I think that he and many others had convinced themselves that the economic consequences of a vote to leave would be profound. They expected a much greater run on Sterling than happened, Government borrowing (still much higher then) to become much more expensive and investment to dry up causing a rise in unemployment. I think that they were genuine but wrong.
What I find less forgivable is that the same parties continue to make forecasts of lost GDP over decades and confident predictions of "disaster" in the event of a no deal Brexit. A little bit of self reflection might have been in order. I have long argued that the effects of Brexit for good or ill will be lost in the noise of our economic performance with many other factors affecting the result more significantly. I think I can legitimately say that the evidence to date favours that assessment (which may still prove to be wrong over a longer period of course).
The run on sterling was exactly in the mid-range of expectations. What is true is that it is very surprising that the effect on the economy as a result of loss of business confidence hasn't been as bad as expected (although it's still significant - probably a couple of percent of GDP lost so far).
However, I'm not sure you can draw any long-term conclusions from that, since the markets still seem to think that something will be done to avoid disaster.
As for a no-deal Brexit, I remain completely of the view that it will be an economic, political and social disaster. There is no precedent in modern times (outside war) for a country abruptly tearing up long-standing trade relations and arrangements with its biggest trading partner.
> @ah009 said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ? > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> Talking of Scotland I don't think it is possible to underestimate what effect the melt down in Scottish Labour has on Labour's prospects. The last elected Labour majority, in 2005, had 41 Scottish MPs. In 2017 Labour won 7. On the evidence of the Euros none of those are going to survive. None.
>
> I know Tony Blair managed to win a majority in England but that was Blair who is regarded as a Tory these days. Does anyone seriously believe that Corbyn is going to do likewise? Without a serious contingent of Scottish MPs I don't see how a very definitely left of centre Labour wins or even becomes the largest party.
>
> We live in uncertain times and the centre right breaking between TBP and the Tories might give some unexpected results but Scotland is a disaster for Labour, not a local problem. I have no idea at all what they do about it.
Let's look at this with some numbers. Labour won 28 Welsh seats at GE2017, so would need 295 English seats for a UK majority (assuming zero Scottish seats and Sinn Fein as now). That would be a net gain of 68 seats in England compared to 2017.
I think that means they would need to win Rushcliffe, on a swing of just under 7%, or if you allow Labour to make gains in Wales, Dover, on a swing of just over 6% would be sufficient.
If Labour do disproportionately badly in Scotland this reduces the GB swing they would require, so a GB lead of 8% might be enough.
It's certainly possible if the Tories do badly enough.
It's possible but its not likely. Labour will need to win seats that were beyond Blair. I just can't see that. One of the critiques of the SNP in Scotland is that England is more centre right as a nation and Scotland more centre right. I think, for once, they are right about that. A Labour party to the left of Michael Foot is not going to win a majority in England alone.
Not even close. Every single person I know who voted Labour in 2017 is also anti-Brexit. You can question the wisdom of their choice (I did) but you can't overwrite their opinion.
I didn't say what you think I said. Many, many people (including me) are anti-Brexit. That is not the same as thinking (back in 2017, remember) that the democratic result of the referendum should not have been respected.
> @DavidL said: > > Simple. The effect of a no deal Brexit will not have profound practical consequences. It will have undesirable consequences and it should be avoided by a sensible deal but it is being grossly exaggerated by the same people who said that the uncertainty caused by a leave vote would do irreparable damage. And they have the same overweening confidence now as they did then. --------
I for one never predicted economic catastrophe simply from the vote itself, and always said that Brexit itself was a primarily a political disaster rather than an economic disaster. But I'm afraid to say you're utterly delusional about what No Deal would mean.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > I didn't say what you think I said. Many, many people (including me) are anti-Brexit. That is not the same as thinking (back in 2017, remember) that the democratic result of the referendum should not have been respected. ------
I voted Labour for the first time with the express intention of frustrating Brexit, and I'm certainly not the only one.
> I’m a conservative, but more importantly a democrat.
>
> Should we also be calling for George Osborne to be prosecuted for the pack of lies that came out of the Treasury before the referendum? Of course not, because the place that these disputes get settled is the ballot box. Trying to equate with other professions is fatuous.
Hmmm, I think these are difficult questions, but if Osborne was directing the Treasury to falsify statistics (do we have any evidence of this?), I would be in favour of some way to punish that. The bar for criminal prosecutions should be much higher than, say, the UK Statistics Authority being able to bar/suspend people from holding high office if they ignore warnings about misusing statistics.
But it's going to be very difficult to punish people for making up predictions that turn out to be wrong, however certain it is that the person making the prediction is being dishonest. For example, Gove was clearly lying when he repeatedly claimed to believe during the 2016 referendum campaign that Turkey might be about to join the EU, he obviously knew there was 0% chance of Turkey joining the EU any time soon. But it's difficult to prove. Still, shouldn't we be able to bar him from public office for telling such blatant porkies to further a political campaign?
The idea that the problem is solved at the ballot box doesn't seem to work, if continuously lying through your teeth (see Trump) actually wins elections. It would at least make politicians think twice before telling blatant lies if we enforced some rules, though they would have to be very tightly drawn so it might be impossible.
Compare to the rules we have on political spending - should we not bother with them and say it's all "freedom of speech", and leave it to voters to punish parties/individuals flouting the rules at the ballot box? I don't think so.
I think we draw about the right line on political spending, but the Electoral Commission need to be much clearer in their instructions and guidance to parties and candidates to avoid a large number of technical breaches, which have happened to all parties in recent years.
We see what happens in the US with unlimited political spending, where Hillary spent $2.5 BILLION last time out, and living anywhere marginal brings a constant stream of robocalls and TV ads for a year or more. By the time of the actual election, most people are heartily sick of politics and politicians.
The way that we counter politicians telling pork pies is via political debate and the ballot box, not by demonising people or dragging them through the courts. That goes for Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn, for George Osborne and Tommy Robinson.
> @RobD said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ? > > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie. > > Aren't those the gross contributions?
I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
> @kamski said: > > @RobD said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ? > > > > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie. > > > > Aren't those the gross contributions? > > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty. > > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't. > > Who is right?
I think that he and many others had convinced themselves that the economic consequences of a vote to leave would be profound. They expected a much greater run on Sterling than happened, Government borrowing (still much higher then) to become much more expensive and investment to dry up causing a rise in unemployment. I think that they were genuine but wrong.
What I find less forgivable is that the same parties continue to make forecasts of lost GDP over decades and confident predictions of "disaster" in the event of a no deal Brexit. A little bit of self reflection might have been in order. I have long argued that the effects of Brexit for good or ill will be lost in the noise of our economic performance with many other factors affecting the result more significantly. I think I can legitimately say that the evidence to date favours that assessment (which may still prove to be wrong over a longer period of course).
The run on sterling was exactly in the mid-range of expectations. What is true is that it is very surprising that the effect on the economy as a result of loss of business confidence hasn't been as bad as expected (although it's still significant - probably a couple of percent of GDP lost so far).
However, I'm not sure you can draw any long-term conclusions from that, since the markets still seem to think that something will be done to avoid disaster.
