BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Jez mon wrote:Because in his time at Education ministry, Gove managed to pee off all the teachers, and then when he got to the justice ministry, he managed to pee off all the judges?
Making changes in the public sector upsets people. Better that than some clown who just wants to be liked.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:They're very ugly numbers.
That they are, but I think both the Bank of England and the Chancellor are primed to supply monetary and fiscal stimulus. I fancy a surge in road and public building repairs, and all manner of incentives to buy new cars or build extensions etc. Plus some more QE to keep the banks happy and interest rates low.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:
Making changes in the public sector upsets people. Better that than some clown who just wants to be liked.
Agreed, but conversely, the ability to ignore all criticism does not mean you are doing a good job.
I have a vehement dislike of Gove for his work over of education (BTW, I've no direct links to teaching other than my children).
Education was already a shambles at the hands of both right and left parties due to a myopic pursuit of academia for all. Gove was the cherry on the cake for ideological zeal in this pursuit.0 -
morstar wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Making changes in the public sector upsets people. Better that than some clown who just wants to be liked.
Agreed, but conversely, the ability to ignore all criticism does not mean you are doing a good job.
I have a vehement dislike of Gove for his work over of education (BTW, I've no direct links to teaching other than my children).
Education was already a shambles at the hands of both right and left parties due to a myopic pursuit of academia for all. Gove was the cherry on the cake for ideological zeal in this pursuit.
I can not remember the public sector accepting (let alone embracing) any change so now I just ignore it as background noise.
At least he tries.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:They're very ugly numbers.
That they are, but I think both the Bank of England and the Chancellor are primed to supply monetary and fiscal stimulus. I fancy a surge in road and public building repairs, and all manner of incentives to buy new cars or build extensions etc. Plus some more QE to keep the banks happy and interest rates low.
These stats are just confirmation of what I have being saying about high frequency data points. This is not a dark art the govt will be well aware of these stats. I just do not believe they have a lot of levers left to pull. Interest rates are close to zero and most people consider the credit problems to be demand side not supply.
Hammond I saying he will leave it until the Autumn but he is already running a massive debt so has little leeway.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Hammond I saying he will leave it until the Autumn but he is already running a massive debt so has little leeway.
I wasn't think a massive Brownian splurge to try and buy the general election; more an acceleration of essential public sector maintenance projects. With borrowing costs so low, I think this is the lesser of two evils.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Hammond I saying he will leave it until the Autumn but he is already running a massive debt so has little leeway.
I wasn't think a massive Brownian splurge to try and buy the general election; more an acceleration of essential public sector maintenance projects. With borrowing costs so low, I think this is the lesser of two evils.
How much difference would/could that make? Do you have any stats on how much they would have to spend to move the needle.
Anyway if he is sitting on his hands until the Autumn that would suggest he does not see it as a crucial policy as by the time it kicked in we would be well in the shit.
I await your stats but I am not convinced the govt can do more than mitigate the worse of the effects.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:morstar wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Making changes in the public sector upsets people. Better that than some clown who just wants to be liked.
Agreed, but conversely, the ability to ignore all criticism does not mean you are doing a good job.
I have a vehement dislike of Gove for his work over of education (BTW, I've no direct links to teaching other than my children).
Education was already a shambles at the hands of both right and left parties due to a myopic pursuit of academia for all. Gove was the cherry on the cake for ideological zeal in this pursuit.
I can not remember the public sector accepting (let alone embracing) any change so now I just ignore it as background noise.
At least he tries.
The education sector is in a state of constant change and has been for well over a decade. The best way of improving education is not to p1ss off so many teachers that schools are having great difficulty recruiting suitable candidates for positions in many key subjects (maths, sciences, languages).
There's a good reason that the public sector is so reluctant to change - the politicians that are bringing about this change are often dishonest and/or incompetent and/or interfering f**kwits of the very highest order.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Hammond I saying he will leave it until the Autumn but he is already running a massive debt so has little leeway.
I wasn't think a massive Brownian splurge to try and buy the general election; more an acceleration of essential public sector maintenance projects. With borrowing costs so low, I think this is the lesser of two evils.
How much difference would/could that make? Do you have any stats on how much they would have to spend to move the needle.
Anyway if he is sitting on his hands until the Autumn that would suggest he does not see it as a crucial policy as by the time it kicked in we would be well in the shoot.
I await your stats but I am not convinced the govt can do more than mitigate the worse of the effects.
Worked quite well in the New Deal...
