BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

If I stop exercising and start drinking heavily, I predict a result would be that my general health will be worse. If I were in that reality, I couldn't be certain that the two were related, because I wouldn't know that I wouldn't have been caught in a collapsing building and been in a coma.

You could demonstrate a causal link by identifying and isolating all the other possible contributing factors. To do this you would need a representative group of willing volunteers to follow the same lifestyle changes plus a control group.

If we split the country with one half leaving and the other remaining, we could answer the question fairly conclusively.

We'd need one country of the UK's size to leave and other countries of a similar size to remain for it to be reliable.

If we are talking GDP then France is close enough to use as a comparison.
I'm too lazy to do the comparison though.

How much did France undershoot in 2019 the forecast that was made in 2016?

You are intentionally trying to mislead if you take the UK forecasts if we had remained as gospel. None of the forecasts predicted the global slowdown that affected advanced economies in 2018/19

See, you made me look. Now look at the actual figures, not forecasts.
France GDP 2016 2.465t USD, 2018 2.780t USD.
UK GDP 2016 2.651t USD, 2018 2.110t USD.
Figures for 2019 are not available yet.

I'm sure you realise that GDP stated in a foreign currency will contain foreign exchange fluctuations.

Let's use domestic currency for each country and you will see it paints a rather different picture:
UK
https://statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom-uk-since-2000/

France
https://statista.com/statistics/469624/france-gdp/

Based on this, the UK has grown its faster than France over the 2016-2018 period and has a larger GDP based on current exchange rates.

C'est la vie, as we say in England.

Use 13th December 2019 exchange rates, the UK will be even more bigger.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

No, but I have always maintained that deciding that FOM was somehow not possible post ref was a peculiar Mayism.

IIRC for a large part of this thread,people, perhaps including you, were saying that some of industries and services, particularly the NHS, would suffer post Brexit because EU citizens would no longer be able to come here under FOM.
It was accepted on here that FOM and the SM access went hand in hand. What has changed for you? Do yo really expect a 'softer' deal under Johnson than May?

Not sure what you mean by the bolded bit.

FOM is obviously beneficial for everyone involved; economically at the very least.

I was pointing out that people realised that Brexit meant the end of FOM and were even pointing out the ramifications in their view.

SM access requires FOM, which people seemed to accept. I don't see what has changed.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

No, but I have always maintained that deciding that FOM was somehow not possible post ref was a peculiar Mayism.

IIRC for a large part of this thread,people, perhaps including you, were saying that some of industries and services, particularly the NHS, would suffer post Brexit because EU citizens would no longer be able to come here under FOM.
It was accepted on here that FOM and the SM access went hand in hand. What has changed for you? Do yo really expect a 'softer' deal under Johnson than May?

Not sure what you mean by the bolded bit.

FOM is obviously beneficial for everyone involved; economically at the very least.

I was pointing out that people realised that Brexit meant the end of FOM and were even pointing out the ramifications in their view.

SM access requires FOM, which people seemed to accept. I don't see what has changed.

Why did Brexit mean the end of FOM when the entire leave campaign said leaving the single market was never an option?

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

No, but I have always maintained that deciding that FOM was somehow not possible post ref was a peculiar Mayism.

IIRC for a large part of this thread,people, perhaps including you, were saying that some of industries and services, particularly the NHS, would suffer post Brexit because EU citizens would no longer be able to come here under FOM.
It was accepted on here that FOM and the SM access went hand in hand. What has changed for you? Do yo really expect a 'softer' deal under Johnson than May?

Not sure what you mean by the bolded bit.

FOM is obviously beneficial for everyone involved; economically at the very least.

I was pointing out that people realised that Brexit meant the end of FOM and were even pointing out the ramifications in their view.

SM access requires FOM, which people seemed to accept. I don't see what has changed.

Why did Brexit mean the end of FOM when the entire leave campaign said leaving the single market was never an option?

It didn't, but it does now. It makes no sense, but that's where we are.

rick_chasey

Only because May chose to interpret the vote that way, despite the above.

Hence my point.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Only because May chose to interpret the vote that way, despite the above.

Hence my point.

What about the current government makes you think that there is any way they will propose this? The manifesto said " We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice."

It's not wrong to point out how far this is from what was promised before the referendum, but there's no reason to hold out even a scintilla of hope that a Johnson government will go back to that stance.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

No, but I have always maintained that deciding that FOM was somehow not possible post ref was a peculiar Mayism.

IIRC for a large part of this thread,people, perhaps including you, were saying that some of industries and services, particularly the NHS, would suffer post Brexit because EU citizens would no longer be able to come here under FOM.
It was accepted on here that FOM and the SM access went hand in hand. What has changed for you? Do yo really expect a 'softer' deal under Johnson than May?

Not sure what you mean by the bolded bit.

FOM is obviously beneficial for everyone involved; economically at the very least.

I was pointing out that people realised that Brexit meant the end of FOM and were even pointing out the ramifications in their view.

SM access requires FOM, which people seemed to accept. I don't see what has changed.

Why did Brexit mean the end of FOM when the entire leave campaign said leaving the single market was never an option?

