![]() |
Re: Brexit
Quote:
When almost all of the forecasts indicate a downturn in performance of the UK economy even with trade deals. For example, the recent government study takes in to account that we will have comprehensive trade deals according to government policy with United States, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Mercosur (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay) and the Gulf-Cooperation Council (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain) The question is, if almost all forecasts indicate a downturn in the economy then we need to talk about how much rather than whether it will happen. See climate change studies as a similar example.. If the methodology is flawed, then where are the 'correcting' studies by other groups or is the entire science of economics flawed? I hope you are right and the negative impacts are low but we need to be ready in case this is not the case. Personally, in my situation, we can absorb a fair level of financial shock (Brexit proofing our mortgage with a really long term fixed rate for example) and most of my work comes from the EU rather than the UK. I am worried this will not be the case for everyone though. |
Re: Brexit
Quote:
Do you not think that the purpose of this amendment (and others) is to derail Brexit? The point in bringing forward the meaningful vote is to allow time to legislate for the amendment of the EU Withdrawal Act? Without having an argument over leave/remain or the value of economic forecasts (again) does everyone in the thread agree with me that is what MPs are trying to do? |
Re: Brexit
Quote:
The EU will not change their minds. TM made that clear and so has the EU. This is a big decision, but it's not a constitutional crisis. Incidentally, the choice is now clearly between the withdrawal agreement as it stands or no deal. TM has just ruled out the Norway option. So it's a binary choice. That makes it a lot less complicated. |
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Quote:
It is now clear how far the EU is prepared to go in giving us a deal, and now we have to decide on whether to go with that or go without a deal, which I think is what most Brexiteers thought would be the choice all along. We have said enough about those economic forecasts. Take them with a pinch of salt. ---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
|
Re: Brexit
Well I want a no deal, plain and simple let the experts in thier fields deal with all the stuff that comes after it's well out of my expertise.
The only issue I have is that TM has her own agenda not the Publics agenda |
Re: Brexit
Quote:
Hyperinflation, job losses, empty supermarket shelves, no health cover abroad. Either people genuinely don't realise or its a form of masochism.... The 'experts' can't do the impossible and make a crap situation good. Thankfully most MPs realise it, from all sides. |
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Nobody has been able to quantify any alternative future scenario. Jacob Rees-Mogg says it could be 50 years before we reap economic benefits.
Some 25 years after the technological singularity occurs apparently. |
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Quote:
It has been widely acknowledged on both sides of the argument how resilient she has been, and nothing has side-tracked her despite all the noises-off both in Parliament and even from within her own party, against all the hostility she has taken from the EU. By the end of her tour of the nations, she will then have a debate in the Commons lasting days to discuss what happens next. What she will be able to claim is: - She would have done her absolute best to put in place a transition period that would assist business on both sides of the Channel to come to terms with the Brexit arrangements. - She will have ensured that the country did not take an economic hit during the gap between Brexiting and securing an EU trade deal. - She will have made sure that everyone understood, as far as it was possible for them to understand, the nature of the Withdrawal Agreement, so that nobody could say afterwards, at least with credibility, that the government did not do enough to explain the intention of that Agreement. - Her tour of the nations and her plea to the public to make their wishes known to their MPs would have ensured that people could not say (again with credibility) that they had no opportunity to put their views forward. So after the long debate in the Commons, MPs will vote on the Withdrawal Agreement. Everyone will understand by then what it means. If they vote it down, the Prime Minister will announce that in the absence of an agreement, Article 50 will be activated on 29 March and we wiil be out of the EU, ready to negotiate a trade deal, which will probably take up to two years in all likelihood. She will then announce the measures that will be in place to secure the speediest possible movement of goods and the arrangements in place for businesses to ensure that trade with the EU can continue relatively unimpeded, squashing yet another remoaner argument that no preparations have been done for Brexit without a deal. Despite what others are saying about Theresa May's future prospects, I think it will be a case of game, set and match to Theresa May and a pure Brexit achieved. Not bad for a couple of years hard grind against all the odds. Who else could have achieved this outcome? ---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 13:59 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
What measures can the UK put in place to secure the speediest possible movement of goods from the EU while adhering to our WTO obligations?
---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum