Guest Posted 29 January 2018 Posted 29 January 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I'm not assuming that will be achieved, Toddy, but that is the timetable set, isn't it? Negotiations on transition deal starting this week for completion by March, then move on to future EU/UK trade deal. If we don't do a transition deal on time, then that will further eat into the time available to negotiate an EU/UK trade/future relationship deal - and there's not much more than 6-9 months available for that already, is there? I think any transition agreement is supposed to go before the European Council and Parliament in March - and the Council only meets every 2-3 months, I think, so if there's no transition deal done by March, that's seriously bad news. I certainly wouldn't rule that out, though, given the apparent incompetence of this govt and the possibility that the governing party might descend into a chaotic civil war at any minute. 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: It doesn’t need too, if the EU and we can’t agree. What happens in March? 3 minutes ago, MattP said: I can forsee a scenario where the 100 or so moderate Labour politicians back a Conservative softer Brexit to see off a "no deal" that some Tory backbenchers want. Just a possible future... If TM remains PM I'd expect a last minute scramble to agree everything the EU wanted again. But probably as close to damn it what we have now. But things are looking very, very ominous for her. If she goes the Tories will have a hard Brexit leader (their members are all nobs) and we'll end up in a nightmare caused by parliament refusing to accept what they agree (or don't agree). There'd potentially have to be an election at that point. It would pretty much act as a referendum on the deal. I don't believe a broken tory party pushing for the hardest possible Brexit can win. I hope they can't. Edited 29 January 2018 by Guest
Strokes Posted 29 January 2018 Posted 29 January 2018 1 minute ago, MattP said: On the talk of time. How absurd is it that after hearing Donald Tusk 3-4 last year coming to his little box to tell us "the clock is ticking" we now sit here doing absolutely nothing? Farcical. Realistically it’s all theatre, they will sell us down the road to the EU again. The theatre is to make us feel it’s the best option, we all know we won’t leave. It’s been fun though.
Alf Bentley Posted 29 January 2018 Posted 29 January 2018 30 minutes ago, toddybad said: It isn't as it wouldn't pass parliament. I hope and believe you're right that a "no deal" Brexit cannot pass parliament. Surely at least as many Tory Remainers as before would rebel, possibly a lot more. The DUP might withdraw its support as it would be staring a hard Irish border in the face, and would probably risk losing seats. Very few, if any Labour Brexiteers would support a "no deal" Brexit, surely? If May hadn't called the election and the Tories hadn't messed it up, "no deal" Brexit might have passed. Maybe she's a modern Machiavelli and did it deliberately? 29 minutes ago, Strokes said: It doesn’t need too, if the EU and we can’t agree. What happens in March? If there's no transition agreement by March, talks could just continue, delaying the trade talks. The EU could just watch the clock tick down towards March 2019, but would presumably want some sort of a deal to cover future political/security relations, but there'd be even less chance of an early EU/UK trade deal - and presumably no transition period, though it might suit both sides to agree a transition period late on so as to avoid chaos for business/traders on both sides. 28 minutes ago, MattP said: I can forsee a scenario where the 100 or so moderate Labour politicians back a Conservative softer Brexit to see off a "no deal" that some Tory backbenchers want. Something like that could happen if May remains PM and negotiates a Soft Brexit deal. But what if there's a leadership challenge? I presume the confidence vote triggered by 48 (?) Tory MP writing letters would be limited to MPs, would it? I suppose the Hard Brexit MPs will only trigger that if they've got at least one viable candidate to run and win against May, otherwise she could win a party confidence vote with the support of Tory moderate MPs......if it ended up with a leadership election by party members, she'd be long gone. 25 minutes ago, toddybad said: Just a possible future... If TM remains PM I'd expect a last minute scramble to agree everything the EU wanted again. But probably as close to damn it what we have now. But things are looking very, very ominous for her. If she goes the Tories will have a hard Brexit leader (their members are all nobs) and we'll end up in a nightmare caused by parliament refusing to accept what they agree (or don't agree). There'd potentially have to be an election at that point. It would pretty much act as a referendum on the deal. I don't believe a broken tory party pushing for the hardest possible Brexit can win. I hope they can't. That sounds a reasonable analysis. Hard to predict an election result in those circumstances, but difficult to imagine the Tories winning after causing 2 extra elections in 2 years, losing 2 leaders and failing to get a Brexit deal. Polls at the moment suggest the outcome would be a minority Labour govt under Corbyn (but with Lab in parliament still dominated by moderates, not Corbynistas) - but a Lab majority wouldn't be out of the question, nor would a UKIP resurgence under a returned Farage or some sort of split in the Tory party with moderate Tory MPs defecting to the Lib Dems, maybe?