IMF suggested previously that austerity was costing a bit of a percent. Half maybe? I forget. Anyway the multiplier for government spending on gdp could be 1.5-2x, so just reducing austerity might have a decent impact on gdp (specially with super low borrowing costs).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier0 -
-
bobmcstuff wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Hammond I saying he will leave it until the Autumn but he is already running a massive debt so has little leeway.
I wasn't think a massive Brownian splurge to try and buy the general election; more an acceleration of essential public sector maintenance projects. With borrowing costs so low, I think this is the lesser of two evils.
How much difference would/could that make? Do you have any stats on how much they would have to spend to move the needle.
Anyway if he is sitting on his hands until the Autumn that would suggest he does not see it as a crucial policy as by the time it kicked in we would be well in the shoot.
I await your stats but I am not convinced the govt can do more than mitigate the worse of the effects.
Worked quite well in the New Deal...
IMF suggested previously that austerity was costing a bit of a percent. Half maybe? I forget. Anyway the multiplier for government spending on gdp could be 1.5-2x, so just reducing austerity might have a decent impact on gdp (specially with super low borrowing costs).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier
New Deal was dealing with unique circumstances. We do not have an unemployment problem. For this to work, maximise the multiplier, we need to keep to a minimum the amount of money spent on savings, debt reduction and imports. Targeting the working poor through measures such as tax cuts or subsidised child care would have a beneficial effect.
On the downside it would need to be tens of billions and govt finances will already be worsening. Total govt sector debt is already up to 85%, how much higher can we safely go?
Also worth noting that govt works programs has not worked in Japan.0 -
Bloody hell! At this rate we won't be the first to leave. :shock:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... luxembourg0 -
The cracks are appearing - economy and immigration are the biggest EU fault lines so no surprise.Ballysmate wrote:Bloody hell! At this rate we won't be the first to leave. :shock:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... luxembourg"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
The cracks are appearing - economy and immigration are the biggest EU fault lines so no surprise.Ballysmate wrote:Bloody hell! At this rate we won't be the first to leave. :shock:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... luxembourg
Out of interest, what would you do differently with the 1000s of people crossing the Med right now?
Let them drown? Tow them back, shooting any who resist, invade Libya with eu force to kill all people smugglers? Repatriate to where? What exactly would you do?0 -
Well, I would have to be honest and say that I'm not sure. But I do suspect that there may just possibly be solutions somewhere in between "shoot them all" and "allow them all in".mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
The cracks are appearing - economy and immigration are the biggest EU fault lines so no surprise.Ballysmate wrote:Bloody hell! At this rate we won't be the first to leave. :shock:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... luxembourg
Out of interest, what would you do differently with the 1000s of people crossing the Med right now?
Let them drown? Tow them back, shooting any who resist, invade Libya with eu force to kill all people smugglers? Repatriate to where? What exactly would you do?0 -
Easy to say that Bomp but what? I don't want half of Africa in Europe but I do get pi$$ed off with idiots who have a go at Europe for stopping them from drowning, whilst offering zero solutions go their own.
Fwiw I d go down the route of naval blockade, military and Eco support of Libyan government, in return transit camps in Libya to sort out Eco from refugees. All done under eu banner using an eu military force.
It effects us too as can be seen in Calais.0 -
Didn't say I had a solution, just said it's an issue for the EU. Which of course we will be leaving in the not too distant future.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
The cracks are appearing - economy and immigration are the biggest EU fault lines so no surprise.Ballysmate wrote:Bloody hell! At this rate we won't be the first to leave. :shock:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... luxembourg
Out of interest, what would you do differently with the 1000s of people crossing the Med right now?
Let them drown? Tow them back, shooting any who resist, invade Libya with eu force to kill all people smugglers? Repatriate to where? What exactly would you do?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
0
-
Joelsim wrote:
agree, only (very slight) silver lining is the fickle voters of the UK will blame the Tories for the potential mess that follows.
i just dont really see why TMay has to follow this vote and trigger A50, it was advisory only and its against our national interest, she should weather the storm and show some balls, ie be a leader, even her doppelganger MT wouldnt have dreamed of UK leaving EU.0 -
Link wants me to sign up/subscribe. What does it say?Joelsim wrote:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
mamba80 wrote:Joelsim wrote:
agree, only (very slight) silver lining is the fickle voters of the UK will blame the Tories for the potential mess that follows.
i just dont really see why TMay has to follow this vote and trigger A50, it was advisory only and its against our national interest, she should weather the storm and show some balls, ie be a leader, even her doppelganger MT wouldnt have dreamed of UK leaving EU.
