Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973088)

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

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973068)

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.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973088)

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

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973083)

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.

Originally Posted by djfunkdup (Post 35973098)

Of course i don't think that OB lol i was just laughing at Mr Teat's silly assumptions that's all :) i don't post much in this thread as i don't see the point if honest.We are leaving and that's that .End of :)

Anyway the silly season starts tomrw so nothing is going to get done now until the second week in January.It's all going to be pissed people and funny hats for the next 5 weeks lol Although its a different kinda pissed people and different kinda funny hats from many that post in this thread :naughty: :naughty: :D:D

119-Days 9-Hrs 6-Min and 50-Seconds ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973100)

My dear chap, if the EU puts in place barriers to their own exports to us, we will simply import cheaper goods from elsewhere!

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------



You have this remarkable ability to see only one side of the equation.

---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 15:09 ----------


Oh, sorry, I got the wrong end of the stick there!! I thought you were actually putting that forward as something to be worried about!

My faith in you is restored!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35973080)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973100)

You have this remarkable ability to see only one side of the equation.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35973105)

I wonder how we'll have empty supermarket shelves when this flood happens?

If it's tariff free won't costs come down?

How does jfman's flood of goods balance against the BoE "worst case" financial forecast?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973108)

I don’t think it’s remarkable to view all trade agreements as “what’s in it for us”. It’s hardly a groundbreaking interpretation of capitalism.

If we unilaterally impose no tariff or controls on EU goods and services that leaves us in a weak negotiating position with the rest of the world.

---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------



Does the BoE assume we put no tariffs on EU imports?

If not we are talking about different hypothetical futures, neither of them positive for different reasons. Tariff free can’t reduce costs from EU countries because they already are tariff free.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35973112)

Finally you have seen the light!

The financial forecasts are hypothetical and nothing more.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973118)

I’m quite sure there isn’t an entire industry around their predictions because they are no better than guesswork.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973121)

Could of course, be worse than they're forecasting ! ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973126)

Or better than the Brexiteers' wildest expectations.

That's quite a wide margin for error, don't you think, Mr K?

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35973112)

Finally you have seen the light!

The financial forecasts are hypothetical and nothing more.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973121)

Could of course, be worse than they're forecasting ! ;)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973145)

This cliff edge leading us to the Chancellor’s emergency budget. I can’t wait!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973151)

You really are willing us to fail, aren't you? Not very patriotic of you, I'd say.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973131)

Some Brexiters ' wildest dreams aren't very aspirational or numeric. They've moved from the land of milk and honey to we survived the Blitz, we'll survive Brexit. ;)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973153)

It’s my duty to report on matters as I see fit. Unless you actively think nationalism should trump freedom of speech? That’s rather dangerous if you do.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973153)

It’s my duty to report on matters as I see fit. Unless you actively think nationalism should trump freedom of speech? That’s rather dangerous if you do.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973155)

Where did I question your freedom to speak your mind? I merely commented that you appeared not to want the best for this country. I notice you didn't deny it.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35973157)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973159)

If the Chancellor’s emergency budget to mitigate the negative consequences of Brexit isn’t in the best interests of this country then I don’t know what is. Should a Finance Minister remove himself from his obligations to do so?

If he is unfit for office do you propose replacing this Government?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35973163)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973159)

<SNIP>

I’ve commented on the fishing rights a number of times. All trade deals involve concessions- that’s the nature of capitalism. It is you who frames it in terms of “us” and “them” with the largest trading bloc on the planet.
When the "them" says, before the ink is dry on the Withdrawal Agreement, that he will keep us in perpetual Backstop (words to that effect) if we don't give away our fishing waters, the "us and them" is entirely justified.

If we do leave based on that agreement, then surely you, as a patriotic Brit, would not want to give in to that sort of blackmail.

I don’t see my comments as unconstructive. There’s no reason to be positive about a situation that makes the people of this country poorer when there’s a viable alternative.
Of course you don't. It doesn't make us much poorer (our 90.7% growth conversation) and your negativity is not fully justified.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973168)

I don’t see how it’s unpatriotic to want us to get the best deal we can, with fishing rights (or anything else) as part of any negotiation to smooth our trade relationships with other economies.

