Re: Brexit
 

Still nothing more then a politicians words and of course he is not in a government job now is he..

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

He resigned from the position a couple of weeks ago ,so no deal preparation will still be current and viable.

Re: Brexit
 

So what should Theresa do now?

Clearly, she is intent on getting us out of Europe, but she needs to think about what she needs to do next to regain her credibility on this subject.

She needs to prepare for her Withdrawal Agreement to be rejected by the House of Commons, so she needs to name the three options there are left and explain how they will be voted on.

Perhaps the best way is for the first vote to be on the Withdrawal Agreement. If that is voted down, which seems likely, the next vote should be on a temporary EFTA/EEA membership to apply during the implementation period. If that is voted down, as also seems likely, there would be no further votes and preparations would be made for a 'clean' Brexit.

At least, that process will concentrate minds on the means of delivering Brexit. I really cannot think of a different approach that will show the people of this country that she was the only one actually able to get on with this. Talk about keeping her head when everyone else has been losing theirs!

---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 ----------

When you take over a new job, you don't necessarily ditch all the work of your predecessor. You take on board what you consider to be relevant and either change or ditch the rest.

Best not to jump to conclusions.

Re: Brexit
 

More like a shambles one would imagine would be their no deal preparation as befits the last two years.

Re: Brexit
 

I'm sure TM is grateful for your advice as she's an avid reader of Cable Forum ;)

Of course even if we do choose a different path we'd still have to get the EU to agree, which people seem to be forgetting. Still that's usually easy .....

Re: Brexit
 

The only thing we would need the EU to agree if we rejected the Withdrawal Agreement would be a trade deal. The EU have made very clear that they want a tariff free trade deal with the UK.

---------- Post added at 11:56 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------

Well the 'shambles' was caused by the lack of a Conservative majority and the desire from within the party to make a bold move forward that they believe would be more beneficial to the country.

On a matter of such importance to the country, it is not surprising that passions have been high. There is a lot at stake.

Things should settle once a decision is made on the way forward. Hopefully we will know by Christmas, and we can just get on with it.

Re: Brexit
 

I think some will push for 'Norway for now' if the bill is voted down. After that who knows? I think they might struggle to get a majority for anything leaving us coming back to 'the deal'.

Re: Brexit
 

I certainly don’t intend to be condescending, however I struggle to understand he emotive terminology that is persistently being used as if other countries are making some kind of personal slur in negotiations when in practice they are quite reasonable concessions to bring to negotiations.

Re: Brexit
 

I think if you replace the word "country" with "Conservative Party" you get a more accurate description of events. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

I think there is even less support for the Norway EEA/Efta than for the withdrawal agreement, but who knows? Things could change radically when the choice is put before the House. I think we will end up crashing out, actually. Not a bad thing in many ways, except for the initial disruption to frictionless trade.

Don't believe those forecasts for the economy, by the way. Jacob Rees Mogg gave a succinct explanation of why these forecasts would be proved wrong yesterday.

---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

Well you might say that, but my impression is that most people just want to get on with Brexit. When we voted, we simply voted to leave, and the leavers on the whole were pretty clear what that meant. It is the 'remoaners' who have been trying to muddy the waters and we should not be having any more truck with them. They have been trying very hard to make a mess of this and it is them we should also blame for the 'shambles' that some keep referring to on here.

Re: Brexit
 

It would stop the uncertainty. Businesses would know that EU trade after next March would be like trading with the rest of the world.

May's hokey cokey plan would just extend the uncertainty for another two years and then what? More cries of "cliff edges" More delay and confusion. More kicking the can down the road.

Re: Brexit
 

Yes, we should always listen to a back-bencher who has never held any committee or cabinet position - he will be have all the facts to hand, and not have any bias in any way...

His grasp of numbers isn't very strong - he couldn't add up to 48, could he? (he said he had the number of letters to the 1922 Committee, which turned out to be not congruent with reality).

He said that "The overwhelming majority - 87% - of British companies do not trade with the European Union" - true, but 60% of British companies are not registered for VAT or PAYE, so they probably don't export to anywhere, and the 13% of companies that do export to the EU export 247 billion worth of good and services. I would believe his figures more if he filled in gaps, showing how much the 87% exported, and to where.

This is a man who took his nanny canvassing with him when he was 27, fgs - I wouldn't trust him with my beer money, never mind the economy.

Re: Brexit
 

Have you been spending it today?

Re: Brexit
 

One should never judge others by one's own predilections - it's called transference... ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Jacob Rees-Mogg calls Mark Carney a 'failed-second tier politician'


Jacob Rees-Mogg has launched a personal attack on the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, saying he should not have been in the post for some time.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...ier-politician

Re: Brexit
 

Name calling and personal insults is what one would expect from Jacob Rees-Mogg..

