"Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people one of whom says the world is flat and the other one says the world is round. That is not balanced, impartial journalism.”
It is why I stopped watching Question Time. The BBC seem to make it a priority to give equal air time to experts/professionals and completely wacko Brexit nut jobs.
"Peston said he consistently said on ITV News that leaving the EU would make the UK poorer. “Not massively poorer. I thought the Project Fear bit of the government’s campaign was overdone. But poorer.”
The hysteria of the Remain camp is based on the Project Fear message from the Establishment that "poorer" means the UK economy will be trashed if we leave the EU. So Peston would agree with me, it's misinformation. The projected drag on GDP over 30 years with a no deal Brexit was calculated by the Treasury in 2016 as a 6% drag on GDP which was presented as every household being £4,300 worse off. It has now moved to 8% over 15 years.
On the same basis the Treasury could have told us in 2008, had it been able to predict the drag on GDP of 20% to date, that every household will be £14,000 worse off by 2018. (£14k is a bit of guesstimate but it would be of that sort of order). That drag is the result of none of the anticipated 3% wage growth emerging and the prevailing levels of company investment not increasing in line with historic rates. Nor does GDP growth correlate to growth in spendable income - more misinformation avidly bought into unchallenged by Remainers. Instead of intelligently challenging the propaganda, Brexiteers made the mistake of saying the figures were made up. It's the propaganda use of the numbers which is the problem, not the numbers themselves.
An 8% drag over 15 years is liable to be impacted by 101 other events within and without our control. So fixating on Brexit as the number one danger for our economy is just plain Project Fear, but it seems an entrenched belief that Brexit will destroy any possibility of the UK economy growing.
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
The difference between the rate of GDP drag with a deal or no-deal is, according to the Treasury forecasts, a few percentage points, a few hundred pounds "per household" nonsense if you like, hardly worth accepting a half-baked Brexit for. The main difference will be on the extent of disruption in reorganisation of services and procedures for business.
So glad though that those that arent part of the establishment like privately educated and long time career politicians Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, alongside former stockbroker and former MEP Nigel Farage, bankrolled by the wonderful Kremlin (You can't help but admire putin, what a lovely fella) are out there to look after everyone out of the kindness of their hearts and completely aren't part of the establishment like those disgusting small business leaders and financial institutions who have literally spent their entire lives studying economies and building businesses from nothing. Scumbag establishment who want the economy to grow more. WHATS WRONG WITH FOOD AND MEDICAL SHORTAGES REMOANERS?! Absolutely nothing, they make me sick to my stomach. No deal all day for me.
Ah, good. Welcome back. You dodged the question last time, so let me ask you again. In respect of the following statement of yours:
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
Why do we need to Brexit in order to force governments to do this? The Germans after all have been doing it for years with their Mittelstanden. The link will lead you to the many examples of such companies. I'm looking at one on my desk right now, my Sennheiser headphones. Do we have so many such companies, making stuff so good that the world wants to buy it? And if so, how is the EU preventing them from flourishing? And please don't just start quoting James Dyson, maker of over-priced machines that don't sell in Europe because people prefer Bosch or Miele.
"Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people one of whom says the world is flat and the other one says the world is round. That is not balanced, impartial journalism.”
It is why I stopped watching Question Time. The BBC seem to make it a priority to give equal air time to experts/professionals and completely wacko Brexit nut jobs.
"Peston said he consistently said on ITV News that leaving the EU would make the UK poorer. “Not massively poorer. I thought the Project Fear bit of the government’s campaign was overdone. But poorer.”
The hysteria of the Remain camp is based on the Project Fear message from the Establishment that "poorer" means the UK economy will be trashed if we leave the EU. So Peston would agree with me, it's misinformation. The projected drag on GDP over 30 years with a no deal Brexit was calculated by the Treasury in 2016 as a 6% drag on GDP which was presented as every household being £4,300 worse off. It has now moved to 8% over 15 years.
On the same basis the Treasury could have told us in 2008, had it been able to predict the drag on GDP of 20% to date, that every household will be £14,000 worse off by 2018. (£14k is a bit of guesstimate but it would be of that sort of order). That drag is the result of none of the anticipated 3% wage growth emerging and the prevailing levels of company investment not increasing in line with historic rates. Nor does GDP growth correlate to growth in spendable income - more misinformation avidly bought into unchallenged by Remainers. Instead of intelligently challenging the propaganda, Brexiteers made the mistake of saying the figures were made up. It's the propaganda use of the numbers which is the problem, not the numbers themselves.
An 8% drag over 15 years is liable to be impacted by 101 other events within and without our control. So fixating on Brexit as the number one danger for our economy is just plain Project Fear, but it seems an entrenched belief that Brexit will destroy any possibility of the UK economy growing.
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
The difference between the rate of GDP drag with a deal or no-deal is, according to the Treasury forecasts, a few percentage points, a few hundred pounds "per household" nonsense if you like, hardly worth accepting a half-baked Brexit for. The main difference will be on the extent of disruption in reorganisation of services and procedures for business.
You have been flogging this nonsense that Brexit will have an impact on the UK economy no greater than the impact of other big events in the past or in the future for about a year now. Are these forcasts from the idiot 2 or 3 Brexit economists we see rolled out every few months. Have you any evidence to back up your claims?
You seem to have lost track of the debate. Dismissing anything negative about Brexit as Project Fear worked during the referendum but since then the debate has been overtaken by events, facts and truth.
I don't know how many jobs you, or the forcasters you quote, are responsible for creating. I suspect the answer is zero. I do know that the people running small, medium and large manufacturing businesses in the UK responsible for creating 100s of thousands of jobs are unanimous in their view of how disastrous any kind of Brexit, let alone a bad Brexit, will be for the economy and all these jobs. You can't dismiss the views of the people who run these businesses as Project Fear or just more forecasts from so called experts that may or may not turn out to be correct. These people are not making forecasts. They are simply telling us what decisions they will be forced to take in the event of a Brexit that leaves us outside the customs Union and single market and without the benefits of frictionless trade.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that. Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition. Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal. OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day? If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people. We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
Actually,to help @Dippenhall out, perhaps you could all look around your gaffs and identify products made in the UK by non-"global giants" that ought to be competitive in export markets. Believe me, I really try hard to buy British myself. As discussed before, I do have hi-fi from Creek, Kef and a Cambridge Audio competitor to Bose as a Bluetooth speaker. But also a Sonos Connect (US) and a Czech turntable. We have some Denby crockery, and some Dartington crystal glass. And as far as I can see, that's it. On the AV side its Korean, Japanese and Dutch. Furniture various (big ticket stuff Danish, Italian) but not British. (maybe getting a new British bed actually but still not chosen) Nearly all the kitchen appliances large and small are German, as is the vacuum cleaner. Same with the garden machinery from lawnmower to small tools. CH Boiler French. Bathroom fittings German. Bikes all Czech. French car.
Oh..I do have an electricity smart meter made by a company called The Owl. However it cost me a shed load of money to get it installed since it wasn't designed to work with continental wiring systems. And it uses up three batteries in about 4 weeks.
So what are these "90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers" ? What do they make? And why are none of their products in my house?
Ah, good. Welcome back. You dodged the question last time, so let me ask you again. In respect of the following statement of yours:
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
Why do we need to Brexit in order to force governments to do this? The Germans after all have been doing it for years with their Mittelstanden. The link will lead you to the many examples of such companies. I'm looking at one on my desk right now, my Sennheiser headphones. Do we have so many such companies, making stuff so good that the world wants to buy it? And if so, how is the EU preventing them from flourishing? And please don't just start quoting James Dyson, maker of over-priced machines that don't sell in Europe because people prefer Bosch or Miele.
We don't "need" Brexit, but Brexit will drive different priorities. If government's are not under pressure they just piss about engineering political capital. Brexit will be a challenge and force new thinking to solve new problems and changes that otherwise wouldn't be on the agenda.
