@fox...come the 1st April how will the NHS treat recruitment from EU citizens...how will they be vetted?
The worst thing about the No Deal chaos is that the Govt and the UK populist press would blame it on the EU.... and guess what the public on the whole would believe them.
But my point stands leaveing the EU is the preferred policy of Tory voters, activists and MP's. Political parties do not disappear doing what the above want.
Let's postulate, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about the economic disaster, in the short term. Are you seriously suggesting that because Tory voters currently don't think it's an issue - because like you they don't believe it - they would stay on board if it did indeed turn out to be a disaster?
Economic disaster is meaningless. It defines nothing. Like economic catastrophe and other emotive comments. Define in terms that are not emotional what you think will be the consequences of no deal.
I am a leaver and I think the treasury forecast for no deal leave was very sensible, It was the village idiot Osborne that gave it the big negative rubbish. I also think the PWC for the CBI forecast was sensible as well.
So if you can give me some indications of what you think will happen, you can say it will be 10 million unemployed as long as you can give some justification for that prediction.
But what is pointless is entering discussions with emotive wordsmiths.
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
May's deal would be a successful Brexit. In economic terms, it's not as good as remaining in the EU, but it would give us the principal advantages on which the Leave campaigns won the referendum
I'd echo that. Quite a few of us (Remainers) on here were grudgingly happy to accept May's Deal.
Why should anyone trust those who voted for Article 50 and now want another referendum to abide by a leave result in a second referendum?
It’s very simple. A referendum between ratification of the withdrawal agreement and revocation would translate directly into a definable action.
I still certainly wouldn't trust a man like Dominic Grieve to do as he's told after a second referendum result that he disagreed with. Which remainers should I trust to do that?
Since this referendum would be created partly to get a majority from mutually mistrusting factions of MPs, the obvious way to do it would be to make it binding, like the AV vote, so it wouldn't need any more action from parliament.
It would still be technically possible for parliament to pass *new* legislation disregarding the referendum legislation, but since there's no majority for any option it's hard to see how they'd to that even if they wanted to (which, fwiw, they wouldn't, but Leavers are within their rights to worry about it.)
Except Parliament cannot force an extension; at best it can only force a request for extension, and even that seems not entirely legally certain from discussions on here. It’s a good point, however, that it only postpones the cliff-edge.
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
No deal = the break up of the UK and reaccession of the pieces to the EU.
I do agree No Deal makes being sustained for too long
You would have thought you woulong time ago...
According to LucidTalk 55% of Northern Ireland voters would vote for a United Ireland if No Deal, just 42% to stay in the UK.
No Dealers are dicing with death with the Union and if you want to ignore the evidence fine, do not say you were not warned!
Don't be an idiot, i was querying your comment about it being "inevitable". And i'm in favour of May's deal.
FFS forget opinion polls as a certain predictor of the future. We had an actual ballot on leaving the EU and even that seems in doubt at the moment. Not least because "the political and economic obstacles to it happening" are significant.
No deal may make people in Northern Ireland worse off. It doesn't follow that a United Ireland will improve their situation.
You may think a United Ireland will not help Northern Ireland voters, polls of Northern Ireland voters though show they disagree and a clear majority will vote for a United Ireland if No Deal.
I repeat, No Dealers are dicing with death with the Union if No Deal
Although it is clearly not the way it should be done, some of us at least would view it as righting an historic wrong.
No Deal won't go down well in Scaign in 2014.
Again I know many would view that as a bad thing but I am in favour of Scottish Independence so would not view it in that way.
We know you are a libertarian anarchist who is not bothered about keeping the UK together but of course nationalism breeds nationalism and if Scotland gets independence and there is a United Ireland there will likely be an English nationalist backlash already gaining traction thanks to the Brexit you supported and we will end up with the Tories taken over by English nationalists v Corbyn's socialist Labour and the liberal, free trading EEA Brexit utopia you dreamed of a million miles away
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
@fox...come the 1st April how will the NHS treat recruitment from EU citizens...how will they be vetted?
The worst thing about the No Deal chaos is that the Govt and the UK populist press would blame it on the EU.... and guess what the public on the whole would believe them.
There is nearly no new EU recruitment now, I was thinking about those already here.
How many hours since a Downing Street spokesperson denied suggestions of a bilateral deal on the backstop? ‘Cos this looks a *teensy* bit like one of those.
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
If the answer is a choice between shooting yourself in the head or in the foot, the wrong question is being asked...
But my point stands leaveing the EU is the preferred policy of Tory voters, activists and MP's. Political parties do not disappear doing what the above want.
Let's postulate, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about the economic disaster, in the short term. Are you seriously suggesting that because Tory voters currently don't think it's an issue - because like you they don't believe it - they would stay on board if it did indeed turn out to be a disaster?
Economic disaster is meaningless. It defines nothing. Like economic catastrophe and other emotive comments. Define in terms that are not emotional what you think will be the consequences of no deal.
I am a leaver and I think the treasury forecast for no deal leave was very sensible, It was the village idiot Osborne that gave it the big negative rubbish. I also think the PWC for the CBI forecast was sensible as well.
So if you can give me some indications of what you think will happen, you can say it will be 10 million unemployed as long as you can give some justification for that prediction.
But what is pointless is entering discussions with emotive wordsmiths.
The entire just-in-time food and manufactured goods supply chain will grind to a total halt.
Overnight.
I have no idea what the numbers are for that, but it is a disaster.
If we had five years to plan a way around it all, it would be different, but...
But my point stands leaveing the EU is the preferred policy of Tory voters, activists and MP's. Political parties do not disappear doing what the above want.
Let's postulate, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about the economic disaster, in the short term. Are you seriously suggesting that because Tory voters currently don't think it's an issue - because like you they don't believe it - they would stay on board if it did indeed turn out to be a disaster?
Economic disaster is meaningless. It defines nothing. Like economic catastrophe and other emotive comments. Define in terms that are not emotional what you think will be the consequences of no deal.
I am a leaver and I think the treasury forecast for no deal leave was very sensible, It was the village idiot Osborne that gave it the big negative rubbish. I also think the PWC for the CBI forecast was sensible as well.
So if you can give me some indications of what you think will happen, you can say it will be 10 million unemployed as long as you can give some justification for that prediction.
But what is pointless is entering discussions with emotive wordsmiths.
I've defined it before. I can't immediately find the comment, but it was along these lines:
1. It's extremely hard to quantify the economic damage, because economic models are based on steady-state or gradual transitions. No advanced economy in peace time has, with virtually no notice, suddenly torn up the regulatory and tariff structure of trade with its biggest market, and no country with four decades of economic integration has suddenly reversed it. So no-one can tell you how bad the hit will be.
2. With that proviso, if you want me to quantify it, I would guess something similar in magnitude to the 2008 crash. Obviously that was very different in nature, but a similar level of disruption looks the kind of thing we should expect.
3. Of course the effects will vary hugely according to sector. Car manufacturing, fishing, farming are the obvious front-line sectors which will be immediately hit. Other sectors will be hit by the knock-on effect on confidence.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
5. We won't go hungry, but there will be a lot of shortages of specific items in the shops.
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
I think my poorly put question isn't being understood how I meant it!
I mean, for those who are desperate to stay in the EU, is there any eventual out of the EU result that you'd consider a success? Say in life expectancy, gdp, exchange rate, I don't know, any metric that we could measure Brexit by that would make you consider it successful. I've been asked a few times how poor we'll have to be before I consider it a failure. I don't know. How rich do we have to be before you admit you were wrong?
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
+1 It is the sheer disregard and spitefulness of carrying on with it when it fulfils none of the promises that were made by Leave. that baffles me To my mind those who want Brexit should have to surrender assets to pay for the problems associated with the disruption to other people such as medication, food etc.
But my point stands leaveing the EU is the preferred policy of Tory voters, activists and MP's. Political parties do not disappear doing what the above want.
Let's postulate, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about the economic disaster, in the short term. Are you seriously suggesting that because Tory voters currently don't think it's an issue - because like you they don't believe it - they would stay on board if it did indeed turn out to be a disaster?
Esnip
So if you can give me some indications of what you think will happen, you can say it will be 10 million unemployed as long as you can give some justification for that prediction.