As for a no-deal Brexit, I remain completely of the view that it will be an economic, political and social disaster. There is no precedent in modern times (outside war) for a country abruptly tearing up long-standing trade relations and arrangements with its biggest trading partner.
I might be wrong, but I very much doubt it.
I don't know how you can have any confidence that the UK economy might have grown 2% more since 2016 had the vote gone the other way. We are somewhat ahead of the pack in Europe as it is. On what basis do you think that we might have outperformed them by that amount?
Like Osborne in 2016 I respect your view on the outcome of a no deal Brexit and completely accept it is genuinely held. I hope we don't find out who is right about that one.
I voted Labour for the first time with the express intention of frustrating Brexit, and I'm certainly not the only one.
Sure, and no doubt many people who voted LibDem thought the referendum result should not be frustrated. Nonetheless, the manifesto you voted for promised the opposite of what you wanted (and incidentally has made a no-deal crash out much more likely).
> @RobD said: > > @kamski said: > > > @RobD said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ? > > > > > > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie. > > > > > > Aren't those the gross contributions? > > > > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty. > > > > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't. > > > > Who is right? > > You sent 50 pounds to the cashier, didn't you?
but I couldn´t "spend the 50 pounds on something else instead" could I?
> @kamski said: > > @RobD said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ? > > > > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie. > > > > Aren't those the gross contributions? > > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty. > > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't. > > Who is right?
He is.
You should say "Yes, I paid £50 for it, got the toaster and £25 change."
> @kamski said: > > @RobD said: > > > @kamski said: > > > > @RobD said: > > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ? > > > > > > > > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie. > > > > > > > > Aren't those the gross contributions? > > > > > > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty. > > > > > > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't. > > > > > > Who is right? > > > > You sent 50 pounds to the cashier, didn't you? > > but I couldn´t "spend the 50 pounds on something else instead" could I?
> > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
> >
> > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
>
> Aren't those the gross contributions?
I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
Who is right?
I thought leavers argument was that the change wasn’t £25 cash but a £20 voucher to be spent in that store only, with a fiver going to help fund someone else’s shopping
> @philiph said: > > @kamski said: > > > @RobD said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ? > > > > > > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie. > > > > > > Aren't those the gross contributions? > > > > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty. > > > > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't. > > > > Who is right? > > He is. > > You should say "Yes, I paid £50 for it, and got the toaster and £25 change."
> @DavidL said: > > Like Osborne in 2016 I respect your view on the outcome of a no deal Brexit and completely accept it is genuinely held. I hope we don't find out who is right about that one. -----
Do you as a minimum accept that there is a qualitative difference between the two?
It's like someone who thinks Corbyn's economic policies would be disastrous equating the election of Corbyn with him going on to implement a programme of collectivisation. How would you react if his supporters were saying, "It was proven to be project fear when nothing bad happened immediately after the election!"
> @RobD said: > > @kamski said: > > > @RobD said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ? > > > > > > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie. > > > > > > Aren't those the gross contributions? > > > > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty. > > > > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't. > > > > Who is right? > > You sent 50 pounds to the cashier, didn't you? ------------------------ I think the key to this will be how you define a 'rebate'. Do you have to pay the gross sum in order to get the rebate or is the net amount the value that is requested? I suspect it can be argued both ways in which case an objective jury would have to acquit on the basis of uncertainty as to guilt (in the Scottish courts it would probably be 'not proven').
> Simple. The effect of a no deal Brexit will not have profound practical consequences. It will have undesirable consequences and it should be avoided by a sensible deal but it is being grossly exaggerated by the same people who said that the uncertainty caused by a leave vote would do irreparable damage. And they have the same overweening confidence now as they did then.
--------
I for one never predicted economic catastrophe simply from the vote itself, and always said that Brexit itself was a primarily a political disaster rather than an economic disaster. But I'm afraid to say you're utterly delusional about what No Deal would mean.
We were debating what Osborne said, not you. As I said to Richard I hope we don't find out who is right about a no deal Brexit.
Using the gross figure of 350mn a week rather than the net was a masterstroke. For weeks Remainers couldn't say anything other than how we "only" sent 250mn a week.
I don't know how you can have any confidence that the UK economy might have grown 2% more since 2016 had the vote gone the other way. We are somewhat ahead of the pack in Europe as it is. On what basis do you think that we might have outperformed them by that amount?
Like Osborne in 2016 I respect your view on the outcome of a no deal Brexit and completely accept it is genuinely held. I hope we don't find out who is right about that one.
It's impossible in economics to be completely confident of a counter-factual, of course. But the main reason for my estimate is that for the first couple of years after the referendum we moved sharply lower in growth compared with the trend line of our nearest comparable European neighbours, and it looks like a rough 2% difference over that time. Of course this is hand-waving, but the BoE has done detailed analysis and comes up with a similar figure. (Hand-waving is often better than detailed economic models!).
Anticipating what you would reply: yes, I know that that trend has stopped or gone slightly into reverse in the last year or so. But that is explained by the fact that the Chinese export market, so much more important for Germany and its satellite economies than for us, has faltered badly.
> @RobD said: > Using the gross figure of 350mn a week rather than the net was a masterstroke. For weeks Remainers couldn't say anything other than how we "only" sent 250mn a week.
Indeed. And rather than just saying it once and then moving on they said it day after day, after day after day after day and three years on are still saying it...
> Using the gross figure of 350mn a week rather than the net was a masterstroke. For weeks Remainers couldn't say anything other than how we "only" sent 250mn a week.
Indeed. And rather than just saying it once and then moving on they said day after day, after day after day after day and three years on are still saying it...
#clueless
Actually the net amount in 2015 was "only" £163 billion a week.
> Like Osborne in 2016 I respect your view on the outcome of a no deal Brexit and completely accept it is genuinely held. I hope we don't find out who is right about that one.
-----
Do you as a minimum accept that there is a qualitative difference between the two?
It's like someone who thinks Corbyn's economic policies would be disastrous equating the election of Corbyn with him going on to implement a programme of collectivisation. How would you react if his supporters were saying, "It was proven to be project fear when nothing bad happened immediately after the election!"
I am not sure that there is a qualitative difference in that both are forecasts based on economic models that assume too much stays the same and that, for instance, the government does not reactor change policy. There might be a quantative difference in that one is a threat/perceived uncertainty and one is reality. But business generally finds reality much easier to deal with than uncertainty so it is hard to say whether one would have a greater effect than the other. I personally think that our political classes biggest collective failure has been to maximise uncertainty for much longer than was even thought possible.
As for Corbyn I have no doubt that his economic policies would be disastrous and that there would be immediate effects of his election including a weaker pound, a removal of hot money from London (for good or ill), a significant pause in investment and the export of at least part of our tax base overseas.
But that would just be the beginning. Our success or failure post Brexit depends on what sort of governments we elect, what economic policies they enact, how they look to address our existing strategic weaknesses as well as any issues arising from Brexit etc.
It is in the nature of our two party politics that whenever smaller parties appear to be gaining traction on a big issue, the larger parties respond by twisting and contorting to a position that maintains current support while trying to win over those from smaller parties.
