Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Errol]

'Don't ask too much!' Italian business leader BEGS EU to 'open up' to UK's Brexit demands

BRUSSELS needs to be more open to British Brexit demands in order to protect businesses throughout the European Union, Italian businesswoman Emma Mercegaglia said.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/879300/Brexit-news-UK-Italy-business-trade-Theresa-May-EU-Brussels-European-Union-video

[jonb2]

13 minutes ago, Errol said:

As an aside, it would also be interesting to see who is pumping money into EU initiatives:

 

Nigel Farage calls on EU to investigate George Soros funding, collusion

Speaking to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday, Farage told fellow MEPs he believes that when it comes to international collusion, “we are looking in the wrong place.” He says Soros’ influence in Brussels is “truly extraordinary,”adding: “I fear we could be looking at the biggest level of international, political collusion in history.”

https://www.rt.com/uk/409818-farage-soros-funding-europe/

Is this the same Farage that gets a hard-on (and a cheque probably) every time Putin's name is mentioned

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593006/Why-I-admire-Putin-Farage-Ukip-leader-praises-Russian-President-superb-operator-outwitted-West.html

No smoke without Farage

http://*******.com/ydeayanw

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/479532/Nigel-Farage-is-another-of-Moscow-s-darlings-as-Putin-backs-Right

Edited November 14, 2017 by jonb2

[knock out johnny]

12 minutes ago, Errol said:

As an aside, it would also be interesting to see who is pumping money into EU initiatives:

 

Nigel Farage calls on EU to investigate George Soros funding, collusion

Speaking to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday, Farage told fellow MEPs he believes that when it comes to international collusion, “we are looking in the wrong place.” He says Soros’ influence in Brussels is “truly extraordinary,”adding: “I fear we could be looking at the biggest level of international, political collusion in history.”

https://www.rt.com/uk/409818-farage-soros-funding-europe/

Classic bit of misdirection from Toad of Turd Hall

[Errol]

1 minute ago, Futuroid said:

 

I'm really beginning to wonder about you Errol. 

I'd be more worried about you, to be honest. Anyone who thinks that Farage is Russia's 'point man' is clearly misguided in the extreme.

He's been anti-EU since at least the mid-1980s from public records, so it would be some stretch to say his entire UKIP/Brexit/anti-EU stance was engineered by Russia. 

This nonsense is just too funny. And luckily everyone else is seeing it as joke as well ('RUSSIANS!!!!!').

[knock out johnny]

1 minute ago, Errol said:

I'd be more worried about you, to be honest. Anyone who thinks that Farage is Russia's 'point man' is clearly misguided in the extreme.

He's been anti-EU since at least the mid-1980s from public records, so it would be some stretch to say his entire UKIP/Brexit/anti-EU stance was engineered by Russia. 

This nonsense is just too funny. And luckily everyone else is seeing it as joke as well ('RUSSIANS!!!!!').

You of all people should be familiar with the term "useful idiot"

[HairyOb1]

4 minutes ago, Errol said:

'Don't ask too much!' Italian business leader BEGS EU to 'open up' to UK's Brexit demands

BRUSSELS needs to be more open to British Brexit demands in order to protect businesses throughout the European Union, Italian businesswoman Emma Mercegaglia said.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/879300/Brexit-news-UK-Italy-business-trade-Theresa-May-EU-Brussels-European-Union-video

'Italian business leader'

Nuff said.  This isn't about business, it's about an ideology, so these words will fall on deaf ears.

https://www.ft.com/content/0d09751c-f0f3-11e5-9f20-c3a047354386

Emma Mercegaglia also said:

 

[jonb2]

7 minutes ago, Errol said:

I'd be more worried about you, to be honest. Anyone who thinks that Farage is Russia's 'point man' is clearly misguided in the extreme.

He's been anti-EU since at least the mid-1980s from public records, so it would be some stretch to say his entire UKIP/Brexit/anti-EU stance was engineered by Russia. 

This nonsense is just too funny. And luckily everyone else is seeing it as joke as well ('RUSSIANS!!!!!').

Come on Errol - the evidence is overwhelming. Of course Russia is pulling strings. It would be criminal negligence of Putin to do otherwise, especially as most people don't have the curiosity or critical thinking skills to work things out themselves.

https://www.byline.com/column/67/article/1936

Edited November 14, 2017 by jonb2

[Futuroid]

14 minutes ago, Errol said:

I'd be more worried about you, to be honest. Anyone who thinks that Farage is Russia's 'point man' is clearly misguided in the extreme.

He's been anti-EU since at least the mid-1980s from public records, so it would be some stretch to say his entire UKIP/Brexit/anti-EU stance was engineered by Russia. 