Re: Brexit
 

Yeah, I think I will take the opinions of someone who was;

• Ex-Managing Director of investment banking for Goldman Sachs
• Former Governor of the Bank of Canada whose actions were credited with the stability of Canadas economy during the 2008 financial crisis
• Headhunted for the Bank of England role

over someone whose responsibility ends at sniping from the back benches

Mark Carney is a real technocrat but his actions to date show he's effective in his roles at the Bank of Canada and Bank of England

Re: Brexit
 

He probably thinks Canada is still a British colony.

Also when Brexit happened the Bank of England seemed to be the only ones with a plan. Cameron resigned, Vote Leave members were stabbing each other in the back to become PM. The BoE stabilised the markets and were in control.

Re: Brexit
 

Absolute claptrap. He is a fecking embarrassment to BoE. Mervyn King was a much better Governor and he believes in Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

How is he an embarrassment? He seems to be much more concentrated on monetary policy unlike Mervyn King who wandered in to fiscal matters outside his remit.

Re: Brexit
 

He is no such thing. More a Political intervention expert.

Re: Brexit
 

He’s only embarrassing because his predictions, and his prominence, is inconvenient for those in favour of Brexit.

The real problem is none of them can prove wrong and of his predictions with any kind of credibility at all, whereas he speaks with the credibility of his office and institution.

Re: Brexit
 

Complete bollocks. Nothing you Remainers says holds any credibility, just bizarre love for a corrupted union. All project fear predictions that have been weighed in by you lot have turned out to be pure fiction.

Re: Brexit
 

They're not 'his' predictions, the BoE has a staff.....

Re: Brexit
 

As the government have a chancellor who is basically agrees with everything the BoE says.

Re: Brexit
 

That clown would. Doesn’t make him right. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

Yet nobody can make a compelling argument against him, Hammond or anyone else offering economic analysis of the situation. No fact based rebuttals, just emotion driven lines about sovereignty.

If Brexit happens (which I doubt) and it works it’ll be by pure chance. Not because of the efforts of anyone in the Leave campaign, anyone in the negotiations or anyone in government making preparations.

I have no love for the European Union, again attributing irrational emotions to a situation that doesn’t require it.

Re: Brexit
 

Well he also listens to the Treasury. It would be a weird chancellor who'll dismiss the advise of both of his own department and of the BoE.

Re: Brexit
 

And as I said in a previous post, the treasury often gets its forcasts very wrong.

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------

Enough of the irrational talk BS, you ain’t fooling me, I was not born yesterday.

Re: Brexit
 

Describing emotion driven nationalist politics is irrational compared to say, economics, is an entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

If the glorious future was all sugar and candy surely the Government and Bank of England would be first to crow about it?

Re: Brexit
 

[Deleted post]

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

So I take it that you think Brexiters are 'emotion driven' and 'irrational'? How condescending!

Re: Brexit
 

At a cost of £150bn?

You may be fine but for many of our poorest communities paying that for a racially pure England isn’t going to cut it.

Your calculation of 90.7% is flawed. Economic growth forecasts use the current value of 100% as a baseline. So you’d be claiming that it’d be 9% growth vs 10% growth, which isn’t the reality.

Politics is why a Conservative Party who delivered a referendum, effectively delivered Brexit, would grow about a glorious future. The good reason they don’t is that there isn’t one.

---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:38 ----------

No, that’s not what I said. I’d be happy to hear economic arguments in favour of Brexit, indeed I’m sure there must be one out there? Sadly it’s drowned out by nationalism and xenophobia.

Re: Brexit
 

I don't think they assumed a 100% reduction in immigration but that emigration would exceed immigration. This would cause a '100%' reduction in net migration but not a 100% reduction in immigration.

Re: Brexit
 

Well, quite apart from increased trade with the rest of the world, we will be free to bring in cheaper goods that haven't been the subject of EU tariffs designed to protect their own markets. That will also help the less well off in society. I bet that wasn't included in any economic forecasts!

Re: Brexit
 

What part of they are Remain biased and driven do you not get?

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Yeah that backs up what I said. 100% reduction in migration not immigration

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

The recently released scenarios from both the BoE and Treasury are both "worst case scenarios" and use the assumption the the UK get no FTA deal from anyone else in the world along with other "worst case" assumptions.

That is your fact based rebuttal and totally emotionless.

Re: Brexit
 

Of which it’s all entirely speculative. We’ve no evidence that any of this will actually happen or we will be better off for it.