Brexit will destroy any complacency that exists in UK business and business will be forced to look for new markets, provide more production to serve the internal UK market and improve productivity by capital investment, not improve profits by reducing costs with cheap imported labour.
Other countries like Germany are way ahead of us in many aspects of business, they have better management, employees have an interest as stakeholder in their business, their pensions are funded directly from the equity in their own company, so things can get done, changes can be made, that wouldn't get off the ground in the UK with the bosses v employees culture. Germany has a far greater manufacturing capability as a result of access to raw materials and is much less dependent on services and consumerism to drive their economy, so it's pointless keep comparing what Germany can do and what the UK does.
You shouldn't fall into the Unicorn rider's view that the EU is, or can ever create, a homogenous group of countries all with the same opportunities and challenges governed by rules set by the lowest common denominator.
Trade is only one component of what drives the UK economy and EU trade is but a minority component of UK trade, not the be all and end all as is being portrayed.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that. Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition. Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal. OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day? If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people. We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
As I've said before, aviation should be one of the more straightforward issues to deal with. If the EU will allow non-EU member countries likes Bosnia, Albania, Iceland and Serbia to be members of the ECAA but not the UK then things have come to a very bad state indeed. That's just being wilfully difficult for the sake of it.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that. Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition. Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal. OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day? If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people. We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
As I've said before, aviation should be one of the more straightforward issues to deal with. If the EU will allow non-EU member countries likes Bosnia, Albania, Iceland and Serbia to be members of the ECAA but not the UK then things have come to a very bad state indeed. That's just being wilfully difficult for the sake of it.
I think that @seth plum's argument is that such access requires, for want of a better and more pithy word, a deal, because those third countries have negotiated membership of the ECAA (possibly, even as part of the EU accession process).
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that. Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition. Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal. OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day? If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people. We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
As I've said before, aviation should be one of the more straightforward issues to deal with. If the EU will allow non-EU member countries likes Bosnia, Albania, Iceland and Serbia to be members of the ECAA but not the UK then things have come to a very bad state indeed. That's just being wilfully difficult for the sake of it.
The point I make here is that if there is no deal we are out. So how does that square with no deal is better than a bad deal? Nobody is being wilfully difficult here, the UK triggered Article 50, and in negotiations says it is planning for a no deal. In that scenario what happens with aviation?
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that. Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition. Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal. OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day? If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people. We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
As I've said before, aviation should be one of the more straightforward issues to deal with. If the EU will allow non-EU member countries likes Bosnia, Albania, Iceland and Serbia to be members of the ECAA but not the UK then things have come to a very bad state indeed. That's just being wilfully difficult for the sake of it.
The point I make here is that if there is no deal we are out. So how does that square with no deal is better than a bad deal? Nobody is being wilfully difficult here, the UK triggered Article 50, and in negotiations says it is planning for a no deal. In that scenario what happens with aviation?
Had no chance to read it and it may be utter bolox, but this is the white paper.
Ah, good. Welcome back. You dodged the question last time, so let me ask you again. In respect of the following statement of yours:
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
Why do we need to Brexit in order to force governments to do this? The Germans after all have been doing it for years with their Mittelstanden. The link will lead you to the many examples of such companies. I'm looking at one on my desk right now, my Sennheiser headphones. Do we have so many such companies, making stuff so good that the world wants to buy it? And if so, how is the EU preventing them from flourishing? And please don't just start quoting James Dyson, maker of over-priced machines that don't sell in Europe because people prefer Bosch or Miele.
We don't "need" Brexit, but Brexit will drive different priorities. If government's are not under pressure they just piss about engineering political capital. Brexit will be a challenge and force new thinking to solve new problems and changes that otherwise wouldn't be on the agenda.
Brexit will destroy any complacency that exists in UK business and business will be forced to look for new markets, provide more production to serve the internal UK market and improve productivity by capital investment, not improve profits by reducing costs with cheap imported labour.
Other countries like Germany are way ahead of us in many aspects of business, they have better management, employees have an interest as stakeholder in their business, their pensions are funded directly from the equity in their own company, so things can get done, changes can be made, that wouldn't get off the ground in the UK with the bosses v employees culture. Germany has a far greater manufacturing capability as a result of access to raw materials and is much less dependent on services and consumerism to drive their economy, so it's pointless keep comparing what Germany can do and what the UK does.
You shouldn't fall into the Unicorn rider's view that the EU is, or can ever create, a homogenous group of countries all with the same opportunities and challenges governed by rules set by the lowest common denominator.
Trade is only one component of what drives the UK economy and EU trade is but a minority component of UK trade, not the be all and end all as is being portrayed.
Your perspective is similar to those arguing against climate change! First leaving the EU (using fossil fuels) won't make a difference. Then the difference isn't that important: "the EU is but a minority component of UK trade" when it's actually around 43% of exports.
And finally you maintain that being in the EU leads to some form of complacency?
The only complacency that has mattered has been that of both Labour and Conservative governments who have neglected the regions and infrastructure. Add to that the failure to improve productivity over the last decade and there's an issue. Given that financial services earn an enormous amount per worker, the possibility of 10-20% of the City gently migrating to the EU is a real threat to the UK economy and the exchanger.
Sure it's "only a minority" Just as losing 0.5% of GDP growth is "only a minority"!
If 0.5% of GDP wasn't an issue then we wouldn't be witnessing a bun fight over in Italy as the new government seeks approval for its budget.
For those unaware the populists, some of whom share platforms with Le Pen and Bannan are being accused of being equally blase about GDP numbers - this time their forecasts are being accused of being nowhere near reality.
There's a common theme as a particular brand of politics seeks to move further and further away from sober analysis and experts and simply makes things up.
And the League, ERG and Johnson are all queuing up to blame the EU even before things start to go wrong.
As we enter Q4 we at least have the ability to look at real numbers, polls and sensible analysis just as both the UK and Italian governments hit turbulent waters. One wonders which government will last longest?!
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that. Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition. Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal. OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day? If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people. We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
As I've said before, aviation should be one of the more straightforward issues to deal with. If the EU will allow non-EU member countries likes Bosnia, Albania, Iceland and Serbia to be members of the ECAA but not the UK then things have come to a very bad state indeed. That's just being wilfully difficult for the sake of it.
The point I make here is that if there is no deal we are out. So how does that square with no deal is better than a bad deal? Nobody is being wilfully difficult here, the UK triggered Article 50, and in negotiations says it is planning for a no deal. In that scenario what happens with aviation?
I say "should". I would also say the EU are being difficult over aviation. They are not permitting the EASA to conduct technical negotiations with the CAA, who have already stated that they would continue to recognise all EU safety licensing.
It's all part of Barnier's 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' negotiating tactics. When UK and EU aviation is currently in a position of regulatory equivalence what is to be gained by refusing to continue? Practically, nothing. Politically, on the other hand...
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that. Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition. Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal. OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day? If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people. We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
As I've said before, aviation should be one of the more straightforward issues to deal with. If the EU will allow non-EU member countries likes Bosnia, Albania, Iceland and Serbia to be members of the ECAA but not the UK then things have come to a very bad state indeed. That's just being wilfully difficult for the sake of it.
The point I make here is that if there is no deal we are out. So how does that square with no deal is better than a bad deal? Nobody is being wilfully difficult here, the UK triggered Article 50, and in negotiations says it is planning for a no deal. In that scenario what happens with aviation?
Had no chance to read it and it may be utter bolox, but this is the white paper.
I have skimmed the white paper and it does not radiate a lot of confidence. A lot of 'existing stuff remaining valid', but there are time limitations, and any non pre existing new stuff will have to be sorted afresh from the 29 March 2019.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that. Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition. Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal. OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day? If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people. We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
As I've said before, aviation should be one of the more straightforward issues to deal with. If the EU will allow non-EU member countries likes Bosnia, Albania, Iceland and Serbia to be members of the ECAA but not the UK then things have come to a very bad state indeed. That's just being wilfully difficult for the sake of it.