Brexit is an unusual beast in that it was a dual choice, of which one answer (the winning one) was ill defined. There is no compromise between stay and leave. You cannot be half in and half out of the door, which Lab and Cons policy appears to be to the public. Contrast to the buoyant LDs and BP who have firm stances; stay or go, respectively.
It is now up to the main parties whose votes they go after. However, don't tell me Lab have nothing to fear from chasing Remainer votes and sidelining leavers.
I've no particular view in respect of the Conservative Party leadership candidates - I don't have a vote but 120,000 or so do but they only count once the parliamentary party has had its say (or several says I suspect).
Rory Stewart is clearly positioning himself as the Cameron de nos jours - his pledge on increasing foreign aid to fight climate change would no doubt be welcomed by many LD and Green Party voters and supporters. I welcome it but how it plays with Conservatives at the moment I'm much less certain.
If this is where Rory is politically, I'd welcome him into the LDs - we'd be far more a political home for him than a Raab-led Conservative Party for example.
The leadership contenders have to deal with the Gordian Knot question - how do we exit the EU with a WA if the WA proposed, which won't be renegotiated by the EU, lacks a majority in the Commons? There will be those who don't care and are quite happy about running the clock down to 31/10 and allowing the UK to leave the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement with all that flows from that.
Fine, no problem there.
For those candidates who eschew a No Deal exit, however, the question remains how the WA, as constituted, gets through the Commons? HYUFD suggested 40 Labour MPs might now be prepared to back it but if it's not even in front of the Commons, that doesn't matter. IF someone like Gove or Hunt prevails, the Conservative Party isn't likely to unify over the WA overnight so what would change?
The alternative then becomes seeking yet another extension from the EU in October and having to go to the Party Conference (which won't be pleasant) on that basis.
The other aspect remains the extent to which BXP is going to influence the outcome - given they are "here to stay", the question becomes where they will position themselves on the domestic issues. Will Farage be able to hold his disparate band together when it comes to talking about issues like housing, social care, the economy, transport, agriculture and the like?
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > @RobD said: > > > Using the gross figure of 350mn a week rather than the net was a masterstroke. For weeks Remainers couldn't say anything other than how we "only" sent 250mn a week. > > > > Indeed. And rather than just saying it once and then moving on they said day after day, after day after day after day and three years on are still saying it... > > > > #clueless > > Actually the net amount in 2015 was "only" £163 billion a week.
That sounds too low. I thought it was about a third that was directed back to the UK?
> @GIN1138 said: > Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave?
> > Using the gross figure of 350mn a week rather than the net was a masterstroke. For weeks Remainers couldn't say anything other than how we "only" sent 250mn a week.
>
>
>
> Indeed. And rather than just saying it once and then moving on they said day after day, after day after day after day and three years on are still saying it...
>
>
>
> #clueless
>
> Actually the net amount in 2015 was "only" £163 billion a week.
That sounds too low. I thought it was about a third that was directed back to the UK?
> @Ploppikins said: > It is in the nature of our two party politics that whenever smaller parties appear to be gaining traction on a big issue, the larger parties respond by twisting and contorting to a position that maintains current support while trying to win over those from smaller parties. > > Brexit is an unusual beast in that it was a dual choice, of which one answer (the winning one) was ill defined. There is no compromise between stay and leave. You cannot be half in and half out of the door, which Lab and Cons policy appears to be to the public. Contrast to the buoyant LDs and BP who have firm stances; stay or go, respectively. > > It is now up to the main parties whose votes they go after. However, don't tell me Lab have nothing to fear from chasing Remainer votes and sidelining leavers.
One of the problems with our EU membership is that we were half in and half out,
That is why revocation is so stupid. It puts us back in the half in half out awkward squad with a grudge position, the position that generated the Brexit tsunami.
We should either be out, No deal with deals or with a deal or in, commit to it with Euro Schengen and all the bells and whistles.
I don't know how you can have any confidence that the UK economy might have grown 2% more since 2016 had the vote gone the other way. We are somewhat ahead of the pack in Europe as it is. On what basis do you think that we might have outperformed them by that amount?
Like Osborne in 2016 I respect your view on the outcome of a no deal Brexit and completely accept it is genuinely held. I hope we don't find out who is right about that one.
It's impossible in economics to be completely confident of a counter-factual, of course. But the main reason for my estimate is that for the first couple of years after the referendum we moved sharply lower in growth compared with the trend line of our nearest comparable European neighbours, and it looks like a rough 2% difference over that time. Of course this is hand-waving, but the BoE has done detailed analysis and comes up with a similar figure. (Hand-waving is often better than detailed economic models!).
Anticipating what you would reply: yes, I know that that trend has stopped or gone slightly into reverse in the last year or so. But that is explained by the fact that the Chinese export market, so much more important for Germany and its satellite economies than for us, has faltered badly.
The slow down in our growth was partly caused by a more aggressive approach to deficit reduction (which, in fairness, was a rational response to an anticipated increase in the cost of funding that deficit which did not materialise). It is a simple example of how decisions made and policies adopted are more important than Brexit economically. And how incredibly difficult it is going to be for economic historians to determine the effect of Brexit for good or ill.
> @DavidL said: > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > I think that he and many others had convinced themselves that the economic consequences of a vote to leave would be profound. They expected a much greater run on Sterling than happened, Government borrowing (still much higher then) to become much more expensive and investment to dry up causing a rise in unemployment. I think that they were genuine but wrong. > > > > > > What I find less forgivable is that the same parties continue to make forecasts of lost GDP over decades and confident predictions of "disaster" in the event of a no deal Brexit. A little bit of self reflection might have been in order. I have long argued that the effects of Brexit for good or ill will be lost in the noise of our economic performance with many other factors affecting the result more significantly. I think I can legitimately say that the evidence to date favours that assessment (which may still prove to be wrong over a longer period of course). > > -------------- > > > > How can you equate the effect of a vote - which is purely about sentiment and nothing else - with the effect of a No Deal Brexit - which has immediate and profound practical consequences? I find it incomprehensible that intelligent people could think you can draw lessons from 2016 to the impact of No Deal. > > Simple. The effect of a no deal Brexit will not have profound practical consequences. It will have undesirable consequences and it should be avoided by a sensible deal but it is being grossly exaggerated by the same people who said that the uncertainty caused by a leave vote would do irreparable damage. And they have the same overweening confidence now as they did then.
How is your opinion that the effects of No Deal are being grossly exaggerated any more valid than those that believe it will be a disaster?
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > > > @RobD said: > > > > > > > Using the gross figure of 350mn a week rather than the net was a masterstroke. For weeks Remainers couldn't say anything other than how we "only" sent 250mn a week. > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. And rather than just saying it once and then moving on they said day after day, after day after day after day and three years on are still saying it... > > > > > > > > > > > > #clueless > > > > > > Actually the net amount in 2015 was "only" £163 billion a week. > > > > That sounds too low. I thought it was about a third that was directed back to the UK? > > You didn't spot my deliberate mistake???
while Brexit clearly will be an issue at the next election, I think the biggest issue for both main parties last Thursday and next time will be the same - not Brexit but perceived competence. It is the incompetent slippery unrealistic playground posturing putting self-interest and party-interest ahead of doing the right thing in a grown-up way which has switched voters off from Labour and the Tories. Farage is just as guilty but hasn't had to actually do anything or been faced with making any decisions, so has been able to avoid the wrath of the public. So far.