If you think it’s blackmail that’s your flawed interpretation of how negotiations work.

Poorer is a relative concept and you don’t understand economic growth calculations, which we’ve established and there’s no need to repeat. The calculations you describe don’t say what you claim because you didn’t baseline 100%.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973052)

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

Donald Tusk outlines three possible options.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973172)

So Mr Tusk, says the outcome will either be No Deal, or No Brexit. Brexit however is enshrined in law. A law that parliament voted for...convincingly.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35973173)

Or this deal on a second vote or some sort of fudge ;)

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973058)

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.....

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35973170)

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973172)

Well what did you expect, they’re turning the pressure up to 11.

I think they can turn the pressure up to 15, May and the cabinet can charm offence all they want and you can have 30 tv debates.

This deal is not going to get through Parliament.

So Mr Tusk, says the outcome will either be No Deal, or No Brexit. Brexit however is enshrined in law. A law that parliament voted for...convincingly.

Ergo,,,,,,no deal? But no deal ( we are told ) will not be allowed by Parliament..........parliament is walking into a paradox of it’s own making.


As I said earlier, it’s fascinating, real popcorn time.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973153)

It’s my duty to report on matters as I see fit.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973174)

Interesting TM would allow a second vote for MPs but not for the public !

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973179)

You’re hardly Woodward or bloody Bernstein. You’re not reporting on anything. You posting on a discussion forum for Broadband nerds.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35973180)

Well Parliament are meant to be the one making decisions in our system anyway. I would be happy never to have a referendum on anything ever again.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973174)

Interesting TM would allow a second vote for MPs but not for the public !

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35973183)

Remainers didn't know what they voted for in 2016, that's what they keep telling us,so how can they vote again if they haven't yet grasped what they voted for the first time .

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973177)

I’ve expected this for some time. As stated earlier, Parliament is sovereign and can unbind itself if there’s the political will to do so. I’d go so far as to say the will is clear, it’s the political expedience of who takes the fall that’s the problem.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35973183)

Remainers didn't know what they voted for in 2016, that's what they keep telling us,so how can they vote again if they haven't yet grasped what they voted for the first time .

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973181)

My personal duty to Queen and country isn’t bound but your interpretation of the user base of CF.

Indeed you don’t know if I’m a journalist.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35973183)

Remainers didn't know what they voted for in 2016, that's what they keep telling us,so how can they vote again if they haven't yet grasped what they voted for the first time .

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973185)

Parliament voted for article 50, by an overwhelming majority because it had a direct mandate from the electorate to do so.

It does not have such a mandate to undo Article 50, it would the greatest betrayal of democracy this country has ever seen.

The only way parliament could revoke Article 50 would be after another referendum.

If the vote doesn’t go through a second referendum is looking like an inevitability.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973177)

Your comparison doesn’t baseline 100%.

Your flawed interpretation implies that if one economy has 10% growth and another 9% less growth its “91%” of that growth.

100-110
100-109.1

When commentators use 9% less its baselined. So rather than 110% of the original size they mean 101%, or just 10% of the growth experienced elsewhere.

<SNIP>

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973187)

Don’t know and don’t care.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35973192)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35973188)

l knew exactly what l voted for but at the end of the day one has to accept the results of democracy no matter how unhappy one is with the result but that does not mean HMG or the opposition should be excused from the complete omnishambles that has followed thereafter..

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35973183)

Remainers didn't know what they voted for in 2016, that's what they keep telling us,so how can they vote again if they haven't yet grasped what they voted for the first time .

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35973196)

Eh? I would like to say I knew very much what I voted for in 2016. The principles behind my decision to vote remain were;

Principles of international cooperation
Ease of trade with our closest geographic neighbours, enhancing the gravity model of trade
Opportunities for my kids when they get older

What has changed since then is I have gained a deeper understanding of international trade, economics and of course a forum favourite, the Good Friday Agreement. This has firmed up the first two points above for me.