This nonsense is just too funny. And luckily everyone else is seeing it as joke as well ('RUSSIANS!!!!!').

It would be funny.

Except... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/28/trump-assange-bannon-farage-bound-together-in-unholy-alliance

Farage has indeed been banging the anti-EU drum for decades. Which is probably why he was approached. The poor sap might not have even been aware where half the stuff was coming from. Although that £425,000 given the DUP gave to the Vote Leave campaign is starting to whiff a bit!

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Yes, our own government may indeed try that. Hence they're also a problem that needs solving, not an excuse to remain in the EU. You're giving a defeated at the first hurdle, will always run to one abuser to shelter from a perceived worse one line.

Try what, dealing with reality?  Even the American's are finding it harder and harder to escape having to comply with single market rules when trading across the world. Accepting reality is not accepting defeat, quite the opposite in fact.   

We will need to align with one of the 3 major trade blocks and unless we are feeling particularly masochistic, it will be with the EU and will require us again having to accept the rules and regulation of the single market.    

It would be interesting to hear your alternative route for rebuilding our trade links.    

[ccc]

1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

So you voted twice - are you on the Russian payroll?

So why did you vote to leave? Was it solely immigration?

I already stated this. Twice. I will do it three times below in case you missed it again. Its not difficult. I find it totally bizarre this appears not to be a valid enough reason for so many on this thread. Utterly completely bizarre.

I voted to leave the EU.

I voted to leave the EU.

I voted to leave the EU.

[Option5]

3 minutes ago, ccc said:

I already stated this. Twice. I will do it three times below in case you missed it again. Its not difficult. I find it totally bizarre this appears not to be a valid enough reason for so many on this thread. Utterly completely bizarre.

I voted to leave the EU.

I voted to leave the EU.

I voted to leave the EU.

Are you sure?

[Confusion of VIs]

 

I have just heard that the Treasury has decided there is no need to update its April 2016 assessment of the impact of leaving the EU, i.e. it still stands by it. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf

Given that a hard Brexit is looking increasingly likely, this is probably the most relevant paragraph. 

Quote

After 15 years, the UK is estimated to be between 5.4% and 9.5% of GDP better off inside the EU than adopting WTO rules. In 2015 terms, leaving the EU and relying on the WTO rules would mean a long-term loss of GDP of £5,200 a year for each household in the UK.

 

[knock out johnny]

31 minutes ago, ccc said:

I already stated this. Twice. I will do it three times below in case you missed it again. Its not difficult. I find it totally bizarre this appears not to be a valid enough reason for so many on this thread. Utterly completely bizarre.

I voted to leave the EU.

I voted to leave the EU.

I voted to leave the EU.

Simple is as simple does

[ccc]

26 minutes ago, Option5 said:

Are you sure?

Triply sure.

9 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

 

I have just heard that the Treasury has decided there is no need to update its April 2016 assessment of the impact of leaving the EU, i.e. it still stands by it. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf

Given that a hard Brexit is looking increasingly likely, this is probably the most relevant paragraph. 

 

Wait a second. I thought our Government departments were totally useless ? Why would you bother listening to their forecasts ?

[kzb]

11 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

 

I have just heard that the Treasury has decided there is no need to update its April 2016 assessment of the impact of leaving the EU, i.e. it still stands by it. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf

Given that a hard Brexit is looking increasingly likely, this is probably the most relevant paragraph. 

 

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/EFT-Budget-for-Brexit-14.11.17.pdf

""A second reason why the Remain side’s forecasts have been and continue to be so wide of the mark lies in the assumptions used and models employed by the Treasury in forecasting the long-term impact of Brexit. It has emerged that the Treasury chose assumptions to drive their models that were guaranteed to produce a negative outcome. For example, the Treasury assumed that Post-Brexit the government would

 Elect to maintain the EU Common Customs Tariff. This would have the effect of obviating one of the primary reasons for leaving the EU - namely to reduce tariffs with the rest of the world, thereby eliminating one of the major economic reasons for leaving

 Not capture any gains from no longer paying the annual EU budget contribution

 Not pursue any benefits from deregulation

 Not eliminate the taxpayer subsidy to unskilled EU immigrants

Our research has shown that such inputs to any economic model - including our own – will lead to negative economic outcomes. In spite of widespread criticism from economists and other observers, the Treasury appears to have had no second thoughts and has not made any reply to these criticisms. ""

 

 

 

[spyguy]

21 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

 

I have just heard that the Treasury has decided there is no need to update its April 2016 assessment of the impact of leaving the EU, i.e. it still stands by it. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf

Given that a hard Brexit is looking increasingly likely, this is probably the most relevant paragraph. 

 

Again, I voted remain.

Id treat tresury estimates for  10-15 years in the future as total BS. Really not worth the effort trying to calculate and pay for someone.

[Confusion of VIs]

27 minutes ago, kzb said:

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/EFT-Budget-for-Brexit-14.11.17.pdf

""A second reason why the Remain side’s forecasts have been and continue to be so wide of the mark lies in the assumptions used and models employed by the Treasury in forecasting the long-term impact of Brexit. It has emerged that the Treasury chose assumptions to drive their models that were guaranteed to produce a negative outcome. For example, the Treasury assumed that Post-Brexit the government would

 Elect to maintain the EU Common Customs Tariff. This would have the effect of obviating one of the primary reasons for leaving the EU - namely to reduce tariffs with the rest of the world, thereby eliminating one of the major economic reasons for leaving

 Not capture any gains from no longer paying the annual EU budget contribution

 Not pursue any benefits from deregulation

 Not eliminate the taxpayer subsidy to unskilled EU immigrants

Our research has shown that such inputs to any economic model - including our own – will lead to negative economic outcomes. In spite of widespread criticism from economists and other observers, the Treasury appears to have had no second thoughts and has not made any reply to these criticisms. ""

Somewhere up thread there is a link to articles debunking Minford's claims - I cannot find it right now but IIRC in brief it was both mathematically unsound and economically illiterate, certainly I never saw any subsequent studies or forecasts supporting it.   

Earlier today Mogg was explaining how we were going to make a go of Brexit, apparently protectionism will go and there will be an intensification of competition which will generate vast additional wealth £135bn between 2020 and 2025. No details how were given but I think it probably translates as by making the 99% work much harder to survive while getting rid of all that worker protection and eco cr@p.  

[Futuroid]

45 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

Simple is as simple does

The ccc bot has got stuck in an infinite loop! 

[Futuroid]

3 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Earlier today Mogg was explaining how we were going to make a go of Brexit, apparently protectionism will go and there will be an intensification of competition which will generate vast additional wealth £135bn between 2020 and 2025. No details how were given but I think it probably translates as by making the 99% work much harder to survive while getting rid of all that worker protection and eco cr@p.  

When high profile Tories talk about "intensified competition", it only means one thing.

Full-on NHS privatisation.

It's the only thing in public ownership / receiving significant public funds left to milk.

[Confusion of VIs]

31 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Again, I voted remain.

Id treat tresury estimates for  10-15 years in the future as total BS. Really not worth the effort trying to calculate and pay for someone.

Like all forecasts it's just a central case based on a list of assumptions that may or not prove valid.

However, it does indicate that for us not to be significantly worse off a lot assumption would have to be very wrong, with an equal chance of things turning out much worse than forecast.  

[ccc]

1 hour ago, knock out johnny said:

Simple is as simple does

Well it is simple. Stay or leave. That was the question. Did you expect every person voting to sit down and spend 3 months constructing a detailed analysis of what the specific positives and negatives of each decision will be ? That's just not possible.

This constant bringing up by a number on here of 'Leaving the EU wont sort out Westminster' is a total waste of time. That's not what people voted for.

[ccc]

28 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Like all forecasts it's just a central case based on a list of assumptions that may or not prove valid.

However, it does indicate that for us not to be significantly worse off a lot assumption would have to be very wrong, with an equal chance of things turning out much worse than forecast.  <<<OR MUCH BETTER THAN FORECAST>>>

Why didn't you bother to include the above ?

[knock out johnny]

3 minutes ago, ccc said:

Well it is simple. Stay or leave. That was the question. Did you expect every person voting to sit down and spend 3 months constructing a detailed analysis of what the specific positives and negatives of each decision will be ? That's just not possible.

This constant bringing up by a number on here of 'Leaving the EU wont sort out Westminster' is a total waste of time. That's not what people voted for.

Your response is hilarious in it's naivete - fortunately some of the adults are now talking

How's the Tesco shelfspace vigil going

[kzb]

32 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Like all forecasts it's just a central case based on a list of assumptions that may or not prove valid.

However, it does indicate that for us not to be significantly worse off a lot assumption would have to be very wrong, with an equal chance of things turning out much worse than forecast.  

No, according to that Budget for Brexit article, the Treasury model turns out to be just another piece of propaganda.  I think this point stands whatever else we might think of Minford et al.

To repeat, the Treasury model left out the very Brexit factors that would improve the economy.  It was set up to show a loss. 

No account taken of reduced import duties, nor of other important factors.

GIGO in other words.

[ccc]

7 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

Your response is hilarious in it's naivete - fortunately some of the adults are now talking

How's the Tesco shelfspace vigil going

So you don't have a response to my actual point ? How unexpected.

This thread Is a waste of time anyway. I shall leave you lot to go around and around and around.