The point I make here is that if there is no deal we are out. So how does that square with no deal is better than a bad deal? Nobody is being wilfully difficult here, the UK triggered Article 50, and in negotiations says it is planning for a no deal. In that scenario what happens with aviation?
I say "should". I would also say the EU are being difficult over aviation. They are not permitting the EASA to conduct technical negotiations with the CAA, who have already stated that they would continue to recognise all EU safety licensing.
It's all part of Barnier's 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' negotiating tactics. When UK and EU aviation is currently in a position of regulatory equivalence what is to be gained by refusing to continue? Practically, nothing. Politically, on the other hand...
I think you are suggesting here that there has to be a deal, which is my basic point. In a no deal scenario, invited on by the brexit referendum vote not by the actions of the EU, the landscape changes. I don't think you are saying the UK can leave without a deal but with a deal at the same time...or are you?
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that. Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition. Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal. OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day? If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people. We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
As I've said before, aviation should be one of the more straightforward issues to deal with. If the EU will allow non-EU member countries likes Bosnia, Albania, Iceland and Serbia to be members of the ECAA but not the UK then things have come to a very bad state indeed. That's just being wilfully difficult for the sake of it.
The point I make here is that if there is no deal we are out. So how does that square with no deal is better than a bad deal? Nobody is being wilfully difficult here, the UK triggered Article 50, and in negotiations says it is planning for a no deal. In that scenario what happens with aviation?
I say "should". I would also say the EU are being difficult over aviation. They are not permitting the EASA to conduct technical negotiations with the CAA, who have already stated that they would continue to recognise all EU safety licensing.
It's all part of Barnier's 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' negotiating tactics. When UK and EU aviation is currently in a position of regulatory equivalence what is to be gained by refusing to continue? Practically, nothing. Politically, on the other hand...
I think you are suggesting here that there has to be a deal, which is my basic point. In a no deal scenario, invited on by the brexit referendum vote not by the actions of the EU, the landscape changes. I don't think you are saying the UK can leave without a deal but with a deal at the same time...or are you?
I'm saying there should be a deal, and as far as aviation goes it should be one of the more straightforward issues to address. What I am also pointing out is that the EU are pushing their brinkmanship over "THE DEAL" too far. Time is getting on and yet the EU will not permit the EASA to conduct technical negotiations with the CAA - to what end? Other than to exert political pressure over the rest of the deal they want. I would refute your comment that a 'no deal' is the entirely the fault of the referendum and not the EU. No deal is a failure of negotiation. In any negotiation it's incumbent on both parties to seek compromise and mutual benefit, otherwise it's just a case of intransigence, dictation and surrender.
Actually,to help @Dippenhall out, perhaps you could all look around your gaffs and identify products made in the UK by non-"global giants" that ought to be competitive in export markets. Believe me, I really try hard to buy British myself. As discussed before, I do have hi-fi from Creek, Kef and a Cambridge Audio competitor to Bose as a Bluetooth speaker. But also a Sonos Connect (US) and a Czech turntable. We have some Denby crockery, and some Dartington crystal glass. And as far as I can see, that's it. On the AV side its Korean, Japanese and Dutch. Furniture various (big ticket stuff Danish, Italian) but not British. (maybe getting a new British bed actually but still not chosen) Nearly all the kitchen appliances large and small are German, as is the vacuum cleaner. Same with the garden machinery from lawnmower to small tools. CH Boiler French. Bathroom fittings German. Bikes all Czech. French car.
Oh..I do have an electricity smart meter made by a company called The Owl. However it cost me a shed load of money to get it installed since it wasn't designed to work with continental wiring systems. And it uses up three batteries in about 4 weeks.
So what are these "90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers" ? What do they make? And why are none of their products in my house?
If we produce goods people want to buy we will sell them. Germany is in the EU and it does pretty well exporting its products all over the world. Quite a few countries in the EU do significantly better than us in this respect including Italy!
We do well making things for foreign companies such as Nissan that feel it is afvantageous to build their cars here. I always thought a major reason for this was common knowledge! But it was lost on the people of Sunderland in which Nissan is an important business!
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that. Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition. Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal. OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day? If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people. We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
As I've said before, aviation should be one of the more straightforward issues to deal with. If the EU will allow non-EU member countries likes Bosnia, Albania, Iceland and Serbia to be members of the ECAA but not the UK then things have come to a very bad state indeed. That's just being wilfully difficult for the sake of it.
The point I make here is that if there is no deal we are out. So how does that square with no deal is better than a bad deal? Nobody is being wilfully difficult here, the UK triggered Article 50, and in negotiations says it is planning for a no deal. In that scenario what happens with aviation?
I say "should". I would also say the EU are being difficult over aviation. They are not permitting the EASA to conduct technical negotiations with the CAA, who have already stated that they would continue to recognise all EU safety licensing.
It's all part of Barnier's 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' negotiating tactics. When UK and EU aviation is currently in a position of regulatory equivalence what is to be gained by refusing to continue? Practically, nothing. Politically, on the other hand...
I think you are suggesting here that there has to be a deal, which is my basic point. In a no deal scenario, invited on by the brexit referendum vote not by the actions of the EU, the landscape changes. I don't think you are saying the UK can leave without a deal but with a deal at the same time...or are you?
I'm saying there should be a deal, and as far as aviation goes it should be one of the more straightforward issues to address. What I am also pointing out is that the EU are pushing their brinkmanship over "THE DEAL" too far. Time is getting on and yet the EU will not permit the EASA to conduct technical negotiations with the CAA - to what end? Other than to exert political pressure over the rest of the deal they want. I would refute your comment that a 'no deal' is the entirely the fault of the referendum and not the EU. No deal is a failure of negotiation. In any negotiation it's incumbent on both parties to seek compromise and mutual benefit, otherwise it's just a case of intransigence, dictation and surrender.
If it helps, the EU position is, and has been (at least since March 2017), that the terms of exit have to be negotiated before post-exit agreements - hence the early statements of no side deals.
It's quite straightforward, they've been open about it, and have taken this course because they want to avoid ambiguity, chaos even, in negotiations - which is precisely what some in the Tories want, because they believe it would benefit them, just as they seem to believe (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that the EU will negotiate Brexit right up until 29 March 2019. It's like the difference between proper project management and bluffers winging it in IT or infrastructure projects.
The EU is a rules-based, legally-centred entity, it is only natural that it establishes structures in which to operate in negotiations just as with everything else.
Dippenhall the Germans are to be admired for more than their management ethos. Four major car manufacturers for instance, some partially manufacturing here, or at least until March. What makes you think Brexit is going to lead to some new employee utopia? Who do you think will pay for GDP "slipage"?
@Dippenhall. You acknowledge a lot of things that Germany does better than us. And if we did copy some of their approach and practices, you seem to agree that the British economy would benefit. So why do we have to Leave, in order to learn these lessons? Well you seem to argue that Brexit will be such a shock to the British business sector that they will have to sharpen up or perish. Ah, so there WILL be a shock, then? Have you told messrs Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Davis, Hannan et al, because they all say it's a breeze.
Now, when it comes to services, especially financial services,we have a lot we could teach the Germans and all the rest of them. Again from personal experience..I know that in a British context you are a critic but there is nothing on the Continent to match the investment platforms of Hargreaves Lansdowne and Fidelity UK. What a pity then that the U.K. is not staying to push for the completion of the single market in such services. HL would clean up. This is the stuff we have become "good" at, but it's not easily exportable, is it? To the EU or anywhere else...
