Webbo Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said: Info about the potential economic impact of Corbyn's nationalisation plans might be of benefit to the economic calculations of foreign govts/firms just like info about the potential economic impact of Brexit. They'll be able to make their own calculations about either, though. Take defence, if you prefer. Imagine PM Corbyn was considering unilateral nuclear disarmament and reports on likely foreign policy impact were produced. If you're being consistent, presumably you'd want those reports to be withheld from Tories or other multilateralists on the Defence Select Committee in case the traitors leaked the contents? All power to the executive and keep democratic scrutiny to a minimum, eh? Or does that only apply under a Tory Govt? As you didn't respond to my other points, I assume that you do believe that the Brexit impact reports should also be kept from Tories who supported Remain - such as May, Hammond and Damian Green (who commented the other day that if there were another referendum, he'd vote Remain again)? Anyway, busy week ahead so I'll move on, safe in the knowledge that to you British parliamentary democracy is of secondary importance to the need for an unchallenged Hard Right, nationalistic, deregulating, low-tax Thatcherite Tory Govt. There are times when the govt has to keep things secret because it can affect the market, that's fair enough. If Corbyn gets a majority he can do what he likes as long as it's legal, he won't be reliant on the approval of foreign govts. The impact should only be shown to those with direct involvement in the negotiations. The PM obviously, the brexit cabinet and other cabinet ministers at the PM's discretion. I do wonder where all this demand for parliamentary scrutiny was when we were rubber stamping all those EU directives for the last 40 years?
Guest Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: There are times when the govt has to keep things secret because it can affect the market, that's fair enough. If Corbyn gets a majority he can do what he likes as long as it's legal, he won't be reliant on the approval of foreign govts. The impact should only be shown to those with direct involvement in the negotiations. The PM obviously, the brexit cabinet and other cabinet ministers at the PM's discretion. I do wonder where all this demand for parliamentary scrutiny was when we were rubber stamping all those EU directives for the last 40 years? Didn't mahstrict, Lisbon.etc all go through parliament? Fact is it doesn't matter what you, me or anyone else thinks. The commons voted and the government must act upon that vote.
Alf Bentley Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 1 hour ago, Rogstanley said: You're a better man than me. Probably just older, rather than better - old enough to have lots of embarrassing memories of shameful errors.....in real life, not on here. I've never made a mistake on here.
Webbo Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 2 hours ago, MattP said: Not going to comment too much until we know anything for sure but if this is true what on earth are we doing? We are even talking about funding pensions for decades, they won't put tariffs on goods, we've totally fell for it that they would, we are going to end up in a huge transition period, shame on the Tory Brexiteers as well, all falling behind this because they are so scared of Labour coming to office which won't happen. I'm right on board with Stokes now, no deal on WTO terms (sorry CRASH OUT!! as the BBC will tell you) - this is a complete hold up, we don't owe them a penny and we should be walking away right now, if we did I'd imagine they would want a deal. If not so be it. I want to see the deal before I decide whether this is a good deal or not. We'll be staying in for an extra 2 years so that's 20 million then there's another 20-30 million thats the equivalent to 3 years contributions if we get everything we want that's a small price to pay. 1
Webbo Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 1 hour ago, Rogstanley said: Very graceful in victory. You're a better man than me. I think we all are. 1
Guest Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 (edited) Daily mail admits that EU countries will lose less than 50k jobs each due to brexit but we will lose more than half a million. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5127127/No-trade-deal-cost-EU-twice-jobs-Britain.html Edited 29 November 2017 by Guest
Webbo Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 3 minutes ago, toddybad said: Daily mail admits that EU countries will lose less than 50k jobs each due to brexit but we will lose more than half a million. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5127127/No-trade-deal-cost-EU-twice-jobs-Britain.html Just in case you're not trolling. Quote The report, by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), warned of more than 290,000 job losses in Germany and approximately 140,000 in each of France and Italy.
Guest Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Just in case you're not trolling. So it's hitting us much harder then?
Webbo Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 1 minute ago, toddybad said: So it's hitting us much harder then? Seriously?
Guest Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: Seriously? I'm not really fussed about the comparison tbh I'm bored. Though over 500,000 uk jobs is horrific. You voted for that? Potentially half a million families being plunged into poverty so we can gain control of something or other. Mad.
Webbo Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: I'm not really fussed about the comparison tbh I'm bored. Though over 500,000 uk jobs is horrific. You voted for that? Potentially half a million families being plunged into poverty so we can gain control of something or other. Mad. Rogstanley said he'd be happy for unemployment to double as long as he got a good payrise.
foxinexile Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 Simple message for all Leavers: Stop complaining about our exit fee from the EU. You voted for this.
