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

[Futuroid]

23 minutes ago, ccc said:

Roy last visited on the 21st September.

Futuroid joined on the 26th September.

I shall leave others to come to their own conclusions on that one.

2+2 = 5 ?

Possibly - or possibly not

You don't like a proper argument, so I must be someone else...

Ad hominem or bust!

[billybong]

35 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

What part of consultative didn't you understand. The outcome does not effect whether or not parliament should vote on the issue, we are a parliamentary democracy.

What part of democracy don't you understand.

[rollover]

The road to Brexit Mrs May is at risk of putting her party before her country—with grave consequences. Mrs May seems to want to carve out a special deal with the EU, in which Britain limits immigration and determines product standards—on, say, food-labelling—while still operating fully in the single market. Perhaps the negotiations will show that this is possible. However, the signs are that she is overestimating the EU’s willingness to give ground. Each country has a veto over Britain’s status. On almost every issue, from immigration to financial services, at least one of them will be reluctant to surrender its advantages.

 

[Riedquat]

19 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Are you really suggesting that the cost of housing is due to inter-UK movement?

That property speculation, foreign property investors, government props, the abundance of credit and easy lending, BTL, etc. have nothing to do with it? Over 28,000 posts - what did you do with your time on this site?

The speculation is the major contributor to insane house prices but far too many people really doesn't help the situation.

[Futuroid]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The speculation is the major contributor to insane house prices but far too many people really doesn't help the situation.

Of course it doesn't help. But it's not the major driver of HPI. 

And even if an influx of people was a big cause of high house prices, it would be possible to circumvent that to some degree by building more homes.

However, it's not the houses that cost the big money. It's the land.

I wish it was Polish plumbers and Slovakian farm workers who were hoarding Britain's land, but it's not. We might have to look a little closer to home. 

[billybong]

13 minutes ago, rollover said:

The road to Brexit Mrs May is at risk of putting her party before her country—with grave consequences. Mrs May seems to want to carve out a special deal with the EU, in which Britain limits immigration and determines product standards—on, say, food-labelling—while still operating fully in the single market. Perhaps the negotiations will show that this is possible. However, the signs are that she is overestimating the EU’s willingness to give ground. Each country has a veto over Britain’s status. On almost every issue, from immigration to financial services, at least one of them will be reluctant to surrender its advantages.

 

Reading that article with every other country has a veto here and a veto there along with some of the misleading and flanneling statements on the British economy just made one think that Britain should just go for the Just Leave option and have done with it the sooner the better.

Edited October 6, 2016 by billybong

[Byron]

This great LIE,

'It was advisory only.'

Invented by sour grape bad losers after they lost.

No mention of it before the vote.

From the reality of Project Fear  i.e. 'You vote out, and these awful things will happen'

To absolutely no remainer before the vote claiming that it was anything but a full referendum.

 

What does the word referendum mean?  Definitely not 'opinion poll'

[rollover]

Mesut Özil and Alexis Sanchez demand £250,000-a-week contracts because of Brexit vote

Arsenal may have cost themselves more than £36m in failing to tie down Mesut Özil and Alexis Sanchez to new contracts last summer as the pair are now reported to be demanding £250,000-a-week to extend their stints at the Emirates Stadium, partly due to the Brexit vote.

[the gardener]

3 hours ago, rollover said:

Angela Merkel takes tougher line on Brexit negotiations

The German Chancellor said Britain can only keep full access to the trading bloc by continuing to allow free movement of people. She added that negotiations between the EU and Britain won't be easy and said they will need to make clear what access each side has to the other side's market. Ms Merkel said no exception to the EU’s four freedoms, which include free movement of people, goods capital and services, can be made.

France’s finance minister Michel Sapin said the UK’s long wait before triggering Article 50 was a sign the British government was preparing for tough negotiations that could risk a “hard Brexit” not in Britain’s interests.  He added: “If there is a country that has something to lose from tough negotiations with dire consequences - what's called ‘hard Brexit’ - it's Britain.”

Germany and France really are running scared aren't they?

Call their bluff. Hard Brexit.

We won't be excluded from the single market in such an event since the EU will break up.

We hold all the cards and they know it, hence the bluster.

 

[ccc]

You said 'apart from housing its not that bad'.

I was simply pointing that is a ridiculous things to say as the cost of housing is central to anyone wanting to live in a place.

