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.
They could if they were so minded point to the ERG and note that *they* don't think it would cause economic damage and if a large subset of Conservative MPs are happy to defy the government how on earth can Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition then support it?
Bank of England report says No Deal will lead to an even bigger recession than the 2008 crash with GDP falling 8%, the £ losing a quarter of its value and house prices falling by a third
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.
I think they're grown up enough to let us slide in at the back without any overt humiliation; the fact that Brexit would have crashed and burned would be reward enough. The childishness has mostly come from our side of the Channel, sadly.
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.
You think this parliament is lasting 4 more years? I know the Tories will not be keen on one, but I struggle to see how they'll manage that as a functioning government looks tough even if the DUP are brought back on line.
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".
Because the alternative then was unicorns. Now it’s harsh reality.
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.
They could if they were so minded point to the ERG and note that *they* don't think it would cause economic damage and if a large subset of Conservative MPs are happy to defy the government how on earth can Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition then support it?
Because moderate Labour MPs should be economically sensible and not take their economic beliefs from Peter Bone and Jacob Rees Mogg.
Bank of England report says No Deal will lead to an even bigger recession than the 2008 crash with GDP falling 8%, the £ losing a quarter of its value and house prices falling by a third
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.
You think this parliament is lasting 4 more years? I know the Tories will not be keen on one, but I struggle to see how they'll manage that as a functioning government looks tough even if the DUP are brought back on line.
Yes. Corbyn guarantees 4 more years. Nobody from the government benches is actually at the end of the day going to risk a General Election that brings Corbyn to power.
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
Except there were plenty of European wars involving France between 1815 and 1914.
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
+1
+2
I have been listening to a 1970's recording of the Messiah, with the Huddersfield Choral society. Pure gold, and such a wondrous sound to the ear... to counter the bullshine one reads and hears every day about Brexit
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.
So a crash from a disorderly Brexit, which would take a couple years to unfold while resentments build up, then Corbyn in government with a big majority. Genius.
BBC 6 o’clock news leading on the BoE “forecasts” - shocking reporting. In fairness the reporter covering it has been careful to describe them as “scenarios” not “forecasts” - but the headline was plain wrong.
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".
No deal brexit is over. Better back TM or lose brexit
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".
Because the alternative then was unicorns. Now it’s harsh reality.
Reality doesn't look that harsh to me. Project fear looks harsh but reality is life will go on either way.
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.
Bank of England report says No Deal will lead to an even bigger recession than the 2008 crash with GDP falling 8%, the £ losing a quarter of its value
But if the pound lost a quarter of its value that would be a massive boon to exporters.
No, it wouldn't. The economic theory here doesn't work in practice due to long lag times needed to readjust international supply chains. Also, more than low exchange rates, multinationals typically need stable ones. Which we wouldn't have.
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.
They could if they were so minded point to the ERG and note that *they* don't think it would cause economic damage and if a large subset of Conservative MPs are happy to defy the government how on earth can Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition then support it?
Because moderate Labour MPs should be economically sensible and not take their economic beliefs from Peter Bone and Jacob Rees Mogg.
Moderate Labour MPs want a Labour government. They don't want to do what a terribly nice Conservative supporter wishes or hopes they will do.
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".
No deal brexit is over. Better back TM or lose brexit
I don't want no deal Brexit. I want a good deal like TM said, which means the backstop has to go. TM's deal is over.
If we lose Brexit I'm OK with that, I was torn which way to vote anyway.
Either we leave properly or we remain properly (though that means no rebate). If we remain we likely within a generation invoke Article 50 again and have it managed better than May has done and we have a unilateral 2 year exit clause, if we leave under TM's deal we are bound forever with no unilateral exit clause.
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.
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
+1
I have been listening to a 1970's recording of the Messiah, with the Huddersfield Choral society. Pure gold, and such a wondrous sound to the ear... to counter the bullshine one reads and hears every day about Brexit
I didn't realise Jeremy Corbyn had recorded with the Huddersfield Choral society.
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.
They could if they were so minded point to the ERG and note that *they* don't think it would cause economic damage and if a large subset of Conservative MPs are happy to defy the government how on earth can Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition then support it?
Because moderate Labour MPs should be economically sensible and not take their economic beliefs from Peter Bone and Jacob Rees Mogg.
Moderate Labour MPs want a Labour government. They don't want to do what a terribly nice Conservative supporter wishes or hopes they will do.
Brexit is a greater priority than a Labour government, which could happen quite soon anyway.
Personally I think Corbyn might as well take over now as head of a minority government. He's still cobble more votes together for a Brexit proposal than May.
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
Translation:
1815: smart Brits* 1919: darn fool French and Yanks
He describes May's deal as "an agreement that would explicitly and indefinitely make Britain a rule-taker but not a rule-maker."
This is simply, factually untrue. We would be a rule maker over 80% of our economy and a rule taker in less than 20%. What a shining example of Remain media bias printing lies.
Bank of England report says No Deal will lead to an even bigger recession than the 2008 crash with GDP falling 8%, the £ losing a quarter of its value
But if the pound lost a quarter of its value that would be a massive boon to exporters.
No, it wouldn't. The economic theory here doesn't work in practice due to long lag times needed to readjust international supply chains. Also, more than low exchange rates, multinationals typically need stable ones. Which we wouldn't have.
Except our trade balance has improved since the fall in the pound in 2016 despite all the spoken about "uncertainty" and claims by the Treasury and BoE at the time that it would worsen. Within 12 months we were seeing boosts in exports.
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".
