BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

mamil314

A well articulated comparison of fascists and modern populists and why they fail with gaining any traction/direction despite whipping up a significant following
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwrH_HEZQnc
The current name of this thread serves as excellent example of fascist propaganda tactics revival.

Alejandrosdog

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

Nope - not getting on the merry go round today thanks

Not sure what you mean, its a valid point so I'll just take you have no reply.

I think its called taking your ball home and sulking

Stevo_666

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

No it is not. Read my posts again and this time pay attention to the timescales I am referring to above

The debate on the likely short term impacts have already been done to death , so use the search function for that.

I thought, going by your previous posts you would keep dodging the question

Oh, well looks like there is such a thing as a stupid question after all. You've already had it explained to you where you missed the point :roll:

Very strange for some one so out spoken with strong views you can't answer a very simple question and are doing anything to avoid answering the very simple question , Do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current EU deal ?

So far you have tried insults, sarcasm, saying the question is stupid, saying you have already answered it to avoid giving an answer, it would be much easier to simply answer the question, not sure why you haven't by now it is a very simple question in a very sensible debate.

Try asking a question that hasn't already been answered. Or maybe one that is relevant to my point.

kajjal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

No it is not. Read my posts again and this time pay attention to the timescales I am referring to above

The debate on the likely short term impacts have already been done to death , so use the search function for that.

I thought, going by your previous posts you would keep dodging the question

Oh, well looks like there is such a thing as a stupid question after all. You've already had it explained to you where you missed the point :roll:

Very strange for some one so out spoken with strong views you can't answer a very simple question and are doing anything to avoid answering the very simple question , Do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current EU deal ?

So far you have tried insults, sarcasm, saying the question is stupid, saying you have already answered it to avoid giving an answer, it would be much easier to simply answer the question, not sure why you haven't by now it is a very simple question in a very sensible debate.

Try asking a valid question that hasn't already been answered.

The question is valid, it is a shame you just don’t want to enter a sensible debate about it so make numerous excuses to avoid it

Stevo_666

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

No it is not. Read my posts again and this time pay attention to the timescales I am referring to above

The debate on the likely short term impacts have already been done to death , so use the search function for that.

I thought, going by your previous posts you would keep dodging the question

Oh, well looks like there is such a thing as a stupid question after all. You've already had it explained to you where you missed the point :roll:

Very strange for some one so out spoken with strong views you can't answer a very simple question and are doing anything to avoid answering the very simple question , Do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current EU deal ?

So far you have tried insults, sarcasm, saying the question is stupid, saying you have already answered it to avoid giving an answer, it would be much easier to simply answer the question, not sure why you haven't by now it is a very simple question in a very sensible debate.

Try asking a valid question that hasn't already been answered.

The question is valid, it is a shame you just don’t want to enter a sensible debate about it so make numerous excuses to avoid it

Why debate something already debated?

At the risk of repeating myself, I've already given my views on the possible short term impacts and have explained why your short term question isn't relevant to my long term forecasting point above. Given how clear my previous replies were on both of these, I can't work out whether you are thick or simply have a bit of an attitude problem. Or more likely, both?

Stevo_666

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

Nope - not getting on the merry go round today thanks

Not sure what you mean, its a valid point so I'll just take you have no reply.

I think its called taking your ball home and sulking

At least he knows when to give up. Some people on here are just too thick to realise that

kingstongraham

If someone doesn't understand your point, it's not always their fault

TheBigBean

Tony Connelly has an updated on twitter. Essentially the EU don't really like the new proposals and would much rather go back to a NI backstop.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean wrote:

Tony Connelly has an updated on twitter. Essentially the EU don't really like the new proposals and would much rather go back to a NI backstop.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status ... 3248364545

tailwindhome

I don't believe the current proposal gains any votes in the House versus the NI only backstop.

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

I don't believe the current proposal gains any votes in the House versus the NI only backstop.

With or without a consent mechanism? My feeling is it does gain more votes as the ERG and DUP are more likely to vote for it.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

If someone doesn't understand your point, it's not always their fault

OK, tell me what part of my reply above wasn't clear.

morstar

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I don't believe the current proposal gains any votes in the House versus the NI only backstop.

With or without a consent mechanism? My feeling is it does gain more votes as the ERG and DUP are more likely to vote for it.