Rule 4.B: "A member of the Party who... supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party... shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member. "
> @StuartDickson said: > https://twitter.com/TimesCorbyn/status/1131485559002673158?s=20 > > Corbyn must be expelled! > > Rule 4.B: "A member of the Party who... > supports a political organisation other than an > official Labour group or other unit of the > Party... shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member. "
Speaking at an event is supporting it? He could have been highly critical for all we know.
> @DavidL said: > > I am not sure that there is a qualitative difference in that both are forecasts based on economic models that assume too much stays the same and that, for instance, the government does not reactor change policy. There might be a quantative difference in that one is a threat/perceived uncertainty and one is reality. But business generally finds reality much easier to deal with than uncertainty so it is hard to say whether one would have a greater effect than the other. I personally think that our political classes biggest collective failure has been to maximise uncertainty for much longer than was even thought possible. > ---------
No Deal does not remove uncertainty but merely adds to it, and it's not only economic actors who you need to worry about.
> I thought leavers argument was that the change wasn’t > £25 cash but a £20 voucher to be spent in that store only, > with a fiver going to help fund someone else’s shopping
I think for the matter of the court case Leavers' argument need only be
- that the figure they used was that reported at the time in official statistics (indeed the pink book was showing debits of £385m a week, though revisions seem to have reduced that to more like £310m). In plain English a "debit" is the money you send, regardless of whether you get some of it back or goods and services in exchange for it. - that the EU itself describes the rebate as something which is "reimbursed" to the UK. If a sum of money is reimbursed, again in plain English the meaning of this is that the original payment is indeed made, otherwise there is nothing to reimburse. - that the smaller net number cited by those on the other side could in any event be increased using a different definition of "we", which included not only the UK government's payments, but the EU share of fines, income from the common external tariff, and so forth.
In any event, Boris was campaigning, not exercising public office, in regard to the making of this claim. It's very hard to see how it has any legal merit, other than as a way of transferring funds from crowdfunders with Brexit-related depression to lawyers.
The precedent this would set if Boris were convicted and punished would be remarkable. If lying when you're a politician is a crime, then Corbyn will be serving multiple concurrent sentences merely for his false claims over the wreath he laid for the leaders of the Black September terror gang.
> > I think that he and many others had convinced themselves that the economic consequences of a vote to leave would be profound. They expected a much greater run on Sterling than happened, Government borrowing (still much higher then) to become much more expensive and investment to dry up causing a rise in unemployment. I think that they were genuine but wrong.
>
> >
>
> > What I find less forgivable is that the same parties continue to make forecasts of lost GDP over decades and confident predictions of "disaster" in the event of a no deal Brexit. A little bit of self reflection might have been in order. I have long argued that the effects of Brexit for good or ill will be lost in the noise of our economic performance with many other factors affecting the result more significantly. I think I can legitimately say that the evidence to date favours that assessment (which may still prove to be wrong over a longer period of course).
>
> --------------
>
>
>
> How can you equate the effect of a vote - which is purely about sentiment and nothing else - with the effect of a No Deal Brexit - which has immediate and profound practical consequences? I find it incomprehensible that intelligent people could think you can draw lessons from 2016 to the impact of No Deal.
>
> Simple. The effect of a no deal Brexit will not have profound practical consequences. It will have undesirable consequences and it should be avoided by a sensible deal but it is being grossly exaggerated by the same people who said that the uncertainty caused by a leave vote would do irreparable damage. And they have the same overweening confidence now as they did then.
How is your opinion that the effects of No Deal are being grossly exaggerated any more valid than those that believe it will be a disaster?
In my view it is supported by what happened after the vote itself. But I accept nothing is certain and it is a risk that I would not choose to take. Unfortunately I have yet to see a credible way that allows May's deal or any possible variant of it to pass this House of Commons. I very much regret that and hold those idiots in the ERG largely, if not entirely, responsible.
New: Dozens of articles and speeches by Jeremy Corbyn promote 9/11 conspiracy theory with antisemitic themes
Over 30 articles written by Jeremy Corbyn, in which he falsely blames the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The PNAC was a US think-tank staffed predominantly by Jewish Americans, and it is the subject of conspiracy theories — many of which rely on antisemitic themes
I would guess it is about that new book which makes claims he shelved indictments against Trump. Mueller's team have already denied the claims, but I would think if I was Mueller you would want to get out there and say it is untrue direct to the public.
> @DavidL said: > > In my view it is supported by what happened after the vote itself. -------------
But it isn't supported by it in any way. How did the vote change our tariff schedules? How did it change customs procedures? How did the vote change the legal relationship between Ireland and Northern Ireland?
To quote another Richard: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
> In my view it is supported by what happened after the vote itself.
-------------
But it isn't supported by it in any way. How did the vote change our tariff schedules? How did it change customs procedures? How did the vote change the legal relationship between Ireland and Northern Ireland?
To quote another Richard: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
I fear we are not going to agree on this. I have to do some work. Thanks for the chat.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > Mr. Pulpstar, did he mention the war? > > The Brexit party are accusing him of libel. They're giving him a way out of prosecution - have to say on the face of it it does look like libel to me.
> @williamglenn said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > All these non-entities standing to be Prime Minister really is the Conservative Party at its most self-indulgent and worse... > > We need some non-MPs to enter the running, demanding to be made PM from the House of Lords.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > Mr. Pulpstar, did he mention the war? > > The Brexit party are accusing him of libel. They're giving him a way out of prosecution - have to say on the face of it it does look like libel to me.
> @MarqueeMark said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > > Mr. Pulpstar, did he mention the war? > > > > The Brexit party are accusing him of libel. They're giving him a way out of prosecution - have to say on the face of it it does look like libel to me. > > I saw it live and thought "Ooooooh! Bold...."
I saw it live and thought "He's drunk" - face was scarlet.
Everything comes down to Farage at the moment, if he were to back down or ally with a no dealer, its plausible to see a snap election being called in which Labour lose. But, this is his moment, why would he throw it away to help out Boris or Steve Baker? His party is entirely controlled by himself, he won millions of votes at the Euros, and his Westminster polling is putting him level or above the tories. He could plausibly become a very powerful PM if he fights an election, especially given the current 4 way split in parties, even if it remains a small chance. No way will he just back out of that. And he's already been very clear that he will fight a GE and stand against the ERG too. So I simply see no way out for the Tories at this point.
> @Pulpstar said: > This case is going to make Boris look an absolute martyr. Nothing could be better for him !
Hmmm I'm not so sure about that. The Leave campaign is already on thin ice and a substantial number of people, of all persuasions, are 'fed up' of Brexit.