Because the alternative then was unicorns. Now it’s harsh reality.
Reality doesn't look that harsh to me. Project fear looks harsh but reality is life will go on either way.
Which if true makes the apoplectic reactions against project fear look sillier.
He describes May's deal as "an agreement that would explicitly and indefinitely make Britain a rule-taker but not a rule-maker."
This is simply, factually untrue. We would be a rule maker over 80% of our economy and a rule taker in less than 20%. What a shining example of Remain media bias printing lies.
A rule taker in 20% is too much. We are a G7 nation, one of the 7 largest economies in the world, we can survive on our own and make our own rules thank you very much.
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.
They could if they were so minded point to the ERG and note that *they* don't think it would cause economic damage and if a large subset of Conservative MPs are happy to defy the government how on earth can Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition then support it?
Because moderate Labour MPs should be economically sensible and not take their economic beliefs from Peter Bone and Jacob Rees Mogg.
Moderate Labour MPs want a Labour government. They don't want to do what a terribly nice Conservative supporter wishes or hopes they will do.
Brexit is a greater priority than a Labour government, which could happen quite soon anyway.
Are you saying that as your opinion or as an instruction to Labour MPs?
He describes May's deal as "an agreement that would explicitly and indefinitely make Britain a rule-taker but not a rule-maker."
This is simply, factually untrue. We would be a rule maker over 80% of our economy and a rule taker in less than 20%. What a shining example of Remain media bias printing lies.
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
+1
I have been listening to a 1970's recording of the Messiah, with the Huddersfield Choral society. Pure gold, and such a wondrous sound to the ear... to counter the bullshine one reads and hears every day about Brexit
I didn't realise Jeremy Corbyn had recorded with the Huddersfield Choral society.
Corbyn is a false prophet, as you should know by now .. Matthew 7v 15.
FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.
I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.
The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.
Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.
Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only) - Remain 44% - Govt Brexit Agreement 22% - Leaving EU with no deal 29%
("Britons Back May's Deal")
You also fail to mention Remain beats No Deal 50% to 40% while Remain only leads the Deal by single figures in that poll
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
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.
BoE stress tests are (from memory) twice as bad as what happened in 2008
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?
Because it's cheaper and easier to do it this way, and contributes to making us more prosperous. People have a habit of pressuring Governments and companies to give them more for less and they vote (Government-wise) and take their custom (company-wise) in that manner.
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".
Because the alternative then was unicorns. Now it’s harsh reality.
Reality doesn't look that harsh to me. Project fear looks harsh but reality is life will go on either way.
Which if true makes the apoplectic reactions against project fear look sillier.
You're right the apoplectic reactions of anyone who believes project fear look really silly, which is why they've being called out.
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 wouldn't be so sure about that: Shakespeare can attract some unsavoury sorts ...
Bank of England report says No Deal will lead to an even bigger recession than the 2008 crash with GDP falling 8%, the £ losing a quarter of its value
But if the pound lost a quarter of its value that would be a massive boon to exporters.
No, it wouldn't. The economic theory here doesn't work in practice due to long lag times needed to readjust international supply chains. Also, more than low exchange rates, multinationals typically need stable ones. Which we wouldn't have.
More likely to be a one time step down rather than increased medium term volatility
I am, of course, ignoring Dornbusch Overshooting for simplicity
FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.
I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.
The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.
Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.
Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only) - Remain 44% - Govt Brexit Agreement 22% - Leaving EU with no deal 29%
("Britons Back May's Deal")
You also fail to mention Remain beats No Deal 50% to 40% while Remain only leads the Deal by single figures in that poll
He describes May's deal as "an agreement that would explicitly and indefinitely make Britain a rule-taker but not a rule-maker."
This is simply, factually untrue. We would be a rule maker over 80% of our economy and a rule taker in less than 20%. What a shining example of Remain media bias printing lies.
A rule taker in 20% is too much. We are a G7 nation, one of the 7 largest economies in the world, we can survive on our own and make our own rules thank you very much.
OK, let’s take No Deal instead. The problem of being one of the 7 largest economies will quickly solve itself when we plummet down the list
I suspect J R-M will come to regret his ad hominem attack on Mark Carney. It makes him sound simultaneously ignorant and desperate and at a stroke loses him his USP which is that he at least seemed well mannered.
BBC 6 o’clock news leading on the BoE “forecasts” - shocking reporting. In fairness the reporter covering it has been careful to describe them as “scenarios” not “forecasts” - but the headline was plain wrong.
Are you saying that as your opinion or as an instruction to Labour MPs?
I'm not saying they must feel obliged to support this deal. If they genuinely think the national interest is in not backing it of course they should do that, as should any Tory MPs who feel the same. I'm sure most do think that. But when people emphasise the fact they want a Labour government it suggests they are not thinking about the national interest but the party interest. It's putting things the wrong way round.
I don't understand your objection to that position. MPs have a duty to the nation, not just their party. Obviously they think it is on the whole better if they are in charge, but sometimes they accept backing a party line is not the best thing to do. Dozens of Tories are doing that now, many in Labour have rebelled for the same reason previously, as indeed has its leader many times when he considered the national interest was not best served by backing his party. Are you saying that no Tory should vote against this deal because they want a Tory government? What a preposterous line that would be.
No one would ever be permitted to rebel on anything if you got your way, no cross party backed issue could be permitted, because the only thing that matters is wanting a government of one's own party, and therefore they must always oppose.
That's why I don't know why people defend Labour's position by pointing out they want a Labour government. That's irrelevant to whether they back this deal. If they think they can do better, as they do, that's a reasonable position, and it follows on that they want to be in power to do that. You don't reverse that order.
