 was triggered.
Which bit of this is confusing you? If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
Nothing except the relevance to what I wrote. We were told after a vote to leave there would be an immediate financial hit, that hasn't happened. We were not told after Article 50 is triggered (which is an arcane technicality devoid of reality to 99.99% of people and business) nor after we actually leave (which was never going to happen immediately). We were told after we voted there would be an immediate hit and it hasn't happened.
one more time, the Treasury were worried there would be an immediate financial hit. They told us so. They liaised extensively with the Bank of England, and, following the vote, interest rates were lowered, much to the derision of many. People (ie consumers) were reassured that we were in safe hands, kept on spending and, as we are so well aware, given the huge consumption element of GDP growth, there has been no hit.
That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.
It will only satisfy those who admire creative accounting.
And those who don't understand creative accounting. Remember Osborne halving a £1.7bn payment to the EU a couple of years ago? He didn't, we paid the lot, half by handing over £850m in cash and half by giving up £850m of rebate, which is exactly equivalent to paying a further £850m. And he pretty much got away with it, because people find it too difficult to understand that equivalence. The objection to the £350m claim is the same - that it stated a gross figure for a net figure. If anyone is to be held to account over the claim (and I don't see who will be - to fight "the Leave campaign" is to engage in shadow boxing), fudging their way out of it will be a piece of cake. Like everything else, arithmetic is in a post-truth phase.
The problem with the £350 million claim is not that it quoted gross instead of net. It quoted monies we did not and do not pay. Monies we are not liable for. The rebate is not a rebate at all. To call it such implies we pay it and then get it back. It is not even officially called a rebate but an abatement since the monies never leave the UK.
If you want to use gross figures then the UK budget contribution is around £15 billion gross (£288 million a week) or £10.2 billion net (around £196 million a week).
This will not be a Brexit related priority and those that try to make it so will get enmeshed in precisely the arguments set out here; it'll be a fight with no winner. There will anyway be bigger truly Brexit related fish to fry.
not after we left nor after Artcle 50 was triggered.
Which bit of this is confusing you? If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
Nothing except the relevance to what I wrote. We were told after a vote to leave there would be an immediate financial hit, that hasn't happened. We were not told after Article 50 is triggered (which is an arcane technicality devoid of reality to 99.99% of people and business) nor after we actually leave (which was never going to happen immediately). We were told after we voted there would be an immediate hit and it hasn't happened.
one more time, the Treasury were worried there would be an immediate financial hit. They told us so. They liaised extensively with the Bank of England, and, following the vote, interest rates were lowered, much to the derision of many. People (ie consumers) were reassured that we were in safe hands, kept on spending and, as we are so well aware, given the huge consumption element of GDP growth, there has been no hit.
not after we left nor after Artcle 50 was triggered.
Which bit of this is confusing you? If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
Nothing except the relevance to what I wrote. We were told after a vote to leave there would be an immediate financial hit, that hasn't happened. We were not told after Article 50 is triggered (which is an arcane technicality devoid of reality to 99.99% of people and business) nor after we actually leave (which was never going to happen immediately). We were told after we voted there would be an immediate hit and it hasn't happened.
As is now widely acknowledged even amongst the crystal ball doom mongers
Brian Clough won two European cups with an unfashionable side.Maybe Farage will win two European referendums when we vote on Brexit deal.
Did Farage win the Referendum? Wasn't it mainly the Boris/Gove show?
Nah, it was Labour Leave wot won it:
"Wipe the smile off their faces", and all that.
No, it was pushing propaganda about £350m to the NHS through the natives' letterboxes, knowing it was utter, mendacious, flat lies, then bragging about it on here, and all that, wot won it.
George Osborne, together with the former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling, vows today that the hit to the economy would be so great if we vote to leave the EU that he'd hold a Budget with cuts and tax rises almost immediately.
Brexit is complete, and all is well with the World. Business is thriving, everyone is happy.
Makes you wonder what they were so bitter about before...
Osborne's threats were conditional on us voting leave, not voting leave and triggering Article 50, not voting leave and getting all the way through to the conclusion of Brexit..
You lost the argument on 23 June. You personally seem determined to lose it again every single day, more embarrassingly each time.