As I have said before, if we have to leave, then that’s it but let’s leave with the least amount of damage.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973155)

jfman's post above #4018, if it is representative of the remoaner community, clearly suggests that they do not want the best for this country at all.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35973112)

Finally you have seen the light!

The financial forecasts are hypothetical and nothing more.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973155)

At least Brexiteers want the best for this country and can see many opportunities for increased trade and reduced prices for products coming in, free of the protectionist tariffs put in place by the EU.

jfman's post above #4018, if it is representative of the remoaner community, clearly suggests that they do not want the best for this country at all.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35973180)

Well Parliament are meant to be the one making decisions in our system anyway. I would be happy never to have a referendum on anything ever again.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35971171)

As we approach the end of March and the cliff edge then we will withdraw Article 50.

If Brexit was going to happen it needed a larger mandate than 52-48. The funding controversies, fake news and xenophobia aside the 52 can’t actually agree what they want.

There also needed to be a second referendum to give the Government a mandate to go forward and pursue a type of Brexit (Norway, Canada, Switzerland, other). However, we know the problem with that is Remain would win unless it was kept off the ballot.

Ideally the UK also needed a decisive general election (regardless of who won). Neither party is unified to the extent they can rely on all of their MPs to vote one way. In the example of the Conservatives they probably need 400+ MPs to not be subject to the extreme wings of the party.

The EU27 obviously aren’t unified but they at least put up a single negotiator and have all stayed relatively silent throughout the process. We have live streaming our disagreements making it clear to the EU the people sitting in front of them are in a weakened situation.

May could easily be toppled from within, Labour could win an election and Leave would almost certainly lose if the question was put to the people again. At the same time they know, and we know, that No Deal isn’t a realistic option.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973206)

Indeed, legitimately, that the deal on the table furthers the cause of Irish reunification and perhaps even Scottish independence. I don't see what is patriotic about the death of our great nation.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35973209)

I have touched on this in the past i.e. the English-driven Brexit risks the break up of the Union as NI, Scotland and Wales benefited more from being part of the EU and (apart from Wales) wanted to significantly Remain.

The Welsh vote was odd as South Wales especially has had a lot of EU money and I think Wales received more, as a nation, that it put in.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973211)

Wales is now backing remain.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35973209)

I have touched on this in the past i.e. the English-driven Brexit risks the break up of the Union as NI, Scotland and Wales benefited more from being part of the EU and (apart from Wales) wanted to significantly Remain.

The Welsh vote was odd as South Wales especially has had a lot of EU money and I think Wales received more, as a nation, that it put in.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973193)

That’s your entire approach to Brexit

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973214)

No, That’s my entire approach to you.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973215)

As I've said all along. you've been playing the man, not the ball. You can't hold a coherent argument in favour of leaving the European Union so have made it entirely personal as I'm the voice of the uncomfortable truth you are struggling to come to terms with.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35973216)

you know they lost argument soon as the insults name calling starts

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973217)

It's all quite sad really. There's no compelling argument to leave that holds up to any economic scrutiny. Which is why the focus is on democracy. Yet, it's accepted that people can't be trusted to make the day to day decisions of government which is why we are a representative democracy, and Parliament is sovereign.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973218)

So, let me get this straight. Are you seriously suggesting that democracy should be abandoned because you don’t agree with it?

Shame on you! The people voted for Brexit. Swallow that.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973217)

It's all quite sad really. There's no compelling argument to leave that holds up to any economic scrutiny. Which is why the focus is on democracy. Yet, it's accepted that people can't be trusted to make the day to day decisions of government which is why we are a representative democracy, and Parliament is sovereign.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35973220)

And parliament overwhelmingly decided to let the people decide on leaving or remaining in EU. The people decided to leave the EU and that is what should happen, as per democracy!!!