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
Remember he purpose of newspapers and TV channels is to attract viewers and readers to make money, not report the news accurately (though that is often in the interests of the business)
BBC 6 o’clock news leading on the BoE “forecasts” - shocking reporting. In fairness the reporter covering it has been careful to describe them as “scenarios” not “forecasts” - but the headline was plain wrong.
The Establishment doing all it can.....
Swiftly responded to by old Etonian JRM - clearly not part of said Establishment
BBC 6 o’clock news leading on the BoE “forecasts” - shocking reporting. In fairness the reporter covering it has been careful to describe them as “scenarios” not “forecasts” - but the headline was plain wrong.
The Establishment doing all it can.....
If the establishment was that joined up we wouldn’t be in this mess....
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
Nah, the BoE is supposed to be independent, but they were clearly part of the government's grid. They are just an arm of government.
He describes May's deal as "an agreement that would explicitly and indefinitely make Britain a rule-taker but not a rule-maker."
This is simply, factually untrue. We would be a rule maker over 80% of our economy and a rule taker in less than 20%. What a shining example of Remain media bias printing lies.
A rule taker in 20% is too much. We are a G7 nation, one of the 7 largest economies in the world, we can survive on our own and make our own rules thank you very much.
About 2/3 of UK exports go to the EU, China and the USA, all of them have bigger economies than us
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.
BBC 6 o’clock news leading on the BoE “forecasts” - shocking reporting. In fairness the reporter covering it has been careful to describe them as “scenarios” not “forecasts” - but the headline was plain wrong.
The Establishment doing all it can.....
If the establishment was that joined up we wouldn’t be in this mess....
BBC 6 o’clock news leading on the BoE “forecasts” - shocking reporting. In fairness the reporter covering it has been careful to describe them as “scenarios” not “forecasts” - but the headline was plain wrong.
The Establishment doing all it can.....
Swiftly responded to by old Etonian JRM - clearly not part of said Establishment
Well, precisely. It was true at the time of the referendum and it is true now, the whinging about the Establishment is so very overdone.
What the fuck is going on arrived back at LHR T4 to a queue a mile long snaking back almost to the airplane. Global Britain indeed.
Too many people use Heathrow Airport. That's why Boris Island was a good idea.
Boris Island was a bad idea. Wrong side of London for the vast majority of the country and only really handy for fish. Still on the east-west prevailing wind direction from the centre of London: bad idea for major airports to be located such that final approach or initial climbout will be over the centre of a conurbation; that's when the majority of air accidents happen. The only reason we have Heathrow in such a location is thanks to historical accident.
Best site (or, at least, least-worst site) would be in the region of Kings Langley. Clear(-ish) routes for climbout and final approach, close to London, in the direction of the mass of population, very convenient for most transport infrastructure (both rail and road), even handy for HS2.
He describes May's deal as "an agreement that would explicitly and indefinitely make Britain a rule-taker but not a rule-maker."
This is simply, factually untrue. We would be a rule maker over 80% of our economy and a rule taker in less than 20%. What a shining example of Remain media bias printing lies.
A rule taker in 20% is too much. We are a G7 nation, one of the 7 largest economies in the world, we can survive on our own and make our own rules thank you very much.
About 2/3 of UK exports go to the EU, China and the USA, all of them have bigger economies than us
So what? Canada copes just fine without having 20% of its laws set by any of those unions. So does Australia. So does New Zealand. So does Singapore. So do plenty of other nations. So can we.
Are you saying that as your opinion or as an instruction to Labour MPs?
I'm not saying they must feel obliged to support this deal. If they genuinely think the national interest is in not backing it of course they should do that, as should any Tory MPs who feel the same. I'm sure most do think that. But when people emphasise the fact they want a Labour government it suggests they are not thinking about the national interest but the party interest.
I don't understand your objection to that position. MPs have a duty to the nation, not just their party. Obviously they think it is on the whole better if they are in charge, but sometimes they accept backing a party line is not the best thing to do. Dozens of Tories are doing that now, many in Labour have rebelled for the same reason previously, as indeed has its leader many times when he considered the national interest was not best served by backing his party. Are you saying that no Tory should vote against this deal because they want a Tory government? What a preposterous line that would be.
No one would ever be permitted to rebel on anything if you got your way, no cross party backed issue could be permitted, because the only thing that matters is wanting a government of one's own party, and therefore they must always oppose.
That's why I don't know why people defend Labour's position by pointing out they want a Labour government. That's irrelevant to whether they back this deal. If they think they can do better, as they do, that's a reasonable position, and it follows on that they want to be in power to do that. You don't reverse that order.
A Labour Government is not just a Labour Government. It is a fundamentally superior way of running the country. That is the whole point of them being Labour MPs. They believe that the national interest is best served by there being a Labour Government and that the Conservatives, in everything they do or touch, are acting against the national interest. A Conservative Brexit, therefore, would be, to Labour MPs, a national disaster, whereas a Labour Brexit would be a land of milk and honey. And Chouettes, obvs.
He describes May's deal as "an agreement that would explicitly and indefinitely make Britain a rule-taker but not a rule-maker."
This is simply, factually untrue. We would be a rule maker over 80% of our economy and a rule taker in less than 20%. What a shining example of Remain media bias printing lies.
A rule taker in 20% is too much. We are a G7 nation, one of the 7 largest economies in the world, we can survive on our own and make our own rules thank you very much.