> @Mysticrose said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > This case is going to make Boris look an absolute martyr. Nothing could be better for him ! > > Hmmm I'm not so sure about that. The Leave campaign is already on thin ice and a substantial number of people, of all persuasions, are 'fed up' of Brexit.
Which public office is he accused of committing misconduct in?
The problem here is that if they do the right thing once, they'll have to do the right thing in the future.
Just thinking about parties, memberships and rules in the light of a comment I saw last evening from IanB2 and I don't know how it is in other parties so help me out:
Scenario: As a Party member, I take part in hustings to choose a new local candidate but I don't like the candidate the Party chooses (for whatever reason):
1) I refuse to work for them - hardly a hanging offence as it's a voluntary organisation. 2) I refuse to vote for them and vote for another Party's candidate or don't vote without saying anything publicly - again, not a hanging offence. 3) I go on social media and say I cannot vote for this candidate but I won't vote for anyone else - more difficult but again I'm not endorsing another candidate so it's not an expulsion. 4) I go on social media and actively support another candidate - yes, that's a hanging offence in my book.
AIUI, the line is between not supporting your own candidate and actively supporting another Party's candidate. Given it's a secret ballot you can vote against your own party as long as it stays secret. The line comes with public working for and thereby public endorsement of another Party or their candidate if a candidate for your own Party is running.
There is also the nuance of saying what you've done as distinct from saying what you will do but I struggle to see how retrospectively endorsing the candidate of another Party is excusable.
> > This case is going to make Boris look an absolute martyr. Nothing could be better for him !
>
> Hmmm I'm not so sure about that. The Leave campaign is already on thin ice and a substantial number of people, of all persuasions, are 'fed up' of Brexit.
Which public office is he accused of committing misconduct in?
The problem here is that if they do the right thing once, they'll have to do the right thing in the future.
> @kamski said: > > @RobD said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ? > > > > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie. > > > > Aren't those the gross contributions? > > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty. > > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't. > > Who is right?
Neither
Your analogy only works if the £25 change is not returned to you, but that the shopkeeper keeps £5 for themselves (our net contribution) and then buys £10 of other stuff for your household that you have little or no say over (the share of the EU pot that we get back in UK-based EU funded projects) and then gives you only £10 change (our rebate). The £25 cost for the toaster is our contribution to projects in other countries and the cost of running the (two!) parliaments and the commission, paying the armies of functionaries etc etc etc
(The numbers may not be proportionately accurate, but the £25 has to be divvied up into 3)
Boris was being disingenuous at best. But this court case is not going to achieve anything other than reinforce the views of anti EU people. It's OTT surely
When did it become okay for political journalists and news presenters to spend almost as much time expressing their own opinions as reporting on the facts? I must be old-fashioned to think they should mainly stick to factual reporting.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > On topic. > > This is a ridiculous argument and clearly could only ever have been made by a Remainer. > > The reason that voters in Leave seats felt comfortable voting for Labour in 2017 is because Corbyn effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue by promising explicitely to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and that the UK would leave the EU. So did the large majority of Labour MPs in their personal election literature. > > As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving. > > The idea that Labour csn simply stop worrying about their Leave voting constituencies is farcical. As plenty of Labour MPs in those constituencies know full well.
It's important to distinguish between Leave-voting constituencies and Labour voters in Leave-voting constituencies. Take Broxtowe, which I know well. It voted to Leave in a similar proportion to the country as a whole, despite every significant political figure in the constituency being strongly pro-Remain. But the Leave vote in the seat is overwhelmingly in the villagey hinterlands, which is exactly where the Tory strength is. A Remain message will be welcomed by most people considering voting Labour in Broxtowe.
There is polling data on this that showed it's a general pattern. Clearly there is a risk to SOME Labour support, and that has to worry someone in a seat like Wigan, but it's too simplistic to argue that how the seat as a whole thinks tells us what the potential Labour voters think.
> @AndyJS said: > When did it become okay for political journalists and news presenters to spend almost as much time expressing their own opinions as reporting on the facts? I must be old-fashioned to think they should mainly stick to factual reporting.
24 hr news channels needed filler.
But now even on the 10 o'clock news you get 10 seconds of the PM and 5 minutes of the anchor chatting with Laura and Katya....
> @JonCisBack said: > > @kamski said: > > > @RobD said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ? > > > > > > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie. > > > > > > Aren't those the gross contributions? > > > > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty. > > > > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't. > > > > Who is right? > > Neither > > Your analogy only works if the £25 change is not returned to you, but that the shopkeeper keeps £5 for themselves (our net contribution) and then buys £10 of other stuff for your household that you have little or no say over (the share of the EU pot that we get back in UK-based EU funded projects) and then gives you only £10 change (our rebate). The £25 cost for the toaster is our contribution to projects in other countries and the cost of running the (two!) parliaments and the commission, paying the armies of functionaries etc etc etc > > (The numbers may not be proportionately accurate, but the £25 has to be divvied up into 3) > > Boris was being disingenuous at best. But this court case is not going to achieve anything other than reinforce the views of anti EU people. It's OTT surely
Boris is certainly vulnerable in one specific area. As was pointed out at the time we do not send £350 million a week to the EU. To get that figure they include the rebate. But in spite of its name the rebate is never sent. We send our contribution with the rebate already removed. So in fact we send about £288 million a week to the EU not £350 million.
Mr. JS, it's crept in, and become much worse recently.
I remember a few months ago a bloody dire segment on ITV with Bradby and a rambling Peston. I don't mind speculation and conjecture, but that's not the realm of reporting. I don't want a political journalist to guess, with no evidence or statements indicating the future, what tomorrow holds, but to report, impartially, what was happened.
Likewise, the BBC wibbling about people turning to alternative sources of news would have more credibility if they hadn't manage to spend a segment on the return of attempts to oppress women in Afghanistan without once mentioning who was doing it or why.
Comments
Boris 28%
Gove 18%
Leadsom 15%
Raab 15%
Rory 5%
Jezza the Hunt 4%
The Saj / Cleverly 2.5%ish
However, I'm not sure you can draw any long-term conclusions from that, since the markets still seem to think that something will be done to avoid disaster.
As for a no-deal Brexit, I remain completely of the view that it will be an economic, political and social disaster. There is no precedent in modern times (outside war) for a country abruptly tearing up long-standing trade relations and arrangements with its biggest trading partner.
I might be wrong, but I very much doubt it.
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
>
> The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
Aren't those the gross contributions?
>
> Simple. The effect of a no deal Brexit will not have profound practical consequences. It will have undesirable consequences and it should be avoided by a sensible deal but it is being grossly exaggerated by the same people who said that the uncertainty caused by a leave vote would do irreparable damage. And they have the same overweening confidence now as they did then.
--------
I for one never predicted economic catastrophe simply from the vote itself, and always said that Brexit itself was a primarily a political disaster rather than an economic disaster. But I'm afraid to say you're utterly delusional about what No Deal would mean.
>
> I didn't say what you think I said. Many, many people (including me) are anti-Brexit. That is not the same as thinking (back in 2017, remember) that the democratic result of the referendum should not have been respected.
------
I voted Labour for the first time with the express intention of frustrating Brexit, and I'm certainly not the only one.