Buce Posted 29 January 2018 Posted 29 January 2018 Half a million people living in rented accomodation that is hazardous to health: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/29/squalid-homes-corbyn-says-government-in-pockets-of-landlords This is what a rogue landlord looks like.
Innovindil Posted 29 January 2018 Posted 29 January 2018 14 minutes ago, Buce said: Half a million people living in rented accomodation that is hazardous to health: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/29/squalid-homes-corbyn-says-government-in-pockets-of-landlords This is what a rogue landlord looks like. “The problem is quite simply shocking,” Wales told the MPs. “Twenty-five people living in a three-bedroom house is not unusual. There was a guy on a raid I went on sleeping under the stairs. Harry Potter had more room [at the Dursleys’ house]. This is what our country is like in London and in other cities in the country.” What the actual ****. There's 2 people living in my 3 bed house and I still feel like it's crowded. Imagine 25 people
Guest Posted 29 January 2018 Posted 29 January 2018 German ambassador: second world war image of Britain has fed Euroscepticism https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/29/german-ambassador-peter-ammon-second-world-war-image-of-britain-has-fed-euroscepticism?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Vacamion Posted 29 January 2018 Posted 29 January 2018 Buzzfeed has published the bottom lines of a secret government assessment, confirming, surprise surprise, that Brexit is going to cost the UK dearly. As a country, on 23 June 2016, we utterly pulled into the fast lane whilst swigging absinthe from the bottle, didn't we? 3
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 BuzzFeed Quizzes Tasty More TRENDING 102,918 VIEWS POLITICS This Leaked Government Brexit Analysis Says The UK Will Be Worse Off In Every Scenario Exclusive: BuzzFeed News has seen a new Brexit impact assessment, which says leaving the EU will adversely hit almost every sector and every UK region. Posted on January 29, 2018, at 9:30 p.m. Alberto Nardelli BuzzFeed News Europe Editor Shutterstock Share Pin David Davis and Theresa May The government's new analysis of the impact of Brexit says the UK would be worse off outside the European Union under every scenario modelled, BuzzFeed News can reveal. The assessment, which is titled “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing” and dated January 2018, looked at three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios based on existing EU arrangements. Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis. The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%. These calculations do not take into account any short-term hits to the economy from Brexit, such as the cost of adjusting the economy to new customs arrangements. Share Pin The cover title of the new analysis. The assessment seen by BuzzFeed News is being kept tightly guarded inside government. It was prepared by officials across Whitehall for the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) and is reportedly being presented to key ministers in one-to-one meetings this week ahead of discussion at the Brexit cabinet subcommittee next week. Asked why the prime minister was not making the analysis public, a DExEU source told BuzzFeed News: "Because it's embarrassing." Even though the analysis assumes that the UK will agree a trade deal with the US, roll over dozens of the EU’s current trade agreements, and consider loosening regulations after Brexit, there is no scenario that does not leave the country worse off. Officials believe the methodology for the new assessment is better than that used for similar analyses before the referendum. The January 2018 analysis looked only at existing EU arrangements, which means bespoke arrangements have yet to be modelled. Prime Minister Theresa May has repeatedly said she is seeking a "deep and special partnership with the EU". The other main findings of the analysis: • Almost every sector of the economy included in the analysis would be negatively impacted in all three scenarios, with chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, and cars and retail the hardest hit. The analysis found that only the agriculture sector under the WTO scenario would not be adversely affected. • Every UK region would also be affected negatively in all the modelled scenarios, with the North East, the West Midlands, and Northern Ireland (before even considering the possibility of a hard border) facing the biggest falls in economic performance. • There is a risk that London’s status as a financial centre could be severely eroded, with the possibilities available under an FTA not much different to those in the WTO option. • On the plus side, the analysis assumes in all scenarios that a trade deal with the US will be concluded, and that it would benefit GDP by about 0.2% in the long term. Trade deals with other non-EU countries and blocs, such as China, India, Australia, the Gulf countries, and the nations of Southeast Asia would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term. Eric Vidal / AFP / Getty Images Share Pin Britain's Secretary of State for Exiting the