When you are given a job by the prime minister you don't petulantly threaten to resign as he did even before he actually resigned. You try to implement the will of your government. He always seemed to me to be following his own agenda and shouldn't have taken the role on in the first place!
Weren’t there lots of rumours that he was thick, as in actually stupid thick?
I don't buy this thick (as in stupidly thick) politician business. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I don't think they are as prevalent or as prominent as they get painted. They might not be the intelligentsia, but I'm sure the vast majority have perfectly reasonable levels of comprehension. In the case of Davis he's got a degree from Warwick, a masters from the London Business School and went on to study at Harvard. I don't think he'd have managed that being 'stupid thick'. Of course, that could have been paid for by having a privileged birthright, but it seems doubtful as he was brought up by a single mother on a council estate. I have no desire to sit here and defend tory bexiteers, but I think the remain camp can do far better than passing on cheap slanders.
I agree that politicians are not "thick" by any reasonable standards of those of us in this or similar general public forums. In Johnson's case the charge is rather that he cannot be arsed with detail, but prefers his "visions". That is arrogance, entitlement, but certainly not thickness. Davis seems to have a problem of not being sufficiently neurotic to see the problems that might lurk around the corner. So he too does not do the detail but for a slightly different reason. Thus he though Brexit would be a breeze.
It happens at every level in politics. I say this having assiduously watched some GLA meetings in connection with the Olympic Stadium. Gareth Bacon is not thick. He is a Johnson man, and he is sharp. He just has the typical mentality of a certain type Tory politician. Len Duvall seems to me to be genuinely thick, or otherwise doing an impression of a taxi-driver, but I am assured he is neither. Some of the other Assembly people who were discussing the Stadium in the committee for the first time and clearly had not bothered to master the detail. Caroline Pidgeon on the other hand is both intelligent (n the sense of quick on the uptake) and master of her brief. That's an ideal politician for me.
Yes, it all seems very reasonable on the face of it. It's how the EU work. Rigidly stick to their self imposed rules forcing agreements to the very last minute through a combination of stubborn adherence to their rules and brinkmanship. I always find it ironic that the EU is a rules based organisation but is quite prepared to bend and break its own rules whenever it suits though. Germany and France persistently break GDP/debt with no sanction whatsoever, state bailouts of Italian banks, allowing Greek banks to use worthless government bonds as collateral to borrow from the ECB, Martin Selmayr's dodgy appointment.
You don't "need" the amputation, Mr Smith. But amputation will drive different priorities. Amputation will be a challenge and force new thinking to solve new problems and changes that otherwise wouldn't be on the agenda.
Amputation will destroy any complacency that exists and you'll be forced to look for new means of perambulation.
Other people are way ahead of you in many aspects of they way they walk. They have better - and, frankly, more - legs. So walking and running get done.
You shouldn't fall into the unicorn rider's view that being a biped would is the only means of getting from place to place. In fact, being a unicorn rider might be a good way forward for you. Literally.
Walking is only one component of what you do, but it's a minority component, not the be all and end all as is sometimes portrayed. And think of the saving you'll make on socks.
"Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people one of whom says the world is flat and the other one says the world is round. That is not balanced, impartial journalism.”
It is why I stopped watching Question Time. The BBC seem to make it a priority to give equal air time to experts/professionals and completely wacko Brexit nut jobs.
"Peston said he consistently said on ITV News that leaving the EU would make the UK poorer. “Not massively poorer. I thought the Project Fear bit of the government’s campaign was overdone. But poorer.”
The hysteria of the Remain camp is based on the Project Fear message from the Establishment that "poorer" means the UK economy will be trashed if we leave the EU. So Peston would agree with me, it's misinformation. The projected drag on GDP over 30 years with a no deal Brexit was calculated by the Treasury in 2016 as a 6% drag on GDP which was presented as every household being £4,300 worse off. It has now moved to 8% over 15 years.
On the same basis the Treasury could have told us in 2008, had it been able to predict the drag on GDP of 20% to date, that every household will be £14,000 worse off by 2018. (£14k is a bit of guesstimate but it would be of that sort of order). That drag is the result of none of the anticipated 3% wage growth emerging and the prevailing levels of company investment not increasing in line with historic rates. Nor does GDP growth correlate to growth in spendable income - more misinformation avidly bought into unchallenged by Remainers. Instead of intelligently challenging the propaganda, Brexiteers made the mistake of saying the figures were made up. It's the propaganda use of the numbers which is the problem, not the numbers themselves.
An 8% drag over 15 years is liable to be impacted by 101 other events within and without our control. So fixating on Brexit as the number one danger for our economy is just plain Project Fear, but it seems an entrenched belief that Brexit will destroy any possibility of the UK economy growing.
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
The difference between the rate of GDP drag with a deal or no-deal is, according to the Treasury forecasts, a few percentage points, a few hundred pounds "per household" nonsense if you like, hardly worth accepting a half-baked Brexit for. The main difference will be on the extent of disruption in reorganisation of services and procedures for business.
You have been flogging this nonsense that Brexit will have an impact on the UK economy no greater than the impact of other big events in the past or in the future for about a year now. Are these forcasts from the idiot 2 or 3 Brexit economists we see rolled out every few months. Have you any evidence to back up your claims?
You seem to have lost track of the debate. Dismissing anything negative about Brexit as Project Fear worked during the referendum but since then the debate has been overtaken by events, facts and truth.
I don't know how many jobs you, or the forcasters you quote, are responsible for creating. I suspect the answer is zero. I do know that the people running small, medium and large manufacturing businesses in the UK responsible for creating 100s of thousands of jobs are unanimous in their view of how disastrous any kind of Brexit, let alone a bad Brexit, will be for the economy and all these jobs. You can't dismiss the views of the people who run these businesses as Project Fear or just more forecasts from so called experts that may or may not turn out to be correct. These people are not making forecasts. They are simply telling us what decisions they will be forced to take in the event of a Brexit that leaves us outside the customs Union and single market and without the benefits of frictionless trade.
I run a small business and the Brexit vote has had no impact on my business, in fact this year is the best one for ages. So we business owners are not unanimous I am afraid. I know many other business owners who say the same thing.
In fact, if you knew nothing about Brexit and avoided the media you would not see any appreciable difference in daily life in the UK between May 2016 and today, except there are fewer people unemployed. Wages are still stagnating, the NHS still has problems and the trains do not run on time. Plus ca change.
Hysterics like yourself appear increasingly eccentric when you claim we are all doomed. The problems we face here preceded Brexit and will carry on after it. The only real difference will be that our political class will no longer have the EU as a scapegoat.
"Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people one of whom says the world is flat and the other one says the world is round. That is not balanced, impartial journalism.”
It is why I stopped watching Question Time. The BBC seem to make it a priority to give equal air time to experts/professionals and completely wacko Brexit nut jobs.
"Peston said he consistently said on ITV News that leaving the EU would make the UK poorer. “Not massively poorer. I thought the Project Fear bit of the government’s campaign was overdone. But poorer.”
The hysteria of the Remain camp is based on the Project Fear message from the Establishment that "poorer" means the UK economy will be trashed if we leave the EU. So Peston would agree with me, it's misinformation. The projected drag on GDP over 30 years with a no deal Brexit was calculated by the Treasury in 2016 as a 6% drag on GDP which was presented as every household being £4,300 worse off. It has now moved to 8% over 15 years.
On the same basis the Treasury could have told us in 2008, had it been able to predict the drag on GDP of 20% to date, that every household will be £14,000 worse off by 2018. (£14k is a bit of guesstimate but it would be of that sort of order). That drag is the result of none of the anticipated 3% wage growth emerging and the prevailing levels of company investment not increasing in line with historic rates. Nor does GDP growth correlate to growth in spendable income - more misinformation avidly bought into unchallenged by Remainers. Instead of intelligently challenging the propaganda, Brexiteers made the mistake of saying the figures were made up. It's the propaganda use of the numbers which is the problem, not the numbers themselves.