And yes, you’re right the pathetic Remainer forcasts from BoE and Treasury, don’t pass any kind of valid scrutiny. It’s just pure fiction.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973218)

So, let me get this straight. Are you seriously suggesting that democracy should be abandoned because you don’t agree with it?

Shame on you! The people voted for Brexit. Swallow that.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35973225)

But you know that is not what he is saying don't you? The problem you have is that the 2016 vote based is on uninformed consent. The other problem is that this is not a GE where if you change your mind, you vote the idiots out in 5 years or less.

The vote was one of huge structural, social and economic significance and as such the population *must* be involved now the options are clear and present. It is quite sinister that a democracy should not allow it's population to be involved at this stage.

What is even more sinister is the relish that some express for a No Deal. The proposition that the 37% should drag the whole country down to fulfil their (to me) misplaced wishes is so wrong. This is my country, the one I and my children live in and if it is is going to be trashed, there should be a better mandate that the one currently in place.

Your indignation regarding the prospect of a second referendum is not one based on an affront to democracy. Rather it is anger: you got what you wanted after so many years and now you fear it will taken away from you.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35973220)

And yes, you’re right the pathetic Remainer forcasts from BoE and Treasury, don’t pass any kind of valid scrutiny. It’s just pure fiction.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973228)

I think it's pretty much agreed that they're scenarios and not forecasts but all have passed rigorous scrutiny.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973222)

We are all aware of your opinion on the matter.

With the best will in the world, it's not going to play out as you wish. The pieces are moving into place. Parliament is sovereign. The easiest thing to do is kick it back to the people.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973222)

Sam Gyimah has resigned as Universities and Science Minister.
.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973208)

One of my early forays into this thread, and two weeks later I feel like we are further from No Deal than when I typed it then.

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35973213)

A lot of the areas in England that benefitted most from the EU funds supported leave. Where areas like the Thames Valley that did not need the EU subsidies voted remain.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35973225)

But you know that is not what he is saying don't you? The problem you have is that the 2016 vote based is on uninformed consent. The other problem is that this is not a GE where if you change your mind, you vote the idiots out in 5 years or less.

The vote was one of huge structural, social and economic significance and as such the population *must* be involved now the options are clear and present. It is quite sinister that a democracy should not allow it's population to be involved at this stage.

What is even more sinister is the relish that some express for a No Deal. The proposition that the 37% should drag the whole country down to fulfil their (to me) misplaced wishes is so wrong. This is my country, the one I and my children live in and if it is is going to be trashed, there should be a better mandate that the one currently in place.

Your indignation regarding the prospect of a second referendum is not one based on an affront to democracy. Rather it is anger: you got what you wanted after so many years and now you fear it will taken away from you.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35973240)

By biased Remainers. Who want to sabotage Brexit. The Scenarios they have presented are pure fiction, so they pass sweet FA!!!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973248)

I don't know how you come to that conclusion. We are just a couple of weeks from a vote on the withdrawal agreement, and if they vote it down, it will be a no deal.

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 ----------



It seems to me that perhaps those people living outside of England who voted remain were not clued up enough to realise that this 'EU money' actually originated from the money the UK paid out in the first place.

---------- Post added at 10:49 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------


No. You only want a second referendum because you didn't get what you wanted.

I find it rather worrying that someone who posts this nonsense so persistently could have not understood what 'leave' and 'remain' meant.

I certainly knew, Mick knew and everyone else who voted remain and posted on here knew. You are basically insulting 'leave' voters because you assume they must be ignorant to have voted as they did!

Priceless!

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35973255)

But but but the remain camp keep saying they didn't understand what the vote was about ,i think most of them just saw the two options as
1 remain
2 stay in
The concept of leaving went straight over their heads ,and it is still orbiting out of their reach.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35973253)

So what do you think will happen to the economy after Brexit?

The BoE are creating scenarios based on different outcomes. They are informed estimates of what would happen in those scenarios by people who are proficient in the numbers and their field.

People on here have been pretty happy with such estimates when it comes to speculation on a Corbyn government, or an Ed Miliband government, but when it comes to Brexit less so.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973257)

Yes, it's incredible to hear so many remainers complaining now that people didn't know what 'leave' meant. What they are really saying is that they did not understand what they were voting for.