It will be interesting to see how the voting stacks up when whatever deal is put in front of parliament. I think the erg and dup support may well increase but, do other members who had voted for the deal previously now vote against? I think there is a strong probability some will vote against. Some for principled reasons but also some for reasons of perceived political gain.

Jez mon

morstar wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I don't believe the current proposal gains any votes in the House versus the NI only backstop.

With or without a consent mechanism? My feeling is it does gain more votes as the ERG and DUP are more likely to vote for it.

It will be interesting to see how the voting stacks up when whatever deal is put in front of parliament. I think the erg and dup support may well increase but, do other members who had voted for the deal previously now vote against? I think there is a strong probability some will vote against. Some for principled reasons but also some for reasons of perceived political gain.

If I recall correctly, the deal is only the start of a raft of legislation that has to be passed... In other words, if it passes with a razor thin majority, that suggests that we aren't completely out of the woods.

I think that if Boris took May's deal back to parliament, he'd stand a reasonable chance of getting it through, because he's scared a lot of MPs through talking up no deal...

morstar

Jez mon wrote:

morstar wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I don't believe the current proposal gains any votes in the House versus the NI only backstop.

With or without a consent mechanism? My feeling is it does gain more votes as the ERG and DUP are more likely to vote for it.

It will be interesting to see how the voting stacks up when whatever deal is put in front of parliament. I think the erg and dup support may well increase but, do other members who had voted for the deal previously now vote against? I think there is a strong probability some will vote against. Some for principled reasons but also some for reasons of perceived political gain.

If I recall correctly, the deal is only the start of a raft of legislation that has to be passed... In other words, if it passes with a razor thin majority, that suggests that we aren't completely out of the woods.

I think that if Boris took May's deal back to parliament, he'd stand a reasonable chance of getting it through, because he's scared a lot of MPs through talking up no deal...

I had felt this was probably the tactic all along. The no deal threat is at least as much (if not more so) for his internal leverage.
However, with the likely election around the corner, are there those who previously have voted for the TM deal who now won't? I.e. they think no deal can be kicked down the road while they have an election.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

No it is not. Read my posts again and this time pay attention to the timescales I am referring to above

The debate on the likely short term impacts have already been done to death , so use the search function for that.

I thought, going by your previous posts you would keep dodging the question

Oh, well looks like there is such a thing as a stupid question after all. You've already had it explained to you where you missed the point :roll:

Very strange for some one so out spoken with strong views you can't answer a very simple question and are doing anything to avoid answering the very simple question , Do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current EU deal ?

So far you have tried insults, sarcasm, saying the question is stupid, saying you have already answered it to avoid giving an answer, it would be much easier to simply answer the question, not sure why you haven't by now it is a very simple question in a very sensible debate.

Try asking a question that hasn't already been answered. Or maybe one that is relevant to my point.

Looking back I think Steveo made it clear that he supported a deal in preference to no deal. However, that was a different PM and obviously now Johnson has declared his preference for death in a ditch rather than wake up on 1 November as an EU citizen, Steveo is obliged, as a loyal Tory to follow that line.

As Johnson said "Feck Business". So that is the message Steveo must support and which business leaders have received loud and clear.

The Irish meeting has simply been used to suggest that Johnson, aided and abetted by the dodgy Varadkar, was on the verge of getting a deal. It is a confidence trick and the time needed for a deal before 31 October has run out just as Johnson intended it should. Thanks to Varadkar's complicity, Johnson can now blame the EU.

Johnson is now accepting advice from Republicans across the Atlantic and by association from Russians both of whom wish to see the end of the EU.

bianchimoon

Robert88 wrote:

Looking back I think Steveo made it clear that he supported a deal in preference to no deal. However, that was a different PM and obviously now Johnson has declared his preference for death in a ditch rather than wake up on 1 November as an EU citizen, Steveo is obliged, as a loyal Tory to follow that line.

As Johnson said "Feck Business". So that is the message Steveo must support and which business leaders have received loud and clear.

The Irish meeting has simply been used to suggest that Johnson, aided and abetted by the dodgy Varadkar, was on the verge of getting a deal. It is a confidence trick and the time needed for a deal before 31 October has run out just as Johnson intended it should. Thanks to Varadkar's complicity, Johnson can now blame the EU.