EU David Davis, Theresa May, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, and EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier meet at the European Commission in December 2017 in Brussels. The government has found itself in repeated difficulty over the existence – or lack – of Brexit impact studies. Last year, the Brexit secretary David Davis suggested that dozens had been carried out “in excruciating detail”, but after a Commons vote forced the publication of these assessments, he told MPs he had been misunderstood and they did not exist after all. DExEU published a series of broad "sectoral analyses" instead. The biggest negative impact comes from the UK’s decision to leave both the EU’s customs union and the single market – the issue at the heart of the Conservative Party’s ongoing internal strife over Brexit. Leaving these arrangements creates what the analysis calls “non-tariff barriers” to trade, such as loss of market access in certain sectors and new customs and border checks and practices. Some of these can be minimised if Britain were to remain in the single market via the EEA, and the impact can also be partly offset through domestic policy or trade deals with the US and others, but the losses cannot be eliminated altogether once the UK is outside the customs union. This new analysis suggests that there could be opportunity for the UK in agreeing trade deals with non-EU countries and deregulating in areas such as the environment, product standards, and employment law. However, the analysis also casts doubt on the idea that these benefits would be enough to mitigate the losses to the economy caused by leaving the single market and customs union. Moving away from the existing set of rules and standards would also make it harder to trade with the EU in the future, and would be politically controversial domestically. This specific debate risks deepening the conflict inside the Tory party between those, such as chancellor Philip Hammond, who want to remain more closely aligned to the EU for years, and the hardline Brexiteers, led by backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg. A government spokesperson told BuzzFeed News: “We have already set out that the government is undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis in support of our EU exit negotiations and preparations. "We have been clear that we are not prepared to provide a running commentary on any aspect of this ongoing internal work and that ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiation position.” A government source said: “As part of its preparations for leaving the European Union, officials from across Whitehall are undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis. "An early draft of this next stage of analysis has looked at different off-the-shelf arrangements that currently exist as well as other external estimates. It does not, however, set out or measure the details of our desired outcome – a new deep and special partnership with the EU – or predict the conclusions of the negotiations. "It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependent on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”
Buce Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 That's what 'taking back control' means, Toddy - the freedom to run the country into the ground and destroy living standards for millions, while waving a blue passport and singing Rule Brittania. We're going to Hell in a handcart but at least it's our handcart, eh. 3
Jimothy Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 10 hours ago, Rogstanley said: Tory government to spend an extra £3.7bn reviewing every single disability claim because they made such a horrible mess of it the first time. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42862904 A leaner, more efficient state in action there. 9 hours ago, toddybad said: And only through force after being found to be "blatantly discriminatory". Amazing isn't it. I remember the grief @Rincewind used to get off certain posters on this site when he complained the system wasn't fit for purpose. That he was quoting biased sources, citing made up stories or isolated cases. I think a couple of posters, who'll know who they are, owe old Ken an apology. 2
Buce Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Facecloth said: Amazing isn't it. I remember the grief @Rincewind used to get off certain posters on this site when he complained the system wasn't fit for purpose. That he was quoting biased sources, citing made up stories or isolated cases. I think a couple of posters, who'll know who they are, owe old Ken an apology. We all know that's not going to happen - they would rather stick needles in their eyeballs than blame the Tories for anything. It'll either be fake news or Labour's fault. Edited 30 January 2018 by Buce 1
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 14 minutes ago, Buce said: That's what 'taking back control' means, Toddy - the freedom to run the country into the ground and destroy living standards for millions, while waving a blue passport and singing Rule Brittania. We're going to Hell in a handcart but at least it's our handcart, eh. Cue the extremists denouncing the experts.