Can we just forget about Brexit now? Just a waste of time and effort. Some of us have business to do, we could do without this pointless distraction and disruption.
They were supposed to come immediately after the vote.
Article 50 was supposed to come immediately after the vote.
If you want to claim Brexit happened before Article 50, go ahead.
Otherwise, things tend to happen in chronological order. If we ever trigger, we can have a discussion about how well it is going.
One more time using simple words.
After ... the ... vote ...
Three words which one are you struggling to understand. Article 50 is a technicality for negotiations it is not the vote. Brexit was always supposed to be years later. The emergency budget would come immediate AFTER THE VOTE. Which word is confusing you? Is it vote?
Even George recognised he was a total fkwit who shouldnt be left in charge of a childs piggy bank let alone a G7 economy. George was factoring in his own ineptitude
I am very proud of what our Parliament did on that day.
maybe yes maybe no but really Obama is just showing what a spineless piece of crap he was,
Blaming poor Dave for his failure is just gutless.
One can reasonably ask where was his best friend Angi and the Luftwaffe ?
Didn't turn up, oh well.
No maybe about it. Would have been a clusterfuck from every angle, and could have resulted in WW3. If I ever meet Ed Milliband, I'll shake him by the hand for it before buying him a bacon sarnie.
I have claimed nothing more than the fact that your disasters have not happened.
None of them were predicted to come before an event that hasn't happened...
When, and if, we actually Brexit, we can have a discussion about how successful it is. Or not.
Until then, your pre-truth is simply garbage.
Oh dear Scott. Seems you suffer from some terrible malady that not only gives you extremely selective memory but also makes you incapable of understanding any news you don't want to hear. The claims were post vote NOT post Brexit.
So the person talking garbage round here is - yet again - you.
They were supposed to come immediately after the vote.
Article 50 was supposed to come immediately after the vote.
If you want to claim Brexit happened before Article 50, go ahead.
Otherwise, things tend to happen in chronological order. If we ever trigger, we can have a discussion about how well it is going.
One more time using simple words.
After ... the ... vote ...
Three words which one are you struggling to understand. Article 50 is a technicality for negotiations it is not the vote. Brexit was always supposed to be years later. The emergency budget would come immediate AFTER THE VOTE. Which word is confusing you? Is it vote?
Luckily enough it turns out that a rate cut was sufficient such that an emergency budget was no longer required.
Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away
Which of these simple words is confusing you?
None. Cameron was wrong when he uttered those words, Brexit campaigners actually said that it would make sense to delay Article 50 until a time that suited us. Again Cameron was wrong, Brexit campaigners were right.
One wrong prediction does not explain away the other. The vote still happened.
Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
We never trigger Article 50 (it's a mere technicality).
We never leave.
Everyone is happy. Right?
I genuinely think that a return to blue passports as a symbol of UK exceptionalism within the EU would assuage a lot of people. It's changing stuff that people can see that matters. Whether the Commission has the final say on competition law or the CJEU decides on the validity of a patent is really not keeping people awake at night.
I have claimed nothing more than the fact that your disasters have not happened.
None of them were predicted to come before an event that hasn't happened...
When, and if, we actually Brexit, we can have a discussion about how successful it is. Or not.
Until then, your pre-truth is simply garbage.
Oh dear Scott. Seems you suffer from some terrible malady that not only gives you extremely selective memory but also makes you incapable of understanding any news you don't want to hear. The claims were post vote NOT post Brexit.
So the person talking garbage round here is - yet again - you.
He is now repeatedly quoting a lie from Cameron to support his case.. a beautiful touch
Brian Clough won two European cups with an unfashionable side.Maybe Farage will win two European referendums when we vote on Brexit deal.
Did Farage win the Referendum? Wasn't it mainly the Boris/Gove show?
Nah, it was Labour Leave wot won it:
"Wipe the smile off their faces", and all that.
No, it was pushing propaganda about £350m to the NHS through the natives' letterboxes, knowing it was utter, mendacious, flat lies, then bragging about it on here, and all that, wot won it.
They were supposed to come immediately after the vote.
Article 50 was supposed to come immediately after the vote.
If you want to claim Brexit happened before Article 50, go ahead.
