Why are we importing this stuff in the first place?
Are British companies incapable are creating the chemicals that can purify the water we drink?
Like I said on Sunday what the **** have British governments actually been doing for the past 40 years?
This how it works in the real world of economies/international trade.
We do stuff, other countries do other stuff, we sell each other stuff we need/want.
We cannot do everything.
No... But the things we need to ensure people can actually stay alive (like clean drinking water) should obviously be done internally as a matter of national security.
Doesn't read to me like he's confirming fears, seems to be confirming we need chemicals while simultaneously confirming we will have those chemicals and that the water "will be" safe. Seems like a big hoo haa over nothing.
If and only if there are no problems with supply.
A previous Government plan suggested commandeering ships. Except of course the UK Masters' licenses will also be invalid in the event of no deal...
Looks like Carslen going to win game 2 in the rapid overtime format and then only needs a draw out of the last 2, which should be fairly straightforward to engineer.
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.
I'm not sure about the alternative.
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.
I think that's absolutely right. It would be extremely disruptive, in terms of legal status of Brits in the EU and vice versa; in terms of the ramifications for multinationals in terms of double taxation and witholding taxes; for automotive firms and other parts of multinational supply chains in the UK; in terms of passport control and the rights of British lorries to drive to France and vice versa; and in terms of the ability of the UK to cover its current account deficit.
None of these things cause people to starve or die from lack of medicines. But given the already precarious position of the UK economy (see my video), they would likely result in a nasty recession. A 2% difference in income ten years from now is one thing. Losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage is something altogether different.
In 1922 Ireland signed off (or M Collins and the foreunners of Fine Gael did, whilst De Valera and the fore runners of Fianna Fail violently continued to disgaree for another year or so) on a "deal" that gave 26 counties Dominion status. I am not aware there was a "way out" of that, per se. It was permanent so to speak. All Ireland remained a de jure monarchy.
27 years later and a lot of "events dear boy events" as MacMillan used to say and a 26 county Republic was declared, and it was little more that a footnote, not a huge constitutional deal as it would've been.
I strongly suspect the same sort of processes would apply to the Backstop. Can't be sure of the timing but we would be out, and go from there.
Sit on the side of the riverbank long enough and the bodies of your enemies float by.
The ERG are just impatient.
If you are going to make parallels between the Backstop and treaties of the inter war years, then a more appropriate comparison is with the contents of the Armistice which led to national humiliation under the Treaty of Versailles. It contributed much to the rise of a particular extremist party which exploited a mood of disgust at mainstream politicians who were perceived to have sold out a nation. Escape from the provisions of that Treaty was only made once a party was in power which was prepared to wantonly disregard such agreements and the provision of international law in general.
The house price divide between London and the rest of the UK will narrow by up to a fifth over the next five years, a report from estate agent Savills suggests.
In the North West property prices are predicted to go up by 21.6% over five years, with most of the rest of the country set for double digit growth,
Bank of England doing a hatchet job on no deal, and this on the day treasury also did much the same
Brexit is drifting further away by the minute and I can only see TM deal (doubtful) referendum (possible) Norway (likely)
However, to get a referendum the EU are not going to allow an A50 extension of more than a week or two because of the EU elections in May. If we remain those elections from the UK are going to be popcorn time
See labour are rowing back on McDonnells comments. They would take a big hit in leave areas if they did formally endorse a referendum
I think we need a cross-party govt led by Ken Clarke with Emily Thornberry as deputy. Ken's time has come.
I agree with much of what Corbyn says, but not all, and it's the 'all' that makes him as unacceptable as May in a government that has to command the confidence of parliament - well most of it. I don't imagine Cash or Skinner would be very happy, but needs must.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
Google “abrogation”
And then remember it can be done unilaterally with minimal consequences
Example One: President Donald J Trump and all of the US's existing Treaty obligations.
Before anyone takes the Hammond and May's Treasury's estimates of the effect of Brexit as gospel, they need to read the other side of the argument and take a view on what Minford considers to be the "absurd" assumptions used to underpin earlier forecasts:
Minford's conclusion: "What this all comes down to is, if you use the correct assumptions, you get substantial gains from Brexit under either Canada+ or a World Trade deal under WTO rules. It is only if you make the absurd assumptions embraced by Whitehall that you get the large negative effects they forecast. These assumptions – whose absurdity anyone can understand with a moment’s thought – are the skeleton in the Chancellor’s cupboard. No wonder he refuses to open the cupboard; but we must insist."
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.
I'm not sure about the alternative.
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.
I think that's absolutely right. It would be extremely disruptive, in terms of legal status of Brits in the EU and vice versa; in terms of the ramifications for multinationals in terms of double taxation and witholding taxes; for automotive firms and other parts of multinational supply chains in the UK; in terms of passport control and the rights of British lorries to drive to France and vice versa; and in terms of the ability of the UK to cover its current account deficit.
None of these things cause people to starve or die from lack of medicines. But given the already precarious position of the UK economy (see my video), they would likely result in a nasty recession. A 2% difference in income ten years from now is one thing. Losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage is something altogether different.
So - if Sean Fear is unable to answer the entire question - what would YOU choose?
TMay's Deal or Remain?
And if TMay's Deal falls, as seems likely, what would you prefer: No Deal or Remain?
I thought these were the parameters that they had used to stress test the banks. They are not a prediction of what the BoE thinks will happen. Carney right at the beginning said very clearly that these were scenarios for stress testing not forecasts of what will happen.
To assess the ability of the banking system to continue lending to households and businesses in the most adverse outcomes, the FPC has compared the scenario that banks were tested against in this year’s annual stress test with a worst-case scenario that could be associated with a ‘no deal no transition’ Brexit. The “disruptive” and the “disorderly” Brexit scenarios are therefore not forecasts for the economy in the event that the UK leaves the EU with no deal and no transition period.
Well, the second round of Carney's Project Fear should bolster support for May's Deal considerably as it is either (seemingly) a bad Deal or economic catastrophe.