OK, let’s take No Deal instead. The problem of being one of the 7 largest economies will quickly solve itself when we plummet down the list
We'll see. Canada and Australia both survive just with Free Trade Agreements and not being part of a political union yet they are both richer per capita than us.
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
Nah, the BoE is supposed to be independent, but they were clearly part of the government's grid. They are just an arm of government.
He describes May's deal as "an agreement that would explicitly and indefinitely make Britain a rule-taker but not a rule-maker."
This is simply, factually untrue. We would be a rule maker over 80% of our economy and a rule taker in less than 20%. What a shining example of Remain media bias printing lies.
A rule taker in 20% is too much. We are a G7 nation, one of the 7 largest economies in the world, we can survive on our own and make our own rules thank you very much.
About 2/3 of UK exports go to the EU, China and the USA, all of them have bigger economies than us
So what? Canada copes just fine without having 20% of its laws set by any of those unions. So does Australia. So does New Zealand. So does Singapore. So do plenty of other nations. So can we.
Do you think England should be a nation state again?
BBC 6 o’clock news leading on the BoE “forecasts” - shocking reporting. In fairness the reporter covering it has been careful to describe them as “scenarios” not “forecasts” - but the headline was plain wrong.
The Establishment doing all it can.....
If the establishment was that joined up we wouldn’t be in this mess....
We are
You need to differentiate between the Establishment and the ME* generation
He describes May's deal as "an agreement that would explicitly and indefinitely make Britain a rule-taker but not a rule-maker."
This is simply, factually untrue. We would be a rule maker over 80% of our economy and a rule taker in less than 20%. What a shining example of Remain media bias printing lies.
A rule taker in 20% is too much. We are a G7 nation, one of the 7 largest economies in the world, we can survive on our own and make our own rules thank you very much.
About 2/3 of UK exports go to the EU, China and the USA, all of them have bigger economies than us
So what? Canada copes just fine without having 20% of its laws set by any of those unions. So does Australia. So does New Zealand. So does Singapore. So do plenty of other nations. So can we.
Do you think England should be a nation state again?
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
Nah, the BoE is supposed to be independent, but they were clearly part of the government's grid. They are just an arm of government.
Tin foil anyone?
Do you honestly believe that the BoE planned it's announcement today and it was pure coincidence that it was on the same day that Treasury forecasts came out?
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
Nah, the BoE is supposed to be independent, but they were clearly part of the government's grid. They are just an arm of government.
Tin foil anyone?
Do you honestly believe that the BoE planned it's announcement today and it was pure coincidence that it was on the same day that Treasury forecasts came out?
Deafening Silence by BoE in Face of Treasury Brexit Forecasts.
If England were a nation state even the disastrous Theresa May won a 59 seat majority at the last election. Despite not bothering to turn up to the debates or have any charisma.
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
Nah, the BoE is supposed to be independent, but they were clearly part of the government's grid. They are just an arm of government.
Tin foil anyone?
Do you honestly believe that the BoE planned it's announcement today and it was pure coincidence that it was on the same day that Treasury forecasts came out?
Deafening Silence by BoE in Face of Treasury Brexit Forecasts.
Would have been the headline.
Right, so you agree that the BoE is part of the grid but you think it's justifiable. Glad we cleared that up.
Are you saying that as your opinion or as an instruction to Labour MPs?
I'm not saying they must feel obliged to support this deal. If they genuinely think the national interest is in not backing it of course they should do that, as should any Tory MPs who feel the same. I'm sure most do think that. But when people emphasise the fact they want a Labour government it suggests they are not thinking about the national interest but the party interest.
That's why I don't know why people defend Labour's position by pointing out they want a Labour government. That's irrelevant to whether they back this deal. If they think they can do better, as they do, that's a reasonable position, and it follows on that they want to be in power to do that. You don't reverse that order.
A Labour Government is not just a Labour Government. It is a fundamentally superior way of running the country. That is the whole point of them being Labour MPs. They believe that the national interest is best served by there being a Labour Government and that the Conservatives, in everything they do or touch, are acting against the national interest. A Conservative Brexit, therefore, would be, to Labour MPs, a national disaster, whereas a Labour Brexit would be a land of milk and honey. And Chouettes, obvs.
Your position is ridiculous and makes no sense. MPs rebel sometimes, they don't always vote with their party, therefore no matter how superior it would be for party x to run things, sometimes a few people accept party y have called it right. If none of them think that is justified here (or in the case of the Tories, that it is very very justified) that can be defended quite easily, but some position that because they are party X they are bound to oppose anything from party Y is amazingly childish.
You are essentially saying that no Labour MP should ever rebel and no Tory MP should ever rebel because party comes first Nor should they ever combine in a vote even if they all agree on something, since there's no reason to restrict this to just Brexit. Thank goodness Labour didn't feel this way on the gay marriage vote - what were they thinking, allowing a conservative gay marriage. Same principle.
I suggest we drop it because I cannot even conceive of what your objection to all is and we'll just go in circles. No matter how much MPs think their party is best sometimes they don't vote with it, that's all I am saying. Yet you genuinely seem to be against the very idea that any of them might, while still thinking their party is best, consider that is not the case on a particular issue. Even though the current leader is a living example of how MPs do that all the time.
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
Nah, the BoE is supposed to be independent, but they were clearly part of the government's grid. They are just an arm of government.
Tin foil anyone?
Do you honestly believe that the BoE planned it's announcement today and it was pure coincidence that it was on the same day that Treasury forecasts came out?
Deafening Silence by BoE in Face of Treasury Brexit Forecasts.