Otherwise, things tend to happen in chronological order. If we ever trigger, we can have a discussion about how well it is going.
One more time using simple words.
After ... the ... vote ...
Three words which one are you struggling to understand. Article 50 is a technicality for negotiations it is not the vote. Brexit was always supposed to be years later. The emergency budget would come immediate AFTER THE VOTE. Which word is confusing you? Is it vote?
Luckily enough it turns out that a rate cut was sufficient such that an emergency budget was no longer required.
Not only no longer required but we outgrew predictions for if we Remained. Leaves one wondering why was Osborne so incompetent as to not predict that. Or why Remainers were predicting rates would go UP if we voted to Leave now down?
Brian Clough won two European cups with an unfashionable side.Maybe Farage will win two European referendums when we vote on Brexit deal.
Did Farage win the Referendum? Wasn't it mainly the Boris/Gove show?
Nah, it was Labour Leave wot won it:
"Wipe the smile off their faces", and all that.
No, it was pushing propaganda about £350m to the NHS through the natives' letterboxes, knowing it was utter, mendacious, flat lies, then bragging about it on here, and all that, wot won it.
We never trigger Article 50 (it's a mere technicality).
We never leave.
Everyone is happy. Right?
I genuinely think that a return to blue passports as a symbol of UK exceptionalism within the EU would assuage a lot of people. It's changing stuff that people can see that matters. Whether the Commission has the final say on competition law or the CJEU decides on the validity of a patent is really not keeping people awake at night.
Well it keeps Bill Cash awake at night, but by the time we're finished even he will wish he'd never heard the word 'Brexit'.
No, the argument is about the failure of predictions of the immediate consequences of a "Leave" vote
which would lead to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away, an event which as you correctly note has not taken place...
Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Top CEO announces intention to stand down" FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
if increased by 4.9% in 17/18 that would be: £2,433 mil
and again in 18/19: £2,552 mil
and in 19/20 (the first full year after Brexit!) £2,678 mil
2,678 - 2320 = 358 mil
Considering some of that 4.9% increase will be accounted for by, inflation and rise in population anyway. I am surprised that May/Hamond don't do it anyway, and reap a massive popularity bones
While I'm not normally a fan a populism in any form, it would allow them to implement some of the good but unpopular, reforms the economy would benefit form!
Absolutely! Assuming the timetable runs roughly to plan, that we leave the EU early in 2019, it would be a weirdly apolitical Chancellor who didn't ensure that the gap between NHS funding in 2015 and 2020 or 2021 wasn't the magic figure of £350m, so it could be hung from billboards all over the country in the run up to the 2020 election.
For bonus points in Scotland and Wales (where the Tories are the opposition) challenge the govts in those regions to make matching additional funding available to meet the target. "England's NHS got a Brexit bonus, why shouldn't Scotland/Wales have the same? Vote Conservative"
@ScottP is saying that Osborne's doom laden forecasts were based on David Cameron telling the truth about triggering article 50 immediately.
Cameron lied so Osborne's doom hasn't yet come to pass
You seem to be ignoring the context of the referendum campaign which was kicked off by Boris Johnson saying 'vote leave' to get a better deal to stay. In that context any rhetoric about the effect of 'a vote to leave' was just to counter that position.
How serious of an effect do people think A50 declaration will have on the economy? Surely it has been priced in now, given that it isn't really in question of if it will be triggered? I think any change will be driven by the changes in the negotiating position over time.
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is closing six of his 42 UK Jamie's Italian restaurants.
The Aberdeen, Cheltenham, Exeter, Tunbridge Wells and in London, the Ludgate and Richmond outlets are all scheduled to close soon.
Jamie Oliver also closed three of his four Union Jacks restaurants, citing tough economic circumstances. - That was back in Jan 2014 which I believed came before Brexit. – His business model looks duff imho, that or the novelty has warn off.
@ScottP is saying that Osborne's doom laden forecasts were based on David Cameron telling the truth about triggering article 50 immediately.
Cameron lied so Osborne's doom hasn't yet come to pass
You seem to be ignoring the context of the referendum campaign which was kicked off by Boris Johnson saying 'vote leave' to get a better deal to stay. In that context any rhetoric about the effect of 'a vote to leave' was just to counter that position.
I rather understood that the referendum campaign was kicked off by our Remainer PM calling a vote
we're only here because remainers made it possible
trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away
Which of these simple words is confusing you?
None. Cameron was wrong when he uttered those words, Brexit campaigners actually said that it would make sense to delay Article 50 until a time that suited us. Again Cameron was wrong, Brexit campaigners were right.
One wrong prediction does not explain away the other. The vote still happened.
Cameron wasn't predicting, he was lying. The Brexit campaigners have undoubtedly been proved right on this.
Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Top CEO announces intention to stand down" FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
No, the argument is about the failure of predictions of the immediate consequences of a "Leave" vote
which would lead to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away, an event which as you correctly note has not taken place...
Not what Osborne said, and not what he meant. Stop embarrassing yourself. Take some time out and watch a nice, relaxing dvd. Groundhog Day, perhaps.
They were supposed to come immediately after the vote.
Article 50 was supposed to come immediately after the vote.
If you want to claim Brexit happened before Article 50, go ahead.
Otherwise, things tend to happen in chronological order. If we ever trigger, we can have a discussion about how well it is going.
One more time using simple words.
After ... the ... vote ...
Three words which one are you struggling to understand. Article 50 is a technicality for negotiations it is not the vote. Brexit was always supposed to be years later. The emergency budget would come immediate AFTER THE VOTE. Which word is confusing you? Is it vote?
Luckily enough it turns out that a rate cut was sufficient such that an emergency budget was no longer required.
Not only no longer required but we outgrew predictions for if we Remained. Leaves one wondering why was Osborne so incompetent as to not predict that. Or why Remainers were predicting rates would go UP if we voted to Leave now down?
Well as I pointed out before, the BoE is independent. It has a remit of promoting stability, plus an inflation target. A lot changed between June 23rd and June 24th and as in all cases, there is a range of policy options between the Bank and the Treasury. An emergency budget would presumably have been designed to release liquidity into the market via a fiscal transfer of some kind. But the Bank provided that liquidity with a rate cut.
What underpins all this is the makeup of a worryingly large proportion of our economic growth. When we say "economic growth" we should, rather, say "people going out shopping" as a shorthand. Anything to keep people going out shopping will maintain economic growth. A rate cut helped to achieve that (as might have a tax cut from a budget, say).
Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Top CEO announces intention to stand down" FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
In your analogy the UK's economic performance is more akin to the company's revenues, not its share price, where you could more readily draw an analogy with the GBP exchange rate which as you know got hammered.
Gotta love Norwegian prime minister Erna Solberg, formerly of Bergen city council, "Iron Erna" according to the Norwegian yellow press, for saying that Britain hasn't got enough experience in international negotiations to achieve a desirable type of Brexit. As if the "Oslo accords" actually worked. Eaten too much brunost, Erna? But look who's the superpower in EFTA. My views on Norway and Sweden wouldn't be publishable here.
The facts are we haven't left, nor have we started the process of leaving.
All the Brexiteers cheering our success seem to have missed this bit.
If we ever leave, we can debate how successful it is.
Claiming success for en event that has not taken place is pretty rich, even for the £350m quid crowd.
I would suggest that the process has started. The debate is part of that process and a valuable part as it shows only too clearly the wretchedness of the remoaners who search for evidence that the end of the world is nigh as was promised by the doom monger crystal ball gazers. Scott would obviously suit a sandwich board.
@ScottP is saying that Osborne's doom laden forecasts were based on David Cameron telling the truth about triggering article 50 immediately.
Cameron lied so Osborne's doom hasn't yet come to pass
You seem to be ignoring the context of the referendum campaign which was kicked off by Boris Johnson saying 'vote leave' to get a better deal to stay. In that context any rhetoric about the effect of 'a vote to leave' was just to counter that position.
What the posh boys said to get us over the line is a matter of supreme indifference to me
Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Top CEO announces intention to stand down" FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
In your analogy the UK's economic performance is more akin to the company's revenues, not its share price, where you could more readily draw an analogy with the GBP exchange rate which as you know got hammered.
The GBP has been over valued for most of the last decade
in other news
record car sales construction manufacturing and service PMIs rise UK fastest growing G7 economy
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is closing six of his 42 UK Jamie's Italian restaurants.
