Brexit discussion

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Don't you think we should know by now? It's as if the Govt. doesn't have a clue either....

No. We are still negotiating. Unless you have access to some privileged information, why do you expect to have detailed information about the hidden text lying behind these negotiations?

---------- Post added at 23:49 ---------- Previous post was at 23:43 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

No one can see that far into the future, that's for sure.

https://www.ft.com/content/12b54086-...4-2218e7146b04

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ----------


Surely if the figures are wrong in one direction, they could be equally wrong in another and deflated? It's not in Mark Carney's interests to get these things deliberately wrong as it would hinder his job prospects both in the UK and outside it.

Your first comment: agreed.

Pity the second one appears to contradict the first! If all goes well, we will be better off, not worse off.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If all goes well, we will be better off, not worse off.

Gain of 0.7% with new deals. Loss of 5% from current ones. Net loss of 4.3% so we'd be worse off. So worse off.

---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:56 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No. We are still negotiating.

Agreed. Alas within the Conservative Party.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Gain of 0.7% with new deals. Loss of 5% from current ones. Net loss of 4.3% so we'd be worse off.

You love trotting out these forecasts, despite the fact they are continually proved wrong after the event! Why do you think there will be a (very precise) 4.3% loss when we don't yet know the outcome?

If you think Brexiteers are intimidated by these made up figures, you are very wrong!

---------- Post added at 00:11 ---------- Previous post was at 00:10 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed. Alas within the Conservative Party.

Of course, a consequence of the lack of a majority in the House of Commons.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Of course, a consequence of the lack of a majority in the House of Commons.

You shy away from the facts of £900 worse off so why bother about forecasts? Might be small change to Rees-Mogg but not the rest of us.

Partly the lack of a majority but mainly because Europe has always divided the Conservatives.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Of course, a consequence of the lack of a majority in the House of Commons.

And another lack of a majority whenever the next election is...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You shy away from the facts of £900 worse off so why bother about forecasts? Might be small change to Rees-Mogg but not the rest of us.

Partly the lack of a majority but mainly because Europe has always divided the Conservatives.

We are certainly worse off due to the recession, largely caused by the overspending Labour Party, and the measures that had to be taken to balance the economy.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, that's the whole point, nobody knows because we don't know what form this customs deal will ultimately take. All these figures are wild speculation, and inflated beyond credibility.

He was commenting on a proposal from the government. If we went down the road of the 'Max Fac' deal proposed, that's what it would cost. Of course the final deal may give different results but you can certainly model potential scenarios to get some ideas of relative costs.

Not modelling outcomes of proposals as we don't know 100% what will happen is a very 'zen' way of doing things but not a way to run a country. It is right for the HMRC, the countries experts in revenue and customs of course, to run models and feed these back to the politicians to aid decision making. Otherwise, we're just guessing...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

He was commenting on a proposal from the government. If we went down the road of the 'Max Fac' deal proposed, that's what it would cost. Of course the final deal may give different results but you can certainly model potential scenarios to get some ideas of relative costs.

Not modelling outcomes of proposals as we don't know 100% what will happen is a very 'zen' way of doing things but not a way to run a country. It is right for the HMRC, the countries experts in revenue and customs of course, to run models and feed these back to the politicians to aid decision making. Otherwise, we're just guessing...

Yes, I agree that we have to cost the different scenarios, but these costs are based on assumptions that we will not find a way around the problems. They are based on worst case scenarios, but people seem to take these figures as indisputable facts as to how much a proposal will cost.

Where Brexit is concerned, all these people can focus on are costs when Brexit protagonists are convinced that there will be economic gains. A more balanced approach indicating the net financial implications, based on a reasonable interpretation of what is likely to happen, would be a better approach to take, because that would tell the real story.

Most forecasts I have seen concentrate on worst case scenarios which assume failed negotiations and no benefits of Brexit.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, I agree that we have to cost the different scenarios, but these costs are based on assumptions that we will not find a way around the problems. They are based on worst case scenarios, but people seem to take these figures as indisputable facts as to how much a proposal will cost.