An 8% drag over 15 years is liable to be impacted by 101 other events within and without our control. So fixating on Brexit as the number one danger for our economy is just plain Project Fear, but it seems an entrenched belief that Brexit will destroy any possibility of the UK economy growing.
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
The difference between the rate of GDP drag with a deal or no-deal is, according to the Treasury forecasts, a few percentage points, a few hundred pounds "per household" nonsense if you like, hardly worth accepting a half-baked Brexit for. The main difference will be on the extent of disruption in reorganisation of services and procedures for business.
You have been flogging this nonsense that Brexit will have an impact on the UK economy no greater than the impact of other big events in the past or in the future for about a year now. Are these forcasts from the idiot 2 or 3 Brexit economists we see rolled out every few months. Have you any evidence to back up your claims?
You seem to have lost track of the debate. Dismissing anything negative about Brexit as Project Fear worked during the referendum but since then the debate has been overtaken by events, facts and truth.
I don't know how many jobs you, or the forcasters you quote, are responsible for creating. I suspect the answer is zero. I do know that the people running small, medium and large manufacturing businesses in the UK responsible for creating 100s of thousands of jobs are unanimous in their view of how disastrous any kind of Brexit, let alone a bad Brexit, will be for the economy and all these jobs. You can't dismiss the views of the people who run these businesses as Project Fear or just more forecasts from so called experts that may or may not turn out to be correct. These people are not making forecasts. They are simply telling us what decisions they will be forced to take in the event of a Brexit that leaves us outside the customs Union and single market and without the benefits of frictionless trade.
I run a small business and the Brexit vote has had no impact on my business, in fact this year is the best one for ages. So we business owners are not unanimous I am afraid. I know many other business owners who say the same thing.
In fact, if you knew nothing about Brexit and avoided the media you would not see any appreciable difference in daily life in the UK between May 2016 and today, except there are fewer people unemployed. Wages are still stagnating, the NHS still has problems and the trains do not run on time. Plus ca change.
Hysterics like yourself appear increasingly eccentric when you claim we are all doomed. The problems we face here preceded Brexit and will carry on after it. The only real difference will be that our political class will no longer have the EU as a scapegoat.
Anecdotes is not the plural of data. But, it will be interesting to see which businesses suffer the consequences of Brexit if it were to go ahead. And which of their suppliers and customers do too.
Yes, it all seems very reasonable on the face of it. It's how the EU work. Rigidly stick to their self imposed rules forcing agreements to the very last minute through a combination of stubborn adherence to their rules and brinkmanship. I always find it ironic that the EU is a rules based organisation but is quite prepared to bend and break its own rules whenever it suits though. Germany and France persistently break GDP/debt with no sanction whatsoever, state bailouts of Italian banks, allowing Greek banks to use worthless government bonds as collateral to borrow from the ECB, Martin Selmayr's dodgy appointment.
If the members agree to flexibility, the EU is flexible, if the members do not then it isn't. And it is clear that the EU has, historically, sought to continue negotiations, internally and externally, until such a time as an acceptable compromise can be arrived at, it happened with the Lisbon Treaty, and with CETA, etc. It's possible to consider that tendency on the part of the EU to be laudable, rather than a cause of complaint. However, it is clear that they won't continue negotiations for the sake of it.
But, I don't really see the problem of being flexible to suit the needs of member states, so, allowing for bailouts of Italian banks is, in my view, much less heinous than allowing them collapse and wipe out ordinary peoples' savings. Nor do I see the idea of accepting Greek Government bonds as collateral for loans that Greek banks desperately needed as a terrible thing (but then, I should stress that the ECB is not the EU as a whole, and does have operational independence).
A person might even come to think that the EU and its institutions actually sought to benefit its members...
"Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people one of whom says the world is flat and the other one says the world is round. That is not balanced, impartial journalism.”
It is why I stopped watching Question Time. The BBC seem to make it a priority to give equal air time to experts/professionals and completely wacko Brexit nut jobs.
"Peston said he consistently said on ITV News that leaving the EU would make the UK poorer. “Not massively poorer. I thought the Project Fear bit of the government’s campaign was overdone. But poorer.”
The hysteria of the Remain camp is based on the Project Fear message from the Establishment that "poorer" means the UK economy will be trashed if we leave the EU. So Peston would agree with me, it's misinformation. The projected drag on GDP over 30 years with a no deal Brexit was calculated by the Treasury in 2016 as a 6% drag on GDP which was presented as every household being £4,300 worse off. It has now moved to 8% over 15 years.
On the same basis the Treasury could have told us in 2008, had it been able to predict the drag on GDP of 20% to date, that every household will be £14,000 worse off by 2018. (£14k is a bit of guesstimate but it would be of that sort of order). That drag is the result of none of the anticipated 3% wage growth emerging and the prevailing levels of company investment not increasing in line with historic rates. Nor does GDP growth correlate to growth in spendable income - more misinformation avidly bought into unchallenged by Remainers. Instead of intelligently challenging the propaganda, Brexiteers made the mistake of saying the figures were made up. It's the propaganda use of the numbers which is the problem, not the numbers themselves.
An 8% drag over 15 years is liable to be impacted by 101 other events within and without our control. So fixating on Brexit as the number one danger for our economy is just plain Project Fear, but it seems an entrenched belief that Brexit will destroy any possibility of the UK economy growing.
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
The difference between the rate of GDP drag with a deal or no-deal is, according to the Treasury forecasts, a few percentage points, a few hundred pounds "per household" nonsense if you like, hardly worth accepting a half-baked Brexit for. The main difference will be on the extent of disruption in reorganisation of services and procedures for business.
You have been flogging this nonsense that Brexit will have an impact on the UK economy no greater than the impact of other big events in the past or in the future for about a year now. Are these forcasts from the idiot 2 or 3 Brexit economists we see rolled out every few months. Have you any evidence to back up your claims?
You seem to have lost track of the debate. Dismissing anything negative about Brexit as Project Fear worked during the referendum but since then the debate has been overtaken by events, facts and truth.
I don't know how many jobs you, or the forcasters you quote, are responsible for creating. I suspect the answer is zero. I do know that the people running small, medium and large manufacturing businesses in the UK responsible for creating 100s of thousands of jobs are unanimous in their view of how disastrous any kind of Brexit, let alone a bad Brexit, will be for the economy and all these jobs. You can't dismiss the views of the people who run these businesses as Project Fear or just more forecasts from so called experts that may or may not turn out to be correct. These people are not making forecasts. They are simply telling us what decisions they will be forced to take in the event of a Brexit that leaves us outside the customs Union and single market and without the benefits of frictionless trade.
I run a small business and the Brexit vote has had no impact on my business, in fact this year is the best one for ages. So we business owners are not unanimous I am afraid. I know many other business owners who say the same thing.
In fact, if you knew nothing about Brexit and avoided the media you would not see any appreciable difference in daily life in the UK between May 2016 and today, except there are fewer people unemployed. Wages are still stagnating, the NHS still has problems and the trains do not run on time. Plus ca change.
Hysterics like yourself appear increasingly eccentric when you claim we are all doomed. The problems we face here preceded Brexit and will carry on after it. The only real difference will be that our political class will no longer have the EU as a scapegoat.
Anecdotes is not the plural of data. But, it will be interesting to see which businesses suffer the consequences of Brexit if it were to go ahead. And which of their suppliers and customers do too.
I was simply challenging the word 'unanimous'. And even if you do not like anecdotes, the fact that there is near full employment and lower net immigration has contributed to my workers having substantial pay rises in order for us to retain them.