What comes out clearly from Carney is less the consequences of leaving a No Deal than leaving without having adequately prepared for No Deal. It's evident much of the "damage" could and indeed should be mitigated by reasonable and timely contingency planning but while some large companies and many local authorities have spent time and resource on it, central Government, it appears, has not.
I find that hard to believe but if true it's colossal negligence for which May and others need to be held to account. The problem is in the relief and euphoria that we will have saved ourselves going over the cliff edge no one will bother to ask how we got to the stage when the only option was a poor deal.
Meanwhile on the other side of the pond, the leader of the free world has tweeted an image depicting 2 of his predecessors and his current deputy Attorney General behind bars...
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
I don't believe the Labour leadership are at all behind a second referendum - McDonnell knows well enough that it would expose Labour's splits almost as much as the Tories'.
What I do think he's calculated is that it benefits Labour to *appear* to be behind a referendum, providing it's not actually delivered; and hence he's also concluded that it won't be delivered. I think he'd be right on both points.
I think you're mistaken here. As I posted on the last thread, at yesterday's meeting McDonnell went even further: he made it clear that Labour would be likely to support a referendum if May's deal was defeated and an election wasn't possible, AND suggested that if Labour did gain power then it might be appropriate to have a referendum on whatever renegotiation was subsequently achieved.
Incidentally, he also said repeatedly that he personally was a Remainer. People project onto the Labour leadership an image of secretly fanatical Brexiteers, but it's actually low down on their priority list either way - they reckon we'll either remain or stay closely aligned, and regard the Tory obsession with it with some amazement. Winning an election and governing successfully comes a zillion miles ahead for them.
Could you use any remaining influence you might have left to encourage them to get on with that bit.
Before anyone takes the Hammond and May's Treasury's estimates of the effect of Brexit as gospel, they need to read the other side of the argument and take a view on what Minford considers to be the "absurd" assumptions used to underpin earlier forecasts:
Minford's conclusion: "What this all comes down to is, if you use the correct assumptions, you get substantial gains from Brexit under either Canada+ or a World Trade deal under WTO rules. It is only if you make the absurd assumptions embraced by Whitehall that you get the large negative effects they forecast. These assumptions – whose absurdity anyone can understand with a moment’s thought – are the skeleton in the Chancellor’s cupboard. No wonder he refuses to open the cupboard; but we must insist."
As I said upthread, I think these predictions/projections are exaggerated, but I am convinced that a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive.
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.
I'm not sure about the alternative.
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.
I think that's absolutely right. It would be extremely disruptive, in terms of legal status of Brits in the EU and vice versa; in terms of the ramifications for multinationals in terms of double taxation and witholding taxes; for automotive firms and other parts of multinational supply chains in the UK; in terms of passport control and the rights of British lorries to drive to France and vice versa; and in terms of the ability of the UK to cover its current account deficit.
None of these things cause people to starve or die from lack of medicines. But given the already precarious position of the UK economy (see my video), they would likely result in a nasty recession. A 2% difference in income ten years from now is one thing. Losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage is something altogether different.
So - if Sean Fear is unable to answer the entire question - what would YOU choose?
TMay's Deal or Remain?
And if TMay's Deal falls, as seems likely, what would you prefer: No Deal or Remain?
1) Theresa May's deal. It's rubbish but it meets the criteria set by the referendum vote and campaign. 2) Abstain. No deal would be disastrous economically. Remain would merely worsen the country's psychiatric breakdown.
Before anyone takes the Hammond and May's Treasury's estimates of the effect of Brexit as gospel, they need to read the other side of the argument and take a view on what Minford considers to be the "absurd" assumptions used to underpin earlier forecasts:
Minford's conclusion: "What this all comes down to is, if you use the correct assumptions, you get substantial gains from Brexit under either Canada+ or a World Trade deal under WTO rules. It is only if you make the absurd assumptions embraced by Whitehall that you get the large negative effects they forecast. These assumptions – whose absurdity anyone can understand with a moment’s thought – are the skeleton in the Chancellor’s cupboard. No wonder he refuses to open the cupboard; but we must insist."
His views are going to be buried in the media blitz over these forecasts and today has been lethal for ERG
I expect to see the pound rise over the coming weeks as no deal becomes almost impossible and the narrative moves to much more business friendly brexit and even to remain, though the path to that is very rocky
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.
I'm not sure about the alternative.
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.
I think that's absolutely right. It would be extremely disruptive, in terms of legal status of Brits in the EU and vice versa; in terms of the ramifications for multinationals in terms of double taxation and witholding taxes; for automotive firms and other parts of multinational supply chains in the UK; in terms of passport control and the rights of British lorries to drive to France and vice versa; and in terms of the ability of the UK to cover its current account deficit.
None of these things cause people to starve or die from lack of medicines. But given the already precarious position of the UK economy (see my video), they would likely result in a nasty recession. A 2% difference in income ten years from now is one thing. Losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage is something altogether different.
So - if Sean Fear is unable to answer the entire question - what would YOU choose?
TMay's Deal or Remain?
And if TMay's Deal falls, as seems likely, what would you prefer: No Deal or Remain?
This deal is greatly superior to Remain. The ability to control immigration from unskilled workers. An end to foolish EU criminal justice rulings. Freedom to regulate the 80% of our economy consisting of the growing service sector. An end to the billions of year going down the EU blackhole. Freedom from the Common Agricultural Policy. This is everything we wanted from Cameron's renegotiation. And more.
I thought these were the parameters that they had used to stress test the banks. They are not a prediction of what the BoE thinks will happen. Carney right at the beginning said very clearly that these were scenarios for stress testing not forecasts of what will happen.
The FPC judges that the UK banking system is strong enough to serve UK households and businesses even in a disorderly Brexit.
The severity of the UK economic stress in the 2018 stress test which the major UK banks have passed is significantly greater than the economic scenario for Brexit based on ‘worst case’ assumptions (see Chart D).