And now they are saying that Brexit cannot bring economic advantages to the UK, presumably because they have absolutely no clue, and can see only a dystopian future.

So why should we listen to them?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973227)

You raise many valid points.

Those who scream about democracy do so in favour of uninformed vote on a given date in 2016. They do not with to extend that luxury to an informed populace of 2019. We are derided as bitter 'remoaners' as they are terrified an informed population takes their ideals away from them. Which is fine, it makes me feel better about being on the right side of history that others disagree so strongly.

Those who scream about sovereignty do so, until they realise that Parliament is sovereign above all. If Parliament votes instruct the Government to remain, and the Government ignores the will of Parliament in favour of a non-binding advisory referendum we can look forward to a) a general election and b) a Brexit vote in 2019.

I've used the term a number of times but constitutional crisis remains the most likely option. I can't wait, as a patriot I look forward to our constitution protecting people from existential threats to our United Kingdom. :)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973228)

I think it's pretty much agreed that they're scenarios and not forecasts but all have passed rigorous scrutiny.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973257)

Yes, it's incredible to hear so many remainers complaining now that people didn't know what 'leave' meant. What they are really saying is that they did not understand what they were voting for.

And now they are saying that Brexit cannot bring economic advantages to the UK, presumably because they have absolutely no clue, and can see only a dystopian future.

So why should we listen to them?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973260)

Based on negative assumptions.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973242)

A Remainer which goes to show what a bad deal this is, whatever side of the fence you're on.

It's only benefit is that it's better than no deal. It really has been a case of 'a crap deal is better than no deal'.

Looks doomed anyway, and MPs won't allow 'no deal' to happen. So that leaves....

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973262)

The available analysis shows that this economic advantage will have an uplift on the economy of a fraction of a per cent whereas leaving the EU will have a negative impact of several per cent. This has been explained to you and the reasons for it have been carefully explained to you together with links explaining how trade works. But you've chosen not to believe it which is your choice. That is the reason for the divergence in views.

---------- Post added at 11:44 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------


Based on informed analysis and how trade works.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973260)

The PM has clarified that there will not be a second referendum and there will not be another General Election. She could not be any clearer and yet in your world, that's the only way forward.

Here, in the real world, we are looking at a vote in Parliament shortly that will result in the withdrawal agreement being abandoned, which will simply mean a 'no-deal' Brexit.

No constitutional crisis. Just a sizeable number of politicians scratching their heads and asking themselves what was so bad about the withdrawal agreement after all.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973264)

You keep ignoring the fact that economic analysis is only as good as the information put in. Clearly, if you put emphasis on the negatives with insufficient regard for the positives, you will get a negative result. You keep going on about these economic forecasts because they support your mindset, forgetting how wrong previous forecasts have been.

Well, some of us won't get fooled again.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35973245)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973206)

You have been unable to quantify that the best thing for this country is leaving at all. Until that time, which I expect to be the day after Elon Musk dies on Mars, it's a perfectly legitimate point for anyone to hold that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remain part of the European Union.

Indeed, legitimately, that the deal on the table furthers the cause of Irish reunification and perhaps even Scottish independence. I don't see what is patriotic about the death of our great nation.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35973240)

By biased Remainers. Who want to sabotage Brexit. The Scenarios they have presented are pure fiction, so they pass sweet FA!!!

---------- Post added at 08:36 ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 ----------



Nope, it is totally wrong to have another vote. We’ve already had a people’s vote, you just want another vote to overturn the first. When Leave wins again, will you selfishly insist we keep having a vote, so you can keep trying to get the result you want, best of 5 perhaps? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973266)

I think the best answer on this comes from Margaret Thatcher

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973258)

I think Professor Brian Cox has a good angle on this:
Quote:
Politics today is split into people who understand modelling and probability and the quantification of uncertainty and people who don’t.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973270)

What I do know is that when governments get out of the way and let businesses get on with it, they thrive, and that's good for our economy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973260)

The PM has clarified that there will not be a second referendum and there will not be another General Election. She could not be any clearer and yet in your world, that's the only way forward.

