Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

fash

brickster69 wrote: »

Dictating is quite a good description BTW.

Indeed the word "dictate" is good: the strong and the powerful dictate to the weak- as it has always been and always will be- just as it was that the British dictated terms to Ireland historically - but no longer can because Ireland and other small countries banded together to no longer be bullied by the UK.

timetogo1

brickster69 wrote: »

Great to see some companies planning to expand now Brexit is certain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51047264

Leave.eu also believe that ONE company saying that there's POTENTIAL to expand means that Brexit is a success.

All the other jobs lost / moved to the EU and the other costs to the UK economy don't count for some reason. Madness. I suppose their supporters will lap it up.

They label it "the day project fear died". I thought that died a couple of years ago as most of it turned out to be reality.

Wonder if they have a poster for the 350 jobs announced being lost in Liberty Steel yesterday. Of course that's nothing to do with Brexit. Its just that the UK has had some though market conditions in the last couple of years. So far all the jobs lost have been "coincidental". The UK has been unlucky with all these coincidences since 2016.

listermint

I find this one a bit more telling . Might interest brickster and the nonsense being spouted

Incredible statistic: the economic cost of Brexit now exceeds what the UK net paid-in to the EU over 47 years



https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true

timetogo1

listermint wrote: »

I find this one a bit more telling . Might interest brickster and the nonsense being spouted

Incredible statistic: the economic cost of Brexit now exceeds what the UK net paid-in to the EU over 47 years



https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true

I wonder when they're going to put that on a bus.

Nody

timetogo1 wrote: »

I wonder when they're going to put that on a bus.

Never; it's not snappy enough. However the day Tories decides they want to rejoin (because their donors at the time tells them to) it will be "250 million a week to NHS in additional corporate taxes" or something along those lines and they will back it up with the above statistic or something similar enough.

Strazdas

listermint wrote: »

I find this one a bit more telling . Might interest brickster and the nonsense being spouted

Incredible statistic: the economic cost of Brexit now exceeds what the UK net paid-in to the EU over 47 years



https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true

Meanwhile, you had that spoofer May talking about "sending vast sums of money to the EU" every time she addressed the Commons or made a speech.

SantaCruz

brickster69 wrote: »

Great to see some companies planning to expand now Brexit is certain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51047264

It's funny how companies stating they would leave the UK under no-deal Brexit conditions was dismissed as lying, but companies stating there is POTETNTIAL for something is treated not only as fact, but the 'potential' itself is then further treated as though it is actuality.

Amazing tunnel vision.

Kermit.de.frog

The Cove is on with Marr tomorrow

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1216095963418447875

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The Backstop did apply to the whole UK. If alternative arangements had not been agreed by the end of the transition period then the entire UK would have been within the backstop and there would not have been any border in the Irish sea under May's deal.

That is the major change in Johnsons deal, it changes this to exclude GB from the backstop creating a border in the Irish sea and allowing GB to diverge more from the EU.

I said at the time before Johnson came to power that last deal obtained by May was in some respects better for Ireland as a whole than the UK remaining in the EU. The reason for this is while they could always leave the EU as they are doing now, May's deal would have bound them into very close alignment with the EU for an indefinite period as no solution could have been found that was better than the backstop. The transition period would not have been trade discussions as they are now but the UK trying and failing to find alternatives to the backstop. In the end they would probably have come up with something that was other than the backstop in name only in order to save face.

An Ciarraioch

Nody wrote: »

Never; it's not snappy enough. However the day Tories decides they want to rejoin (because their donors at the time tells them to) it will be "250 million a week to NHS in additional corporate taxes" or something along those lines and they will back it up with the above statistic or something similar enough.

Indeed - the "opportunity cost of not Brexiting" may be true, but more difficult to convey than job losses.

sid waddell

I strongly advise everybody to read this thread, especially those who think the failure of Brexit will cause an epiphany among those who voted for it - it won't.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1216002422985887744.html

Bit cynical

sid waddell wrote: »

I strongly advise everybody to read this thread, especially those who think the failure of Brexit will cause an epiphany among those who voted for it - it won't.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1216002422985887744.html

I think how it is going to work is that in the early days after the transition period, every piece of negative economic news will be attributed to Brexit including unrelated events. After some time, no negative economic news will be attributed to Brexit including events actually related to Brexit.

listermint

sid waddell wrote: »

I strongly advise everybody to read this thread, especially those who think the failure of Brexit will cause an epiphany among those who voted for it - it won't.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1216002422985887744.html

Not to worry the job losses will give ample time for thought. Comments sections are a fart in the ocean of the internet. Everyone knows they fart but they don't remember every one.