There is sufficient capital to absorb losses in a worst case Brexit.
Major UK banks hold more than £1 trillion of high-quality liquid assets. In addition, banks have pre- positioned collateral at the Bank of England that would allow them to borrow a further £300 billion. The Bank is able to lend in all major currencies.
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.
I'm not sure about the alternative.
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.
I think that's absolutely right. It would be extremely disruptive, in terms of legal status of Brits in the EU and vice versa; in terms of the ramifications for multinationals in terms of double taxation and witholding taxes; for automotive firms and other parts of multinational supply chains in the UK; in terms of passport control and the rights of British lorries to drive to France and vice versa; and in terms of the ability of the UK to cover its current account deficit.
None of these things cause people to starve or die from lack of medicines. But given the already precarious position of the UK economy (see my video), they would likely result in a nasty recession. A 2% difference in income ten years from now is one thing. Losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage is something altogether different.
So - if Sean Fear is unable to answer the entire question - what would YOU choose?
TMay's Deal or Remain?
And if TMay's Deal falls, as seems likely, what would you prefer: No Deal or Remain?
This deal is greatly superior to Remain. The ability to control immigration from unskilled workers. An end to foolish EU criminal justice rulings. Freedom to regulate the 80% of our economy consisting of the growing service sector. An end to the billions of year going down the EU blackhole. Freedom from the Common Agricultural Policy. This is everything we wanted from Cameron's renegotiation. And more.
This deal is a shopping list. Among other things you haven't negotiated the price yet. Payments to the EU could easily be more than they are now.
Before anyone takes the Hammond and May's Treasury's estimates of the effect of Brexit as gospel, they need to read the other side of the argument and take a view on what Minford considers to be the "absurd" assumptions used to underpin earlier forecasts:
Minford's conclusion: "What this all comes down to is, if you use the correct assumptions, you get substantial gains from Brexit under either Canada+ or a World Trade deal under WTO rules. It is only if you make the absurd assumptions embraced by Whitehall that you get the large negative effects they forecast. These assumptions – whose absurdity anyone can understand with a moment’s thought – are the skeleton in the Chancellor’s cupboard. No wonder he refuses to open the cupboard; but we must insist."
As I said upthread, I think these predictions/projections are exaggerated, but I am convinced that a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive.
A No Deal Brexit with extremely positive pro-business policies would be a hard hit but survivable. A No Deal Brexit followed by a Corbyn government implementing full blown socialism would be devastating. We would have a lost generation.
And the hard hit and acrimony from No Deal would inevitably end with Corbyn in power, with complete control of his party.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Why are we importing this stuff in the first place?
Are British companies incapable are creating the chemicals that can purify the water we drink?
Like I said on Sunday what the **** have British governments actually been doing for the past 40 years?
The law of comparative advantage is a tough one. As a chemist I would love more chemicals to be made here, but the reality is that having one plant in Belgium supplying the whole continent with chlorine is the optimum from an economic point of view. If Brexit means wholesale interference with the free market then you can see why it has always been so popular with the hard left. If that is what people want fair enough, but I don't think it has been sold to voters as Cuba with potatoes.
Odds on favourite? Do they not understand how debates work? Mastery of the detail is all May might have, and that won't win a debate when her own Cabinet can barely support her position.
The FPC judges that the UK banking system is strong enough to serve UK households and businesses even in a disorderly Brexit.
The severity of the UK economic stress in the 2018 stress test which the major UK banks have passed is significantly greater than the economic scenario for Brexit based on ‘worst case’ assumptions (see Chart D).
There is sufficient capital to absorb losses in a worst case Brexit.
Major UK banks hold more than £1 trillion of high-quality liquid assets. In addition, banks have pre- positioned collateral at the Bank of England that would allow them to borrow a further £300 billion. The Bank is able to lend in all major currencies.
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.
I'm not sure about the alternative.
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.
I think that's absolutely right. It would be extremely disruptive, in terms of legal status of Brits in the EU and vice versa; in terms of the ramifications for multinationals in terms of double taxation and witholding taxes; for automotive firms and other parts of multinational supply chains in the UK; in terms of passport control and the rights of British lorries to drive to France and vice versa; and in terms of the ability of the UK to cover its current account deficit.
None of these things cause people to starve or die from lack of medicines. But given the already precarious position of the UK economy (see my video), they would likely result in a nasty recession. A 2% difference in income ten years from now is one thing. Losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage is something altogether different.
So - if Sean Fear is unable to answer the entire question - what would YOU choose?
TMay's Deal or Remain?
And if TMay's Deal falls, as seems likely, what would you prefer: No Deal or Remain?
This deal is greatly superior to Remain. The ability to control immigration from unskilled workers. An end to foolish EU criminal justice rulings. Freedom to regulate the 80% of our economy consisting of the growing service sector. An end to the billions of year going down the EU blackhole. Freedom from the Common Agricultural Policy. This is everything we wanted from Cameron's renegotiation. And more.
This deal is a shopping list. Among other things you haven't negotiated the price yet. Payments to the EU could easily be more than they are now.
Also the EAW would probably continue if the UK leaves. The UK government is relatively happy to surrender citizens' rights; it did this also with the US-UK extradition treaty.
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.
I'm not sure about the alternative.
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.
I think that's absolutely right. It would be extremely disruptive, in terms of legal status of Brits in the EU and vice versa; in terms of the ramifications for multinationals in terms of double taxation and witholding taxes; for automotive firms and other parts of multinational supply chains in the UK; in terms of passport control and the rights of British lorries to drive to France and vice versa; and in terms of the ability of the UK to cover its current account deficit.
None of these things cause people to starve or die from lack of medicines. But given the already precarious position of the UK economy (see my video), they would likely result in a nasty recession. A 2% difference in income ten years from now is one thing. Losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage is something altogether different.
So - if Sean Fear is unable to answer the entire question - what would YOU choose?