Yes, it all seems very reasonable on the face of it. It's how the EU work. Rigidly stick to their self imposed rules forcing agreements to the very last minute through a combination of stubborn adherence to their rules and brinkmanship. I always find it ironic that the EU is a rules based organisation but is quite prepared to bend and break its own rules whenever it suits though. Germany and France persistently break GDP/debt with no sanction whatsoever, state bailouts of Italian banks, allowing Greek banks to use worthless government bonds as collateral to borrow from the ECB, Martin Selmayr's dodgy appointment.
Is it not also somewhat ironic that the EU you described has been heavily shaped by the UK, including it's rules based approach?
Until the signing of article 50 there was as much blood on the hands of the UK as any other EU country, indeed more in terms of UK participation in EU agencies.
There may have been some massive package of new rules introduced by the EU since the UK signed article 50, but I am not aware of them. As for the other rules, well they are or should be no surprise to the UK.
You mention stubborn adherence to the EU being itself, but wish to also mention stuff that you highlight as rule bending/breaking and even hypocrisy by individual states and the EU institutionally. Reminds me of the example of a motorist at the side of the road being done by the police for speeding, but pointing to all the other vehicles speeding past on the carriageway and saying 'what about them then?' What is the officer supposed to do? Say 'I see your point, they're speeding too so I should let you off.'?
The UK can't divorce the EU but insist the EU has plastic surgery whilst they're at it. The EU is there, warts and all, and the UK has chosen to leave it. The UK has to deal with the EU and those pesky rules that the UK knows full well about, that is the reality however much some folk would like it to be different.
"Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people one of whom says the world is flat and the other one says the world is round. That is not balanced, impartial journalism.”
It is why I stopped watching Question Time. The BBC seem to make it a priority to give equal air time to experts/professionals and completely wacko Brexit nut jobs.
"Peston said he consistently said on ITV News that leaving the EU would make the UK poorer. “Not massively poorer. I thought the Project Fear bit of the government’s campaign was overdone. But poorer.”
The hysteria of the Remain camp is based on the Project Fear message from the Establishment that "poorer" means the UK economy will be trashed if we leave the EU. So Peston would agree with me, it's misinformation. The projected drag on GDP over 30 years with a no deal Brexit was calculated by the Treasury in 2016 as a 6% drag on GDP which was presented as every household being £4,300 worse off. It has now moved to 8% over 15 years.
On the same basis the Treasury could have told us in 2008, had it been able to predict the drag on GDP of 20% to date, that every household will be £14,000 worse off by 2018. (£14k is a bit of guesstimate but it would be of that sort of order). That drag is the result of none of the anticipated 3% wage growth emerging and the prevailing levels of company investment not increasing in line with historic rates. Nor does GDP growth correlate to growth in spendable income - more misinformation avidly bought into unchallenged by Remainers. Instead of intelligently challenging the propaganda, Brexiteers made the mistake of saying the figures were made up. It's the propaganda use of the numbers which is the problem, not the numbers themselves.
An 8% drag over 15 years is liable to be impacted by 101 other events within and without our control. So fixating on Brexit as the number one danger for our economy is just plain Project Fear, but it seems an entrenched belief that Brexit will destroy any possibility of the UK economy growing.
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
The difference between the rate of GDP drag with a deal or no-deal is, according to the Treasury forecasts, a few percentage points, a few hundred pounds "per household" nonsense if you like, hardly worth accepting a half-baked Brexit for. The main difference will be on the extent of disruption in reorganisation of services and procedures for business.
You have been flogging this nonsense that Brexit will have an impact on the UK economy no greater than the impact of other big events in the past or in the future for about a year now. Are these forcasts from the idiot 2 or 3 Brexit economists we see rolled out every few months. Have you any evidence to back up your claims?
You seem to have lost track of the debate. Dismissing anything negative about Brexit as Project Fear worked during the referendum but since then the debate has been overtaken by events, facts and truth.
I don't know how many jobs you, or the forcasters you quote, are responsible for creating. I suspect the answer is zero. I do know that the people running small, medium and large manufacturing businesses in the UK responsible for creating 100s of thousands of jobs are unanimous in their view of how disastrous any kind of Brexit, let alone a bad Brexit, will be for the economy and all these jobs. You can't dismiss the views of the people who run these businesses as Project Fear or just more forecasts from so called experts that may or may not turn out to be correct. These people are not making forecasts. They are simply telling us what decisions they will be forced to take in the event of a Brexit that leaves us outside the customs Union and single market and without the benefits of frictionless trade.
I run a small business and the Brexit vote has had no impact on my business, in fact this year is the best one for ages. So we business owners are not unanimous I am afraid. I know many other business owners who say the same thing.
In fact, if you knew nothing about Brexit and avoided the media you would not see any appreciable difference in daily life in the UK between May 2016 and today, except there are fewer people unemployed. Wages are still stagnating, the NHS still has problems and the trains do not run on time. Plus ca change.
Hysterics like yourself appear increasingly eccentric when you claim we are all doomed. The problems we face here preceded Brexit and will carry on after it. The only real difference will be that our political class will no longer have the EU as a scapegoat.
Anecdotes is not the plural of data. But, it will be interesting to see which businesses suffer the consequences of Brexit if it were to go ahead. And which of their suppliers and customers do too.
I was simply challenging the word 'unanimous'. And even if you do not like anecdotes, the fact that there is near full employment and lower net immigration has contributed to my workers having substantial pay rises in order for us to retain them.
Do you think Brexit will be good or bad for your business?
"Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people one of whom says the world is flat and the other one says the world is round. That is not balanced, impartial journalism.”
It is why I stopped watching Question Time. The BBC seem to make it a priority to give equal air time to experts/professionals and completely wacko Brexit nut jobs.
"Peston said he consistently said on ITV News that leaving the EU would make the UK poorer. “Not massively poorer. I thought the Project Fear bit of the government’s campaign was overdone. But poorer.”
The hysteria of the Remain camp is based on the Project Fear message from the Establishment that "poorer" means the UK economy will be trashed if we leave the EU. So Peston would agree with me, it's misinformation. The projected drag on GDP over 30 years with a no deal Brexit was calculated by the Treasury in 2016 as a 6% drag on GDP which was presented as every household being £4,300 worse off. It has now moved to 8% over 15 years.
On the same basis the Treasury could have told us in 2008, had it been able to predict the drag on GDP of 20% to date, that every household will be £14,000 worse off by 2018. (£14k is a bit of guesstimate but it would be of that sort of order). That drag is the result of none of the anticipated 3% wage growth emerging and the prevailing levels of company investment not increasing in line with historic rates. Nor does GDP growth correlate to growth in spendable income - more misinformation avidly bought into unchallenged by Remainers. Instead of intelligently challenging the propaganda, Brexiteers made the mistake of saying the figures were made up. It's the propaganda use of the numbers which is the problem, not the numbers themselves.
An 8% drag over 15 years is liable to be impacted by 101 other events within and without our control. So fixating on Brexit as the number one danger for our economy is just plain Project Fear, but it seems an entrenched belief that Brexit will destroy any possibility of the UK economy growing.
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
The difference between the rate of GDP drag with a deal or no-deal is, according to the Treasury forecasts, a few percentage points, a few hundred pounds "per household" nonsense if you like, hardly worth accepting a half-baked Brexit for. The main difference will be on the extent of disruption in reorganisation of services and procedures for business.
You have been flogging this nonsense that Brexit will have an impact on the UK economy no greater than the impact of other big events in the past or in the future for about a year now. Are these forcasts from the idiot 2 or 3 Brexit economists we see rolled out every few months. Have you any evidence to back up your claims?
You seem to have lost track of the debate. Dismissing anything negative about Brexit as Project Fear worked during the referendum but since then the debate has been overtaken by events, facts and truth.
