Brexit discussion

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

And in a quoted article from 1Andrew1 ...Andrew Turnbull, who led the civil service under Tony Blair . . . stopped reading it right there

Another Brexiter who does not bother to find out how the UK works. UK civil servants have to work impartially and Andrew Turnbull has worked his way up under Conservative administrations. That's one thing that makes this a great country.

Turnbull was appointed an Overseas Development Institute Fellow in 1968 and was posted to work as an economist in the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Foreign Trade in Lusaka, Zambia. [3] Turnbull served as Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister under Thatcher and Major (1988-1992). He served as Defra permanent secretary then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury (1998-2002), the latter traditionally the second-highest-ranking Civil Service post, before succeeding to the highest-ranking post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew...Baron_Turnbull

---------- Post added at 11:03 ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

The government requested thirty reports on possible scenarios and they are not all negative but it's funny only the negative one's get leaked or are you seriously suggesting the government only asked for one report. Nearly every government department has had reports commissioned on the effect of brexit but again only the one's that suit the anti brexit agenda get leaked when it comes to brexit this government has drowned themselves in reports at quite an expense so if we are going to have one released to the public lets have all of them not just the one's that suit.

The impact report on the UK has been leaked. Sorry, don't expect to see any reports along the lines you have suggested as they defy the laws of economics and don't exist.
The impact report examined different scenarios depending on the hardness of the Brexit deal. All showed the country foregoing economic growth compared to if it had stayed in the EU. So, less money for the NHS and our armed forces because of Brexit.
It was the work of many departments as it would be daft to duplicate effort across Government. That's why the report was called EU Exit Analysis — Cross Whitehall Briefing
Hapless David Davis did publish some industry reports whose quality was found wanting. He also sought to convince the country that no impact reports had been produced. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b044d16725e56d

Originally Posted by Mr K

Unfortunately for us Carth, a lot of EU NHS staff have already decided to do that. Why stay where they're not wanted, when other countries welcome them?

More claptrap. The NHS has employed MORE EU doctors and nurses.

You just can’t stop putting false and wrong information because it suits your anti-brexit narrative.

Here are the actual facts:

Overall NHS staff levels have grown more than twice as fast as UK population growth Between Dec 2013 and April 2017, total NHS England staff levels increased by 74,676 (+6.72%), taking the NHS workforce of 1.18 million.

These are net figures, new starters minus leavers (roughly like the entire working-age population of Oxford putting on an NHS lanyard).

During this period the UK population grew by roughly 2.4% (64.1m to 65.6m), and those aged 60+ grew 4.53% (12.06m to 12.61m) – population figures from the ONS.

This is a useful context when evaluating any staff shortages.

There are more EU nationals working in the NHS than ever before As of 30 June 2017, there are 61,891 EU nationals in the NHS, or 5.2% of the workforce.

This is a huge 55.4% increase in the last 3.5 years – +22,084, up from 39,807 in Dec 2013 – and EU nationals have risen 8 times faster than other NHS staff. EU nationals have increased since the Brexit vote As of 30 June 2016, EU nationals were 58,698 or 5% of the NHS workforce.

So exactly one year after the referendum vote (after which a hate crime wave was allegedly unleashed) there are 3,193 more EU nationals working in the NHS.

These increases are even higher if you choose the beginning of the referendum campaign as a starting point. It is true that the growth rate in EU nationals has slowed down, but this can be explained by many factors as well as Brexit, particularly in the case of EU nurses.

Source: ONS and BrexitCentral.

http://brexitcentral.com/claims-exod...-nhs-own-data/

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

More claptrap. The NHS has employed MORE EU doctors and nurses.

You just can’t stop putting false and wrong information because it suits your anti-brexit narrative.

Here are the actual facts:

Source: ONS and BrexitCentral.

http://brexitcentral.com/claims-exod...-nhs-own-data/

Good news, Mick. Both you and Mr K are both correct. Mr K is talking about people's intentions. He's talking about people who have decided to leave but probably haven't left yet. You're talking about levels of EU nationals employed. What a great way to end the weekend on.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What a great way to end the weekend on.

But not for you, seeing as you keep going on about this very inaccurate leaked document, made up by biased Remainers in the treasury in a failed and weak attempt to thwart Brexit,

Get it in to your head, we are leaving the EU, as we democratically elected to do so!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42911538

A Brexit minister has apologised in Parliament for comments he made about the independence of the civil service.

Steve Baker said he had been told Treasury officials were deliberately trying to influence policy in favour of staying in the EU customs union.

Charles Grant, an EU policy expert said to have been the source of the claims, has since denied telling Mr Baker this.

Mr Baker told MPs he now accepted this and insisted that he had the "highest regard" for the civil service.

In a short speech in the Commons before proceedings began on Friday, Mr Baker said he wanted to set the record straight.

"As I explained yesterday (Thursday) I considered what I understood to be the suggestion being put to me as implausible because of the long standing and well regarded impartiality of the civil service," he said.

[jonbxx]

Where are the counter studies? Surely, as I said before, the financial might of Tim Martin of Wetherspoons and Lord Bamford of JCB could rustle up a few economists to perform a realistic study to counter the remain biased civil service? Hell, Jacob Rees Mogg is worth a few bob...

The only positive studies I have seen are from Patrick Minfords Liverpool Model which predicts a nearly 9% rise in GDP post Brexit at the expense of UK manufacturing. The model is interesting in isolation but ignores consumer choice (price may not be more important than quality) and location (importing from China is tougher than importing from Ireland)

For a more considered analysis of The Liverpool Model, see here - http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...ws-of-gravity/

To what end do we keep doing all these false and baseless studies?