Johnson is now accepting advice from Republicans across the Atlantic and by association from Russians both of whom wish to see the end of the EU.

Yes that about sums it up

rdt

On current evidence it appears improbable that Johnson will (a) secure a new agreement with the EU in the next few days that (b) would be capable of being ratified by the EU Parliament and voted through by the UK Parliament before the end of this month.

It's also unlikely, politically, to be in the EU's interests at this stage to cut the UK loose on 31-Oct, so it's likely they'll offer an extension, which will (somehow) be accepted.

Therefore, the pointers are that the UK will not leave the EU at the end of the month as Johnson promised, either by having secured an exit agreement and entered a Transition period or via a disorderly no-deal crash out.

But we shall see...

surrey_commuter

morstar wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

morstar wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I don't believe the current proposal gains any votes in the House versus the NI only backstop.

With or without a consent mechanism? My feeling is it does gain more votes as the ERG and DUP are more likely to vote for it.

It will be interesting to see how the voting stacks up when whatever deal is put in front of parliament. I think the erg and dup support may well increase but, do other members who had voted for the deal previously now vote against? I think there is a strong probability some will vote against. Some for principled reasons but also some for reasons of perceived political gain.

If I recall correctly, the deal is only the start of a raft of legislation that has to be passed... In other words, if it passes with a razor thin majority, that suggests that we aren't completely out of the woods.

I think that if Boris took May's deal back to parliament, he'd stand a reasonable chance of getting it through, because he's scared a lot of MPs through talking up no deal...

I had felt this was probably the tactic all along. The no deal threat is at least as much (if not more so) for his internal leverage.
However, with the likely election around the corner, are there those who previously have voted for the TM deal who now won't? I.e. they think no deal can be kicked down the road while they have an election.

the payroll vote has changed considerably

surrey_commuter

rdt wrote:

On current evidence it appears improbable that Johnson will (a) secure a new agreement with the EU in the next few days that (b) would be capable of being ratified by the EU Parliament and voted through by the UK Parliament before the end of this month.

It's also unlikely, politically, to be in the EU's interests at this stage to cut the UK loose on 31-Oct, so it's likely they'll offer an extension, which will (somehow) be accepted.

Therefore, the pointers are that the UK will not leave the EU at the end of the month as Johnson promised, either by having secured an exit agreement and entered a Transition period or via a disorderly no-deal crash out.

But we shall see...

we have to ask for the extension

Alejandrosdog

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

No it is not. Read my posts again and this time pay attention to the timescales I am referring to above

The debate on the likely short term impacts have already been done to death , so use the search function for that.

I thought, going by your previous posts you would keep dodging the question

Oh, well looks like there is such a thing as a stupid question after all. You've already had it explained to you where you missed the point :roll:

Very strange for some one so out spoken with strong views you can't answer a very simple question and are doing anything to avoid answering the very simple question , Do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current EU deal ?

So far you have tried insults, sarcasm, saying the question is stupid, saying you have already answered it to avoid giving an answer, it would be much easier to simply answer the question, not sure why you haven't by now it is a very simple question in a very sensible debate.

Try asking a question that hasn't already been answered. Or maybe one that is relevant to my point.

Looking back I think Steveo made it clear that he supported a deal in preference to no deal. However, that was a different PM and obviously now Johnson has declared his preference for death in a ditch rather than wake up on 1 November as an EU citizen, Steveo is obliged, as a loyal Tory to follow that line.

As Johnson said "Feck Business". So that is the message Steveo must support and which business leaders have received loud and clear.

The Irish meeting has simply been used to suggest that Johnson, aided and abetted by the dodgy Varadkar, was on the verge of getting a deal. It is a confidence trick and the time needed for a deal before 31 October has run out just as Johnson intended it should. Thanks to Varadkar's complicity, Johnson can now blame the EU.

Johnson is now accepting advice from Republicans across the Atlantic and by association from Russians both of whom wish to see the end of the EU.

Ridiculous leftist meltdown.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If someone doesn't understand your point, it's not always their fault

OK, tell me what part of my reply above wasn't clear.