Would have been the headline.
Right, so you agree that the BoE is part of the grid but you think it's justifiable. Glad we cleared that up.
No you dolt, I agree that the Bank of England is expected to respond to what the government does or announces or plans. Expected by you and me.
This is the most astounding section of that article:
"Richard Keen the lawyer for the British government, said the ECJ should refuse to consider the issue at all, saying it was hypothetical as the UK had no plans to reverse Brexit."
It's the equivalent to saying don't bother with that medical insurance quote as I'm not planning on getting ill thanks.
Richard Keen QC is the former Dean of Faculty in Scotland and a brilliant advocate. The traditional position of the CJEU is that they don't answer hypothetical questions. This is a well established principle which applies to the UK courts too and was the basis upon which the Judge at first instance in Scotland dismissed the petition. It was inevitable that the UK government would make that argument at the CJEU.
Of course it is much more of a political court than a real one and it is unlikely that they will stand by the precedents on this simply because a MS is saying that they currently have no intention of acting in that way. I think they will give a substantive answer which will be no, the UK cannot withdraw the Article 50 notice unilaterally.
If England were a nation state even the disastrous Theresa May won a 59 seat majority at the last election. Despite not bothering to turn up to the debates or have any charisma.
Well we aren't a nation state, so it is pretty immaterial.
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
Nah, the BoE is supposed to be independent, but they were clearly part of the government's grid. They are just an arm of government.
Tin foil anyone?
Do you honestly believe that the BoE planned it's announcement today and it was pure coincidence that it was on the same day that Treasury forecasts came out?
Deafening Silence by BoE in Face of Treasury Brexit Forecasts.
Would have been the headline.
Right, so you agree that the BoE is part of the grid but you think it's justifiable. Glad we cleared that up.
No you dolt, I agree that the Bank of England is expected to respond to what the government does or announces or plans. Expected by you and me.
When would you like them to have responded?
Sorry, are you suggesting that they did all their scenario work this afternoon after the Treasury announced its forecasts?
Are you saying that as your opinion or as an instruction to Labour MPs?
I'm not saying they must feel obliged to support this deal. If they genuinely think the national interest isrest but the party interest.
That's why I don't know why people defend Labour's position by pointing out they want a Labour government. That's irrelevant to whether they back this deal. If they think they can do better, as they do, that's a reasonable position, and it follows on that they want to be in power to do that. You don't reverse that order.
A Labour Government is not just a Labour Government. It is a fundamentally superior way of running the country. That is the whole point of them being Labour MPs. They believe that the national interest is best served by there being a Labour Government and that the Conservatives, in everything they do or touch, are acting against the national interest. A Conservative Brexit, therefore, would be, to Labour MPs, a national disaster, whereas a Labour Brexit would be a land of milk and honey. And Chouettes, obvs.
Your position is ridiculous and makes no sense. MPs rebel sometimes, they don't always vote with their party, therefore no matter how superior it would be for party x to run things, somethings a few people accept party y have called it right. If none of them think that is justified here (or in the case of the Tories, that it is very very justified) that can be defended quite easily, but some position that because they are party X they are bound to oppose anything from party Y is amazingly childish.
You are essentially saying that no Labour MP should ever rebel and no Tory MP should ever rebel because party comes first Nor should they ever combine in a vote even if they all agree on something, since there's no reason to restrict this to just Brexit. Thank goodness Labour didn't feel this way on the gay marriage vote - what were they thinking, allowing a conservative gay marriage. Same principle.
I suggest we drop it because I cannot even conceive of what your objection to all is and we'll just go in circles. No matter how much MPs think their party is best sometimes they don't vote with it, that's all I am saying. Yet you genuinely seem to be against the very idea that any of them might, while still thinking their party is best, consider that is not the case on a particular issue. Even though the current leader is a living example of how MPs do that all the time.
NPXMP put it at about six Lab MPs who might vote with the government.
Strip out the tertiary nations in the UK and England is very fair and balanced politically. Instead of struggling to get a small working majority or none at all, Cameron, Major and May would all be comparable to Tony Blair, either at his peak or in 2005. I am OK with that.
It's a shame the Scots were too feart to seek independence, but oh well I can live with that.
May 2017 won a 59 seat majority. Cameron 2015 won a 103 seat majority. Cameron 2010 won a 61 seat majority. Blair 2005 won a 43 seat majority. Blair 2001 won a 117 seat majority Blair 1997 won a 127 seat majority. Major 1992 won a 114 seat majority.
This is the most astounding section of that article:
"Richard Keen the lawyer for the British government, said the ECJ should refuse to consider the issue at all, saying it was hypothetical as the UK had no plans to reverse Brexit."
It's the equivalent to saying don't bother with that medical insurance quote as I'm not planning on getting ill thanks.
Richard Keen QC is the former Dean of Faculty in Scotland and a brilliant advocate. The traditional position of the CJEU is that they don't answer hypothetical questions. This is a well established principle which applies to the UK courts too and was the basis upon which the Judge at first instance in Scotland dismissed the petition. It was inevitable that the UK government would make that argument at the CJEU.
Of course it is much more of a political court than a real one and it is unlikely that they will stand by the precedents on this simply because a MS is saying that they currently have no intention of acting in that way. I think they will give a substantive answer which will be no, the UK cannot withdraw the Article 50 notice unilaterally.
Which would make political sense, albeit it does put a few more procedural hurdles in the way of Remain, but not insurmountable ones.
If England were a nation state even the disastrous Theresa May won a 59 seat majority at the last election. Despite not bothering to turn up to the debates or have any charisma.