TMay's Deal or Remain?
And if TMay's Deal falls, as seems likely, what would you prefer: No Deal or Remain?
This deal is greatly superior to Remain. The ability to control immigration from unskilled workers. An end to foolish EU criminal justice rulings. Freedom to regulate the 80% of our economy consisting of the growing service sector. An end to the billions of year going down the EU blackhole. Freedom from the Common Agricultural Policy. This is everything we wanted from Cameron's renegotiation. And more.
This deal is a shopping list. Among other things you haven't negotiated the price yet. Payments to the EU could easily be more than they are now.
There is no way they will be anything close to €9bn a year. And even if the next deal proposed an amount too high, we could reject that then. The EU no longer has the ability to close the borders, so we can accept this deal and reject the next one. As things stand we are saving billions.
Why are we importing this stuff in the first place?
Are British companies incapable are creating the chemicals that can purify the water we drink?
Like I said on Sunday what the **** have British governments actually been doing for the past 40 years?
This how it works in the real world of economies/international trade.
We do stuff, other countries do other stuff, we sell each other stuff we need/want.
We cannot do everything.
That is only true, in terms of a classic Ricardian defence of free trade, if you make the assumption of there being innate advantages in producing stuff in one country rather than another, largely centred around primary goods. For example, if one country has an abundance of oil, it makes a lot of sense to trade with a country which has none but which does say have a surplus of agricultural produce thanks to its favourable climate.
However, that argument has though broken down with the advent of globalisation, where the availability of primary goods has next to nothing to do decisions on where for example manufacturing plants are located (in contrast to the 19th century where steel production was closely allied to the local availability of coal and iron ore). Instead those decisions rely too much on the outcome of beauty contests between different competing locations, largely to bid down labour costs by the threat of relocation to a new site if hard won rights are not given up. That's fine if you are a shareholder (or company director) but not fine if you are an employee. So the real world of modern international trade is very different from the picture you paint.
Today I went to pick up two of my grandchildren from school in the most dangerous gale force winds and rain with a large tree branch breaking off, hitting the car before flying into traffic behind. Blue light ambulances abound as did fire engines and as it was recycling day trolley blocks and food waste bins upended everywhere. However through it all I listened to wonderful classical music and delivered my grandchildren to their home with their Grandma to look after them
It is my daughter and son in law's 20th wedding anniversary and they have gone down to Stratford for a few days and are going to the theatre tonight.
Grandchildren, classical music and Shakespeare help us realise there is a lot more important things than brexit
Why are we importing this stuff in the first place?
Are British companies incapable are creating the chemicals that can purify the water we drink?
Like I said on Sunday what the **** have British governments actually been doing for the past 40 years?
This how it works in the real world of economies/international trade.
We do stuff, other countries do other stuff, we sell each other stuff we need/want.
We cannot do everything.
That is only true, in terms of a classic Ricardian defence of free trade, if you make the assumption of there being innate advantages in producing stuff in one country rather than another, largely centred around primary goods. For example, if one country has an abundance of oil, it makes a lot of sense to trade with a country which has none but which does say have a surplus of agricultural produce thanks to its favourable climate.
However, that argument has though broken down with the advent of globalisation, where the availability of primary goods has next to nothing to do decisions on where for example manufacturing plants are located (in contrast to the 19th century where steel production was closely allied to the local availability of coal and iron ore). Instead those decisions rely too much on the outcome of beauty contests between different competing locations, largely to bid down labour costs by the threat of relocation to a new site if hard won rights are not given up. That's fine if you are a shareholder (or company director) but not fine if you are an employee. So the real world of modern international trade is very different from the picture you paint.
There is a small subset of goods that are determined by labour costs. Most location decisions are driven by access to talent, a stable political and economic environment, a local hub with additional expertise and, sometimes, low energy costs. If what you said was true, Tesla would not be in California.
Why are we importing this stuff in the first place?
Are British companies incapable are creating the chemicals that can purify the water we drink?
Like I said on Sunday what the **** have British governments actually been doing for the past 40 years?
This how it works in the real world of economies/international trade.
We do stuff, other countries do other stuff, we sell each other stuff we need/want.
We cannot do everything.
That is only true, in terms of a classic Ricardian defence of free trade, if you make the assumption of there being innate advantages in producing stuff in one country rather than another, largely centred around primary goods. For example, if one country has an abundance of oil, it makes a lot of sense to trade with a country which has none but which does say have a surplus of agricultural produce thanks to its favourable climate.
However, that argument has though broken down with the advent of globalisation, where the availability of primary goods has next to nothing to do decisions on where for example manufacturing plants are located (in contrast to the 19th century where steel production was closely allied to the local availability of coal and iron ore). Instead those decisions rely too much on the outcome of beauty contests between different competing locations, largely to bid down labour costs by the threat of relocation to a new site if hard won rights are not given up. That's fine if you are a shareholder (or company director) but not fine if you are an employee. So the real world of modern international trade is very different from the picture you paint.
Ricardian economics actually show that trade is beneficial even in the situation whereby other countries have an advantage/disadvantage in all goods. IE if we could easily produce both chemicals and airplane parts, but we are relatively more efficient with airplane parts we produce those, export those and import the chemicals. Sure we could produce the chemicals, but we'd be poorer overall if we did.
Plus economies of scale mean that it isn't worthwhile producing a small amount of everything we need when we could produce way more than we need in some things, export that, then import from another nation who are producing way more than they need in that good.
Odds on favourite? Do they not understand how debates work? Mastery of the detail is all May might have, and that won't win a debate when her own Cabinet can barely support her position.
For sure. Quotes from her opponents on her own side will provide Corbyn with lots of ammunition.
The predicted fall in house prices is the one aspect that would actually be positive, even if it were better to happen slowly rather than as a sudden crash.
The real question is for Labour MPs: do they want 8% unemployment just 10 years after we had 8% unemployment? Think about what that does to Millenials who are already considerably behind Generation X at the same point in their careers. The next generation would be even more hurt.