But what is pointless is entering discussions with emotive wordsmiths.
I've defined it before. I can't immediately find the comment, but it was along these lines:
1. It's extremely hard to quantify the economic damage, because economic models are based on steady-state or gradual transitions. No advanced economy in peace time has, with virtually no notice, suddenly torn up the regulatory and tariff structure of trade with its biggest market, and no country with four decades of economic integration has suddenly reversed it. So no-one can tell you had bad the hit will be.
2. With that proviso, if you want me to quantify it, I would guess something similar in magnitude to the 2008 crash. Obviously that was very different in nature, but a similar level of disruption looks the kind of thing we should expect.
3. Of course the effects will vary hugely according to sector. Car manufacturing, fishing, farming are the obvious front-line sectors which will be immediately hit. Other sectors will be hit by the knock-on effect on confidence.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
Is that specific enough for you?
And we are at the same time tearing up any trade and regulation agreements we have with third countries via our membership of the EU.
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
I think my poorly put question isn't being understood how I meant it!
I mean, for those who are desperate to stay in the EU, is there any eventual out of the EU result that you'd consider a success? Say in life expectancy, gdp, exchange rate, I don't know, any metric that we could measure Brexit by that would make you consider it successful. I've been asked a few times how poor we'll have to be before I consider it a failure. I don't know. How rich do we have to be before you admit you were wrong?
Just as Leavers do not think economics are everything, I would say for many Remainers. Being separated from family doesn't get any better with a payrise.
Both the story on the Good Friday Agreement in the telegraph and a bi lateral agreement with Ireland have been roundly condemned by no 10 tonight saying it has nothing to do with them
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
I think my poorly put question isn't being understood how I meant it!
I mean, for those who are desperate to stay in the EU, is there any eventual out of the EU result that you'd consider a success? Say in life expectancy, gdp, exchange rate, I don't know, any metric that we could measure Brexit by that would make you consider it successful. I've been asked a few times how poor we'll have to be before I consider it a failure. I don't know. How rich do we have to be before you admit you were wrong?
I’m a diehard Remainer, but I’d be delighted to be proven wrong and see Brexit successful. And by success I actually simply mean keeping to our previous growth trajectory.
However, Brexit has already weakened growth, and cutting yourself off from your main trading market does not deliver growth according to any economic theory known to man.
And we are at the same time tearing up any trade and regulation agreements we have with third countries via our membership of the EU.
Liam Fox has got nowhere with this.
True, but it's not really his fault. It's impossible to get very far with trade talks with third-party countries when neither side knows what the relationship with the EU is going to be.
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
I think my poorly put question isn't being understood how I meant it!
I mean, for those who are desperate to stay in the EU, is there any eventual out of the EU result that you'd consider a success? Say in life expectancy, gdp, exchange rate, I don't know, any metric that we could measure Brexit by that would make you consider it successful. I've been asked a few times how poor we'll have to be before I consider it a failure. I don't know. How rich do we have to be before you admit you were wrong?
Just as Leavers do not think economics are everything, I would say for many Remainers. Being separated from family doesn't get any better with a payrise.
Those with rest of the world families should just suck it up, I suppose? Why should they be treated differently? "Because they have been for years" isn't good enough.
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
I'd be more specific. I don't have a problem with leaver politicians, as long as they are prepared to negotiate a sensible way of leaving (even if I don't actually agree with them).
I have a problem with No Deal anarchists who just want to burn the whole economy overnight for the sake of their purity.
Truly they are like some millennialist cult who welcome the cleansing fires.
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
+1 It is the sheer disregard and spitefulness of carrying on with it when it fulfils none of the promises that were made by Leave. that baffles me To my mind those who want Brexit should have to surrender assets to pay for the problems associated with the disruption to other people such as medication, food etc.
No Brexit will leave a large fiscal hole if - as Mr Nabavi suggests - it is as bad as the 2008 recession.
By rights, we should look to rebalance the country’s budget by scrapping the old age pension completely and any economic transfers to the Midlands, Wales, and the North.
But my point stands leaveing the EU is the preferred policy of Tory voters, activists and MP's. Political parties do not disappear doing what the above want.
Let's postulate, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about the economic disaster, in the short term. Are you seriously suggesting that because Tory voters currently don't think it's an issue - because like you they don't believe it - they would stay on board if it did indeed turn out to be a disaster?
I've defined it before. I can't immediately find the comment, but it was along these lines:
1. It's extremely hard to quantify the economic damage, because economic models are based on steady-state or gradual transitions. No advanced economy in peace time has, with virtually no notice, suddenly torn up the regulatory and tariff structure of trade with its biggest market, and no country with four decades of economic integration has suddenly reversed it. So no-one can tell you how bad the hit will be.
2. With that proviso, if you want me to quantify it, I would guess something similar in magnitude to the 2008 crash. Obviously that was very different in nature, but a similar level of disruption looks the kind of thing we should expect.
3. Of course the effects will vary hugely according to sector. Car manufacturing, fishing, farming are the obvious front-line sectors which will be immediately hit. Other sectors will be hit by the knock-on effect on confidence.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
5. We won't go hungry, but there will be a lot of shortages of specific items in the shops.
Is that specific enough for you?
+1 I think Ralph is being obtuse.
I agree with most of your post but think people will die of No Deal Brexit, it is not just the medication but expertise and personnel that the UK might suddenly find it hard to recruit. Time is everything in medical care. As an aside I rely on medication, if I am deprived of certain types of medication it could cause serious problems....
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
I'd be more specific. I don't have a problem with leaver politicians, as long as they are prepared to negotiate a sensible way of leaving (even if I don't actually agree with them).
I have a problem with No Deal anarchists who just want to burn the whole economy overnight for the sake of their purity.
Truly they are like some millennialist cult who welcome the cleansing fires.
The problem is there are no sensible Leaver politicians. I mean this most sincerely. The whole project is driven by the anarchist kind, with May attempting to triangulate around sheer lunacy.
And we are at the same time tearing up any trade and regulation agreements we have with third countries via our membership of the EU.
Liam Fox has got nowhere with this.
True, but it's not really his fault. It's impossible to get very far with trade talks with third-party countries when neither side knows what the relationship with the EU is going to be.
So why did he tell us all it would be a walk in the park and done in hours or whatever the quote was.
Both the story on the Good Friday Agreement in the telegraph and a bi lateral agreement with Ireland have been roundly condemned by no 10 tonight saying it has nothing to do with them
And we are at the same time tearing up any trade and regulation agreements we have with third countries via our membership of the EU.
Liam Fox has got nowhere with this.
True, but it's not really his fault. It's impossible to get very far with trade talks with third-party countries when neither side knows what the relationship with the EU is going to be.
So why did he tell us all it would be a walk in the park and done in hours or whatever the quote was.
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
+1 It is the sheer disregard and spitefulness of carrying on with it when it fulfils none of the promises that were made by Leave. that baffles me To my mind those who want Brexit should have to surrender assets to pay for the problems associated with the disruption to other people such as medication, food etc.
No Brexit will leave a large fiscal hole if - as Mr Nabavi suggests - it is as bad as the 2008 recession.
By rights, we should look to rebalance the country’s budget by scrapping the old age pension completely and any economic transfers to the Midlands, Wales, and the North.
Some of those transfers were/are via the EU's ERDF fund, so they are going anyway.
Good luck to the former coalfields trying to get the same funds from London.
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
You can be sure that Jacob Rees-Mogg won't go short of anything.
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
I think my poorly put question isn't being understood how I meant it!
I mean, for those who are desperate to stay in the EU, is there any eventual out of the EU result that you'd consider a success? Say in life expectancy, gdp, exchange rate, I don't know, any metric that we could measure Brexit by that would make you consider it successful. I've been asked a few times how poor we'll have to be before I consider it a failure. I don't know. How rich do we have to be before you admit you were wrong?
I can't speak for other people. For myself, I don't particularly buy into the Brexit will be an economic disaster. It will come with some effects, all negative, and in the case of No Deal very noticeable.