We see what happens in the US with unlimited political spending, where Hillary spent $2.5 BILLION last time out, and living anywhere marginal brings a constant stream of robocalls and TV ads for a year or more. By the time of the actual election, most people are heartily sick of politics and politicians.
The way that we counter politicians telling pork pies is via political debate and the ballot box, not by demonising people or dragging them through the courts. That goes for Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn, for George Osborne and Tommy Robinson.
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
> >
> > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
>
> Aren't those the gross contributions?
I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
Who is right?
> > @RobD said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
> > >
> > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> >
> > Aren't those the gross contributions?
>
> I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
>
> Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
>
> Who is right?
You sent 50 pounds to the cashier, didn't you?
Like Osborne in 2016 I respect your view on the outcome of a no deal Brexit and completely accept it is genuinely held. I hope we don't find out who is right about that one.
> > @kamski said:
> > > @RobD said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
> > > >
> > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> > >
> > > Aren't those the gross contributions?
> >
> > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
> >
> > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
> >
> > Who is right?
>
> You sent 50 pounds to the cashier, didn't you?
but I couldn´t "spend the 50 pounds on something else instead" could I?
> > @RobD said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
> > >
> > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> >
> > Aren't those the gross contributions?
>
> I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
>
> Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
>
> Who is right?
He is.
You should say "Yes, I paid £50 for it, got the toaster and £25 change."
> > @RobD said:
> > > @kamski said:
> > > > @RobD said:
> > > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> > > >
> > > > Aren't those the gross contributions?
> > >
> > > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
> > >
> > > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
> > >
> > > Who is right?
> >
> > You sent 50 pounds to the cashier, didn't you?
>
> but I couldn´t "spend the 50 pounds on something else instead" could I?
Yeah you could, if you hadn't bought the toaster.
> > @kamski said:
> > > @RobD said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
> > > >
> > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> > >
> > > Aren't those the gross contributions?
> >
> > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
> >
> > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
> >
> > Who is right?
>
> He is.
>
> You should say "Yes, I paid £50 for it, and got the toaster and £25 change."
bollocks
> https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1133679460643950592
Did the company exist at the time. If not how could it have been lied to?
I see the One Bus of the Apocalypse remains a hot topic.
>
> Like Osborne in 2016 I respect your view on the outcome of a no deal Brexit and completely accept it is genuinely held. I hope we don't find out who is right about that one.
-----
Do you as a minimum accept that there is a qualitative difference between the two?
It's like someone who thinks Corbyn's economic policies would be disastrous equating the election of Corbyn with him going on to implement a programme of collectivisation. How would you react if his supporters were saying, "It was proven to be project fear when nothing bad happened immediately after the election!"
> > @kamski said:
> > > @RobD said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
> > > >
> > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> > >
> > > Aren't those the gross contributions?
> >
> > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
> >
> > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
> >
> > Who is right?
>
> You sent 50 pounds to the cashier, didn't you?
------------------------
I think the key to this will be how you define a 'rebate'. Do you have to pay the gross sum in order to get the rebate or is the net amount the value that is requested? I suspect it can be argued both ways in which case an objective jury would have to acquit on the basis of uncertainty as to guilt (in the Scottish courts it would probably be 'not proven').
Anticipating what you would reply: yes, I know that that trend has stopped or gone slightly into reverse in the last year or so. But that is explained by the fact that the Chinese export market, so much more important for Germany and its satellite economies than for us, has faltered badly.
> Using the gross figure of 350mn a week rather than the net was a masterstroke. For weeks Remainers couldn't say anything other than how we "only" sent 250mn a week.
Indeed. And rather than just saying it once and then moving on they said it day after day, after day after day after day and three years on are still saying it...
#clueless
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1133679460643950592
>
> Did the company exist at the time. If not how could it have been lied to?
I do not think that is a requirement under the particular route taken.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1133690075613671424
As for Corbyn I have no doubt that his economic policies would be disastrous and that there would be immediate effects of his election including a weaker pound, a removal of hot money from London (for good or ill), a significant pause in investment and the export of at least part of our tax base overseas.
But that would just be the beginning. Our success or failure post Brexit depends on what sort of governments we elect, what economic policies they enact, how they look to address our existing strategic weaknesses as well as any issues arising from Brexit etc.
"PLEEEEEEASE don't renegotiate my settlement......"
Brexit is an unusual beast in that it was a dual choice, of which one answer (the winning one) was ill defined. There is no compromise between stay and leave. You cannot be half in and half out of the door, which Lab and Cons policy appears to be to the public. Contrast to the buoyant LDs and BP who have firm stances; stay or go, respectively.
It is now up to the main parties whose votes they go after. However, don't tell me Lab have nothing to fear from chasing Remainer votes and sidelining leavers.
I've no particular view in respect of the Conservative Party leadership candidates - I don't have a vote but 120,000 or so do but they only count once the parliamentary party has had its say (or several says I suspect).
Rory Stewart is clearly positioning himself as the Cameron de nos jours - his pledge on increasing foreign aid to fight climate change would no doubt be welcomed by many LD and Green Party voters and supporters. I welcome it but how it plays with Conservatives at the moment I'm much less certain.
If this is where Rory is politically, I'd welcome him into the LDs - we'd be far more a political home for him than a Raab-led Conservative Party for example.
The leadership contenders have to deal with the Gordian Knot question - how do we exit the EU with a WA if the WA proposed, which won't be renegotiated by the EU, lacks a majority in the Commons? There will be those who don't care and are quite happy about running the clock down to 31/10 and allowing the UK to leave the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement with all that flows from that.
Fine, no problem there.
For those candidates who eschew a No Deal exit, however, the question remains how the WA, as constituted, gets through the Commons? HYUFD suggested 40 Labour MPs might now be prepared to back it but if it's not even in front of the Commons, that doesn't matter. IF someone like Gove or Hunt prevails, the Conservative Party isn't likely to unify over the WA overnight so what would change?
The alternative then becomes seeking yet another extension from the EU in October and having to go to the Party Conference (which won't be pleasant) on that basis.
The other aspect remains the extent to which BXP is going to influence the outcome - given they are "here to stay", the question becomes where they will position themselves on the domestic issues. Will Farage be able to hold his disparate band together when it comes to talking about issues like housing, social care, the economy, transport, agriculture and the like?
> > @RobD said:
>
> > Using the gross figure of 350mn a week rather than the net was a masterstroke. For weeks Remainers couldn't say anything other than how we "only" sent 250mn a week.
>
>
>
> Indeed. And rather than just saying it once and then moving on they said day after day, after day after day after day and three years on are still saying it...
>
>
>
> #clueless
>
> Actually the net amount in 2015 was "only" £163 billion a week.
That sounds too low. I thought it was about a third that was directed back to the UK?
> Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave?
Go ahead, nothing to stop you
> It is in the nature of our two party politics that whenever smaller parties appear to be gaining traction on a big issue, the larger parties respond by twisting and contorting to a position that maintains current support while trying to win over those from smaller parties.