Well we aren't a nation state, so it is pretty immaterial.
Agreed. I was responding to william who asked the question.
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
Nah, the BoE is supposed to be independent, but they were clearly part of the government's grid. They are just an arm of government.
Tin foil anyone?
Do you honestly believe that the BoE planned it's announcement today and it was pure coincidence that it was on the same day that Treasury forecasts came out?
Deafening Silence by BoE in Face of Treasury Brexit Forecasts.
Would have been the headline.
Right, so you agree that the BoE is part of the grid but you think it's justifiable. Glad we cleared that up.
No you dolt, I agree that the Bank of England is expected to respond to what the government does or announces or plans. Expected by you and me.
When would you like them to have responded?
Sorry, are you suggesting that they did all their scenario work this afternoon after the Treasury announced its forecasts?
Yes that's exactly what I am suggesting. No one had any idea that the Treasury would be making any forecasts and all BoE economists have been in Hartlepool for the past three months, soaking up the local atmosphere. And then they were summoned back toot sweet to Throgmorton Street when the world was taken unawares by those Treasury forecast releases.
Are you saying that as your opinion or as an instruction to Labour MPs?
I'm not saying they must feel obliged to support this deal. If they genuinely think the national interest isrest but the party interest.
That's why I don't know why people defend Labour's position by pointing out they want a Labour government. That's irrelevant to whether they back this deal. If they think they can do better, as they do, that's a reasonable position, and it follows on that they want to be in power to do that. You don't reverse that order.
A Labour Government is not just a Labour Government. It is a fundamentally superior way of running the country. That is the whole point of them being Labour MPs. They believe that the national interest is best served by there being a Labour Government and that the Conservatives, in everything they do or touch, are acting against the national interest. A Conservative Brexit, therefore, would be, to Labour MPs, a national disaster, whereas a Labour Brexit would be a land of milk and honey. And Chouettes, obvs.
Your position is ridiculous and makes no sense. MPs rebel sometimes, they don't always vote with their party, therefore no matter how superior it would be for party x to run things, somethings a few people accept party y have called it right. If none of them think that is justified here (or in the case of the Tories, that it is very very justified) that can be defended quite easily, but some position that because they are party X they are bound to oppose anything from party Y is amazingly childish.
You are essentially saying that no Labour MP should ever rebel and no Tory MP should ever rebel because party comes first Nor should they ever combine in a vote even if they all agree on something, since there's no reason to restrict this to just Brexit. Thank goodness Labour didn't feel this way on the gay marriage vote - what were they thinking, allowing a conservative gay marriage. Same principle.
I suggest we drop it because I cannot even conceive of what your objection to all is and we'll just go in circles. No matter how much MPs think their party is best sometimes they don't vote with it, that's all I am saying. Yet you genuinely seem to be against the very idea that any of them might, while still thinking their party is best, consider that is not the case on a particular issue. Even though the current leader is a living example of how MPs do that all the time.
NPXMP put it at about six Lab MPs who might vote with the government.
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.
Another problem with Ricardian economics, apart from the that which I previously highlighted, is that it cannot accommodate the existence of chronic continuing imbalances in international trade, such as the imbalances suffered by the UK which are pretty well entirely accounted for by the huge and long term imbalances in trade with the EU. Until UK trade with the EU is brought back into better balance, you cannot claim that there will be a corresponding flow of imports back into the EU to match an exported surplus to the UK. So the basic assumptions of the Ricardian model don't hold up.
Anyway, it's a bit ironic that the area where the EU's protectionism has most impact is agricultural primary goods, and that's where freeing the UK to trade on Ricardian principles outside the EU could have most benefit. Yet Ricardian arguments are being used where they are most irrelevant, being applied to the globalised secondary manufacturing sector where location isn't down to innate efficiencies.
I think it could have been more if the vote looked close then I suspect enough would have voted with the government to put this to bed. But its not going to be close so it may not even be any now.
Strip out the tertiary nations in the UK and England is very fair and balanced politically. Instead of struggling to get a small working majority or none at all, Cameron, Major and May would all be comparable to Tony Blair, either at his peak or in 2005. I am OK with that.
It's a shame the Scots were too feart to seek independence, but oh well I can live with that.
If all the other nations were full members of the EU, would you still want England to be fully detached from it, or would it make sense to integrate?
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
I agree entirely. Carney does a first class job and has probably done more to prepare us for any eventuality than anyone in Government. I rate him as probably the best Governor of the BoE since Brown gave them independence.
Both the media and many politicians behave in a shameful way towards him.
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
Nah, the BoE is supposed to be independent, but they were clearly part of the government's grid. They are just an arm of government.
Tin foil anyone?
Do you honestly believe that the BoE planned it's announcement today and it was pure coincidence that it was on the same day that Treasury forecasts came out?
The publication of the BoE report was driven by their report to the Treasury Select Ctte which they set for today. So unless Number 10 is running them too.....these meetings are set up months in advance....
Anyway, it's a bit ironic that the area where the EU's protectionism has most impact is agricultural primary goods, and that's where freeing the UK to trade on Ricardian principles outside the EU could have most benefit. Yet Ricardian arguments are being used where they are most irrelevant, being applied to the globalised secondary manufacturing sector where location isn't down to innate efficiencies.
Location isn't down to innate efficiencies no, its down to manufactured efficiencies. Economies of scale, which I mentioned and you ignored. Economies of scale mean manufacturing gets centralised into fewer nations.
Are you suggesting instead of manufacturing Airbus wings in the UK, that every nation that has airplanes should manufacture their own wings?