For me the big issue is political because of the massive contradiction behind the Leave vote. People voted Leave largely, I think, because they don't like the EU and want to get rid of it, and because they want to "be in control" of their destiny. Brexit will drag on for years with endless arguments. Far from getting rid of the EU, it will never be more intrusive. The EU runs the system for Europe, which third countries are also plugged into. The EU is the only game in town in our part of the world. We have no choice in practice but to have a very close relationship with them, on their terms and to follow their rules. We will never be less "in control" than after Brexit. All the issues that we are seeing now in getting a deal come from this contradiction.
To answer your question more directly, a successful Brexit is one where people accept it, stop talking about it and don't notice anymore. On that basis, so far, Brexit has been very unsuccessful.
And we are at the same time tearing up any trade and regulation agreements we have with third countries via our membership of the EU.
Liam Fox has got nowhere with this.
True, but it's not really his fault. It's impossible to get very far with trade talks with third-party countries when neither side knows what the relationship with the EU is going to be.
On Sunday, Fox suggested that the countries in question may not have seriously contemplated a No-Deal exit and therefore took their time on their side of the preparations. He said they should contemplate it now and get a move on (to paraphrase).
edit: to be clear, I’m talking about the rolling-over of the deals countries have with the EU currently.
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
You can be sure that Jacob Rees-Mogg won't go short of anything.
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
+1 It is the sheer disregard and spitefulness of carrying on with it when it fulfils none of the promises that were made by Leave. that baffles me To my mind those who want Brexit should have to surrender assets to pay for the problems associated with the disruption to other people such as medication, food etc.
No Brexit will leave a large fiscal hole if - as Mr Nabavi suggests - it is as bad as the 2008 recession.
By rights, we should look to rebalance the country’s budget by scrapping the old age pension completely and any economic transfers to the Midlands, Wales, and the North.
Some of those transfers were/are via the EU's ERDF fund, so they are going anyway.
Good luck to the former coalfields trying to get the same funds from London.
The projects that receive erdf funds are decided by the member states. Those areas that currently get erdf funds are getting it because London currently decides.
And we are at the same time tearing up any trade and regulation agreements we have with third countries via our membership of the EU.
Liam Fox has got nowhere with this.
True, but it's not really his fault. It's impossible to get very far with trade talks with third-party countries when neither side knows what the relationship with the EU is going to be.
On Sunday, Fox suggested that the countries in question may not have seriously contemplated a No-Deal exit and therefore took their time on their side of the preparations. He said they should contemplate it now and get a move on (to paraphrase).
Actually that's not an unreasonable point. If everyone knew we were heading for a no-deal exit and (in the medium term) no trade deal with the EU, then the basis under which third-party agreements would operate would be clear.
But my point stands leaveing the EU is the preferred policy of Tory voters, activists and MP's. Political parties do not disappear doing what the above want.
Let's postulate, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about the economic disaster, in the short term. Are you seriously suggesting that because Tory voters currently don't think it's an issue - because like you they don't believe it - they would stay on board if it did indeed turn out to be a disaster?
But what is pointless is entering discussions with emotive wordsmiths.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
5. We won't go hungry, but there will be a lot of shortages of specific items in the shops.
Is that specific enough for you?
No that is fine. Also remember my point was no deal would not destroy the Tory Party.
So lets take no deal as equivalent to the GFC. After the GFC GDP growth went negative mid 2008 and hit growth again first month 2010 basically it lasted for 18 months. Unemployment went from 2008 levels to peak unemployment 2010, flatlined for 2 years and then reached pre GFC levels in 2015. But this was with a mass influx of unemployed EU27 people desperate for work.
So if Tories no deal March 2019 then 18 months later it is over Sept 2020 and with no mass immigration from EU27 looking for work job creation should start about 6 to 12 months later. i.e mid 2021.
So the Torys can go into the next election 2022 with the economy growing, jobs being created with a message of we have steered the country though the most difficult economic times evah (according to remainers).
Landslide guaranteed I would have thought (even May could not lose that one).
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
I think my poorly put question isn't being understood how I meant it!
I mean, for those who are desperate to stay in the EU, is there any eventual out of the EU result that you'd consider a success? Say in life expectancy, gdp, exchange rate, I don't know, any metric that we could measure Brexit by that would make you consider it successful. I've been asked a few times how poor we'll have to be before I consider it a failure. I don't know. How rich do we have to be before you admit you were wrong?
Just as Leavers do not think economics are everything, I would say for many Remainers. Being separated from family doesn't get any better with a payrise.
Those with rest of the world families should just suck it up, I suppose? Why should they be treated differently? "Because they have been for years" isn't good enough.
I mean family in a metaphoric sense. We are a European nation and our cultures are deeply woven into one tapestry over thousands of years.
But my point stands leaveing the EU is the preferred policy of Tory voters, activists and MP's. Political parties do not disappear doing what the above want.
Let's postulate, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about the economic disaster, in the short term. Are you seriously suggesting that because Tory voters currently don't think it's an issue - because like you they don't believe it - they would stay on board if it did indeed turn out to be a disaster?
I've defined it before. I can't immediately find the comment, but it was along these lines:
1. It's extremely hard to quantify the economic damage, because economic models are based on steady-state or gradual transitions. No advanced economy in peace time has, with virtually no notice, suddenly torn up the regulatory and tariff structure of trade with its biggest market, and no country with four decades of economic integration has suddenly reversed it. So no-one can tell you how bad the hit will be.
2. With that proviso, if you want me to quantify it, I would guess something similar in magnitude to the 2008 crash. Obviously that was very different in nature, but a similar level of disruption looks the kind of thing we should expect.
3. Of course the effects will vary hugely according to sector. Car manufacturing, fishing, farming are the obvious front-line sectors which will be immediately hit. Other sectors will be hit by the knock-on effect on confidence.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
5. We won't go hungry, but there will be a lot of shortages of specific items in the shops.
Is that specific enough for you?
If 2) is right, that means the economy hamstrung for a decade. 2008 redux is lurid enough for me.
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
I think my poorly put question isn't being understood how I meant it!
I mean, for those who are desperate to stay in the EU, is there any eventual out of the EU result that you'd consider a success? Say in life expectancy, gdp, exchange rate, I don't know, any metric that we could measure Brexit by that would make you consider it successful. I've been asked a few times how poor we'll have to be before I consider it a failure. I don't know. How rich do we have to be before you admit you were wrong?
Just as Leavers do not think economics are everything, I would say for many Remainers. Being separated from family doesn't get any better with a payrise.
Being separated from family is something we all do as we grow up.
Not living with my parents and brothers, and living with my wife and children instead is something I don't regret. One day when my children grow up and move out I may miss them but won't regret it.
But my point stands leaveing the EU is the preferred policy of Tory voters, activists and MP's. Political parties do not disappear doing what the above want.
Let's postulate, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about the economic disaster, in the short term. Are you seriously suggesting that because Tory voters currently don't think it's an issue - because like you they don't believe it - they would stay on board if it did indeed turn out to be a disaster?
But what is pointless is entering discussions with emotive wordsmiths.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
5. We won't go hungry, but there will be a lot of shortages of specific items in the shops.
Is that specific enough for you?
No that is fine. Also remember my point was no deal would not destroy the Tory Party.
So lets take no deal as equivalent to the GFC. After the GFC GDP growth went negative mid 2008 and hit growth again first month 2010 basically it lasted for 18 months. Unemployment went from 2008 levels to peak unemployment 2010, flatlined for 2 years and then reached pre GFC levels in 2015. But this was with a mass influx of unemployed EU27 people desperate for work.
So if Tories no deal March 2019 then 18 months later it is over Sept 2020 and with no mass immigration from EU27 looking for work job creation should start about 6 to 12 months later. i.e mid 2021.
So the Torys can go into the next election 2022 with the economy growing, jobs being created with a message of we have steered the country though the most difficult economic times evah (according to remainers).
Landslide guaranteed I would have thought (even May could not lose that one).
I think it would destroy the Tory Party, because there's no way that people like Phil Hammond, Amber Rudd, Greg Clarke, David Gauke and a huge number of other MPs - not to mention members like me - would want to be associated with such an act of economic self-harm.