Where Brexit is concerned, all these people can focus on are costs when Brexit protagonists are convinced that there will be economic gains. A more balanced approach indicating the net financial implications, based on a reasonable interpretation of what is likely to happen, would be a better approach to take, because that would tell the real story.

Most forecasts I have seen concentrate on worst case scenarios which assume failed negotiations and no benefits of Brexit.

Do not take at face value what the Express and Sun tell you to think, Old Boy, reassuring as it is. Have you forgotten the Government's own predictions that show a reduction in GDP? They looked at all scenarios, not just a hard Brexit. Or pretty much all the other models except Patrick Minford's show similar results and his has been discredited. Look around you, the knowledge is there for anyone to read providing they take an open view and don't state everything they find uncomfortable is fake news.

We're already seeing a limp economy (worst for five years) which the ONS does not attribute to the weather.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-econom...arter-11384775

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do not take at face value what the Express and Sun tell you to think, Old Boy, reassuring as it is.

Given me a laugh tonight Andrew, cheers

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

We're already seeing a limp economy (worst for five years) . . .

Can anyone remember what caused the 'limp' economy 5 years ago? Obviously we grew out of it, otherwise the one we have now would be the same one

I'm willing to bet my wifes favourite Michael Bolton CD that it wasn't Brexit

[denphone]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do not take at face value what the Express and Sun tell you to think, Old Boy, reassuring as it is. Have you forgotten the Government's own predictions that show a reduction in GDP? They looked at all scenarios, not just a hard Brexit. Or pretty much all the other models except Patrick Minford's show similar results and his has been discredited. Look around you, the knowledge is there for anyone to read providing they take an open view and don't state everything they find uncomfortable is fake news.

We're already seeing a limp economy (worst for five years) which the ONS does not attribute to the weather.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-econom...arter-11384775

The trouble is some believe what thy media and glorious politicians truthfully tells us Andrew....

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

The trouble is some believe what thy media and glorious politicians truthfully tells us Andrew....

Always thus, Den. Interesting to read about how the myth about carrots helping you see in the dark was played up by the British Government in World War II to distract attention from a new technology the country had invented but wished to hide from Germany.

During the 1940 Blitzkrieg, the Luftwaffe often struck under the cover of darkness. In order to make it more difficult for the German planes to hit targets, the British government issued citywide blackouts. The Royal Air Force were able to repel the German fighters in part because of the development of a new, secret radar technology. The on-board Airborne Interception Radar, first used by the RAF in 1939, had the ability to pinpoint enemy bombers before they reached the English Channel. But to keep that under wraps, according to Stolarczyk’s research pulled from the files of the Imperial War Museum, the Mass Observation Archive, and the UK National Archives, the Ministry provided another reason for their success: carrots.
In 1940, RAF night fighter ace, John Cunningham, nicknamed “Cat’s Eyes”, was the first to shoot down an enemy plane using the technology. He’d later rack up an impressive total of 20 kills—19 of which were at night. According to “Now I Know” writer Dan Lewis, also a Smithsonian.com contributor, the Ministry told newspapers that the reason for their success was because pilots like Cunningham ate an excess of carrots.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-...5G4HQHR6o4c.99

[1andrew1]

Farewell "clean, hard" Brexit, hello commonsense!

Britain’s plans for ‘no-deal’ Brexit have ground to a halt
However, Whitehall officials are privately conceding that preparations for a “cliff edge” Brexit next March are nowhere near the level they need to be if a threat by Mrs May to walk away from the talks were to be credible.
“Our preparedness for no deal is virtually non-existent,” said one senior British official working on Brexit. “Our ability to deliver a ‘no deal’ outcome recedes with every week that passes.”
Other officials preparing for the possibility of Britain leaving the EU without a deal say they are being discouraged from taking on projects that might only be needed should there be no agreement on customs and regulatory co-operation by next March.

https://www.ft.com/content/23663bc4-...2-9563a0613e56

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Farewell "clean, hard" Brexit, hello commonsense!

https://www.ft.com/content/23663bc4-...2-9563a0613e56

Except there will be an agreement, as Theresa May has stated throughout.