SantaCruz

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Cove is on with Marr tomorrow

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1216095963418447875

I'm not looking forward to Michael Martin and whatever gombeen he brings in for Foreign Affairs taking over Brexit issues.

ThePanjandrum

listermint wrote: »

I find this one a bit more telling . Might interest brickster and the nonsense being spouted

Incredible statistic: the economic cost of Brexit now exceeds what the UK net paid-in to the EU over 47 years



https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true

This is based on forecasts (which are notoriously incorrect) compared to reality. If you want an example, Germany was initially forecast to grow by 1.8% in 2019, but on the latest quarterly figures (quarter 3) the seasonally adjusted growth rate year on year was 0.5%. I would imagine that this is a larger shortfall than with the UK. Is that the economic cost of Brexit to Germany? Of course not, its the result of a whole cocktail of causes. So, too, is Britain's shortfall but Bloomberg has been against Brexit (as has the NYT and various establishment liberal media sources in the USA) so it looks only for the one cause.

listermint

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

This is based on forecasts (which are notoriously incorrect) compared to reality. If you want an example, Germany was initially forecast to grow by 1.8% in 2019, but on the latest quarterly figures (quarter 3) the seasonally adjusted growth rate year on year was 0.5%. I would imagine that this is a larger shortfall than with the UK. Is that the economic cost of Brexit to Germany? Of course not, its the result of a whole cocktail of causes. So, too, is Britain's shortfall but Bloomberg has been against Brexit (as has the NYT and various establishment liberal media sources in the USA) so it looks only for the one cause.

Ah right so.

Glad you cleared that up.

Facts are rubbish . Feelings are better.

It must be the fault of the papers.

lawred2

SantaCruz wrote: »

I'm not looking forward to Michael Martin and whatever gombeen he brings in for Foreign Affairs taking over Brexit issues.

He could choose to leave his fellow Cork man where he is..

Ah well we can look on the bright side - at least Shane Ross might get put back where he belongs.

Leroy42

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

This is based on forecasts (which are notoriously incorrect) compared to reality. If you want an example, Germany was initially forecast to grow by 1.8% in 2019, but on the latest quarterly figures (quarter 3) the seasonally adjusted growth rate year on year was 0.5%. I would imagine that this is a larger shortfall than with the UK. Is that the economic cost of Brexit to Germany? Of course not, its the result of a whole cocktail of causes. So, too, is Britain's shortfall but Bloomberg has been against Brexit (as has the NYT and various establishment liberal media sources in the USA) so it looks only for the one cause.

Did you read the article? It is not just taking the fall in GDP growth of the UK, but compared the rate of growth of the UK against the G7, which according to the article is an historically good relationship.

The UK almost exactly from the moment of the vote, has fallen off the relationship and it is on that basis that the cost is calculated.

So whilst the world is experiencing economic issues, the UK appears to be suffering far more than the others in the G7. The question becomes why.

Of course it could be something else, but given the data points to the exact timeline of Brexit, it seems quite a reasonable position to take.

But of course you know otherwise. Care to enlighten the rest of us?

ThePanjandrum

listermint wrote: »

Ah right so.

Glad you cleared that up.

Facts are rubbish . Feelings are better.

It must be the fault of the papers.

Forecasts are not facts. They are a prediction of what may happen, sometimes they are accurate, often not. People often confuse forecasts with reality, that is a grave error.

listermint

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Forecasts are not facts. They are a prediction of what may happen, sometimes they are accurate, often not. People often confuse forecasts with reality, that is a grave error.

Give us your information since you are so well informed on what brexit has cost the UK to date.

Real detail please and not the feelings you are having.

Leroy42

But there is a clear diverge from the previous. It has nothing to do with forecast, it is actually based on facts.

ThePanjandrum

listermint wrote: »

Give us your information since you are so well informed on what brexit has cost the UK to date.

Real detail please and not the feelings you are having.

I have no idea. I could give a whole series of estimates depending on the assumptions used. That's the whole point. A forecast is never better than a guide and may be an extremely poor guide.

listermint

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I have no idea. I could give a whole series of estimates depending on the assumptions used. That's the whole point. A forecast is never better than a guide and may be an extremely poor guide.

Forecast ?

It's in the past


3 years since the decision . 3 years of economics decline versus it's nearest neighbours.

It's evident you have no information zero nothing to back up your claims.

Leroy42

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I have no idea. I could give a whole series of estimates depending on the assumptions used. That's the whole point. A forecast is never better than a guide and may be an extremely poor guide.

So you keep saying. But what have you got to say about the 130bn in costs already. Not a forecast, not projections. 130bn to date.

It would be foolish to think that that wouldn't continue. One would need to provide some reason for the trend to change.