I don't know how many jobs you, or the forcasters you quote, are responsible for creating. I suspect the answer is zero. I do know that the people running small, medium and large manufacturing businesses in the UK responsible for creating 100s of thousands of jobs are unanimous in their view of how disastrous any kind of Brexit, let alone a bad Brexit, will be for the economy and all these jobs. You can't dismiss the views of the people who run these businesses as Project Fear or just more forecasts from so called experts that may or may not turn out to be correct. These people are not making forecasts. They are simply telling us what decisions they will be forced to take in the event of a Brexit that leaves us outside the customs Union and single market and without the benefits of frictionless trade.
I run a small business and the Brexit vote has had no impact on my business, in fact this year is the best one for ages. So we business owners are not unanimous I am afraid. I know many other business owners who say the same thing.
In fact, if you knew nothing about Brexit and avoided the media you would not see any appreciable difference in daily life in the UK between May 2016 and today, except there are fewer people unemployed. Wages are still stagnating, the NHS still has problems and the trains do not run on time. Plus ca change.
Hysterics like yourself appear increasingly eccentric when you claim we are all doomed. The problems we face here preceded Brexit and will carry on after it. The only real difference will be that our political class will no longer have the EU as a scapegoat.
I would have thought both your location within the UK and your area of economic activity would determine whether you see any appreciable difference.
For those businesses without any direct cross border relationship, or without a need to have products tested, the impact would be limited, but this will not be the case for many businesses that do have such relationships or needs.
In day to day life, change will only really be noticed by many after exiting the Single Market and Customs Union, when the costs associated with the introduction of tariff and regulatory barriers will be passed on to the consumer.
"Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people one of whom says the world is flat and the other one says the world is round. That is not balanced, impartial journalism.”
It is why I stopped watching Question Time. The BBC seem to make it a priority to give equal air time to experts/professionals and completely wacko Brexit nut jobs.
"Peston said he consistently said on ITV News that leaving the EU would make the UK poorer. “Not massively poorer. I thought the Project Fear bit of the government’s campaign was overdone. But poorer.”
The hysteria of the Remain camp is based on the Project Fear message from the Establishment that "poorer" means the UK economy will be trashed if we leave the EU. So Peston would agree with me, it's misinformation. The projected drag on GDP over 30 years with a no deal Brexit was calculated by the Treasury in 2016 as a 6% drag on GDP which was presented as every household being £4,300 worse off. It has now moved to 8% over 15 years.
On the same basis the Treasury could have told us in 2008, had it been able to predict the drag on GDP of 20% to date, that every household will be £14,000 worse off by 2018. (£14k is a bit of guesstimate but it would be of that sort of order). That drag is the result of none of the anticipated 3% wage growth emerging and the prevailing levels of company investment not increasing in line with historic rates. Nor does GDP growth correlate to growth in spendable income - more misinformation avidly bought into unchallenged by Remainers. Instead of intelligently challenging the propaganda, Brexiteers made the mistake of saying the figures were made up. It's the propaganda use of the numbers which is the problem, not the numbers themselves.
An 8% drag over 15 years is liable to be impacted by 101 other events within and without our control. So fixating on Brexit as the number one danger for our economy is just plain Project Fear, but it seems an entrenched belief that Brexit will destroy any possibility of the UK economy growing.
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
The difference between the rate of GDP drag with a deal or no-deal is, according to the Treasury forecasts, a few percentage points, a few hundred pounds "per household" nonsense if you like, hardly worth accepting a half-baked Brexit for. The main difference will be on the extent of disruption in reorganisation of services and procedures for business.
You have been flogging this nonsense that Brexit will have an impact on the UK economy no greater than the impact of other big events in the past or in the future for about a year now. Are these forcasts from the idiot 2 or 3 Brexit economists we see rolled out every few months. Have you any evidence to back up your claims?
You seem to have lost track of the debate. Dismissing anything negative about Brexit as Project Fear worked during the referendum but since then the debate has been overtaken by events, facts and truth.
I don't know how many jobs you, or the forcasters you quote, are responsible for creating. I suspect the answer is zero. I do know that the people running small, medium and large manufacturing businesses in the UK responsible for creating 100s of thousands of jobs are unanimous in their view of how disastrous any kind of Brexit, let alone a bad Brexit, will be for the economy and all these jobs. You can't dismiss the views of the people who run these businesses as Project Fear or just more forecasts from so called experts that may or may not turn out to be correct. These people are not making forecasts. They are simply telling us what decisions they will be forced to take in the event of a Brexit that leaves us outside the customs Union and single market and without the benefits of frictionless trade.
I run a small business and the Brexit vote has had no impact on my business, in fact this year is the best one for ages. So we business owners are not unanimous I am afraid. I know many other business owners who say the same thing.
In fact, if you knew nothing about Brexit and avoided the media you would not see any appreciable difference in daily life in the UK between May 2016 and today, except there are fewer people unemployed. Wages are still stagnating, the NHS still has problems and the trains do not run on time. Plus ca change.
Hysterics like yourself appear increasingly eccentric when you claim we are all doomed. The problems we face here preceded Brexit and will carry on after it. The only real difference will be that our political class will no longer have the EU as a scapegoat.
Firstly, as has has been stated many times on this thread...Brexit hasn't happened yet!
Secondly, hysterics like me are simply reacting to what the people who are running major manufacturing businesses have been saying over recent weeks about the serious impact that Brexit will have on their businesses and the many jobs these businesses provide. Are you saying the people running these businesses are being hysterical?
Maybe "unanimous" is the wrong word to use. But my impression is that the CBI and other organisations that represent small and medium size businesses as well as larger businesses are also warning against a Brexit that does not maintain continued frictionless access to the single market.
Comments
Ah, good. Welcome back. You dodged the question last time, so let me ask you again. In respect of the following statement of yours:
Brexit should force government to focus on solutions that help the 90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers and encourage exporting initiatives, instead of pandering to the global giants whose profits, in relative terms, do little to help the UK economy as compared to the small domestic employers.
Why do we need to Brexit in order to force governments to do this? The Germans after all have been doing it for years with their Mittelstanden. The link will lead you to the many examples of such companies. I'm looking at one on my desk right now, my Sennheiser headphones. Do we have so many such companies, making stuff so good that the world wants to buy it? And if so, how is the EU preventing them from flourishing? And please don't just start quoting James Dyson, maker of over-priced machines that don't sell in Europe because people prefer Bosch or Miele.
You seem to have lost track of the debate. Dismissing anything negative about Brexit as Project Fear worked during the referendum but since then the debate has been overtaken by events, facts and truth.
I don't know how many jobs you, or the forcasters you quote, are responsible for creating. I suspect the answer is zero. I do know that the people running small, medium and large manufacturing businesses in the UK responsible for creating 100s of thousands of jobs are unanimous in their view of how disastrous any kind of Brexit, let alone a bad Brexit, will be for the economy and all these jobs. You can't dismiss the views of the people who run these businesses as Project Fear or just more forecasts from so called experts that may or may not turn out to be correct. These people are not making forecasts. They are simply telling us what decisions they will be forced to take in the event of a Brexit that leaves us outside the customs Union and single market and without the benefits of frictionless trade.
Article 50
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
So failing to get a withdrawal agreement means that all treaties with the EU finish on the dot of 23:00 on Friday, 29 March 2019.
Boom, all treaties with the EU from that moment.
As things stand right now the UK has 295 treaties on trade. 202 on regulatory cooperation (from anti trust to data sharing). 69 on fisheries. 65 on transport, mainly airline services. 49 on customs controls on goods and transport. 45 on Nuclear issues. 34 on agriculture and all things food.
These are the largest ones out of a total of 759.
Boom...when that date arrives, if something isn't sorted all of those treaties cease to formally apply...just like that.
Now if brexit means brexit it can mean complete withdrawal from all of those treaties as much as any other definition.
Indeed it is said thet no deal is better than a bad deal.