Is voting down this deal and causing an economic crash really the right thing to do? Is hurting Theresa May really more important than hammering the working class?
This is the sort of thing Trump would do. I would hope Labour MPs have more scruples.
Odds on favourite? Do they not understand how debates work? Mastery of the detail is all May might have, and that won't win a debate when her own Cabinet can barely support her position.
For sure. Quotes from her opponents on her own side will provide Corbyn with lots of ammunition.
The predicted fall in house prices is the one aspect that would actually be positive, even if it were better to happen slowly rather than as a sudden crash.
House prices need to fall relative to income. There is no advantage to the young if house prices collapse because they have no money to buy them, which is what this is predicting.
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.
I'm not sure about the alternative.
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.
I think that's absolutely right. It would be extremely disruptive, in terms of legal status of Brits in the EU and vice versa; in terms of the ramifications for multinationals in terms of double taxation and witholding taxes; for automotive firms and other parts of multinational supply chains in the UK; in terms of passport control and the rights of British lorries to drive to France and vice versa; and in terms of the ability of the UK to cover its current account deficit.
None of these things cause people to starve or die from lack of medicines. But given the already precarious position of the UK economy (see my video), they would likely result in a nasty recession. A 2% difference in income ten years from now is one thing. Losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage is something altogether different.
So - if Sean Fear is unable to answer the entire question - what would YOU choose?
TMay's Deal or Remain?
And if TMay's Deal falls, as seems likely, what would you prefer: No Deal or Remain?
1) Theresa May's deal. It's rubbish but it meets the criteria set by the referendum vote and campaign. 2) Abstain. No deal would be disastrous economically. Remain would merely worsen the country's psychiatric breakdown.
I'd agree with that - not voting will also send a message.
Before anyone takes the Hammond and May's Treasury's estimates of the effect of Brexit as gospel, they need to read the other side of the argument and take a view on what Minford considers to be the "absurd" assumptions used to underpin earlier forecasts:
Minford's conclusion: "What this all comes down to is, if you use the correct assumptions, you get substantial gains from Brexit under either Canada+ or a World Trade deal under WTO rules. It is only if you make the absurd assumptions embraced by Whitehall that you get the large negative effects they forecast. These assumptions – whose absurdity anyone can understand with a moment’s thought – are the skeleton in the Chancellor’s cupboard. No wonder he refuses to open the cupboard; but we must insist."
As I said upthread, I think these predictions/projections are exaggerated, but I am convinced that a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive.
A No Deal Brexit with extremely positive pro-business policies would be a hard hit but survivable. A No Deal Brexit followed by a Corbyn government implementing full blown socialism would be devastating. We would have a lost generation.
And the hard hit and acrimony from No Deal would inevitably end with Corbyn in power, with complete control of his party.
Even in the most positive scenario, a no deal Leave would produce a short run dip with the benefits (and personally I remain sceptical) kicking in later. The question is how much economic and political damage will have been done by the time things start to improve. People's tolerance of and resilience to withstand a downturn nowadays is severely limited (the nation is living on tick already, cf. Robert's videos) and, as you say, such circumstances could easily see Corbyn projected into power.
The real question is for Labour MPs: do they want 8% unemployment just 10 years after we had 8% unemployment? Think about what that does to Millenials who are already considerably behind Generation X at the same point in their careers. The next generation would be even more hurt.
Is voting down this deal and causing an economic crash really the right thing to do? Is hurting Theresa May really more important than hammering the working class?
This is the sort of thing Trump would do. I would hope Labour MPs have more scruples.
You are asking Labour to "see sense" in the same way they themselves might, if in government, ask the Cons to see sense in nationalising Tesco.
Odds on favourite? Do they not understand how debates work? Mastery of the detail is all May might have, and that won't win a debate when her own Cabinet can barely support her position.
The predicted fall in house prices
Its not predicted its a scenario for stress testing banks.
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.
I'm not sure about the alternative.
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.
I think that's absolutely right. It would be extremely disruptive, in terms of legal status of Brits in the EU and vice versa; in terms of the ramifications for multinationals in terms of double taxation and witholding taxes; for automotive firms and other parts of multinational supply chains in the UK; in terms of passport control and the rights of British lorries to drive to France and vice versa; and in terms of the ability of the UK to cover its current account deficit.
None of these things cause people to starve or die from lack of medicines. But given the already precarious position of the UK economy (see my video), they would likely result in a nasty recession. A 2% difference in income ten years from now is one thing. Losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage is something altogether different.
So - if Sean Fear is unable to answer the entire question - what would YOU choose?
TMay's Deal or Remain?
And if TMay's Deal falls, as seems likely, what would you prefer: No Deal or Remain?
1) Theresa May's deal. It's rubbish but it meets the criteria set by the referendum vote and campaign. 2) Abstain. No deal would be disastrous economically. Remain would merely worsen the country's psychiatric breakdown.
Lol and !!
After all your posts over recent months (years!) you'd really abstain if Remain were offered again in a vote?
ERG are going to lose this and to be honest they deserve it . They had brexit and surrendered it in the name of purity
BOE 30% drop in house prices is a killer blow and why would the voter take the chance
People who favour No Deal will see this as crying wolf.
Agree. Most people who favour No Deal can't spell GDP and nor do they want to.
They're mostly either wealthy businesspeople hoping to cash in, pensioners who think their income is secure regardless, or expats with an overdeveloped sense of curiosity.
The real question is for Labour MPs: do they want 8% unemployment just 10 years after we had 8% unemployment? Think about what that does to Millenials who are already considerably behind Generation X at the same point in their careers. The next generation would be even more hurt.
Is voting down this deal and causing an economic crash really the right thing to do? Is hurting Theresa May really more important than hammering the working class?
This is the sort of thing Trump would do. I would hope Labour MPs have more scruples.