---------- Post added at 19:15 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

Indeed those are things the BoE publicise, it’s not a secret.

Nobody has alternative, positive forecasts though. Just the glorious unquantifiable future that led to Brexiteers resigning from cabinet, it was so good.

Re: Brexit
 

No more speculative than those dodgy forecasts we keep hearing from EU lovers.

Re: Brexit
 

Just as the assumption it won't is entirely speculative and is not evidence based.

I'm sure if the BoE was asked to produce a "best case" scenario they could produce one.

Re: Brexit
 

Well there’s plenty of evidence as published in economic forecasts from our Treasury and our Bank of England?

Are these institutions essentially committing sabotage on our economy? If so, for what purpose? To what end? Who benefits?

Do these individuals/institutions care enough to lie? Again, if they do, how do they gain from being fundamentally dishonest?

In practice they have no motive to lie.

Re: Brexit
 

Interesting article on the resilience of the UK after the vote - https://www.ft.com/content/6aec5eb8-...b-6bb07f5c8e12 (you may need to Google ‘Six reasons for UK resilience since Brexit vote’ to get around any paywall issues)

It includes the BofE pumping £70bn in as quantitative easing and offering a £250bn balance fund to prevent runs on banks and the dropping of interest rates. A similar approach to what was used during the 2008 crisis in Canada by that ‘remoaner clown’ to great success.

Re: Brexit
 

Talking about Mark Carney who has the final say to who gets to be put on the new polymer £50 note... It is supposed to be a scientist... Margret Thatcher has been one of the people proposed. Yikes!!!!

Re: Brexit
 

Are you suggesting Maggie wasn't a scientist?

Re: Brexit
 

She was a scientist in her early days.

Re: Brexit
 

Who has accused them of lying or sabotaging our economy?

Re: Brexit
 

If people are denying that these forecasts are reasonable, or accusing them of being biased, then that is essentially the an accusation that they are lies. As the words of the head of Central Banks, or Finance Ministers, can provoke market reaction then the accusation they would knowingly talk down the economy despite evidence otherwise is essentially sabotage.

Re: Brexit
 

This is a bit off topic but I think my problem with this is that if the point is to put a scientist on the note then it seems a bit of a loophole to put Thatcher on there since her significance is not for her scientific work, even if we do like soft serve ice cream.

Re: Brexit
 

I don't disagree, I was just replying to richard.

---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

I think it's essential you actually read the BoE report before commenting further.

You can find it here.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/me...9D94CAB8735DFB

Re: Brexit
 

I think it’s essential you tell me your concerns before I engage in an exercise that is not likely to enlighten me further. Especially as you have no idea if I have read it already? Specific concerns please.

The BofE regularly conduct stress tests, what specifically is unreliable about these verus any other?

Re: Brexit
 

When have I said anything is unreliable?

All I have said is that it is a "worst case" scenario which the report freely and openly says it is.

I then said that if requested they could produce a "best case" scenario.

Re: Brexit
 

So you specifically aren’t calling the tests unreliable? Which is it?

Re: Brexit
 

Well the forcasts are about as reliable as a weather reporter these are the same forcasts that rained down WW3 and a recession following a vote to leave in 2016 which BTW never happened.

What has the EU given in return for our divorce from them and investments over the years? nothing how many companies have vowed to stick by the UK many.

You need to stop reading the sunday sport and passing that information back on here.

You wont beat down those that want to leave on here so why even try?

Re: Brexit
 

I’m not leaving the conversation because you ask. Brexit is collapsing and I literally cannot was wait to read all of the responses.

Re: Brexit
 

I think it’s all very intriguing.

The deal will be voted down, of that I am in no doubt.

We are leaving in March, that is enshrined in law, which was voted for by parliament in parliament.

But now everyone ( all politicians) are saying that parliament will not accept leaving with no deal.

So it's a great position our parliament ( and that’s everyone, not just the government) have got themselves into.

They were full of the “ we respect the result of the referendum “, “ we will implement the result” etc.

But now it seems no one is so sure,” we respect the result, to a point but now actually we can’t”

Re: Brexit
 

Well the specific version of the result that entails no deal. The alternatives will be this deal again (or a slight variation of it), EEA 'for now', a delay to Article 50. Outright cancelling the result will only be considered via another referendum.

Re: Brexit
 

Pierre, I agree with this post you have made. It’s a genuinely intriguing situation.

I think how our Parliamentarians get out of it (or rather, if they don’t) is going to be a politically defining moment for a generation. Like the Miners strike crushed communities.

---------- Post added at 22:44 ---------- Previous post was at 22:33 ----------

That and, if there’s Parliamentary will, the timescale to withdraw or amend the EU Withdrawal Act can be severely reduced. Common practice and procedures will be out the window.