The Aberdeen, Cheltenham, Exeter, Tunbridge Wells and in London, the Ludgate and Richmond outlets are all scheduled to close soon.
I am amazed the Aberdeen one has stayed open so long. The city is at the tail end of a 2 year massive oil slump that has seen around 120,000 jobs lost in the UK sector. A huge number of those in and around Aberdeen.
A lot of these restaurants existed up there because of company expense accounts and people with huge amounts of disposable income. The last year has seen dozens close and Jamie's was not even one of the good ones.
Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Top CEO announces intention to stand down" FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
In your analogy the UK's economic performance is more akin to the company's revenues, not its share price, where you could more readily draw an analogy with the GBP exchange rate which as you know got hammered.
The GBP has been over valued for most of the last decade
in other news
record car sales construction manufacturing and service PMIs rise UK fastest growing G7 economy
etc.
Which follows from a big drop in the value of the pound. It's good for the economy ..... for a while.
Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Top CEO announces intention to stand down" FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
In your analogy the UK's economic performance is more akin to the company's revenues, not its share price, where you could more readily draw an analogy with the GBP exchange rate which as you know got hammered.
The GBP has been over valued for most of the last decade
in other news
record car sales construction manufacturing and service PMIs rise UK fastest growing G7 economy
etc.
Leaving the EU in order to weaken the pound does seem rather like using a daisy cutter to crack a nut.
Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Top CEO announces intention to stand down" FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
In your analogy the UK's economic performance is more akin to the company's revenues, not its share price, where you could more readily draw an analogy with the GBP exchange rate which as you know got hammered.
The GBP has been over valued for most of the last decade
in other news
record car sales construction manufacturing and service PMIs rise UK fastest growing G7 economy
etc.
Which follows from a big drop in the value of the pound. It's good for the economy ..... for a while.
maybe the pound wouldnt have dropped quite so much if we hadnt cut interest rates
which of course was driven by the"experts" fucking up their forecasts
at least they now admit they got it wrong too many PB remainers cant
Comments
https://twitter.com/hrtbps/status/817392353640124420
I think the country is starting to see through the Tory guff. The Trump campaign was an eye-opener for many.
Or are you continuing to pursue your own post-truth agenda?
If we ever leave, we can have a discussion about how well it is going. Your's is not so much post-truth, as pre-truth
You also said it would start immediately and require an Emergency Budget. Excuse me if I treat your knowledge on this area with as much lack of confidence as I do on your geography of the Birmingham area....
One thing he learnt from tim, was lie and repeat and repeat and repeat........
The NHS budget is £120.661 billion in 2016/17
According to this website: http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-
divided by 52 weeks: 2,320 million.
if increased by 4.9% in 17/18 that would be: £2,433 mil
and again in 18/19: £2,552 mil
and in 19/20 (the first full year after Brexit!) £2,678 mil
2,678 - 2320 = 358 mil
Considering some of that 4.9% increase will be accounted for by, inflation and rise in population anyway. I am surprised that May/Hamond don't do it anyway, and reap a massive popularity bones
While I'm not normally a fan a populism in any form, it would allow them to implement some of the good but unpopular, reforms the economy would benefit form!
On triggering A50 "the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away"
On immigration "We would like to see net immigration in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands. I don’t think that’s unrealistic"
If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
We voted.
That's it.
Brexit is complete, and all is well with the World. Business is thriving, everyone is happy.
Makes you wonder what they were so bitter about before...
I found it very interesting. Use of ancient manuals reminded me a bit of HEMA. Also good to learn the origin of the terms freelance (a non-affiliated knight in 12th century France/Angevin Empire open to being hired) and swashbuckling (from when chaps fought with a sword and buckler [small shield]).
If you want to use gross figures then the UK budget contribution is around £15 billion gross (£288 million a week) or £10.2 billion net (around £196 million a week).
But the other consequences are predicated on us triggering Article 50 which we haven't done, and leaving, which we haven't done.
If you want to argue Brexit is done, go ahead. If not, don't pretend not to understand the original forecasts.
Had Blair not given away much of our rebate with nothing in return how much would our net figures be now?