If only a couple of nations manufacture the chemicals used for the entire globe for water, then maybe that's because they can produce it at scale more efficiently than we can produce just what we need and no more.
Strip out the tertiary nations in the UK and England is very fair and balanced politically. Instead of struggling to get a small working majority or none at all, Cameron, Major and May would all be comparable to Tony Blair, either at his peak or in 2005. I am OK with that.
It's a shame the Scots were too feart to seek independence, but oh well I can live with that.
If all the other nations were full members of the EU, would you still want England to be fully detached from it, or would it make sense to integrate?
Yes. I want the MPs we elect to set our laws. That's why I supported Yes in 2014. I would like a free trade agreement with Scotland, but I see no reason to be in a union with them if they no longer wish it.
But like a big brother I'm OK with them tagging along with us if that's what they want. I wouldn't want to kick them out or us to seek independence from them, they can go if they want or they can stay, I'm OK either way.
I agree entirely. Carney does a first class job and has probably done more to prepare us for any eventuality than anyone in Government. I rate him as probably the best Governor of the BoE since Brown gave them independence.
Both the media and many politicians behave in a shameful way towards him.
Actually, I'm going to agree with you both here.
To be fair, Carney has stressed this is not what WILL happen but what MIGHT happen but what he has done is illustrate how unprepared May and her Government are for a No Deal Brexit.
This is for me staggering incompetence and ineptitude when local authorities and private companies have been working on contingency planning for months to discover the Government appears to have done next to nothing.
This is the kind of thing for which the Government deserves to be held accountable in that a No Deal Brexit clearly wouldn't be too serious IF adequate and timely contingency planning had been carried out. The fact it hasn't fails to mitigate the risk and makes disruption more likely.
I feel sorry for Carney here he stressed these were not what the bank believed would happen, but immediately afterwards the TV news channel I am watching went full on "Bank forecasts house price falls, Armageddon, etc, etc." They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
I agree entirely. Carney does a first class job and has probably done more to prepare us for any eventuality than anyone in Government. I rate him as probably the best Governor of the BoE since Brown gave them independence.
Both the media and many politicians behave in a shameful way towards him.
That's interesting Richard, I've always thought that Carney and the rest of the MPC had the power to stop leave winning the EU referendum. If they'd got interest rates back to 2% by the time of the vote, I think Remain would have won.
Strip out the tertiary nations in the UK and England is very fair and balanced politically. Instead of struggling to get a small working majority or none at all, Cameron, Major and May would all be comparable to Tony Blair, either at his peak or in 2005. I am OK with that.
It's a shame the Scots were too feart to seek independence, but oh well I can live with that.
If all the other nations were full members of the EU, would you still want England to be fully detached from it, or would it make sense to integrate?
Yes. I want the MPs we elect to set our laws. That's why I supported Yes in 2014. I would like a free trade agreement with Scotland, but I see no reason to be in a union with them if they no longer wish it.
But like a big brother I'm OK with them tagging along with us if that's what they want. I wouldn't want to kick them out or us to seek independence from them, they can go if they want or they can stay, I'm OK either way.
But without the union, there'd have been no backstop and you could have had the Brexit you want. The union has been demonstrably proven to be a constraint on England's sovereignty. They're not just 'tagging along'.
Strip out the tertiary nations in the UK and England is very fair and balanced politically. Instead of struggling to get a small working majority or none at all, Cameron, Major and May would all be comparable to Tony Blair, either at his peak or in 2005. I am OK with that.
It's a shame the Scots were too feart to seek independence, but oh well I can live with that.
If all the other nations were full members of the EU, would you still want England to be fully detached from it, or would it make sense to integrate?
Yes. I want the MPs we elect to set our laws. That's why I supported Yes in 2014. I would like a free trade agreement with Scotland, but I see no reason to be in a union with them if they no longer wish it.
But like a big brother I'm OK with them tagging along with us if that's what they want. I wouldn't want to kick them out or us to seek independence from them, they can go if they want or they can stay, I'm OK either way.
I am sorry to see such an attitude to our union and Scotland. If my wife read that she would be furious. A Scot who is absolutely proud of our union
Comments
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-46377309
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXRfnIfFYFI
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/418645-trump-floats-new-auto-tariffs-in-response-to-gm-layoffs
Negotiating that post Brexit trade deal with the IS is going to be fun all the way, no doubt.
I have been listening to a 1970's recording of the Messiah, with the Huddersfield Choral society. Pure gold, and such a wondrous sound to the ear... to counter the bullshine one reads and hears every day about Brexit
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-will-make-us-worse-off-chancellor-philip-hammond-admits-a4002476.html?amp
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/the-young-will-never-forgive-my-generation-for-the-disaster-of-brexit-a4002511.html?amp
ModerateLabour MPs want a Labour government. They don't want to do what a terribly nice Conservative supporter wishes or hopes they will do.If we lose Brexit I'm OK with that, I was torn which way to vote anyway.
Either we leave properly or we remain properly (though that means no rebate). If we remain we likely within a generation invoke Article 50 again and have it managed better than May has done and we have a unilateral 2 year exit clause, if we leave under TM's deal we are bound forever with no unilateral exit clause.
Personally I think Corbyn might as well take over now as head of a minority government. He's still cobble more votes together for a Brexit proposal than May.
1815: smart Brits*
1919: darn fool French and Yanks
* inc. Ireland
This is simply, factually untrue. We would be a rule maker over 80% of our economy and a rule taker in less than 20%. What a shining example of Remain media bias printing lies.