It will not stop the result of the vote which what the Remainers hope it does. Accept the democratic result and stop peddling the continuing narrative of project fear, which has been repeatedly wrong again and again.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Mick

To what end do we keep doing all these false and baseless studies?

It will not stop the result of the vote which what the Remainers hope it does. Accept the democratic result and stop peddling the continuing narrative of project fear, which has been repeatedly wrong again and again.

Agreed Mick, and I wonder why everyone is so keen on doing studies/analysis/reports on what *may* go wrong instead of doing the same things to discover how to take advantage of the Brexit situation . . . or maybe they are but daren't leak them?

Because if you don’t do analysis, forecasts, and budgets, how can you plan for the possible scenarios, and know what you would need in terms of resources.

All reasonably sized businesses, like Governments, plan 5 to 10 years ahead, reviewing the plans and amending in light of what’s actually happened.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

But not for you, seeing as you keep going on about this very inaccurate leaked document, made up by biased Remainers in the treasury in a failed and weak attempt to thwart Brexit,

Get it in to your head, we are leaving the EU, as we democratically elected to do so!

Firstly, your stuff about leaving the EU - wasted words as that is not in dispute.

And your point about the document - wrong.

"Cross Whitehall Briefing"
1) It's not about them being angry.
2) It's not just from the Treasury, it's from across multiple departments.

I think you owe our hardworking civil servants an apology for talking them down all the time. Do you honestly think that all civil servants who are are Remainers magicked their way onto the project and manipulated it? I know you can do far better than this.

---------- Post added at 17:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Agreed Mick, and I wonder why everyone is so keen on doing studies/analysis/reports on what *may* go wrong instead of doing the same things to discover how to take advantage of the Brexit situation . . . or maybe they are but daren't leak them?

The analysis showed that taking advantage of Brexit would add 0.2%-0.4% to GDP. Compared to a 2%-8% disadvantage from it.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Mick

To what end do we keep doing all these false and baseless studies?

It will not stop the result of the vote which what the Remainers hope it does. Accept the democratic result and stop peddling the continuing narrative of project fear, which has been repeatedly wrong again and again.

Then let’s get the best of the best, have them run some scenarios, make predictions and be clear about the levels of uncertainty in each case. How can we expect the government to make policy without at least a base understanding of what the effects of that policy might be?

Asking for the government to make educated decisions based on the best information available isn’t trying to stop Brexit, it’s trying to get the best possible Brexit based on scientific predictions

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Then let’s get the best of the best, have them run some scenarios, make predictions and be clear about the levels of uncertainty in each case. How can we expect the government to make policy without at least a base understanding of what the effects of that policy might be?

Asking for the government to make educated decisions based on the best information available isn’t trying to stop Brexit, it’s trying to get the best possible Brexit based on scientific predictions

The trouble is that many Brexiters are in denial. They felt that they would be better off outside the EU but were guided to ignore the overwhelming evidence that said otherwise. Do they now either eat their words or pretend all the analysis is fake news/Remainer conspiracies?

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The trouble is that many Brexiters are in denial. They felt that they would be better off outside the EU but were guided to ignore the overwhelming evidence that said otherwise. Do they now either eat their words or pretend all the analysis is fake news/Remainer conspiracies?

Interestingly, according to a YouGov poll a while back, 61% of leave voters are OK with the UK being worse off due to Brexit, while 39% are ok with a family member losing their job. Economic damage seems to be a price worth paying.

Poll details - https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/08/01...it-extremists/

Of course, that is at the level of individuals. Maybe the government needs to be a bit more pragmatic as a reduced tax take impacts virtually all government activities, hence the need to make plans and have at least some kind of educated approach based on predictions

[Carth]

Here's another of those Brexiters Remoaners in denial


Andrew Adonis launches his drive to reverse Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ond-referendum

Though this Blairite former Liberal Democrat is as far from his party’s current leadership as it is possible to get, he remains optimistic that Jeremy Corbyn can also be persuaded to change his mind on the merits of a second referendum

“I dread the thought of a second referendum,” says Lucy Smout Szablewska, a local remain campaigner who has nonetheless come along to hear the plan.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Interestingly, according to a YouGov poll a while back, 61% of leave voters are OK with the UK being worse off due to Brexit, while 39% are ok with a family member losing their job.

Poll details - https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/08/01...it-extremists/

Of course, that is at the level of individuals. . .

Well it was the individuals that voted, not the Government

Andrew stop being so stupid or do you honestly believe only one impact study was done by the government to fit all the different departments far more then one were commissioned but only one was leaked. Also can you stop saying we all thought we were going to be immediately better off it's been said many times on this forum that in the short to medium term we will be worse off but in the longer term we will be better off. You constantly misrepresent things then wonder why no one takes you seriously and also stop pretending you have a clue about how the civil service is working when you think only one impact study was done to cover all aspects of brexit for all government departments.

You don't know anything for a fact neither do i and here's a shocker neither do the experts who haven't been right once so far but they keep coming out with guff because people call them experts and expect them to come out with something. This is unknown territory nobody can honestly claim to know exactly what's going to happen and it's time some people stopped pretending and shutup so the government can get on with it. Hell if some remainers had their way there would be no point in negotiations with the EU because we'd have shown all our cards at the start it's beyond stupidity.