When, and if, we actually Brexit, we can have a discussion about how successful it is. Or not.
Until then, your pre-truth is simply garbage.
We actually grew 2.1% which was MORE than forecast for Remain and considerably more than for any Leave scenario.
So what hit have we taken?
Obama scrapes a new low by blamiing Cameron on Syria as if the UK's 4 planes are going to make any differnce
what a waste of space the creeping coward is
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/john-kerry-blames-british-parliament-derailing-us-plans-strike/
Voila! As they might say, "over there".
If you want to claim Brexit happened before Article 50, go ahead.
Otherwise, things tend to happen in chronological order. If we ever trigger, we can have a discussion about how well it is going.
Blaming poor Dave for his failure is just gutless.
One can reasonably ask where was his best friend Angi and the Luftwaffe ?
Didn't turn up, oh well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36534192
Poor old Laura K seems to have reached a different conclusion than Scott
Scott seems to be re defining the word immediately - a bit like Gordon Brown tried to re define "no more boom and bust"
while we were being asked to send our young folk home in body bags, German car manufacturers were filling US body bags via diesel fumes
so that's all right then
Good on you. Keep digging and ignore the siren voices leading you to Fact Island.
You lost the argument on 23 June. You personally seem determined to lose it again every single day, more embarrassingly each time.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/osborne-predicts-30bn-hole-in-public-finance-if-uk-votes-to-leave-eu
"delivered within weeks of an out vote."
Kin L - is it ONLY Scott who got it???
All the Brexiteers cheering our success seem to have missed this bit.
If we ever leave, we can debate how successful it is.
Claiming success for en event that has not taken place is pretty rich, even for the £350m quid crowd.
Thanks for understanding.
After ... the ... vote ...
Three words which one are you struggling to understand. Article 50 is a technicality for negotiations it is not the vote. Brexit was always supposed to be years later. The emergency budget would come immediate AFTER THE VOTE. Which word is confusing you? Is it vote?
The pre condition was Osborne remained CoE
Even George recognised he was a total fkwit who shouldnt be left in charge of a childs piggy bank let alone a G7 economy. George was factoring in his own ineptitude
Once he was removed things could only get better
To coin a phrase
Approximate change since GE2015: Con +3%, Lab -3%, Ukip -1%, LD + 1%, Green 0.
However the event that was claimed to be a disaster was not when we leave but when we vote to leave. You were wrong.
Which of these simple words is confusing you?
So the person talking garbage round here is - yet again - you.
We never trigger Article 50 (it's a mere technicality).
We never leave.
Everyone is happy. Right?
@ScottP is saying that Osborne's doom laden forecasts were based on David Cameron telling the truth about triggering article 50 immediately.
Cameron lied so Osborne's doom hasn't yet come to pass
One wrong prediction does not explain away the other. The vote still happened.
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is closing six of his 42 UK Jamie's Italian restaurants.
The Aberdeen, Cheltenham, Exeter, Tunbridge Wells and in London, the Ludgate and Richmond outlets are all scheduled to close soon.
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
For bonus points in Scotland and Wales (where the Tories are the opposition) challenge the govts in those regions to make matching additional funding available to meet the target. "England's NHS got a Brexit bonus, why shouldn't Scotland/Wales have the same? Vote Conservative"
As a fan of the Black Knight sketch from the Monty Python film, may I just say that the resemblance is uncanny?
Please carry on.
"Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me."
we're only here because remainers made it possible
What underpins all this is the makeup of a worryingly large proportion of our economic growth. When we say "economic growth" we should, rather, say "people going out shopping" as a shorthand. Anything to keep people going out shopping will maintain economic growth. A rate cut helped to achieve that (as might have a tax cut from a budget, say).
in other news
record car sales
construction manufacturing and service PMIs rise
UK fastest growing G7 economy
etc.
A lot of these restaurants existed up there because of company expense accounts and people with huge amounts of disposable income. The last year has seen dozens close and Jamie's was not even one of the good ones.
It's good for the economy ..... for a while.
https://capx.co/labour-is-ludicrous-but-its-no-laughing-matter/
which of course was driven by the"experts" fucking up their forecasts
at least they now admit they got it wrong too many PB remainers cant