Webbo Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 4 minutes ago, foxinexile said: Simple message for all Leavers: Stop complaining about our exit fee from the EU. You voted for this. I'm not complaining.
Guest MattP Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 7 minutes ago, foxinexile said: Simple message for all Leavers: Stop complaining about our exit fee from the EU. You voted for this. Can you show me where anyone from the leave (or remain) campaign told me we would be paying this? I followed it quite extensively and don't recall a single person doing so.
foxinexile Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 4 minutes ago, MattP said: Can you show me where anyone from the leave (or remain) campaign told me we would be paying this? I followed it quite extensively and don't recall a single person doing so. A hefty exit fee from the EU was always a consequence of Brexit, if you needed it spelling out to you at the time of the referendum, more fool you. Did you expect that, contrary to what some said, we would simply be able to "walk away"? That we wouldn't have to honour commitments we've already made if we wanted a trade deal? There's been a lot of bravado (take a bow Boris) about how the EU would be bending over backwards to sign a deal with us, and yet we now have the UK bending over for fear of the EU saying "No deal". It's clear (and it was from the start) that a deal with the EU is far more important, and needed, by the UK than vice versa. We're leaving the EU, end of. But I hope this (and the need for a transition phase) generates a little humility in those who shout loudest about the utopia we're apparently headed to. Let's hope for all of us that Brexit is a success; but let's not be fooled for one second that there would always be serious consequences for leaving - and the monetary value of our exit is the first reminder of that.
Rogstanley Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 14 minutes ago, MattP said: Can you show me where anyone from the leave (or remain) campaign told me we would be paying this? I followed it quite extensively and don't recall a single person doing so. Did you reall think the information available prior to the referendum was comprehensive? How could it have been?
Rogstanley Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Webbo said: Rogstanley said he'd be happy for unemployment to double as long as he got a good payrise. Not quite what I said, but sure, i'd take a hit of 500k jobs if it meant a significant increase in the quality and wages of the many millions of jobs that remained available. This won't do that though. If anything we will lose good quality jobs like those in financial services and be left with not only higher unemployment but also much worse quality and lower paying job availability overall. Edited 29 November 2017 by Rogstanley
Rogstanley Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 1 hour ago, Webbo said: I think we all are. If you concede that Alf Ramsey has torn you a new one then I'll go with that as well. I've made no secret of the rather pathetic amount of pleasure I get from showing up all you Tories with facts.
Guest MattP Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Did you reall think the information available prior to the referendum was comprehensive? How could it have been? Vastly if you wanted to find it. But I know you don't take much of an interest in politics so I don't expect you to answer the question I asked that you replied to.
Guest MattP Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: If you concede that Alf Ramsey has torn you a new one then I'll go with that as well. I've made no secret of the rather pathetic amount of pleasure I get from showing up all you Tories with facts. Any chance you can answer my question (for the tenth time) of what you see as an acceptable level of debt to GDP to invest or when you would see gilts at too high to borrow?
Webbo Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: If you concede that Alf Ramsey has torn you a new one then I'll go with that as well. I've made no secret of the rather pathetic amount of pleasure I get from showing up all you Tories with facts. Mate, you didn't even know Corbyn was a socialist. I think we can take your "facts" with a pinch of salt.
Webbo Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 8 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Not quite what I said, but sure, i'd take a bit of 500k jobs if it meant a significant increase in the quality and wages of the many millions of jobs that remained available. This won't do that though. If anything we will lose good quality jobs like those in financial services and be left with not only higher unemployment but also much worse quality and lower paying job availability overall. You'll be alright, MacDonald's will always need burger flippers.
Guest MattP Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 16 minutes ago, Webbo said: You'll be alright, MacDonald's will always need burger flippers. 90% certain it's Moosebreath as well.
Webbo Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 1 minute ago, MattP said: 90% certain it's Moosebreath as well. Possibly, he's hiding his tracks better this time if it is. Perhaps I'm looking back with rose tinted specs but I'm sure Moose was a lot funnier.
Rogstanley Posted 29 November 2017 Posted 29 November 2017 19 minutes ago, MattP said: Any chance you can answer my question (for the tenth time) of what you see as an acceptable level of debt to GDP to invest or when you would see gilts at too high to borrow? Considering rates on gilts are lower than inflation I think we're a long way off having to worry about that. Debt to GDP - again you're coming at it from an angle that I don't really think is relevant. Given the position we're in regards worst productivity in the developed world, worst infrastructure in the developed world and so on, I'm convinced that if we invested intelligently we would see very strong returns on that investment, so the debt to GDP ratio would go down, not up.
Recommended Posts