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 8 minutes ago, Facecloth said: Amazing isn't it. I remember the grief @Rincewind used to get off certain posters on this site when he complained the system wasn't fit for purpose. That he was quoting biased sources, citing made up stories or isolated cases. I think a couple of posters, who'll know who they are, owe old Ken an apology. Strangely they're never here for anything the Tories would consider bad news.
Guest MattP Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 7 hours ago, Vacamion said: Buzzfeed has published the bottom lines of a secret government assessment, confirming, surprise surprise, that Brexit is going to cost the UK dearly. As a country, on 23 June 2016, we utterly pulled into the fast lane whilst swigging absinthe from the bottle, didn't we? 1 hour ago, Buce said: That's what 'taking back control' means, Toddy - the freedom to run the country into the ground and destroy living standards for millions, while waving a blue passport and singing Rule Brittania. We're going to Hell in a handcart but at least it's our handcart, eh. There are still people out there who take long term treasury forecasts as gospel? Unbelievable. They can't even get forecasts right for 6 months into the future, these predictions are based on the ludicrous assumption we'll be imposing similar tariffs, why would we do that? Amazing how some posters (who never trust the government) will swallow everything they get told as soon as it agrees with the opinion they hold.
Buce Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 1 minute ago, MattP said: There are still people out there who take long term treasury forecasts as gospel? Unbelievable. They can't even get forecasts right for 6 months into the future, these predictions are based on the ludicrous assumption we'll be imposing similar tariffs, why would we do that? Amazing how some posters (who never trust the government) will swallow everything they get told as soon as it agrees with the opinion they hold. 1
Guest MattP Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 1 hour ago, Facecloth said: Amazing isn't it. I remember the grief @Rincewind used to get off certain posters on this site when he complained the system wasn't fit for purpose. That he was quoting biased sources, citing made up stories or isolated cases. I think a couple of posters, who'll know who they are, owe old Ken an apology. I think Ken got stick for posting non stop links to the Canary and claiming the Tory government had killed millions of disabled people, I think there was actually quite wide reaching agreement that the welfare system wasn't fit for purpose. Although you clearly didn't read the article, it doesn't claim what Rog says at all, it says they are reviewing cases and it "could" cost upto that amount, another prediction I'd take with a pinch of salt. If it happens then by all means come on crowing, but until then I'll hold fire. 14 minutes ago, Buce said: I really don't get the approach you have to this Buce, Ever since I have known you on here you have questioned everything the Tory government has told you, then the EU referendum came around and you decided to believe everything George Osborne and David Cameron produced or predicted to make it sound a disaster. Ever after all the predictions of what would happen in the immediate aftermath wee proven to be at best totally wrong and at worst downright lies you yet again see the government producing reports claiming something you agree with is going to be bad and yet again you swallow it whole and assume it's going to be correct. The most interesting thing about the report to me was there is little difference between no deal and and leaving with a free trade agreement, again shows we shouldn't be shy about doing the former.
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 32 minutes ago, MattP said: There are still people out there who take long term treasury forecasts as gospel? Unbelievable. They can't even get forecasts right for 6 months into the future, these predictions are based on the ludicrous assumption we'll be imposing similar tariffs, why would we do that? Amazing how some posters (who never trust the government) will swallow everything they get told as soon as it agrees with the opinion they hold. And there are some people who believe they're more likely to know about international trade and growth expectations that the experts, even though they regularly cite similar experts in other conversations.
Guest MattP Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: And there are some people who believe they're more likely to know about international trade and growth expectations that the experts, even though they regularly cite similar experts in other conversations. The experts often have different viewpoints. I look forward to you posting all the opinions of these experts when the next election campaign comes round and they are telling us what a disaster Labour will be for the nation, I'm sure they'll have morphed from "experts" to "tories" though as soon as that happens again.