I'm not getting into this again with Roy Junior. So boring.

[Futuroid]

2 minutes ago, the gardener said:

We hold all the cards and they know it, hence the bluster.

Three jokers and a queen?

I know May is good at bluffing but there are limits.

[rollover]

21 minutes ago, the gardener said:

Germany and France really are running scared aren't they?

Call their bluff. Hard Brexit.

We won't be excluded from the single market in such an event since the EU will break up.

We hold all the cards and they know it, hence the bluster.

 

 

What makes you so confident?

[Futuroid]

36 minutes ago, ccc said:

I'm not getting into this again with Roy Junior. So boring.

Sorry to have troubled you.

[kzb]

Here are some "experts" on the economic predictions publicised on Newsnight earlier this week:

 

Treasury trade analysis offers a poor evaluation of post-Brexit trade alternatives:

• EEA Norway - Whilst not economically the preferred option, The EEA / Norway trade analysis assumes a significant cost increase due to administrative hassle, which is based on little, if no evidence. Standard trade model shows a nil effect of this arrangement.
• Canada option – The Treasury costs this as worse than the Norway option, because it believes financial services Single Market contributes to trade and productivity.  However, there is currently no real Single Market in the services industry and therefore, worst case scenario is no effect, but one could conclude a positive impact.
• WTO option – The Treasury assumes, through the impact on openness and FDI a net cost of 8% of GDP. However, it fails to acknowledge even the most basic of facts that that current EU protection increases consumer prices (by our analysis by 20%) and therefore does not recognise the corresponding fall in consumer prices post-Brexit or the resulting benefits on raising productivity and wages.

From

http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/publications/

 

 

[Peter Hun]

12 minutes ago, kzb said:

Here are some "experts" on the economic predictions publicised on Newsnight earlier this week:

 

Treasury trade analysis offers a poor evaluation of post-Brexit trade alternatives:

• EEA Norway - Whilst not economically the preferred option, The EEA / Norway trade analysis assumes a significant cost increase due to administrative hassle, which is based on little, if no evidence. Standard trade model shows a nil effect of this arrangement.
• Canada option – The Treasury costs this as worse than the Norway option, because it believes financial services Single Market contributes to trade and productivity.  However, there is currently no real Single Market in the services industry and therefore, worst case scenario is no effect, but one could conclude a positive impact.
• WTO option – The Treasury assumes, through the impact on openness and FDI a net cost of 8% of GDP. However, it fails to acknowledge even the most basic of facts that that current EU protection increases consumer prices (by our analysis by 20%) and therefore does not recognise the corresponding fall in consumer prices post-Brexit or the resulting benefits on raising productivity and wages.

From

http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/publications/

 

 

Thats a joke, right?

[rollover]

 

UKIP Brexit punch up in Eu Parliament

UKIP leadership favourite Steven Woolfe is in a serious condition in hospital today after he collapsed following an "altercation" at a meeting of the party's MEPs. At one point a row at today's meeting, which had been called to "clear the air" between warring MEPs, turned nasty after one MEP called Mr Woolfe a "joke", prompting an angry response.

There was speculation today that the punch up may have occurred after a row broke out over Mr Woolfe's open praise for Theresa May over Brexit.

Edited October 6, 2016 by rollover

[kzb]

7 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Thats a joke, right?

No don't think so.

I just thought it worth pointing out there are economic experts whose models are in conflict with the Treasury model.

There is also a belief that all "experts" are in agreement that Brexit will have a negative economic impact, whereas here you can see some professors in economics who say the opposite.  Whatever you think of them, their credentials as economic "experts" exceeds anyone's on this forum.

[Sheeple Splinter]

 

48 minutes ago, kzb said:

Here are some "experts" on the economic predictions publicised on Newsnight earlier this week:

 

Treasury trade analysis offers a poor evaluation of post-Brexit trade alternatives:

• EEA Norway - Whilst not economically the preferred option, The EEA / Norway trade analysis assumes a significant cost increase due to administrative hassle, which is based on little, if no evidence. Standard trade model shows a nil effect of this arrangement.
• Canada option – The Treasury costs this as worse than the Norway option, because it believes financial services Single Market contributes to trade and productivity.  However, there is currently no real Single Market in the services industry and therefore, worst case scenario is no effect, but one could conclude a positive impact.
• WTO option – The Treasury assumes, through the impact on openness and FDI a net cost of 8% of GDP. However, it fails to acknowledge even the most basic of facts that that current EU protection increases consumer prices (by our analysis by 20%) and therefore does not recognise the corresponding fall in consumer prices post-Brexit or the resulting benefits on raising productivity and wages.