Re: Brexit
 

Will also be interesting to see the position that JC takes if he does participate in a debate with Theresa May.

Re: Brexit
 

if they happen as TM wants bbc and JC wants itv and they totally pointless as only mps are voting on deal and it gonna get defeated

and one is a remainer pretending to be a leaver and other is a leaver pretending to be a remainer

Re: Brexit
 

That sums up the madness quite nicely! :D

Re: Brexit
 

I never asked you to leave think you read my comments the wrong way

Re: Brexit
 

That’s easy.

Brexit is a shambles. A Conservative Party spat now playing out as perhaps the greatest division of the British public of our times.

The deal proposed by the Prime Minister satisfies no-one. Mr Corbyn will suggest the Government resign, and make way for negotiations led by the Labour Party. The Prime Minister will refuse. Mr Corbyn will point out she has no Parliamentary mandate for her deal. The Prime Minister will stand firm.

When the deal is voted down Mr Corbyn will stress that with no opportunity to force a general election, Article 50 must be extended, Britain did not vote for a disorderly exit from the European Union. The Prime Minister will reluctantly concede either a) People’s Vote or b) a general election.

Corbyn gets to say he would have respected the 2016 result except the preparations (or lack of) gave him no choice. Britain for the many, not the few, and he couldn’t accept no deal which made us poorer after years of austerity.

Re: Brexit
 

I like your posts. Refreshing on this forum ...

I have mentioned a few times that JC is an ardent Leaver who was seriously conflicted when asked to front the Remain campaign. I guess he thought he had played his cards just right when Leave crept over the line but he has a serious problem: his power base, who he claims to represent, are ardent Remainers.

As time has gone on, Labour are creeping to a People's Vote position and so JC is slowly being forced to confront his party's reality.

Corbyn faces clash with Labour members over second EU referendum

It may meet his personal "Road to Damascus" moment in time to save the day or he may, again, spin out his obfuscation to get over the time. Time will tell .

There are two things we can all agree on:

1. make it stop
2. stop telling everyone "I know what i voted for"

Re: Brexit
 

They are not forecasts of any sort. Nothing can really be forecast 15 years into the future. Even then the "forecasts" say "could", not "will".

Re: Brexit
 

It's certainly not Brexit that is collapsing - only the Withdrawal Agreement!

---------- Post added at 11:01 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------

I think some are seizing on these forecasts as being proof of their unshakable belief that Brexit will be a disaster. It won't be, of course, just as the world didn't come to an end immediately after the vote to leave was announced.

The remainers like to describe the whole process as a shambles, and don't they like to go on, and on, and on about this and their predicted implosion of the world as we know it?

Despite everything the 'remoaners' are saying, and I use that term to distinguish normal remainers from those who just won't accept the democratic result of the referendum, we now have the best withdrawal agreement that can be negotiated with the EU. Remoaners said we would end up paying the EU hundreds of billions of pounds to leave, we settled at £39bn. They said TM would never get to Phase Ii of the negotiating process. Then they said we would never get a deal. They have been wrong on all counts to date and yet they still, with gallons of false confidence, proclaim this as a disaster and the post Brexit world as a catastrophe for 'little' Britain. It's all tosh.

We are now at a situation where we have three pretty good choices. We accept the imperfect Withdrawal Agreement on the basis that this is the bridge we cross to get out of the EU, preserving frictionless trade with no tariffs in the meantime. Or we can take the Norway route as that bridge instead of the Withdrawal Agreement, but which would mean that free movement of people would have to continue during that period. Or we can just make a clean break and negotiate our trade deal when we are out.

All this emotion and nonsense about Brexit is just hot air. The economic forecasts are all based on the downsides, the worst case scenarios quoted out of context and practically no attention is being paid to the upsides of better deals and cheaper goods from the rest of the world.

Those watching all this in bewilderment should be reassured that we will get through this despite the prophets of doom, and if there is some disruption, it will be minor and short lived. A small price to pay to realise our dreams for a brighter future.

And just a final word to the remoaners. We are not 'little' Britain. We are Great Britain, and if you want proof, check your atlas.

Re: Brexit
 

That had me cringing at the end there. Better deals and upsides are entirely speculative; indeed we were told the deal with the EU would be easy, they need us to buy German cars, etc.

Separately, and far more interestingly, are the proposed amendments to the vote on the deal. Clear efforts from Parliament to rule out “no deal” as an option going forward.

Re: Brexit
 

well said OB

*stands up and applauds*

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Re: Brexit
 

Except, of course, that the EU will not accept any further amendment. Anyway, carry on wishing.