Here, in the real world, we are looking at a vote in Parliament shortly that will result in the withdrawal agreement being abandoned, which will simply mean a 'no-deal' Brexit.

No constitutional crisis. Just a sizeable number of politicians scratching their heads and asking themselves what was so bad about the withdrawal agreement after all.

---------- Post added at 11:41 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------



Based on negative assumptions.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973270)

How these economic forecasters can take account of so many new opportunities and freedom from EU bureaucracy when they don't understand how these advantages will be taken up, I don't know.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973296)

Because you don't understand how something can be done, doesn't mean it can't be done.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35973240)

Nope, it is totally wrong to have another vote. We’ve already had a people’s vote, you just want another vote to overturn the first. When Leave wins again, will you selfishly insist we keep having a vote, so you can keep trying to get the result you want, best of 5 perhaps? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973298)

I’d be quite happy if leave won the People’s Vote. It’d remove all of the points around people being ill-informed, not understanding Brexit, etc.

After that there should be a General Election, with all the main parties respecting the result and making the case for their type of Brexit. Then we would hopefully have a strong Government in a strong position to negotiate as opposed to two main parties who can’t agree a unified line amongst themselves, never mind for the country as a whole at present.

Leaving the EU/interim arrangements should be in 4 years from then, towards the end of the Parliamentary term allowing a proper transition period for the economy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973300)

You are so funny. :D So you want another referendum AND a General Election (both of which the PM has ruled out) then a four year delay, in the hope, no doubt, that remainers will find even more reasons to have another referendum when the second one didn't go their way either!

You crack me up, you really do!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973301)

The purpose isn’t to be entertaining, it’s to be practical. It’s a shame you can’t see it that way.

The last two years have been a waste of time because we have a weak Government and are ill prepared for Brexit. The present deal could leave us in interim arrangements longer than four years anyway. A clear model, be that Norway, Canada, no deal, with a Government elected on that basis would have been helpful.

The PM isn’t in a position to guarantee no further referendum or GE. Her word is only as good as her ability to command a majority in Parliament, which she can’t.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973298)

I’d be quite happy if leave won the People’s Vote. It’d remove all of the points around people being ill-informed, not understanding Brexit, etc.

After that there should be a General Election, with all the main parties respecting the result and making the case for their type of Brexit. Then we would hopefully have a strong Government in a strong position to negotiate as opposed to two main parties who can’t agree a unified line amongst themselves, never mind for the country as a whole at present.

Leaving the EU/interim arrangements should be in 4 years from then, towards the end of the Parliamentary term allowing a proper transition period for the economy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973303)

It's just another excuse to try to avoid implementing what the electorate voted for. It's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35973305)

They did in 2016
enjoy the happiness that knowledge brings.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973297)

And they still keep getting it wrong. Time after time after time. Plenty of evidence for that.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973293)

What the Prime Minister says, what she does and what she can actually deliver on are arguably three different things. She reintroduced the term “no Brexit at all”, that a number of times has been repeated by her Cabinet ministers.

So she can’t possibly be right that it simultaneously both is and isn’t an option. You are selecting an interpretation on the basis of the situation you want to arise, which is a reasonable stance, but that doesn’t make it a fact that it will happen that way.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35973316)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973311)

Recent examples to support this line and a definition of "they" will assist further discussion.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973362)

Those preparing the economic forecasts, Andrew. Of course. Do you seriously deny that they have been getting their forecasts wrong? Time and again?

I prefer to live in the real world, and I see a bright future for us all outside of the bureaucratic, undemocratic EU.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973374)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...-may-r9wmh0v89

No wonder the Govt. want this legal advice 'kept quiet'. It's out now anyway so they might aswell publish.

Seemed to have been leaked from within the cabinet - surprise, surprise ! (#oilysnakegove). The vultures are circling round TM !