As for the electoral effect, what you are missing is the suddenness of the harm, and the complete lack of ambiguity as to whose fault it would be (unless a large part of the blame can somehow be diverted on to Corbyn, which would be fair but isn't how politics works).
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
+1 It is the sheer disregard and spitefulness of carrying on with it when it fulfils none of the promises that were made by Leave. that baffles me To my mind those who want Brexit should have to surrender assets to pay for the problems associated with the disruption to other people such as medication, food etc.
No Brexit will leave a large fiscal hole if - as Mr Nabavi suggests - it is as bad as the 2008 recession.
By rights, we should look to rebalance the country’s budget by scrapping the old age pension completely and any economic transfers to the Midlands, Wales, and the North.
What an arsehole you are PS: More like we should tax arseholes like you till your pips squeak and then tax you again just because you are such a selfish arsehole.
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
+1 It is the sheer disregard and spitefulness of carrying on with it when it fulfils none of the promises that were made by Leave. that baffles me To my mind those who want Brexit should have to surrender assets to pay for the problems associated with the disruption to other people such as medication, food etc.
No Brexit will leave a large fiscal hole if - as Mr Nabavi suggests - it is as bad as the 2008 recession.
By rights, we should look to rebalance the country’s budget by scrapping the old age pension completely and any economic transfers to the Midlands, Wales, and the North.
What an arsehole you are
You will surely have all of your assets seized in the forthcoming Brexit settlement.
These Cabinet Members are worse than May. Nothing is keeping them there. And given they are still split in Cabinet over what to do, what is in the nation's interests, their judgement on what that is is hardly gospel.
Pedantic twaddle from Newman. We all know what Cooper means.
An A50 extension gives time, time to find something more permanent.
No it doen't, everyone delaying agreement on something now would find more reasons for delay later. Just be honest and call for revocation outright, it is unseemly that people are trying this 'extension to find another solution' bollocks.
If people cannot agree something with the ticking clock they already have why would another ticking clock make them more inclined to agree something? It's one of the most transparently nonsense suggestions in this whole business, and it is up against some stiff competition.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
Interestingly, it seems we are running short of medicines already, ahead of Brexit. The causes are complex and to do with a combination of stockpiling and a not too robust payment system, as I undestand it.
No that is fine. Also remember my point was no deal would not destroy the Tory Party.
So lets take no deal as equivalent to the GFC. After the GFC GDP growth went negative mid 2008 and hit growth again first month 2010 basically it lasted for 18 months. Unemployment went from 2008 levels to peak unemployment 2010, flatlined for 2 years and then reached pre GFC levels in 2015. But this was with a mass influx of unemployed EU27 people desperate for work.
So if Tories no deal March 2019 then 18 months later it is over Sept 2020 and with no mass immigration from EU27 looking for work job creation should start about 6 to 12 months later. i.e mid 2021.
So the Torys can go into the next election 2022 with the economy growing, jobs being created with a message of we have steered the country though the most difficult economic times evah (according to remainers).
Landslide guaranteed I would have thought (even May could not lose that one).
Er... Provoking a major recession leads to a guaranteed landslide? Not sure that's going to work out quite as well as you reckon.
Pedantic twaddle from Newman. We all know what Cooper means.
An A50 extension gives time, time to find something more permanent.
No it doen't, everyone delaying agreement on something now would find more reasons for delay later. Just be honest and call for revocation outright, it is unseemly that people are trying this 'extension to find another solution' bollocks.
I want an extension for a #peoplesvote or failing that a GE.
Postponing Brexit will puncture it's aura of inevitability. Once that happens the feeding frenzy will start and it won't be pretty.
And that might be for the best. But there's no need for people to treat us all like idiots and pretend that delay is not merely a stepping stone to cancellation, because that is what it is. if that is what we have to do tell us that, don't pretend.
But my point stands leaveing the EU is the preferred policy of Tory voters, activists and MP's. Political parties do not disappear doing what the above want.
Let's postulate, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about the economic disaster, in the short term. Are you seriously suggesting that because Tory voters currently don't think it's an issue - because like you they don't believe it - they would stay on board if it did indeed turn out to be a disaster?
But what is pointless is entering discussions with emotive wordsmiths.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
5. We won't go hungry, but there will be a lot of shortages of specific items in the shops.
Is that specific enough for you?
No that is fine. Also remember my point was no deal would not destroy the Tory Party.
So lets take no deal as equivalent to the GFC. After the GFC GDP growth went negative mid 2008 and hit growth again first month 2010 basically it lasted for 18 months. Unemployment went from 2008 levels to peak unemployment 2010, flatlined for 2 years and then reached pre GFC levels in 2015. But this was with a mass influx of unemployed EU27 people desperate for work.
So if Tories no deal March 2019 then 18 months later it is over Sept 2020 and with no mass immigration from EU27 looking for work job creation should start about 6 to 12 months later. i.e mid 2021.
So the Torys can go into the next election 2022 with the economy growing, jobs being created with a message of we have steered the country though the most difficult economic times evah (according to remainers).
Landslide guaranteed I would have thought (even May could not lose that one).
Postponing Brexit will puncture it's aura of inevitability. Once that happens the feeding frenzy will start and it won't be pretty.
And that might be for the best. But there's no need for people to treat us all like idiots and pretend that delay is not merely a stepping stone to cancellation, because that is what it is. if that is what we have to do tell us that, don't pretend.
If I was a sober Brexiter I would favour delay. The Brexit we look to be getting is not the best Brexit we could achieve if we planned properly.
Some of the more senior Leavers seem to think that we would still have a transition deal even on a No Deal Exit (Davis and Leadsom, for example). Maybe voters think the same?
Maybe voters think that No Deal means everything stays the same but we don't pay £39 billion. Who
And that's just one industry. Is this what people understand by No Deal? And would people support it?
It is all as clear as mud. Still, no deal Brexit - whatever it means - is where we're headed. And May still does not have a fucking clue.
hey have created.
Almost everyone out with this board seems to think it would all be over and we could forget about it. Virtually no one understands it will be followed by 5 to 10 or more years arguing over trade deals.
Doy.
Sometimes I wish for no deal just so some people can actually understand how markets work.
No Deal == Tories utterly fucked for a generation.
Goodbye.
I hope you are coming back
I meant goodbye Tory seats.
I am relieved. As for conservative seats who knows
What's your take on Theresa's plan to re-write the NI Agreement Big_G?
I am genuinely wondering if the stress has completely got to her - she's probably endured more pressure than 99% of her fellow mortals could.
Beth Rigby saying tonight it could be a ruse, getting HoC to block her 'mad' scheming ways and land a soft Brexit.
Is this a version of the Nixon strategy?
I said this upthread.
She doesn’t want to make the only logical decision, so she will let Parliament take it for her.
That seems to be the only explanation for her extraordinary “nothing has changed” stance with just over two months to go.
Amazingly, you might be right. It beggars belief that the big ideas May has come up with are to keep doing the same thing, and crazy schemes around the Irish border which are being rejected before they even finish reading the sentence proposing it. No one is that stupid, surely? She couldn't be being more passive and useless if she tried.
No that is fine. Also remember my point was no deal would not destroy the Tory Party.
So lets take no deal as equivalent to the GFC. After the GFC GDP growth went negative mid 2008 and hit growth again first month 2010 basically it lasted for 18 months. Unemployment went from 2008 levels to peak unemployment 2010, flatlined for 2 years and then reached pre GFC levels in 2015. But this was with a mass influx of unemployed EU27 people desperate for work.
So if Tories no deal March 2019 then 18 months later it is over Sept 2020 and with no mass immigration from EU27 looking for work job creation should start about 6 to 12 months later. i.e mid 2021.
So the Torys can go into the next election 2022 with the economy growing, jobs being created with a message of we have steered the country though the most difficult economic times evah (according to remainers).
Landslide guaranteed I would have thought (even May could not lose that one).
Er... Provoking a major recession leads to a guaranteed landslide? Not sure that's going to work out quite as well as you reckon.
Yes, the destruction of the Tory party is one of the few upsides of No Deal Brexit.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
Interestingly, it seems we are running short of medicines already, ahead of Brexit. The causes are complex and to do with a combination of stockpiling and a not too robust payment system, as I undestand it.