I'll try and summarise what I think you were saying: Only the long term future is important, and you can only make reliably accurate forecasts for the short term. Therefore there is no value in attempting to model two scenarios over the long term or short term, because the short term is less important and the long term model will be incorrect for both. Any decision based on comparing two options over the long term in a complex system is worthless.

tailwindhome

If there's a short delay to close out a deal you'd have to feel a bit bad for Jeremy Hunt.

kingstongraham

TailWindHome wrote:

If there's a short delay to close out a deal you'd have to feel a bit bad for Jeremy Hunt.

And for whoever finds Johnson in that ditch.

coopster_the_1st

I wonder if bringing May's deal back to parliament as part of the agreed surrender act and Parliament not agreeing to it is the PMs get out for not having to write the extention letter.

I've been trying to think of a reason why the Benn amendment went through so easily.

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I wonder if bringing May's deal back to parliament as part of the agreed surrender act and Parliament not agreeing to it is the PMs get out for not having to write the extention letter.

I've been trying to think of a reason why the Benn amendment went through so easily.

You should read the Benn amendment. If Parliament haven't passed it, the extension has to be requested.

robert88

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

No it is not. Read my posts again and this time pay attention to the timescales I am referring to above

The debate on the likely short term impacts have already been done to death , so use the search function for that.

I thought, going by your previous posts you would keep dodging the question

Oh, well looks like there is such a thing as a stupid question after all. You've already had it explained to you where you missed the point :roll:

Very strange for some one so out spoken with strong views you can't answer a very simple question and are doing anything to avoid answering the very simple question , Do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current EU deal ?

So far you have tried insults, sarcasm, saying the question is stupid, saying you have already answered it to avoid giving an answer, it would be much easier to simply answer the question, not sure why you haven't by now it is a very simple question in a very sensible debate.

Try asking a question that hasn't already been answered. Or maybe one that is relevant to my point.

Looking back I think Steveo made it clear that he supported a deal in preference to no deal. However, that was a different PM and obviously now Johnson has declared his preference for death in a ditch rather than wake up on 1 November as an EU citizen, Steveo is obliged, as a loyal Tory to follow that line.

As Johnson said "Feck Business". So that is the message Steveo must support and which business leaders have received loud and clear.

The Irish meeting has simply been used to suggest that Johnson, aided and abetted by the dodgy Varadkar, was on the verge of getting a deal. It is a confidence trick and the time needed for a deal before 31 October has run out just as Johnson intended it should. Thanks to Varadkar's complicity, Johnson can now blame the EU.

Johnson is now accepting advice from Republicans across the Atlantic and by association from Russians both of whom wish to see the end of the EU.

Ridiculous leftist meltdown.

Oops, I seem to have hooked a Russian!

robert88

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I wonder if bringing May's deal back to parliament as part of the agreed surrender act and Parliament not agreeing to it is the PMs get out for not having to write the extention letter.

I've been trying to think of a reason why the Benn amendment went through so easily.

It is interesting that the Leave side call it a 'surrender act' and refer to opponents of Brexit as 'traitors'.

It's pretty much how the extreme right in Germany referred to the signing of the armistice at the end of the Great War. The so called 'stab in the back' was invented by the far right German general Ludendorff one of the creators of the Nazi party.

morstar

Robert88 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I wonder if bringing May's deal back to parliament as part of the agreed surrender act and Parliament not agreeing to it is the PMs get out for not having to write the extention letter.

I've been trying to think of a reason why the Benn amendment went through so easily.

It is interesting that the Leave side call it a 'surrender act' and refer to opponents of Brexit as 'traitors'.

It's pretty much how the extreme right in Germany referred to the signing of the armistice at the end of the Great War. The so called 'stab in the back' was invented by the far right German general Ludendorff one of the creators of the Nazi party.

The one that tickles me is the continued use of the term 'Anti-democratic' being applied to everything that goes against the wishes of a minority government.

rolf_f

This in comparison to Mays deal

Prof Jonathan Portes, a senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, said: “Our modelling shows that the much more distant economic relationship with the EU envisaged by Boris Johnson will mean that the economic impacts of Brexit on trade and hence growth will be considerably more severe. The hit to the UK public finances could be up to about £49bn a year. However, these could in part be mitigated by a more liberal immigration policy.”

Ahhh, the solution to Britains post Bojo deal will be more immigration. Luckily that was what everyone voted for.