All you have got so far is, well the future is not known yet!

You didn't read the article did you? You saw the headline with mentioned future cost and simply didn't bother after that as anything in the future not aligned to your thinking can be dismissed.

Except for the future of the EU of course, Brexiteers as 100% about that and of course they know that UK has a great future because of forecasts!

Strazdas

Excellent and perceptive point by Nick Cohen in the Guardian :

Conservatives are making themselves up. They say they believe in science, freedom and a strong and productive economy, at the same time as they believe in ignorant Brexit populism. Their hopes and promises are self-contradictory and have no chance of surviving contact with the reality of Britain’s position they have avoided for so long.

You cannot embrace populism and right wing nationalism and yet claim to be pro-business and pro-economy at the same time.

SantaCruz

Strazdas wrote: »

You cannot embrace populism and right wing nationalism and yet claim to be pro-business and pro-economy at the same time.

You can. You just need an electorate ignorant enough to swallow it.

ThePanjandrum

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you keep saying. But what have you got to say about the 130bn in costs already. Not a forecast, not projections. 130bn to date.

It would be foolish to think that that wouldn't continue. One would need to provide some reason for the trend to change.

All you have got so far is, well the future is not known yet!

You didn't read the article did you? You saw the headline with mentioned future cost and simply didn't bother after that as anything in the future not aligned to your thinking can be dismissed.

Except for the future of the EU of course, Brexiteers as 100% about that and of course they know that UK has a great future because of forecasts!

OK, one more post before going to bed. Firstly, the 2019 figures are an estimate and at least half of the claimed loss depends on this being correct, secondly the 2020 figure is also an estimate and these two years together are said to be responsible two thirds of the claimed loss to the end of 2020. Thirdly, the assumption has been made that the claimed correlation between the UK growth rate and the G7 growth rate would have remained the same had it not been for Brexit. I dispute this correlation in the short tem and probably in the longer term and would point out that the G7 can be split into three groups: Canada and the USA which have the highest growth rates, Japan which usually has the lowest and Germany, France, the UK and Italy which tend to be in the middle. The UK has kept pace with the other EU countries and still retains its lead over France in terms of nominal GDP.
Sweet dreams to you all.

The Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago. It was eleven hundred and eighty after the cut-off of 1722. It was one thousand and forty after the American Bend cut-off. It has lost sixty-seven miles since. Consequently its length is only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present. . . . In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain.

beggars_bush

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

OK, one more post before going to bed.
Sweet dreams to you all.
Mark Twain.

Ok, but was Twain a leaver or remainer?

Midlife

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

OK, one more post before going to bed. Firstly, the 2019 figures are an estimate and at least half of the claimed loss depends on this being correct, secondly the 2020 figure is also an estimate and these two years together are said to be responsible two thirds of the claimed loss to the end of 2020. Thirdly, the assumption has been made that the claimed correlation between the UK growth rate and the G7 growth rate would have remained the same had it not been for Brexit. I dispute this correlation in the short tem and probably in the longer term and would point out that the G7 can be split into three groups: Canada and the USA which have the highest growth rates, Japan which usually has the lowest and Germany, France, the UK and Italy which tend to be in the middle. The UK has kept pace with the other EU countries and still retains its lead over France in terms of nominal GDP.
Sweet dreams to you all.
Mark Twain.

So in short you don't accept the results to date and equally don't believe in economic forecasts in general.

So you're basically saying that Britain hasn't suffered economically from Brexit?

But you can't be saying that because everyone knows the British economy did suffer from Brexit.

So we'll assume that you accept that.

But then what's your point? You don't accept this analysis? Britain suffered economically but you don't believe in financial analysis or forecasts so you can't quantify how much. But when someone else tries to you reject it without offering any analysis

... And then quote Mark Twain

fash

Midlife wrote: »

So in short you don't accept the results to date and equally don't believe in economic forecasts in general.

So you're basically saying that Britain hasn't suffered economically from Brexit?

But you can't be saying that because everyone knows the British economy did suffer from Brexit.

So we'll assume that you accept that.

But then what's your point? You don't accept this analysis? Britain suffered economically but you don't believe in financial analysis or forecasts so you can't quantify how much. But when someone else tries to you reject it without offering any analysis

... And then quote Mark Twain

I believe what he will say is:
"Any evidence that Brexit is economically bad is false.
Even so, if you do prove that Brexit is economically bad, it is the fault of the evil EU bullying the plucky UK.
If you prove it was not the evil EU bullying the plucky UK, the economic impact was worth it and everyone knew that there would be a cost."

Or basically:

"That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, it is not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did.
You deserved it."