Some people know the price of everything but the value of .......... etc
They have now done a complete 180 and are telling the truth as to what he said. But the damage is done and it has been done by the so called professional news channels. Sometimes I think Trump has a point about fake news.
The message should have been "BoE does good job so that Banks are fully prepared for a scenario worse than the GFC."
People have a habit of pressuring Governments and companies to give them more for less and they vote (Government-wise) and take their custom (company-wise) in that manner.
Norway -1.4%
Chequers -0.6% to -2.5%
May's agreed Deal -2.1% to -3.9%
Canada style FTA -4.9% to -6.7%
No Deal -7.7% to -9.3%
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-will-make-us-worse-off-chancellor-philip-hammond-admits-a4002476.html?amp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWx2oQo-2I0
(BTW, the History Guy is a brilliant YouTube channel).
I am, of course, ignoring Dornbusch Overshooting for simplicity
I don't understand your objection to that position. MPs have a duty to the nation, not just their party. Obviously they think it is on the whole better if they are in charge, but sometimes they accept backing a party line is not the best thing to do. Dozens of Tories are doing that now, many in Labour have rebelled for the same reason previously, as indeed has its leader many times when he considered the national interest was not best served by backing his party. Are you saying that no Tory should vote against this deal because they want a Tory government? What a preposterous line that would be.
No one would ever be permitted to rebel on anything if you got your way, no cross party backed issue could be permitted, because the only thing that matters is wanting a government of one's own party, and therefore they must always oppose.
That's why I don't know why people defend Labour's position by pointing out they want a Labour government. That's irrelevant to whether they back this deal. If they think they can do better, as they do, that's a reasonable position, and it follows on that they want to be in power to do that. You don't reverse that order.
Remember he purpose of newspapers and TV channels is to attract viewers and readers to make money, not report the news accurately (though that is often in the interests of the business)
Exporters will also have to deal with EU tariffs under No Deal
Wrong side of London for the vast majority of the country and only really handy for fish.
Still on the east-west prevailing wind direction from the centre of London: bad idea for major airports to be located such that final approach or initial climbout will be over the centre of a conurbation; that's when the majority of air accidents happen. The only reason we have Heathrow in such a location is thanks to historical accident.
Best site (or, at least, least-worst site) would be in the region of Kings Langley. Clear(-ish) routes for climbout and final approach, close to London, in the direction of the mass of population, very convenient for most transport infrastructure (both rail and road), even handy for HS2.
You need to differentiate between the Establishment and the ME* generation
They have very different priorities
* Metropoliitan Elite
Would have been the headline.
You are essentially saying that no Labour MP should ever rebel and no Tory MP should ever rebel because party comes first Nor should they ever combine in a vote even if they all agree on something, since there's no reason to restrict this to just Brexit. Thank goodness Labour didn't feel this way on the gay marriage vote - what were they thinking, allowing a conservative gay marriage. Same principle.
I suggest we drop it because I cannot even conceive of what your objection to all is and we'll just go in circles. No matter how much MPs think their party is best sometimes they don't vote with it, that's all I am saying. Yet you genuinely seem to be against the very idea that any of them might, while still thinking their party is best, consider that is not the case on a particular issue. Even though the current leader is a living example of how MPs do that all the time.
When would you like them to have responded?
Of course it is much more of a political court than a real one and it is unlikely that they will stand by the precedents on this simply because a MS is saying that they currently have no intention of acting in that way. I think they will give a substantive answer which will be no, the UK cannot withdraw the Article 50 notice unilaterally.
That's about right, IMO.
But sure, let's drop it.
It's a shame the Scots were too feart to seek independence, but oh well I can live with that.
May 2017 won a 59 seat majority.
Cameron 2015 won a 103 seat majority.
Cameron 2010 won a 61 seat majority.
Blair 2005 won a 43 seat majority.
Blair 2001 won a 117 seat majority
Blair 1997 won a 127 seat majority.
Major 1992 won a 114 seat majority.
Anyway, it's a bit ironic that the area where the EU's protectionism has most impact is agricultural primary goods, and that's where freeing the UK to trade on Ricardian principles outside the EU could have most benefit. Yet Ricardian arguments are being used where they are most irrelevant, being applied to the globalised secondary manufacturing sector where location isn't down to innate efficiencies.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759762/28_November_EU_Exit_-_Long-term_economic_analysis.pdf
Table 4.10 shows with zero NET inflows of EEA workers the estimated reduction in GDP per head is about 1% less under all scenarios.
Both the media and many politicians behave in a shameful way towards him.
Are you suggesting instead of manufacturing Airbus wings in the UK, that every nation that has airplanes should manufacture their own wings?
If only a couple of nations manufacture the chemicals used for the entire globe for water, then maybe that's because they can produce it at scale more efficiently than we can produce just what we need and no more.
But like a big brother I'm OK with them tagging along with us if that's what they want. I wouldn't want to kick them out or us to seek independence from them, they can go if they want or they can stay, I'm OK either way.
To be fair, Carney has stressed this is not what WILL happen but what MIGHT happen but what he has done is illustrate how unprepared May and her Government are for a No Deal Brexit.
This is for me staggering incompetence and ineptitude when local authorities and private companies have been working on contingency planning for months to discover the Government appears to have done next to nothing.
This is the kind of thing for which the Government deserves to be held accountable in that a No Deal Brexit clearly wouldn't be too serious IF adequate and timely contingency planning had been carried out. The fact it hasn't fails to mitigate the risk and makes disruption more likely.