You are asking Labour to "see sense" in the same way they themselves might, if in government, ask the Cons to see sense in nationalising Tesco.
It is a big ask.
Not really, given the majority of Labour MPs know full well that voting down this deal will likely end in major economic damage. Meanwhile Conservative MPs know that nationalising Tescos would end in economic damage. It is the opposite situation.
The real question is for Labour MPs: do they want 8% unemployment just 10 years after we had 8% unemployment? Think about what that does to Millenials who are already considerably behind Generation X at the same point in their careers. The next generation would be even more hurt.
Is voting down this deal and causing an economic crash really the right thing to do? Is hurting Theresa May really more important than hammering the working class?
This is the sort of thing Trump would do. I would hope Labour MPs have more scruples.
The question is whether you slavishly believe the apocalyptic scenarios we are being fed from Carney and others which are not what WILL happen but what MIGHT happen.
I think I would be asking Government supporters whether they think it a sign of good governance we are seemingly so ill-prepared for a No Deal Brexit? Last time I looked the Conservatives have been in power since 2015.
I do sometimes wonder what would have happened at key points in history if we'd had social media and the internet. Are we genuinely better informed and able to make better decisions now? So many people casting each other as idiots or worse and selected bits of information in the best/worst light based on their point of view is just depressing.
Apparently the BBC is behaving improperly by reporting the Bank of England forecasts (according to Jacob Rees Mogg). What's more he calls Mark Carney 'a second rate failed Canadian politician'. For someone educated at Eton he shows a remarkable lack of class.
ERG are going to lose this and to be honest they deserve it . They had brexit and surrendered it in the name of purity
BOE 30% drop in house prices is a killer blow and why would the voter take the chance
People who favour No Deal will see this as crying wolf.
Agree. Most people who favour No Deal can't spell GDP and nor do they want to.
They're mostly either wealthy businesspeople hoping to cash in, pensioners who think their income is secure regardless, or expats with an overdeveloped sense of curiosity.
Huge assumption time but I'm willing to bet that all those in the PB sub-sample who advocate no deal would be economically untouched by its consequences.
Most of the people who voted leave on here are in the 0.1% anyhow.
He has gone full on Trumpian. A failed second rate Canadian politician who just happened to be globally renown as being the only central bank governor to steer a major economy successfully through a global financial crisis. At what point does the ERG start the "lock him up" chants?
Mr. T, new members are required to sign up to Schengen and the single currency. The UK has treaty opt-outs on those two items (not for the rebate, so we'd likely lose that if we remained). Rejoining is a different kettle of monkeys to remaining.
Mr. T, new members are required to sign up to Schengen and the single currency. The UK has treaty opt-outs on those two items (not for the rebate, so we'd likely lose that if we remained). Rejoining is a different kettle of monkeys to remaining.
Sigh. EU members are required to be members of EITHER Schengen or the CTA. Obviously we’d chose the latter.
As for the Euro, even if we were forced to agree to joining, we could adopt the same trick used by Sweden and Denmark and simply never declare we were ready for ERM II, a pre-condition for joining the Euro.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
We need a treaty letting us back in.
They'd probably stick in a few requirements that we wouldn't make them go through this again, something like The UK agrees not to trigger Article 50 until the year 3000 at the earliest, also the UK agrees to join the Euro, and cede Gibraltar to Spain for perpetuity.
Good luck on selling that on the doorstep.
The UK changing its mind and Brexit being reversed (even after March 29) would be a huge moral and political victory for Brussels (plus they'd get all that money AND the UK back in the Single Market and CU in perpetuity). The EU would be insane not to make this as inviting a prospect as possible for UK voters.
Making it punitive would be incomprehensibly dumb. Nonetheless, incomprehensibly dumb things have attended this whole process so, sure, it is possible Brussels might act like that, in a spasm of sadistic stupidity.
Plus Westminster gets to shoot the SNP fox and keep us churlish Scots in the beloved Union!
Apparently the BBC is behaving improperly by reporting the Bank of England forecasts according to Jacob Rees Mogg. What's more he calls Mark Carney as a second rate failed Canadian politician. For someone educated at Eton he shows a remarkable lack of class.
Today I went to pick up two of my grandchildren from school in the most dangerous gale force winds and rain with a large tree branch breaking off, hitting the car before flying into traffic behind. Blue light ambulances abound as did fire engines and as it was recycling day trolley blocks and food waste bins upended everywhere. However through it all I listened to wonderful classical music and delivered my grandchildren to their home with their Grandma to look after them
It is my daughter and son in law's 20th wedding anniversary and they have gone down to Stratford for a few days and are going to the theatre tonight.
Grandchildren, classical music and Shakespeare help us realise there is a lot more important things than brexit
I do sometimes wonder what would have happened at key points in history if we'd had social media and the internet. Are we genuinely better informed and able to make better decisions now? So many people casting each other as idiots or worse and selected bits of information in the best/worst light based on their point of view is just depressing.
I dunno....Kipling warned about words "Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" - so I doubt there was a halcyon time of impartial journalism or reporting....
Apparently the BBC is behaving improperly by reporting the Bank of England forecasts (according to Jacob Rees Mogg). What's more he calls Mark Carney 'a second rate failed Canadian politician'. For someone educated at Eton he shows a remarkable lack of class.
He used to seem quite classy, full of manners and all that, but he seems to be losing that somewhat. I guess it's because it is no longer a game to him and he can see Brexit is not going to happen now.
In 1922 Ireland signed off (or M Collins and the foreunners of Fine Gael did, whilst De Valera and the fore runners of Fianna Fail violently continued to disgaree for another year or so) on a "deal" that gave 26 counties Dominion status. I am not aware there was a "way out" of that, per se. It was permanent so to speak. All Ireland remained a de jure monarchy.
27 years later and a lot of "events dear boy events" as MacMillan used to say and a 26 county Republic was declared, and it was little more that a footnote, not a huge constitutional deal as it would've been.