As far as speculation goes, I think the economic forecasts are pretty speculative in themselves! :p:

Re: Brexit
 

The EU don’t have to accept further negotiations (of course, they could change their minds if there’s an extension, or a unilateral withdrawal of Article 50) to force a 2nd referendum on the basis of deal/remain.

We are heading for a constitutional crisis, ironically due to Parliamentary sovereignty.

This crisis is required to force the conditions to remain.

Re: Brexit
 

Nope - we leave on WTO terms.

Democracy must ALWAYS prevail - no stupid second referendums to over turn the first because YOU lost your preference!!!

---------- Post added at 11:54 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------

Exactly and as I have said for the 3rd time which jfman is being obtuse on, the treasury routinely gets it's annual forcasts wrong, so how the feck can they predict the next 15 years - it's just pure fiction by pathetic Remainers in government with a corrupted ambition to stay in the corrupted union!

Re: Brexit
 

So I guess you are happy with how the government has performed since 2016 in this respect?

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
 

Democracy as enshrined in our constitution always prevails if the will of Parliament prevails.

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
 

In your head.

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
 

The EU have no need to be involved if we remain (subject to the ECJ advice to the Court of Session). Brexit being framed as an inevitability ignores what Ministers have said, including the PM, about the possibility of no Brexit at all.

Re: Brexit
 

Well, given that TM has achieved a withdrawal agreement that none of our remainer friends ever thought possible, yes I am pleased with the government's performance on this issue.

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 ----------

Except that we are not remaining.

Re: Brexit
 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4004961.html

Donald Tusk outlines three possible options.

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
 

Why do you want no deal? It isn't plain and simple.

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
 

You just keep shoveling on the bull but it's not working.

Re: Brexit
 

Plenty of bull on both sides from where l am looking but alas we have had that for two years plus now so nothing changes...

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
 

Empty supermarket shelves ? :dunce: :D:D:D:D:D

Re: Brexit
 

I don't think that is fair, Gavin. When Theresa May looked at the way ahead, she knew that she would be the fall guy if Brexit was not a success. So she worked out a way to both protect business and take some of the advantages of Brexit (such as an end to free movement) by way of a transitional arrangement to bridge the gap between our leaving the EU and the date by which we get a trade deal with the EU.

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 ----------

You are so funny, Mr K! You were trying to be funny, weren't you? This post of yours was hilarious! :D

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

Another misunderstanding. Deliberate, I think.

---------- Post added at 13:59 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

You obviously think all trade with the EU will cease if we come out of the EU with no deal. Well, that's completely wrong, and I think you know that, although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We will simply be trading on WTO terms until we get the trade agreement we are seeking. It is as simple as that. No need to panic, Mr Mainwaring.

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 ----------

The stockpiling of food as a contingency indicates that people are spending money now to mitigate against that likelihood. I fail to see how it warrants the dunce cap when preparations are being made.

Re: Brexit
 

Hang on a minute . . isn't that what started all this? :D :D

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

On what do you base this assumption?

Under WHO rules if WE don't impose tariffs on any EU goods without a deal, which is our perogative, then any other imports will also be free of tariff.

This doesn't mean we have to import from any other Country, just that if we do it must be on the same basis until a deal is made. A deal doesn't have to be with the EU either.

In essence, there won't be any empty supermarket shelves, oh and rice will come down in price as there will no longer an EU imposed tariff on it.

Re: Brexit
 

So we will lose the ability to negotiate meaningful trade deals with anyone - nobody can compete with the EU if they flood the UK with tariff free goods/services on our doorstep.

Even our own companies will be harmed from this as their exports will be hit by tariffs in the EU side, so we won’t be competing on a level playing field.

We will also lose the benefit of tax revenue from tariffs.

Re: Brexit
 

No it indicates they have fallen to the project fear initiative.

Re: Brexit
 

It’s costing money to do so, I doubt those doing it are taking the decision lightly.

Re: Brexit
 

stockpiling food? really? I must say I haven't heard of people doing that, maybe I read the wrong papers ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Well, OB empty shelves are a definite possibility in a no deal scenario, at least initially. Lorries getting stuck at the ports with checks and the public panic buying.

What is amusing though is your total devotion to TM and her achieving 'pure Brexit' :D

Re: Brexit
 

There’s certainly been examples in the gutter press. Even in the wider economy other stockpiling is going on.

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/...mpression=true

Re: Brexit
 

aah the gutter press . . I was correct then I don't read the right papers

Re: Brexit
 

The link above quotes the Chief Exec of a logistics firm. Someone who could actually be prosecuted if he is misleading on the performance of the company.