>
> Brexit is an unusual beast in that it was a dual choice, of which one answer (the winning one) was ill defined. There is no compromise between stay and leave. You cannot be half in and half out of the door, which Lab and Cons policy appears to be to the public. Contrast to the buoyant LDs and BP who have firm stances; stay or go, respectively.
>
> It is now up to the main parties whose votes they go after. However, don't tell me Lab have nothing to fear from chasing Remainer votes and sidelining leavers.
One of the problems with our EU membership is that we were half in and half out,
That is why revocation is so stupid. It puts us back in the half in half out awkward squad with a grudge position, the position that generated the Brexit tsunami.
We should either be out, No deal with deals or with a deal or in, commit to it with Euro Schengen and all the bells and whistles.
> > @DavidL said:
>
> >
>
> > I think that he and many others had convinced themselves that the economic consequences of a vote to leave would be profound. They expected a much greater run on Sterling than happened, Government borrowing (still much higher then) to become much more expensive and investment to dry up causing a rise in unemployment. I think that they were genuine but wrong.
>
> >
>
> > What I find less forgivable is that the same parties continue to make forecasts of lost GDP over decades and confident predictions of "disaster" in the event of a no deal Brexit. A little bit of self reflection might have been in order. I have long argued that the effects of Brexit for good or ill will be lost in the noise of our economic performance with many other factors affecting the result more significantly. I think I can legitimately say that the evidence to date favours that assessment (which may still prove to be wrong over a longer period of course).
>
> --------------
>
>
>
> How can you equate the effect of a vote - which is purely about sentiment and nothing else - with the effect of a No Deal Brexit - which has immediate and profound practical consequences? I find it incomprehensible that intelligent people could think you can draw lessons from 2016 to the impact of No Deal.
>
> Simple. The effect of a no deal Brexit will not have profound practical consequences. It will have undesirable consequences and it should be avoided by a sensible deal but it is being grossly exaggerated by the same people who said that the uncertainty caused by a leave vote would do irreparable damage. And they have the same overweening confidence now as they did then.
How is your opinion that the effects of No Deal are being grossly exaggerated any more valid than those that believe it will be a disaster?
> > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
>
> > > @RobD said:
>
> >
>
> > > Using the gross figure of 350mn a week rather than the net was a masterstroke. For weeks Remainers couldn't say anything other than how we "only" sent 250mn a week.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Indeed. And rather than just saying it once and then moving on they said day after day, after day after day after day and three years on are still saying it...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > #clueless
>
> >
>
> > Actually the net amount in 2015 was "only" £163 billion a week.
>
>
>
> That sounds too low. I thought it was about a third that was directed back to the UK?
>
> You didn't spot my deliberate mistake???
LOL. Thought that was a genuine typo for mn.
Farage is just as guilty but hasn't had to actually do anything or been faced with making any decisions, so has been able to avoid the wrath of the public. So far.
Corbyn must be expelled!
Rule 4.B: "A member of the Party who...
supports a political organisation other than an
official Labour group or other unit of the
Party... shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member. "
> https://twitter.com/TimesCorbyn/status/1131485559002673158?s=20
>
> Corbyn must be expelled!
>
> Rule 4.B: "A member of the Party who...
> supports a political organisation other than an
> official Labour group or other unit of the
> Party... shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member. "
Speaking at an event is supporting it? He could have been highly critical for all we know.
>
> I am not sure that there is a qualitative difference in that both are forecasts based on economic models that assume too much stays the same and that, for instance, the government does not reactor change policy. There might be a quantative difference in that one is a threat/perceived uncertainty and one is reality. But business generally finds reality much easier to deal with than uncertainty so it is hard to say whether one would have a greater effect than the other. I personally think that our political classes biggest collective failure has been to maximise uncertainty for much longer than was even thought possible.
>
---------
No Deal does not remove uncertainty but merely adds to it, and it's not only economic actors who you need to worry about.
> @StuartDickson I see you have the great white hope of Scottish Labour as your new profile picture.
I thought that was a picture of Stuart.
> A very good point about the Boris case, from perhaps an unexpected source...
>
> https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1133690075613671424
Democracy also requires politicians to tell us the truth. This looks very like a "just bantz" defence.
Venezuela crisis is so bad gangs can’t afford to buy bullets and robberies aren’t worth it anymore
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9171049/venezuela-crisis-nicolas-maduro-economic-gangs/
> I thought leavers argument was that the change wasn’t
> £25 cash but a £20 voucher to be spent in that store only,
> with a fiver going to help fund someone else’s shopping
I think for the matter of the court case Leavers' argument need only be
- that the figure they used was that reported at the time in official statistics (indeed the pink book was showing debits of £385m a week, though revisions seem to have reduced that to more like £310m). In plain English a "debit" is the money you send, regardless of whether you get some of it back or goods and services in exchange for it.
- that the EU itself describes the rebate as something which is "reimbursed" to the UK. If a sum of money is reimbursed, again in plain English the meaning of this is that the original payment is indeed made, otherwise there is nothing to reimburse.
- that the smaller net number cited by those on the other side could in any event be increased using a different definition of "we", which included not only the UK government's payments, but the EU share of fines, income from the common external tariff, and so forth.
In any event, Boris was campaigning, not exercising public office, in regard to the making of this claim. It's very hard to see how it has any legal merit, other than as a way of transferring funds from crowdfunders with Brexit-related depression to lawyers.
The precedent this would set if Boris were convicted and punished would be remarkable. If lying when you're a politician is a crime, then Corbyn will be serving multiple concurrent sentences merely for his false claims over the wreath he laid for the leaders of the Black September terror gang.
Over 30 articles written by Jeremy Corbyn, in which he falsely blames the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The PNAC was a US think-tank staffed predominantly by Jewish Americans, and it is the subject of conspiracy theories — many of which rely on antisemitic themes
https://medium.com/@iggyostanin/new-dozens-of-articles-and-speeches-by-jeremy-corbyn-promote-9-11-conspiracy-theory-with-460be312c12a
> twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1133729259581792256
I wouldn't get too excited.
I would guess it is about that new book which makes claims he shelved indictments against Trump. Mueller's team have already denied the claims, but I would think if I was Mueller you would want to get out there and say it is untrue direct to the public.
>
> In my view it is supported by what happened after the vote itself.
-------------
But it isn't supported by it in any way. How did the vote change our tariff schedules? How did it change customs procedures? How did the vote change the legal relationship between Ireland and Northern Ireland?
To quote another Richard: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
> On another case regarding speech, Alyn Smith looks to be in very hot water indeed.
They have given him a ladder to climb down - depends if he's smart enough to use it..
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1133701197192474625
> Mr. Pulpstar, did he mention the war?
The Brexit party are accusing him of libel. They're giving him a way out of prosecution - have to say on the face of it it does look like libel to me.
> https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1133736576578662401
All these non-entities standing to be Prime Minister really is the Conservative Party at its most self-indulgent and worse...
> > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > Mr. Pulpstar, did he mention the war?
>
> The Brexit party are accusing him of libel. They're giving him a way out of prosecution - have to say on the face of it it does look like libel to me.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1133694479767134208
>
> All these non-entities standing to be Prime Minister really is the Conservative Party at its most self-indulgent and worse...