OK so if it is a no deal, anticipated by those who voted for brexit one would presume, what would be the practical impact on our day to day lives that brexit voters anticipated? Anybody want to suggest anything? Perhaps start with air transport? Once out of the European Common Aviation Area with no deal what happens the next day?
If the answer is that it surely won't happen because there will be some kind of agreement, then it looks as if the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal is off the table as it were. Or conversely if no deal really is better than a bad deal then the grounding of flights utilising the European Common Aviation Area from 23.01 on Friday 29th March is to be welcomed rather than having a 'bad deal' mucking up brexit and the will of the people.
We are told that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for.
Oh..I do have an electricity smart meter made by a company called The Owl. However it cost me a shed load of money to get it installed since it wasn't designed to work with continental wiring systems. And it uses up three batteries in about 4 weeks.
So what are these "90% of businesses that employ most of the UK workers" ? What do they make? And why are none of their products in my house?
Brexit will destroy any complacency that exists in UK business and business will be forced to look for new markets, provide more production to serve the internal UK market and improve productivity by capital investment, not improve profits by reducing costs with cheap imported labour.
Other countries like Germany are way ahead of us in many aspects of business, they have better management, employees have an interest as stakeholder in their business, their pensions are funded directly from the equity in their own company, so things can get done, changes can be made, that wouldn't get off the ground in the UK with the bosses v employees culture. Germany has a far greater manufacturing capability as a result of access to raw materials and is much less dependent on services and consumerism to drive their economy, so it's pointless keep comparing what Germany can do and what the UK does.
You shouldn't fall into the Unicorn rider's view that the EU is, or can ever create, a homogenous group of countries all with the same opportunities and challenges governed by rules set by the lowest common denominator.
Trade is only one component of what drives the UK economy and EU trade is but a minority component of UK trade, not the be all and end all as is being portrayed.
If the UK leaves without a deal, however...
In that scenario what happens with aviation?
https://gov.uk/government/publications/aviation-safety-if-theres-no-brexit-deal/aviation-safety-if-theres-no-brexit-deal
And finally you maintain that being in the EU leads to some form of complacency?
The only complacency that has mattered has been that of both Labour and Conservative governments who have neglected the regions and infrastructure. Add to that the failure to improve productivity over the last decade and there's an issue. Given that financial services earn an enormous amount per worker, the possibility of 10-20% of the City gently migrating to the EU is a real threat to the UK economy and the exchanger.
Sure it's "only a minority" Just as losing 0.5% of GDP growth is "only a minority"!
If 0.5% of GDP wasn't an issue then we wouldn't be witnessing a bun fight over in Italy as the new government seeks approval for its budget.
For those unaware the populists, some of whom share platforms with Le Pen and Bannan are being accused of being equally blase about GDP numbers - this time their forecasts are being accused of being nowhere near reality.
There's a common theme as a particular brand of politics seeks to move further and further away from sober analysis and experts and simply makes things up.
And the League, ERG and Johnson are all queuing up to blame the EU even before things start to go wrong.
As we enter Q4 we at least have the ability to look at real numbers, polls and sensible analysis just as both the UK and Italian governments hit turbulent waters. One wonders which government will last longest?!
It's all part of Barnier's 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' negotiating tactics. When UK and EU aviation is currently in a position of regulatory equivalence what is to be gained by refusing to continue? Practically, nothing. Politically, on the other hand...
A lot of 'existing stuff remaining valid', but there are time limitations, and any non pre existing new stuff will have to be sorted afresh from the 29 March 2019.
In a no deal scenario, invited on by the brexit referendum vote not by the actions of the EU, the landscape changes.
I don't think you are saying the UK can leave without a deal but with a deal at the same time...or are you?
We do well making things for foreign companies such as Nissan that feel it is afvantageous to build their cars here. I always thought a major reason for this was common knowledge! But it was lost on the people of Sunderland in which Nissan is an important business!
It's quite straightforward, they've been open about it, and have taken this course because they want to avoid ambiguity, chaos even, in negotiations - which is precisely what some in the Tories want, because they believe it would benefit them, just as they seem to believe (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that the EU will negotiate Brexit right up until 29 March 2019. It's like the difference between proper project management and bluffers winging it in IT or infrastructure projects.
The EU is a rules-based, legally-centred entity, it is only natural that it establishes structures in which to operate in negotiations just as with everything else.
Now, when it comes to services, especially financial services,we have a lot we could teach the Germans and all the rest of them. Again from personal experience..I know that in a British context you are a critic but there is nothing on the Continent to match the investment platforms of Hargreaves Lansdowne and Fidelity UK. What a pity then that the U.K. is not staying to push for the completion of the single market in such services. HL would clean up. This is the stuff we have become "good" at, but it's not easily exportable, is it? To the EU or anywhere else...
She wouldn't be a Lib Dem, would she?
Amputation will destroy any complacency that exists and you'll be forced to look for new means of perambulation.
Other people are way ahead of you in many aspects of they way they walk. They have better - and, frankly, more - legs. So walking and running get done.
You shouldn't fall into the unicorn rider's view that being a biped would is the only means of getting from place to place. In fact, being a unicorn rider might be a good way forward for you. Literally.
Walking is only one component of what you do, but it's a minority component, not the be all and end all as is sometimes portrayed. And think of the saving you'll make on socks.
In fact, if you knew nothing about Brexit and avoided the media you would not see any appreciable difference in daily life in the UK between May 2016 and today, except there are fewer people unemployed. Wages are still stagnating, the NHS still has problems and the trains do not run on time. Plus ca change.
Hysterics like yourself appear increasingly eccentric when you claim we are all doomed. The problems we face here preceded Brexit and will carry on after it. The only real difference will be that our political class will no longer have the EU as a scapegoat.
But, I don't really see the problem of being flexible to suit the needs of member states, so, allowing for bailouts of Italian banks is, in my view, much less heinous than allowing them collapse and wipe out ordinary peoples' savings. Nor do I see the idea of accepting Greek Government bonds as collateral for loans that Greek banks desperately needed as a terrible thing (but then, I should stress that the ECB is not the EU as a whole, and does have operational independence).
A person might even come to think that the EU and its institutions actually sought to benefit its members...
Until the signing of article 50 there was as much blood on the hands of the UK as any other EU country, indeed more in terms of UK participation in EU agencies.
There may have been some massive package of new rules introduced by the EU since the UK signed article 50, but I am not aware of them. As for the other rules, well they are or should be no surprise to the UK.
You mention stubborn adherence to the EU being itself, but wish to also mention stuff that you highlight as rule bending/breaking and even hypocrisy by individual states and the EU institutionally.
Reminds me of the example of a motorist at the side of the road being done by the police for speeding, but pointing to all the other vehicles speeding past on the carriageway and saying 'what about them then?' What is the officer supposed to do? Say 'I see your point, they're speeding too so I should let you off.'?
The UK can't divorce the EU but insist the EU has plastic surgery whilst they're at it. The EU is there, warts and all, and the UK has chosen to leave it. The UK has to deal with the EU and those pesky rules that the UK knows full well about, that is the reality however much some folk would like it to be different.
For those businesses without any direct cross border relationship, or without a need to have products tested, the impact would be limited, but this will not be the case for many businesses that do have such relationships or needs.
In day to day life, change will only really be noticed by many after exiting the Single Market and Customs Union, when the costs associated with the introduction of tariff and regulatory barriers will be passed on to the consumer.
Secondly, hysterics like me are simply reacting to what the people who are running major manufacturing businesses have been saying over recent weeks about the serious impact that Brexit will have on their businesses and the many jobs these businesses provide. Are you saying the people running these businesses are being hysterical?
Maybe "unanimous" is the wrong word to use. But my impression is that the CBI and other organisations that represent small and medium size businesses as well as larger businesses are also warning against a Brexit that does not maintain continued frictionless access to the single market.