I strongly suspect the same sort of processes would apply to the Backstop. Can't be sure of the timing but we would be out, and go from there.
Sit on the side of the riverbank long enough and the bodies of your enemies float by.
The ERG are just impatient.
If you are going to make parallels between the Backstop and treaties of the inter war years, then a more appropriate comparison is with the contents of the Armistice which led to national humiliation under the Treaty of Versailles. It contributed much to the rise of a particular extremist party which exploited a mood of disgust at mainstream politicians who were perceived to have sold out a nation. Escape from the provisions of that Treaty was only made once a party was in power which was prepared to wantonly disregard such agreements and the provision of international law in general.
That "Inside the Foreign Office" documentary the other night, notable for Boris Boris-ing, also featured the Permanent Secretary making a speech to the staff along those lines:
1815: Metternich and Castlereagh decided not to humiliate France at the Congress of Vienna, peace for nearly a century 1919: Wilson and Clemenceau decided to humiliate Germany at Versailles, war within two decades
ERG are going to lose this and to be honest they deserve it . They had brexit and surrendered it in the name of purity
BOE 30% drop in house prices is a killer blow and why would the voter take the chance
People who favour No Deal will see this as crying wolf.
Agree. Most people who favour No Deal can't spell GDP and nor do they want to.
They're mostly either wealthy businesspeople hoping to cash in, pensioners who think their income is secure regardless, or expats with an overdeveloped sense of curiosity.
Huge assumption time but I'm willing to bet that all those in the PB sub-sample who advocate no deal would be economically untouched by its consequences.
Most of the people who voted leave on here are in the 0.1% anyhow.
I doubt it would effect us much but we are 100% against no deal. We have grandchildren to consider
I thought these were the parameters that they had used to stress test the banks. They are not a prediction of what the BoE thinks will happen. Carney right at the beginning said very clearly that these were scenarios for stress testing not forecasts of what will happen.
Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. Firstly to check that you can get through them even if battered and bruised. Secondly to identify what you can do to stop the scenarios playing out. Having a deal would be an obvious mitigation. Stress tests are interested in reinforcing negative factors. So we might survive No Deal Brexit or a full scale trade war but both together could be really nasty. Stress tests also assume shit happens. Shit happened in 2008. Something to bear in mind whenever anyone dismisses stress tests as beyond the worst case.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
We need a treaty letting us back in.
They'd probably stick in a few requirements that we wouldn't make them go through this again, something like The UK agrees not to trigger Article 50 until the year 3000 at the earliest, also the UK agrees to join the Euro, and cede Gibraltar to Spain for perpetuity.
Good luck on selling that on the doorstep.
The UK changing its mind and Brexit being reversed (even after March 29) would be a huge moral and political victory for Brussels (plus they'd get all that money AND the UK back in the Single Market and CU in perpetuity). The EU would be insane not to make this as inviting a prospect as possible for UK voters.
Making it punitive would be incomprehensibly dumb. Nonetheless, incomprehensibly dumb things have attended this whole process so, sure, it is possible Brussels might act like that, in a spasm of sadistic stupidity.
Quite honestly the EU blocking our humiliating reentry by trying to make it too humiliating seems the best prospect for Brexit to happen at all right now.
ERG are going to lose this and to be honest they deserve it . They had brexit and surrendered it in the name of purity
BOE 30% drop in house prices is a killer blow and why would the voter take the chance
People who favour No Deal will see this as crying wolf.
Agree. Most people who favour No Deal can't spell GDP and nor do they want to.
They're mostly either wealthy businesspeople hoping to cash in, pensioners who think their income is secure regardless, or expats with an overdeveloped sense of curiosity.
Huge assumption time but I'm willing to bet that all those in the PB sub-sample who advocate no deal would be economically untouched by its consequences.
Most of the people who voted leave on here are in the 0.1% anyhow.
If Corbyn gets in they might be in for a surprise.
Project Fear wasn't believed last time, why should rehashing the exact same arguments convince anyone this time? What's changed? We had a referendum, we had project fear and the people said "we don't believe you, let's leave anyway".
Project Fear wasn't believed last time, why should rehashing the exact same arguments convince anyone this time? What's changed? We had a referendum, we had project fear and the people said "we don't believe you, let's leave anyway".
ERG are going to lose this and to be honest they deserve it . They had brexit and surrendered it in the name of purity
BOE 30% drop in house prices is a killer blow and why would the voter take the chance
People who favour No Deal will see this as crying wolf.
Agree. Most people who favour No Deal can't spell GDP and nor do they want to.
They're mostly either wealthy businesspeople hoping to cash in, pensioners who think their income is secure regardless, or expats with an overdeveloped sense of curiosity.
Huge assumption time but I'm willing to bet that all those in the PB sub-sample who advocate no deal would be economically untouched by its consequences.
Most of the people who voted leave on here are in the 0.1% anyhow.
I can't think of anyone on this site who actually wants no deal.
Project Fear wasn't believed last time, why should rehashing the exact same arguments convince anyone this time? What's changed? We had a referendum, we had project fear and the people said "we don't believe you, let's leave anyway".
Corbyn wasn't likely to come to power last time.
Nor is he this time, there's 4 years til the next General Election.
We had the vote, now its time to JFDI. Just ... do it.
Comments
We do stuff, other countries do other stuff, we sell each other stuff we need/want.
We cannot do everything.
Brexit house price crash: why a 35% drop is unlikely
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/an-extreme-vision-that-has-no-precedent-5hsxvcl5c
A previous Government plan suggested commandeering ships. Except of course the UK Masters' licenses will also be invalid in the event of no deal...