More than enough hard liners in her own party willing to take her down over the issue. I can't access the article but can guess the contents. They won't care, they just want out.0 -
Take her down over what? The negotiations haven't even started yet.Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:Joelsim wrote:
agree, only (very slight) silver lining is the fickle voters of the UK will blame the Tories for the potential mess that follows.
i just dont really see why TMay has to follow this vote and trigger A50, it was advisory only and its against our national interest, she should weather the storm and show some balls, ie be a leader, even her doppelganger MT wouldnt have dreamed of UK leaving EU.
More than enough hard liners in her own party willing to take her down over the issue. I can't access the article but can guess the contents. They won't care, they just want out."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Take her down over what? The negotiations haven't even started yet.Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:Joelsim wrote:
agree, only (very slight) silver lining is the fickle voters of the UK will blame the Tories for the potential mess that follows.
i just dont really see why TMay has to follow this vote and trigger A50, it was advisory only and its against our national interest, she should weather the storm and show some balls, ie be a leader, even her doppelganger MT wouldnt have dreamed of UK leaving EU.
More than enough hard liners in her own party willing to take her down over the issue. I can't access the article but can guess the contents. They won't care, they just want out.
The suggestion above that she could weather a storm created by not triggering A500 -
Joelsim wrote:
What does it say?
I heard Arron Banks on Any Questions having a pop at Patience Wheatcroft for expressing an opinion he didn't like when she hadn't been elected. Erm...0 -
Article basically says that it looks increasingly likely that the prospect of a 'soft' brexit, i.e. one still part of the market (EEA) but not having any say over it (the Norwegian model), is not going to happen.
All the talk of limiting migration etc points to an end game which results only in a 'hard brexit' i.e. severing all ties to the EU and bilaterally re-negotiating them all again.
Similar article, less articulately put in the telegraph y-day too, along the lines of 'can Farage stop speaking on my behalf - I didn't vote Brexit to leave the single market'.
Basically we have Phillip Hammond, the bastion of force that he is, standing between Britain and a full blown exit of the EU.Brexit means Brexit.” As circular as it is concise, this three-word sentence tells us much about the style of Theresa May, the UK prime minister. I take this to mean that the UK will, in her view, formally leave the EU, without the option of a second referendum or a parliamentary override. If so, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the outcome will be “hard Brexit”.
By “hard Brexit” I mean a departure not only from the EU but also from the customs union and the single market. The UK should, however, end up with a free-trade arrangement that covers goods and possibly some parts of services and, one hopes, liberal travel arrangements. But the “passporting” of UK-based financial institutions would end and London would cease to be the EU’s unrivalled financial capital. The UK and the EU would also impose controls on their nationals’ ability to work in one another’s economies.Why then is a hard Brexit the most likely outcome? My belief rests on the view that this UK government will not seek to reverse the result of the vote and that it will feel obliged to impose controls on immigration from the EU and to free itself from the bloc’s regulations overseen by its judicial processes.
Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.
He says more sensible stuff on there - Martin Wolf tends to. It's worth a read, but that's the jist of it.0 -
If only 5% of the people who voted leave didn't want a "hard" Brexit, then there is a majority against it.0
-
But that wasn't an option.KingstonGraham wrote:If only 5% of the people who voted leave didn't want a "hard" Brexit, then there is a majority against it.
It was simple. In, or out? We opted out and out means out. Dire days.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
But that wasn't an option.KingstonGraham wrote:If only 5% of the people who voted leave didn't want a "hard" Brexit, then there is a majority against it.
It was simple. In, or out? We opted out and out means out. Dire days.
Why is a "soft" exit not out as well?0 -
There is almost certainly no chance of a soft Brexit. It's been clear that the EU are not going to change the free movement aspect, so we either leave or we don't. If we do then it's inconceivable that we'll have free access to the single market.
Then again 47% of Leavers think a trade deal with Australia is the most important one to negotiate. That's worth £6bn, instead of the £354bn the EU one is worth.
The longer this goes on the more I lose faith in the intelligence of the human race.
As seen yesterday.
One of our members helped to sum up the unwavering response from the leave camp every time they hear about the referendum. We thought it was well worth sharing.
"Great news! I've always believed I could fly, so having just thrown myself off the top of the Empire State Building I'm delighted to report that passing the 92nd floor all is going swimmingly well. The view is marvellous, I have a new sense of freedom and am filled with optimism for the future. I CAN fly!"0 -
Joelsim wrote:There is almost certainly no chance of a soft Brexit. It's been clear that the EU are not going to change the free movement aspect, so we either leave or we don't. If we do then it's inconceivable that we'll have free access to the single market.
But you don't have to dance to the tune of the hard line Brexiteers. They represent a proportion of the 52% of people who voted leave. They don't have a mandate for whatever they want, only to leave the EU. That is how democracy works.0