Postponing Brexit will puncture it's aura of inevitability. Once that happens the feeding frenzy will start and it won't be pretty.
And that might be for the best. But there's no need for people to treat us all like idiots and pretend that delay is not merely a stepping stone to cancellation, because that is what it is. if that is what we have to do tell us that, don't pretend.
If I was a sober Brexiter I would favour delay. The Brexit we look to be getting is not the best Brexit we could achieve if we planned properly.
But we've already seen that parliament will block, as much as they are able, preparations for no deal brexit. If they cannot agree the deal, or some deal, now, there's no reason to assume they will if given a few more months, they've had plenty of time.
Therefore a delay does not help us plan anything properly. If we agree something, then need more time than is allotted to prepare, that would require an extension. But putting off the decision doesn't make us more prepared. It's only purpose would be to ramp up tension to make remain more attractive. We might as well short cut that.
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
+1 It is the sheer disregard and spitefulness of carrying on with it when it fulfils none of the promises that were made by Leave. that baffles me To my mind those who want Brexit should have to surrender assets to pay for the problems associated with the disruption to other people such as medication, food etc.
No Brexit will leave a large fiscal hole if - as Mr Nabavi suggests - it is as bad as the 2008 recession.
By rights, we should look to rebalance the country’s budget by scrapping the old age pension completely and any economic transfers to the Midlands, Wales, and the North.
What an arsehole you are
You will surely have all of your assets seized in the forthcoming Brexit settlement.
Pedantic twaddle from Newman. We all know what Cooper means.
An A50 extension gives time, time to find something more permanent.
No it doen't, everyone delaying agreement on something now would find more reasons for delay later. Just be honest and call for revocation outright, it is unseemly that people are trying this 'extension to find another solution' bollocks.
I want an extension for a #peoplesvote or failing that a GE.
Precisely, you want an extension for outcomes you think would result in remain or, given a GE which changed the maths might require the whole thing to start again, some kind of limbo situation. Delay is not about delivering Brexit, if in advance of a decision.
Postponing Brexit will puncture it's aura of inevitability. Once that happens the feeding frenzy will start and it won't be pretty.
And that might be for the best. But there's no need for people to treat us all like idiots and pretend that delay is not merely a stepping stone to cancellation, because that is what it is. if that is what we have to do tell us that, don't pretend.
If I was a sober Brexiter I would favour delay. The Brexit we look to be getting is not the best Brexit we could achieve if we planned properly.
But we've already seen that parliament will block, as much as they are able, preparations for no deal brexit. If they cannot agree the deal, or some deal, now, there's no reason to assume they will if given a few more months, they've had plenty of time.
Therefore a delay does not help us plan anything properly. If we agree something, then need more time than is allotted to prepare, that would require an extension. But putting off the decision doesn't make us more prepared. It's only purpose would be to ramp up tension to make remain more attractive. We might as well short cut that.
I’m not even referring to No Deal preparation. I’m just talking about a coherent plan that can command the support of Parliament and country.
If such a thing can not be found, the tough, but I happen to think the Flexcit idea made sense.
We don’t actually have a decent and supported at present. What we face is actually deeply undemocratic, despite the loons muttering darkly about the will of the people.
I think it is pretty clear now, if it were not already, that May really does have no plan, she really has no strategy for her plan or a backup plan, she really will just play for time to no purpose over and over again. It's quite honestly terrifying. Given the incompetence on display I don't think I could truthfully even back her deal anymore, or any government composed of anyone who was a part of it to negotiate the next phase. It's time to cancel Brexit. Take the embarrassment, the democratic outrage, and just cancel it. It's better than enduring this pathetic shambles day in day out.
...No deal is not a tuition fee moment for the Tory Party....
Err, that rather assumes it's not an existential, economy-crashing disasater, doesn't it?
Which it almost certainly would be. The complacency about the possible extraordinary disruption, never before known in peacetime, which we might be facing in 10 weeks' time is gob-smacking, absolutely beyond belief.
What makes it even more gob-smacking is the almost total failure to recognise that it's not just trade with the EU which would be disrupted, it's also trade with many other countries, which currently takes place under EU-negotiated agreements and tariff structures.
When I am feeling spiteful I think that if there are shortages of food, medicines etc the people who should first be deprived of said food, medicines etc, should be all those Leaver politicians who are missing this basic - and very important - point.
+1 It is the sheer disregard and spitefulness of carrying on with it when it fulfils none of the promises that were made by Leave. that baffles me To my mind those who want Brexit should have to surrender assets to pay for the problems associated with the disruption to other people such as medication, food etc.
No Brexit will leave a large fiscal hole if - as Mr Nabavi suggests - it is as bad as the 2008 recession.
By rights, we should look to rebalance the country’s budget by scrapping the old age pension completely and any economic transfers to the Midlands, Wales, and the North.
What an arsehole you are
You will surely have all of your assets seized in the forthcoming Brexit settlement.
Postponing Brexit will puncture it's aura of inevitability. Once that happens the feeding frenzy will start and it won't be pretty.
And that might be for the best. But there's no need for people to treat us all like idiots and pretend that delay is not merely a stepping stone to cancellation, because that is what it is. if that is what we have to do tell us that, don't pretend.
If I was a sober Brexiter I would favour delay. The Brexit we look to be getting is not the best Brexit we could achieve if we planned properly.
But we've already seen that parliament will block, as much as they are able, preparations for no deal brexit. If they cannot agree the deal, or some deal, now, there's no reason to assume they will if given a few more months, they've had plenty of time.
Therefore a delay does not help us plan anything properly. If we agree something, then need more time than is allotted to prepare, that would require an extension. But putting off the decision doesn't make us more prepared. It's only purpose would be to ramp up tension to make remain more attractive. We might as well short cut that.
I’m not even referring to No Deal preparation. I’m just talking about a coherent plan that can command the support of Parliament and country. .
As am I. They've had plenty of time to try to agree that, with the pressure of a deadline. Extending the deadline doesn't make them more likely to come to agreement, it just wastes more time.
Pedantic twaddle from Newman. We all know what Cooper means.
An A50 extension gives time, time to find something more permanent.
No it doen't, everyone delaying agreement on something now would find more reasons for delay later. Just be honest and call for revocation outright, it is unseemly that people are trying this 'extension to find another solution' bollocks.
I want an extension for a #peoplesvote or failing that a GE.
Personally I'd rather a guaranteed soft Brexit, than a referendum between hard Brexit and Remain. I'd rather 100% chance of 'not that bad' than 50% chance of disaster.
But my point stands leaveing the EU is the preferred policy of Tory voters, activists and MP's. Political parties do not disappear doing what the above want.
Let's postulate, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about the economic disaster, in the short term. Are you seriously suggesting that because Tory voters currently don't think it's an issue - because like you they don't believe it - they would stay on board if it did indeed turn out to be a disaster?
I've defined it before. I can't immediately find the comment, but it was along these lines:
1. It's extremely hard to quantify the economic damage, because economic models are based on steady-state or gradual transitions. No advanced economy in peace time has, with virtually no notice, suddenly torn up the regulatory and tariff structure of trade with its biggest market, and no country with four decades of economic integration has suddenly reversed it. So no-one can tell you how bad the hit will be.
2. With that proviso, if you want me to quantify it, I would guess something similar in magnitude to the 2008 crash. Obviously that was very different in nature, but a similar level of disruption looks the kind of thing we should expect.
3. Of course the effects will vary hugely according to sector. Car manufacturing, fishing, farming are the obvious front-line sectors which will be immediately hit. Other sectors will be hit by the knock-on effect on confidence.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
5. We won't go hungry, but there will be a lot of shortages of specific items in the shops.
Is that specific enough for you?
If 2) is right, that means the economy hamstrung for a decade. 2008 redux is lurid enough for me.
Perfect excuse for another 10 years of Tory austerity..
May’s move comes as fresh polling evidence suggests the public are sanguine about the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.
A poll by ICM conducted after last week’s government defeat and seen by the Guardian asked voters what should happen next.
The most popular option, backed by 28% of voters, was a no-deal Brexit. Demonstrating the divide in public opinion, the next most popular option, supported by 24% of the public, is to start the process of holding a second referendum.