We need some non-MPs to enter the running, demanding to be made PM from the House of Lords.
> > @GIN1138 said:
> >
> > All these non-entities standing to be Prime Minister really is the Conservative Party at its most self-indulgent and worse...
>
> We need some non-MPs to enter the running, demanding to be made PM from the House of Lords.
Portillo.
Mr. Pulpstar, I quite agree. We could do with rather more free speech, not less.
> > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > Mr. Pulpstar, did he mention the war?
>
> The Brexit party are accusing him of libel. They're giving him a way out of prosecution - have to say on the face of it it does look like libel to me.
I saw it live and thought "Ooooooh! Bold...."
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > > Mr. Pulpstar, did he mention the war?
> >
> > The Brexit party are accusing him of libel. They're giving him a way out of prosecution - have to say on the face of it it does look like libel to me.
>
> I saw it live and thought "Ooooooh! Bold...."
I saw it live and thought "He's drunk" - face was scarlet.
> This case is going to make Boris look an absolute martyr. Nothing could be better for him !
Hmmm I'm not so sure about that. The Leave campaign is already on thin ice and a substantial number of people, of all persuasions, are 'fed up' of Brexit.
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > This case is going to make Boris look an absolute martyr. Nothing could be better for him !
>
> Hmmm I'm not so sure about that. The Leave campaign is already on thin ice and a substantial number of people, of all persuasions, are 'fed up' of Brexit.
Which public office is he accused of committing misconduct in?
The problem here is that if they do the right thing once, they'll have to do the right thing in the future.
> https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/11
Mr Smith should ask for a second opinion from alternative legal advice.
He's rooked.
Scenario: As a Party member, I take part in hustings to choose a new local candidate but I don't like the candidate the Party chooses (for whatever reason):
1) I refuse to work for them - hardly a hanging offence as it's a voluntary organisation.
2) I refuse to vote for them and vote for another Party's candidate or don't vote without saying anything publicly - again, not a hanging offence.
3) I go on social media and say I cannot vote for this candidate but I won't vote for anyone else - more difficult but again I'm not endorsing another candidate so it's not an expulsion.
4) I go on social media and actively support another candidate - yes, that's a hanging offence in my book.
AIUI, the line is between not supporting your own candidate and actively supporting another Party's candidate. Given it's a secret ballot you can vote against your own party as long as it stays secret. The line comes with public working for and thereby public endorsement of another Party or their candidate if a candidate for your own Party is running.
There is also the nuance of saying what you've done as distinct from saying what you will do but I struggle to see how retrospectively endorsing the candidate of another Party is excusable.
> https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1133739818079477760
>
>
>
> Both sides to me look to be being courageous here. I would have thought that discretion would have been the better part of valour all round.
Presumably one side can see the accounts, whereas the other totally guessing.
The office of the Mayor of London.
> > @RobD said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
> > >
> > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> >
> > Aren't those the gross contributions?
>
> I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
>
> Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
>
> Who is right?
Neither
Your analogy only works if the £25 change is not returned to you, but that the shopkeeper keeps £5 for themselves (our net contribution) and then buys £10 of other stuff for your household that you have little or no say over (the share of the EU pot that we get back in UK-based EU funded projects) and then gives you only £10 change (our rebate). The £25 cost for the toaster is our contribution to projects in other countries and the cost of running the (two!) parliaments and the commission, paying the armies of functionaries etc etc etc
(The numbers may not be proportionately accurate, but the £25 has to be divvied up into 3)
Boris was being disingenuous at best. But this court case is not going to achieve anything other than reinforce the views of anti EU people. It's OTT surely
People like me.
I’m fair and impartial.
> On topic.
>
> This is a ridiculous argument and clearly could only ever have been made by a Remainer.
>
> The reason that voters in Leave seats felt comfortable voting for Labour in 2017 is because Corbyn effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue by promising explicitely to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and that the UK would leave the EU. So did the large majority of Labour MPs in their personal election literature.
>
> As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving.
>
> The idea that Labour csn simply stop worrying about their Leave voting constituencies is farcical. As plenty of Labour MPs in those constituencies know full well.
It's important to distinguish between Leave-voting constituencies and Labour voters in Leave-voting constituencies. Take Broxtowe, which I know well. It voted to Leave in a similar proportion to the country as a whole, despite every significant political figure in the constituency being strongly pro-Remain. But the Leave vote in the seat is overwhelmingly in the villagey hinterlands, which is exactly where the Tory strength is. A Remain message will be welcomed by most people considering voting Labour in Broxtowe.
There is polling data on this that showed it's a general pattern. Clearly there is a risk to SOME Labour support, and that has to worry someone in a seat like Wigan, but it's too simplistic to argue that how the seat as a whole thinks tells us what the potential Labour voters think.
> When did it become okay for political journalists and news presenters to spend almost as much time expressing their own opinions as reporting on the facts? I must be old-fashioned to think they should mainly stick to factual reporting.
24 hr news channels needed filler.
But now even on the 10 o'clock news you get 10 seconds of the PM and 5 minutes of the anchor chatting with Laura and Katya....
Terrible fayre.
> > @kamski said:
> > > @RobD said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > > > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
> > > >
> > > > The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> > >
> > > Aren't those the gross contributions?
> >
> > I went shopping with another member my household called Boris, and bought a new toaster for 25 quid. I paid for it with a 50 pound noted from the household kitty, and got 25 quid change, which I returned to the kitty.
> >
> > Boris tells everyone the toaster is too expensive because I paid 50 pounds for it. I say he is lying. He says he isn't.
> >
> > Who is right?
>
> Neither
>
> Your analogy only works if the £25 change is not returned to you, but that the shopkeeper keeps £5 for themselves (our net contribution) and then buys £10 of other stuff for your household that you have little or no say over (the share of the EU pot that we get back in UK-based EU funded projects) and then gives you only £10 change (our rebate). The £25 cost for the toaster is our contribution to projects in other countries and the cost of running the (two!) parliaments and the commission, paying the armies of functionaries etc etc etc
>
> (The numbers may not be proportionately accurate, but the £25 has to be divvied up into 3)
>
> Boris was being disingenuous at best. But this court case is not going to achieve anything other than reinforce the views of anti EU people. It's OTT surely
Boris is certainly vulnerable in one specific area. As was pointed out at the time we do not send £350 million a week to the EU. To get that figure they include the rebate. But in spite of its name the rebate is never sent. We send our contribution with the rebate already removed. So in fact we send about £288 million a week to the EU not £350 million.
I remember a few months ago a bloody dire segment on ITV with Bradby and a rambling Peston. I don't mind speculation and conjecture, but that's not the realm of reporting. I don't want a political journalist to guess, with no evidence or statements indicating the future, what tomorrow holds, but to report, impartially, what was happened.
Likewise, the BBC wibbling about people turning to alternative sources of news would have more credibility if they hadn't manage to spend a segment on the return of attempts to oppress women in Afghanistan without once mentioning who was doing it or why.
> https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1133736576578662401
The Jezziah vs. The Jessiah?