Our analysis includes scenarios not forecasts. They illustrate what could happen not necessarily what is most likely to happen.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/Report/2018/eu-withdrawal-scenarios-and-monetary-and-financial-stability
None of these things cause people to starve or die from lack of medicines. But given the already precarious position of the UK economy (see my video), they would likely result in a nasty recession. A 2% difference in income ten years from now is one thing. Losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage is something altogether different.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0752266527/ref=asc_df_075226652757153184/?
https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/brexit-and-stamp-duty-blamed-for-fastest-fall-in-london-house-prices-in-nine-years-a124116.html
The house price divide between London and the rest of the UK will narrow by up to a fifth over the next five years, a report from estate agent Savills suggests.
In the North West property prices are predicted to go up by 21.6% over five years, with most of the rest of the country set for double digit growth,
https://www.theweek.co.uk/london-house-prices
Brexit is drifting further away by the minute and I can only see TM deal (doubtful) referendum (possible) Norway (likely)
However, to get a referendum the EU are not going to allow an A50 extension of more than a week or two because of the EU elections in May. If we remain those elections from the UK are going to be popcorn time
See labour are rowing back on McDonnells comments. They would take a big hit in leave areas if they did formally endorse a referendum
I agree with much of what Corbyn says, but not all, and it's the 'all' that makes him as unacceptable as May in a government that has to command the confidence of parliament - well most of it. I don't imagine Cash or Skinner would be very happy, but needs must.
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1067824272532475905
BOE 30% drop in house prices is a killer blow and why would the voter take the chance
People still get their knickers in a twist
https://brexitcentral.com/time-chancellor-came-clean-absurd-project-fear-economic-modelling/
Minford's conclusion: "What this all comes down to is, if you use the correct assumptions, you get substantial gains from Brexit under either Canada+ or a World Trade deal under WTO rules. It is only if you make the absurd assumptions embraced by Whitehall that you get the large negative effects they forecast. These assumptions – whose absurdity anyone can understand with a moment’s thought – are the skeleton in the Chancellor’s cupboard. No wonder he refuses to open the cupboard; but we must insist."
Carney right at the beginning said very clearly that these were scenarios for stress testing not forecasts of what will happen.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/report/2018/eu-withdrawal-scenarios-and-monetary-and-financial-stability.pdf?la=en&hash=B5F6EDCDF90DCC10286FC0BC599D94CAB8735DFB
Well, the second round of Carney's Project Fear should bolster support for May's Deal considerably as it is either (seemingly) a bad Deal or economic catastrophe.
What comes out clearly from Carney is less the consequences of leaving a No Deal than leaving without having adequately prepared for No Deal. It's evident much of the "damage" could and indeed should be mitigated by reasonable and timely contingency planning but while some large companies and many local authorities have spent time and resource on it, central Government, it appears, has not.
I find that hard to believe but if true it's colossal negligence for which May and others need to be held to account. The problem is in the relief and euphoria that we will have saved ourselves going over the cliff edge no one will bother to ask how we got to the stage when the only option was a poor deal.
But they then assume we move in parallel - ie none of the independent actions we can take change anything
Ken Clarke?
Interesting tweet from Rolf Degen.
twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1067087386662850560
2) Abstain. No deal would be disastrous economically. Remain would merely worsen the country's psychiatric breakdown.
I expect to see the pound rise over the coming weeks as no deal becomes almost impossible and the narrative moves to much more business friendly brexit and even to remain, though the path to that is very rocky
"Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools"
The FPC judges that the UK banking system is strong enough to serve UK households and businesses even in a disorderly Brexit.
The severity of the UK economic stress in the 2018 stress test which the major UK banks have passed is significantly greater than the economic scenario for Brexit based on ‘worst case’ assumptions (see Chart D).
There is sufficient capital to absorb losses in a worst case Brexit.
Major UK banks hold more than £1 trillion of high-quality liquid assets. In addition, banks have pre- positioned collateral at the Bank of England that would allow them to borrow a further £300 billion. The Bank is able to lend in all major currencies.
And the hard hit and acrimony from No Deal would inevitably end with Corbyn in power, with complete control of his party.
2. Lots of people can’t afford a house at current prices
3. They tried this last time
However, that argument has though broken down with the advent of globalisation, where the availability of primary goods has next to nothing to do decisions on where for example manufacturing plants are located (in contrast to the 19th century where steel production was closely allied to the local availability of coal and iron ore). Instead those decisions rely too much on the outcome of beauty contests between different competing locations, largely to bid down labour costs by the threat of relocation to a new site if hard won rights are not given up. That's fine if you are a shareholder (or company director) but not fine if you are an employee. So the real world of modern international trade is very different from the picture you paint.
It is my daughter and son in law's 20th wedding anniversary and they have gone down to Stratford for a few days and are going to the theatre tonight.
Grandchildren, classical music and Shakespeare help us realise there is a lot more important things than brexit
Plus economies of scale mean that it isn't worthwhile producing a small amount of everything we need when we could produce way more than we need in some things, export that, then import from another nation who are producing way more than they need in that good.
The predicted fall in house prices is the one aspect that would actually be positive, even if it were better to happen slowly rather than as a sudden crash.
Is voting down this deal and causing an economic crash really the right thing to do? Is hurting Theresa May really more important than hammering the working class?
This is the sort of thing Trump would do. I would hope Labour MPs have more scruples.
It is a big ask.
Unfortunately it never really lasted.
After all your posts over recent months (years!) you'd really abstain if Remain were offered again in a vote?
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1067834284331945985
https://twitter.com/TheStevenThomas/status/1067837280092647424
I think I would be asking Government supporters whether they think it a sign of good governance we are seemingly so ill-prepared for a No Deal Brexit? Last time I looked the Conservatives have been in power since 2015.
Most of the people who voted leave on here are in the 0.1% anyhow.
As for the Euro, even if we were forced to agree to joining, we could adopt the same trick used by Sweden and Denmark and simply never declare we were ready for ERM II, a pre-condition for joining the Euro.
1815: Metternich and Castlereagh decided not to humiliate France at the Congress of Vienna, peace for nearly a century
1919: Wilson and Clemenceau decided to humiliate Germany at Versailles, war within two decades
We had the vote, now its time to JFDI. Just ... do it.