From

http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/publications/

 

 

Thanks for the link. Thought it worth adding this excerpt which precedes the passage you posted:

Quote

THE TREASURY REPORT ON BREXIT: A CRITIQUE

The group have also published a new report which lays bare the fundamental flaws of the Treasury’s recent Brexit analysis. 

Summary

Treasury ‘gravity model’ approach fundamentally flawed and approach offers no foundation in economic theory.

• Proper analysis shows WTO trade model improves GDP by 4%, as opposed to the 8% fall calculated by the Treasury.
• WTO model allows the UK to abandon all EU regulation within the Single Market, bringing further gains to GDP and, politically, gives full freedom from the EU in every respect. 

http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/publications/

Treasury did not consider Flexcit presumably?

[Sheeple Splinter]

2 hours ago, Futuroid said:

Are you really suggesting that the cost of housing is due to inter-UK movement?

That property speculation, foreign property investors, government props, the abundance of credit and easy lending, BTL, etc. have nothing to do with it? Over 28,000 posts - what did you do with your time on this site?

Yes, but which one is the real driver?

[Futuroid]

9 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

Yes, but which one is the real driver?

I tricked you by not listing it.

The taxation system.

[sikejsudjek]

The Germans can shout all they like. The inescapable fact is that under WTO tariffs cars are one of the few items with a higher tariff. Germany sells 20% of all cars manufactured to us. Outside the EU we can find ways of subsidising our car plants. The Germans have to find another market or face a huge loss of profits. This is on top of massive fines for rigging fuel tests. Merkel is already in trouble in the polls, and as we know Deutsche bank is about to blow up. This is not a strong negotiating position for Germany to be in IMO.

If the end product is less spiky haired idiots driving Audi's and BMW's too fast down our roads, and cheaper cars from Korea, so be it ! Free trade agreements are not always in the best interests of a country. TTIP would have been a disaster.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

No don't think so.

I just thought it worth pointing out there are economic experts whose models are in conflict with the Treasury model.

There is also a belief that all "experts" are in agreement that Brexit will have a negative economic impact, whereas here you can see some professors in economics who say the opposite.  Whatever you think of them, their credentials as economic "experts" exceeds anyone's on this forum.

You can always find an "expert" to support your point of view. The question is how credible are your experts do they represent a mainstream viewpoint or have you gone off to the lunatic fridge for your expert.  

[Futuroid]

14 minutes ago, sikejsudjek said:

The Germans can shout all they like. The inescapable fact is that under WTO tariffs cars are one of the few items with a higher tariff. Germany sells 20% of all cars manufactured to us. Outside the EU we can find ways of subsidising our car plants. The Germans have to find another market or face a huge loss of profits. This is on top of massive fines for rigging fuel tests. Merkel is already in trouble in the polls, and as we know Deutsche bank is about to blow up. This is not a strong negotiating position for Germany to be in IMO.

Car manufacturing is 14% of the German economy.

We are one fifth of that. So you are talking 2.8% of the German economy.

Annualised German GDP growth was at 3.1% last quarter. 

I think they can probably get over tariffs.

[Confusion of VIs]

3 hours ago, billybong said:

What part of democracy don't you understand.

The bit where we give people who cannot understand words like consultative or advisory a vote!

[rollover]

38 minutes ago, sikejsudjek said:

The Germans can shout all they like. The inescapable fact is that under WTO tariffs cars are one of the few items with a higher tariff. Germany sells 20% of all cars manufactured to us. Outside the EU we can find ways of subsidising our car plants. The Germans have to find another market or face a huge loss of profits. This is on top of massive fines for rigging fuel tests. Merkel is already in trouble in the polls, and as we know Deutsche bank is about to blow up. This is not a strong negotiating position for Germany to be in IMO.

If the end product is less spiky haired idiots driving Audi's and BMW's too fast down our roads, and cheaper cars from Korea, so be it ! Free trade agreements are not always in the best interests of a country. TTIP would have been a disaster.

UK car factories face uncertain future after Brexit

Plants run by Nissan, Honda and Toyota most at risk of closure after UK leaves EU, says new report (FT)

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by rollover