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 9 minutes ago, MattP said: I think Ken got stick for posting non stop links to the Canary and claiming the Tory government had killed millions of disabled people, I think there was actually quite wide reaching agreement that the welfare system wasn't fit for purpose. Although you clearly didn't read the article, it doesn't claim what Rog says at all, it says they are reviewing cases and it "could" cost upto that amount, another prediction I'd take with a pinch of salt. If it happens then by all means come on crowing, but until then I'll hold fire. I really don't get the approach you have to this Buce, Ever since I have known you on here you have questioned everything the Tory government has told you, then the EU referendum came around and you decided to believe everything George Osborne and David Cameron produced or predicted to make it sound a disaster. Ever after all the predictions of what would happen in the immediate aftermath wee proven to be at best totally wrong and at worst downright lies you yet again see the government producing reports claiming something you agree with is going to be bad and yet again you swallow it whole and assume it's going to be correct. The most interesting thing about the report to me was there is little difference between no deal and and leaving with a free trade agreement, again shows we shouldn't be shy about doing the former. Ok, so now you believe the figures? There's a 3% growth difference which is worth around £50b per year and is compounded year on year. More than enough to cover the debt interest you believe is ultra important.
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 1 minute ago, MattP said: The experts often have different viewpoints. I look forward to you posting all the opinions of these experts when the next election campaign comes round and they are telling us what a disaster Labour will be for the nation, I'm sure they'll have morphed from "experts" to "tories" though as soon as that happens again. More and more experts are talking about the system needing change. Even at davos multiple speakers spoke about it.
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 2 minutes ago, MattP said: The experts often have different viewpoints. I look forward to you posting all the opinions of these experts when the next election campaign comes round and they are telling us what a disaster Labour will be for the nation, I'm sure they'll have morphed from "experts" to "tories" though as soon as that happens again. Anyway, the experts didn't say labour would be a disaster, they said taxes would have to rise. I'm fine with that.
Guest MattP Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: Ok, so now you believe the figures? There's a 3% growth difference which is worth around £50b per year and is compounded year on year. More than enough to cover the debt interest you believe is ultra important. Apologies, "if" the figures are correct. I certainly don't believe the figures, in fact I'm inclined to believe again they have asked questions to make sure they get the figures they want. Anyone who still believes long-term forecasts (or even short term given we were widly out with those for 2016 and appears we again will be for 1017) baffles me a bit. At least with all the sodom and gomorrah predicted even if we do have a small slowdown it will look ok compared to the predictions, I'm happy for expectations to be lowered.
Buce Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 13 minutes ago, MattP said: I think Ken got stick for posting non stop links to the Canary and claiming the Tory government had killed millions of disabled people, I think there was actually quite wide reaching agreement that the welfare system wasn't fit for purpose. Although you clearly didn't read the article, it doesn't claim what Rog says at all, it says they are reviewing cases and it "could" cost upto that amount, another prediction I'd take with a pinch of salt. If it happens then by all means come on crowing, but until then I'll hold fire. I really don't get the approach you have to this Buce, Ever since I have known you on here you have questioned everything the Tory government has told you, then the EU referendum came around and you decided to believe everything George Osborne and David Cameron produced or predicted to make it sound a disaster. Ever after all the predictions of what would happen in the immediate aftermath wee proven to be at best totally wrong and at worst downright lies you yet again see the government producing reports claiming something you agree with is going to be bad and yet again you swallow it whole and assume it's going to be correct. The most interesting thing about the report to me was there is little difference between no deal and and leaving with a free trade agreement, again shows we shouldn't be shy about doing the former. There's a reason these reports are being kept secret, Matt, and the forecasts are coming from a wide range of sources. The Brexiteers have a vested interest in being in denial because it undermine's everything they voted for, though to be fair to you personally, you have always stated that you're prepared to take an economic hit in order to 'take back control' (whatever that actually means).
Recommended Posts