In the representative online poll of 2,046 adults between 16–18 January, just 8% thought May should press ahead with trying to win support for her deal in parliament, while 11% thought she should call a general election.
The funny thing about May is that she continues to disappoint, day after day.
Every so often Corbyn or Johnson says something mad, bad or dangerous, and you think, at least May is the adult in the room.
But she isn’t.
You're right. There are no further fears to be had at the prospect of Prime Minister Johnson or Prime Minister Corbyn. We could have a mokujin as Prime Minister and it'd be more effective.
I think it is pretty clear now, if it were not already, that May really does have no plan, she really has no strategy for her plan or a backup plan, she really will just play for time to no purpose over and over again. It's quite honestly terrifying. Given the incompetence on display I don't think I could truthfully even back her deal anymore, or any government composed of anyone who was a part of it to negotiate the next phase. It's time to cancel Brexit. Take the embarrassment, the democratic outrage, and just cancel it. It's better than enduring this pathetic shambles day in day out.
I'm actually wondering if she has given up on her Brexit deal, and is now merely trying to ensure that nothing else passes. That way when No Deal doesn't turn out to be wonderful she cements her leadership position in the Tory party ready to fight another general election.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
Interestingly, it seems we are running short of medicines already, ahead of Brexit. The causes are complex and to do with a combination of stockpiling and a not too robust payment system, as I undestand it.
As I understand it the position this year is better than it was a year ago ,,,,, go figure
I don't think it is. Shortages of medicines come and go, it seems, because of combinations of factors. The matching of supply and demand isn't as efficient as it people might expect it to be. It is possible for Brexit to be a significant factor in a shortage without being the sole cause of it. It might already be happening, or it might not. But there is definitely a shortage.
It really is the last straw from May. I'm honestly trying to think of if there are any MPs at this point who would be worse to have in this situation and I don't think I'm getting beyond a handful. Chris Williamson? Chris Chope? It's a select group.
No that is fine. Also remember my point was no deal would not destroy the Tory Party.
So lets take no deal as equivalent to the GFC. After the GFC GDP growth went negative mid 2008 and hit growth again first month 2010 basically it lasted for 18 months. Unemployment went from 2008 levels to peak unemployment 2010, flatlined for 2 years and then reached pre GFC levels in 2015. But this was with a mass influx of unemployed EU27 people desperate for work.
So if Tories no deal March 2019 then 18 months later it is over Sept 2020 and with no mass immigration from EU27 looking for work job creation should start about 6 to 12 months later. i.e mid 2021.
So the Torys can go into the next election 2022 with the economy growing, jobs being created with a message of we have steered the country though the most difficult economic times evah (according to remainers).
Landslide guaranteed I would have thought (even May could not lose that one).
Er... Provoking a major recession leads to a guaranteed landslide? Not sure that's going to work out quite as well as you reckon.
The Tory Party have not provoked a major recession, the voters have. They supported Maggie when she was doing her reforms, with very negative economic consequences for a better future.
Also please note I do not agree no deal will be GFC levels of economic disruption. I only uses this for a discussion of absolute worst case remainer scenario that Mr N proposed.
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
I think my poorly put question isn't being understood how I meant it!
I mean, for those who are desperate to stay in the EU, is there any eventual out of the EU result that you'd consider a success? Say in life expectancy, gdp, exchange rate, I don't know, any metric that we could measure Brexit by that would make you consider it successful. I've been asked a few times how poor we'll have to be before I consider it a failure. I don't know. How rich do we have to be before you admit you were wrong?
On the economic side you could pretty much do GDP growth compared to the Eurozone in the 2020s vs the same comparison in the 2010s, although you probably want some kind of adjustment for the way the UK tends to sync more to the US. The input that feeds into that is openness of trade with your main trading partners: The Globalism In One Country people think there will be more non-EU trade as a result of lots of bold, open free trading agreements. I'm not sure how you measure that but it sounds measurable.
The more likely way I could be wrong is political: The EU may become corrupt, like the US - for example, they have a deliberately complicated tax system caused by lobbying by tax preparation software companies. I think this is partly related to the size of the country and the multi-layered complexity of its government, which makes an easy target for organized lobbyists, and you could imagine the EU going the same way.
Finally, it may turn out that it's bad to be a citizen of a superpower. You already see this: The US taxes overseas residents, and China is literally coercing overseas Uighurs to go back to China for reeducation. The EU is quite well designed from the point of view of protecting individual citizens, but when government has power it uses it, so you never know.
No that is fine. Also remember my point was no deal would not destroy the Tory Party.
So lets take no deal as equivalent to the GFC. After the GFC GDP growth went negative mid 2008 and hit growth again first month 2010 basically it lasted for 18 months. Unemployment went from 2008 levels to peak unemployment 2010, flatlined for 2 years and then reached pre GFC levels in 2015. But this was with a mass influx of unemployed EU27 people desperate for work.
So if Tories no deal March 2019 then 18 months later it is over Sept 2020 and with no mass immigration from EU27 looking for work job creation should start about 6 to 12 months later. i.e mid 2021.
So the Torys can go into the next election 2022 with the economy growing, jobs being created with a message of we have steered the country though the most difficult economic times evah (according to remainers).
Landslide guaranteed I would have thought (even May could not lose that one).
Er... Provoking a major recession leads to a guaranteed landslide? Not sure that's going to work out quite as well as you reckon.
The Tory Party have not provoked a major recession, the voters have. They supported Maggie when she was doing her reforms, with very negative economic consequences for a better future.
Also please note I do not agree no deal will be GFC levels of economic disruption. I only uses this for a discussion of absolute worst case remainer scenario that Mr N proposed.
Maggie has a clear and coherent argument for her reforms. You could agree or disagree but she argued tirelessly and consistently.
No that is fine. Also remember my point was no deal would not destroy the Tory Party.
So lets take no deal as equivalent to the GFC. After the GFC GDP growth went negative mid 2008 and hit growth again first month 2010 basically it lasted for 18 months. Unemployment went from 2008 levels to peak unemployment 2010, flatlined for 2 years and then reached pre GFC levels in 2015. But this was with a mass influx of unemployed EU27 people desperate for work.
So if Tories no deal March 2019 then 18 months later it is over Sept 2020 and with no mass immigration from EU27 looking for work job creation should start about 6 to 12 months later. i.e mid 2021.
So the Torys can go into the next election 2022 with the economy growing, jobs being created with a message of we have steered the country though the most difficult economic times evah (according to remainers).
Landslide guaranteed I would have thought (even May could not lose that one).
Er... Provoking a major recession leads to a guaranteed landslide? Not sure that's going to work out quite as well as you reckon.
The Tory Party have not provoked a major recession, the voters have. They supported Maggie when she was doing her reforms, with very negative economic consequences for a better future.
Also please note I do not agree no deal will be GFC levels of economic disruption. I only uses this for a discussion of absolute worst case remainer scenario that Mr N proposed.
Maggie has a clear and coherent argument for her reforms. You could agree or disagree but she argued tirelessly and consistently.
Brexit? Not so much.
Yes I agree with this point. The Tory Party should have embraced the opportunities of Brexit from day one and sang the positives. They did not, but soon they and the other parties will have to face up to reality and stop dreaming of some fantasy nicey nicey deal with the EU.
May’s move comes as fresh polling evidence suggests the public are sanguine about the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.
A poll by ICM conducted after last week’s government defeat and seen by the Guardian asked voters what should happen next.
The most popular option, backed by 28% of voters, was a no-deal Brexit. Demonstrating the divide in public opinion, the next most popular option, supported by 24% of the public, is to start the process of holding a second referendum.
In the representative online poll of 2,046 adults between 16–18 January, just 8% thought May should press ahead with trying to win support for her deal in parliament, while 11% thought she should call a general election.
- Guardian app
So under a third of voters back any option as their first preference
No that is fine. Also remember my point was no deal would not destroy the Tory Party.
So lets take no deal as equivalent to the GFC. After the GFC GDP growth went negative mid 2008 and hit growth again first month 2010 basically it lasted for 18 months. Unemployment went from 2008 levels to peak unemployment 2010, flatlined for 2 years and then reached pre GFC levels in 2015. But this was with a mass influx of unemployed EU27 people desperate for work.
So if Tories no deal March 2019 then 18 months later it is over Sept 2020 and with no mass immigration from EU27 looking for work job creation should start about 6 to 12 months later. i.e mid 2021.
So the Torys can go into the next election 2022 with the economy growing, jobs being created with a message of we have steered the country though the most difficult economic times evah (according to remainers).
Landslide guaranteed I would have thought (even May could not lose that one).
Er... Provoking a major recession leads to a guaranteed landslide? Not sure that's going to work out quite as well as you reckon.
Yes, the destruction of the Tory party is one of the few upsides of No Deal Brexit.
Why should it be the 'destruction' of the Tory Party as a result of a No Deal Brexit when most Tory voters are Leavers? Revoking Brexit is more likely to destroy the Tory Party than No Deal even if the Deal is still the best option for the Tories longer term
I do have to commend Theresa May for saying and doing nothing of use or substance so many times that it has finally broken the last belief I had in Brexit and has made the case for Remain at last. Well done her.
I do have to commend Theresa May for saying and doing nothing of use or substance so many times that it has finally broken the last belief I had in Brexit and has made the case for Remain at last. Well done her.
They just want to get on with it and leave with no deal and do not want a referendum
Not what the Sky national poll showed though and that is more important, nationally voters opposed No Deal and narrowly thought Brexit wrong.
Though nationally voters still do not back a second referendum yet
What on earth are you talking about. This was a live programme and is not connected to your utter obsession with polls
It was a studio audience of a handful of people, the national Sky polls were not the same on 2/3 of the issues to the results in the studio
So what
So what? It is the national scientific poll which was relevant not what a random studio audience thought
You are so possessed with polls - just sad
Wonder how HYUFD rationalises May losing her majority in the General Election? After all, didn't they predict a landslide...?
Not the final ones, no. Indeed all that happened was Corbyn squeezed minor parties, the 42% May got was similar to that at the start of the campaign
A bit more to it than that - the Tory vote was in the 46% to 49% range for much of the campaign.
The Tories lost their gains over the campaign, their voteshare at the end was still similar to that when the election was called
The Tory vote share moved up and down a bit - but it was the dramatic rise in the Labour vote share that changed things. Labour were in the mid 20s when the election was called - they ended up at 41%. The Tories started in the mid 40s and ended there.
If there are various possible ways forward with Brexit it is blatantly obvious no single one of them will command an outright majority. So let's stop this obsession binary voting and structure the question properly.
It really is the last straw from May. I'm honestly trying to think of if there are any MPs at this point who would be worse to have in this situation and I don't think I'm getting beyond a handful. Chris Williamson? Chris Chope? It's a select group.
I do have to commend Theresa May for saying and doing nothing of use or substance so many times that it has finally broken the last belief I had in Brexit and has made the case for Remain at last. Well done her.
They just want to get on with it and leave with no deal and do not want a referendum
Not what the Sky national poll showed though and that is more important, nationally voters opposed No Deal and narrowly thought Brexit wrong.
Though nationally voters still do not back a second referendum yet
What on earth are you talking about. This was a live programme and is not connected to your utter obsession with polls
It was a studio audience of a handful of people, the national Sky polls were not the same on 2/3 of the issues to the results in the studio
So what
So what? It is the national scientific poll which was relevant not what a random studio audience thought
You are so possessed with polls - just sad
Wonder how HYUFD rationalises May losing her majority in the General Election? After all, didn't they predict a landslide...?
Not the final ones, no. Indeed all that happened was Corbyn squeezed minor parties, the 42% May got was similar to that at the start of the campaign
A bit more to it than that - the Tory vote was in the 46% to 49% range for much of the campaign.
The Tories lost their gains over the campaign, their voteshare at the end was still similar to that when the election was called
The Tory vote share moved up and down a bit - but it was the dramatic rise in the Labour vote share that changed things. Labour were in the mid 20s when the election was called - they ended up at 41%. The Tories started in the mid 40s and ended there.
The LDs and UKIP were also on about 10 or 11% when the campaign started and ended up at 7% and under 2% respectively, Corbyn got more of their vote over the campaign than May helped by appealing to LDs to vote Labour to stop a hard Brexit and to UKIP voters by promising to implement Brexit.
Corbyn is unlikely to be able to repeat that trick again once Brexit has taken place
It really is the last straw from May. I'm honestly trying to think of if there are any MPs at this point who would be worse to have in this situation and I don't think I'm getting beyond a handful. Chris Williamson? Chris Chope? It's a select group.
lol!
I now think of May as actively dangerous for the country, so useless is she.
It is getting close to the point where even I, no Corbyn fan, to put it mildly, will start thinking, fuck it, how much worse than the old trout can he be? That is how bad she is. She’s turned @kle4 into a Remainer and me, almost, into a Corbynite.
It’s a funny old world.
Goodnight.
PS Don’t get your hopes up, @NickPalmer. I’m sure normal service will be resumed tomorrow.
I'm not going to hold my breath as I have zero confidence in May but at last attempting something different if this is true and not just acting like nothing has changed. Incidentally if true this is exactly what I suggested here.
I've yet to see a remainer define a brexit that they'd consider a success, though I have seen a few demand of leavers that they define its failure. Does anyone on either side have an answer to that question? I want us to leave, but I don't think I can answer for my side.
IT's the wrong question. If you are a Remainer, you think the referendum eliminated the only good outcome. Perhaps you think the referendum result should be honoured so it then becomes purely a question of damage limitation. The best Brexit is the one that makes things worse to the smallest extent. But if you ask, why are we doing this? Because people we don't agree with voted for it.
I think my poorly put question isn't being understood how I meant it!
I mean, for those who are desperate to stay in the EU, is there any eventual out of the EU result that you'd consider a success? Say in life expectancy, gdp, exchange rate, I don't know, any metric that we could measure Brexit by that would make you consider it successful. I've been asked a few times how poor we'll have to be before I consider it a failure. I don't know. How rich do we have to be before you admit you were wrong?
It's not a bad question: in fact it's a very good one. The full answer would be lengthy but as a proxy let's take exchange rates. If you could get £1 over $1.40 for a year (I don't know what the EUR equivalent is: £1=1.3EUR?) then I'd stop worrying so much. If you could get it to £1=$1.6 so much the better.
As a sidebar: both sides have been shocked by the vituperation that some of the other side has expressed. So if you could get Brexit to a state where we all stopped talking about it, even better.
I do have to commend Theresa May for saying and doing nothing of use or substance so many times that it has finally broken the last belief I had in Brexit and has made the case for Remain at last. Well done her.
They just want to get on with it and leave with no deal and do not want a referendum
Not what the Sky national poll showed though and that is more important, nationally voters opposed No Deal and narrowly thought Brexit wrong.
Though nationally voters still do not back a second referendum yet
What on earth are you talking about. This was a live programme and is not connected to your utter obsession with polls
It was a studio audience of a handful of people, the national Sky polls were not the same on 2/3 of the issues to the results in the studio
So what
So what? It is the national scientific poll which was relevant not what a random studio audience thought
You are so possessed with polls - just sad
Wonder how HYUFD rationalises May losing her majority in the General Election? After all, didn't they predict a landslide...?
Not the final ones, no. Indeed all that happened was Corbyn squeezed minor parties, the 42% May got was similar to that at the start of the campaign
A bit more to it than that - the Tory vote was in the 46% to 49% range for much of the campaign.
The Tories lost their gains over the campaign, their voteshare at the end was still similar to that when the election was called
The Tory vote share moved up and down a bit - but it was the dramatic rise in the Labour vote share that changed things. Labour were in the mid 20s when the election was called - they ended up at 41%. The Tories started in the mid 40s and ended there.
Comments
*innocent face*
The worst thing about the No Deal chaos is that the Govt and the UK populist press would blame it on the EU.... and guess what the public on the whole would believe them.
I am a leaver and I think the treasury forecast for no deal leave was very sensible, It was the village idiot Osborne that gave it the big negative rubbish. I also think the PWC for the CBI forecast was sensible as well.
So if you can give me some indications of what you think will happen, you can say it will be 10 million unemployed as long as you can give some justification for that prediction.
But what is pointless is entering discussions with emotive wordsmiths.
It would still be technically possible for parliament to pass *new* legislation disregarding the referendum legislation, but since there's no majority for any option it's hard to see how they'd to that even if they wanted to (which, fwiw, they wouldn't, but Leavers are within their rights to worry about it.)
There are some stupid MPs, on both sides of the house. I'd suggest Cooper isn't one of them.
Overnight.
I have no idea what the numbers are for that, but it is a disaster.
If we had five years to plan a way around it all, it would be different, but...
1. It's extremely hard to quantify the economic damage, because economic models are based on steady-state or gradual transitions. No advanced economy in peace time has, with virtually no notice, suddenly torn up the regulatory and tariff structure of trade with its biggest market, and no country with four decades of economic integration has suddenly reversed it. So no-one can tell you how bad the hit will be.
2. With that proviso, if you want me to quantify it, I would guess something similar in magnitude to the 2008 crash. Obviously that was very different in nature, but a similar level of disruption looks the kind of thing we should expect.
3. Of course the effects will vary hugely according to sector. Car manufacturing, fishing, farming are the obvious front-line sectors which will be immediately hit. Other sectors will be hit by the knock-on effect on confidence.
4. I think some of the more lurid forecasts are nonsense. We're not, for example, going to be short of medicines, because those are low-bulk, relatively high value items which can always be flown in if necessary. No-one is going to die directly as a result of crash-out, although I expect there will be a big increase in bankruptcies and in unemployment, which (as with Blair's Rural Payments fiasco) could lead to some suicides.
5. We won't go hungry, but there will be a lot of shortages of specific items in the shops.
Is that specific enough for you?
I mean, for those who are desperate to stay in the EU, is there any eventual out of the EU result that you'd consider a success? Say in life expectancy, gdp, exchange rate, I don't know, any metric that we could measure Brexit by that would make you consider it successful. I've been asked a few times how poor we'll have to be before I consider it a failure. I don't know. How rich do we have to be before you admit you were wrong?
Liam Fox has got nowhere with this.
However, Brexit has already weakened growth, and cutting yourself off from your main trading market does not deliver growth according to any economic theory known to man.
Ask North Korea.
I have a problem with No Deal anarchists who just want to burn the whole economy overnight for the sake of their purity.
Truly they are like some millennialist cult who welcome the cleansing fires.
By rights, we should look to rebalance the country’s budget by scrapping the old age pension completely and any economic transfers to the Midlands, Wales, and the North.
Do they learn from it is the key question.
I agree with most of your post but think people will die of No Deal Brexit, it is not just the medication but expertise and personnel that the UK might suddenly find it hard to recruit. Time is everything in medical care. As an aside I rely on medication, if I am deprived of certain types of medication it could cause serious problems....
Good luck to the former coalfields trying to get the same funds from London.
No doubt tomorrow will be another interesting day.
For me the big issue is political because of the massive contradiction behind the Leave vote. People voted Leave largely, I think, because they don't like the EU and want to get rid of it, and because they want to "be in control" of their destiny. Brexit will drag on for years with endless arguments. Far from getting rid of the EU, it will never be more intrusive. The EU runs the system for Europe, which third countries are also plugged into. The EU is the only game in town in our part of the world. We have no choice in practice but to have a very close relationship with them, on their terms and to follow their rules. We will never be less "in control" than after Brexit. All the issues that we are seeing now in getting a deal come from this contradiction.
To answer your question more directly, a successful Brexit is one where people accept it, stop talking about it and don't notice anymore. On that basis, so far, Brexit has been very unsuccessful.
edit: to be clear, I’m talking about the rolling-over of the deals countries have with the EU currently.
So lets take no deal as equivalent to the GFC.
After the GFC GDP growth went negative mid 2008 and hit growth again first month 2010 basically it lasted for 18 months.
Unemployment went from 2008 levels to peak unemployment 2010, flatlined for 2 years and then reached pre GFC levels in 2015. But this was with a mass influx of unemployed EU27 people desperate for work.
So if Tories no deal March 2019 then 18 months later it is over Sept 2020 and with no mass immigration from EU27 looking for work job creation should start about 6 to 12 months later. i.e mid 2021.
So the Torys can go into the next election 2022 with the economy growing, jobs being created with a message of we have steered the country though the most difficult economic times evah (according to remainers).
Landslide guaranteed I would have thought (even May could not lose that one).
2008 redux is lurid enough for me.
Not living with my parents and brothers, and living with my wife and children instead is something I don't regret. One day when my children grow up and move out I may miss them but won't regret it.
As for the electoral effect, what you are missing is the suddenness of the harm, and the complete lack of ambiguity as to whose fault it would be (unless a large part of the blame can somehow be diverted on to Corbyn, which would be fair but isn't how politics works).
PS: More like we should tax arseholes like you till your pips squeak and then tax you again just because you are such a selfish arsehole.
If people cannot agree something with the ticking clock they already have why would another ticking clock make them more inclined to agree something? It's one of the most transparently nonsense suggestions in this whole business, and it is up against some stiff competition.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46597425 [edit link]
And this doesn't give a huge amount of confidence:
https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1087102813577056256
Not sure that's going to work out quite as well as you reckon.
The Brexit we look to be getting is not the best Brexit we could achieve if we planned properly.
Therefore a delay does not help us plan anything properly. If we agree something, then need more time than is allotted to prepare, that would require an extension. But putting off the decision doesn't make us more prepared. It's only purpose would be to ramp up tension to make remain more attractive. We might as well short cut that.
If such a thing can not be found, the tough, but I happen to think the Flexcit idea made sense.
We don’t actually have a decent and supported at present. What we face is actually deeply undemocratic, despite the loons muttering darkly about the will of the people.
Every so often Corbyn or Johnson says something mad, bad or dangerous, and you think, at least May is the adult in the room.
But she isn’t.
A poll by ICM conducted after last week’s government defeat and seen by the Guardian asked voters what should happen next.
The most popular option, backed by 28% of voters, was a no-deal Brexit. Demonstrating the divide in public opinion, the next most popular option, supported by 24% of the public, is to start the process of holding a second referendum.
In the representative online poll of 2,046 adults between 16–18 January, just 8% thought May should press ahead with trying to win support for her deal in parliament, while 11% thought she should call a general election.
- Guardian app
Also please note I do not agree no deal will be GFC levels of economic disruption. I only uses this for a discussion of absolute worst case remainer scenario that Mr N proposed.
The more likely way I could be wrong is political: The EU may become corrupt, like the US - for example, they have a deliberately complicated tax system caused by lobbying by tax preparation software companies. I think this is partly related to the size of the country and the multi-layered complexity of its government, which makes an easy target for organized lobbyists, and you could imagine the EU going the same way.
Finally, it may turn out that it's bad to be a citizen of a superpower. You already see this: The US taxes overseas residents, and China is literally coercing overseas Uighurs to go back to China for reeducation. The EU is quite well designed from the point of view of protecting individual citizens, but when government has power it uses it, so you never know.
Brexit? Not so much.
The Tory vote share moved up and down a bit - but it was the dramatic rise in the Labour vote share that changed things. Labour were in the mid 20s when the election was called - they ended up at 41%. The Tories started in the mid 40s and ended there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
Corbyn is unlikely to be able to repeat that trick again once Brexit has taken place
https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/1087126552339460102?s=21
Brexit reality Bellicheck/Brady throttling the life out of the opposition
It is getting close to the point where even I, no Corbyn fan, to put it mildly, will start thinking, fuck it, how much worse than the old trout can he be? That is how bad she is. She’s turned @kle4 into a Remainer and me, almost, into a Corbynite.
It’s a funny old world.
Goodnight.
PS Don’t get your hopes up, @NickPalmer. I’m sure normal service will be resumed tomorrow.
As a sidebar: both sides have been shocked by the vituperation that some of the other side has expressed. So if you could get Brexit to a state where we all stopped talking about it, even better.
With More MPs May would probably have been able to get a soft Brexit deal through parliament. Yeah !