Old ground this.
The leave camp could only give an aspiration of staying in the SM without FOM, but as you well know, negotiations could only start after A50. The EU have been consistent throughout that we can't have one without the other.
You have stated plenty of times that in your opinion the Brexit campaign and Brexiteers were all about stopping forriners coming here so why do you now think they are any keener to keep FOM?
You seem to have been quite involved in the Remain campaign which was adamant that a vote to leave meant leaving the SM and everything else.
Were you and the Remain camp guilty of peddling bullshit?

Longshot

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

No, but I have always maintained that deciding that FOM was somehow not possible post ref was a peculiar Mayism.

IIRC for a large part of this thread,people, perhaps including you, were saying that some of industries and services, particularly the NHS, would suffer post Brexit because EU citizens would no longer be able to come here under FOM.
It was accepted on here that FOM and the SM access went hand in hand. What has changed for you? Do yo really expect a 'softer' deal under Johnson than May?

Not sure what you mean by the bolded bit.

FOM is obviously beneficial for everyone involved; economically at the very least.

If FOM is so obviously in everyones interest then please explain why no government has made a successful case for this in the last 20-30 years and it is deemed a significant issue for a significant amount of the population. The only thing going for it i can see is the obvious gdp increase purely related to headcount.

I think its been made fairly clear that the NHS, agricultural industry and others see significant benefits from FOM.

It's also worth noting that it's also an insignificant issue for a significant amount of the population.

kingstongraham

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

No, but I have always maintained that deciding that FOM was somehow not possible post ref was a peculiar Mayism.

IIRC for a large part of this thread,people, perhaps including you, were saying that some of industries and services, particularly the NHS, would suffer post Brexit because EU citizens would no longer be able to come here under FOM.
It was accepted on here that FOM and the SM access went hand in hand. What has changed for you? Do yo really expect a 'softer' deal under Johnson than May?

Not sure what you mean by the bolded bit.

FOM is obviously beneficial for everyone involved; economically at the very least.

I was pointing out that people realised that Brexit meant the end of FOM and were even pointing out the ramifications in their view.

SM access requires FOM, which people seemed to accept. I don't see what has changed.

Why did Brexit mean the end of FOM when the entire leave campaign said leaving the single market was never an option?

Old ground this.
The leave camp could only give an aspiration of staying in the SM without FOM, but as you well know, negotiations could only start after A50. The EU have been consistent throughout that we can't have one without the other.
You have stated plenty of times that in your opinion the Brexit campaign and Brexiteers were all about stopping forriners coming here so why do you now think they are any keener to keep FOM?
You seem to have been quite involved in the Remain campaign which was adamant that a vote to leave meant leaving the SM and everything else.
Were you and the Remain camp guilty of peddling bullshit?

The government's leaflet said "No other country has managed to secure
significant access to the Single Market, without having to:
• follow EU rules over which they have no real say
• pay into the EU
• accept EU citizens living and working in their country"

So it was clear that you cannot have one without the other.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

Old ground this.
The leave camp could only give an aspiration of staying in the SM without FOM, but as you well know, negotiations could only start after A50. The EU have been consistent throughout that we can't have one without the other.
You have stated plenty of times that in your opinion the Brexit campaign and Brexiteers were all about stopping forriners coming here so why do you now think they are any keener to keep FOM?
You seem to have been quite involved in the Remain campaign which was adamant that a vote to leave meant leaving the SM and everything else.
Were you and the Remain camp guilty of peddling bullshit?

I don't remember saying vote leave meant leaving the SM on the doorstep myself. I think there was a sense on the remain side that vote leave weren't being honest about what their priorities were and that they were promising things that weren't deliverable, which so far seems to be fairly accurate.

TBH, it was hard to get that across on the door when it came up. I've said it before, a lot of the things people mentioned weren't really anything to do with the EU institution, and so the prep I and the guys I went canvassing with was just way off.

Like Brexit voters would bang on about pressure on local amenities like busses or the local GP waiting times and I would just say "that's not really anything to do with the EU" and they'd go "well it needs to change".

ballysmate

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

No, but I have always maintained that deciding that FOM was somehow not possible post ref was a peculiar Mayism.

IIRC for a large part of this thread,people, perhaps including you, were saying that some of industries and services, particularly the NHS, would suffer post Brexit because EU citizens would no longer be able to come here under FOM.
It was accepted on here that FOM and the SM access went hand in hand. What has changed for you? Do yo really expect a 'softer' deal under Johnson than May?

Not sure what you mean by the bolded bit.

FOM is obviously beneficial for everyone involved; economically at the very least.

I was pointing out that people realised that Brexit meant the end of FOM and were even pointing out the ramifications in their view.

SM access requires FOM, which people seemed to accept. I don't see what has changed.

Why did Brexit mean the end of FOM when the entire leave campaign said leaving the single market was never an option?

Old ground this.
The leave camp could only give an aspiration of staying in the SM without FOM, but as you well know, negotiations could only start after A50. The EU have been consistent throughout that we can't have one without the other.
You have stated plenty of times that in your opinion the Brexit campaign and Brexiteers were all about stopping forriners coming here so why do you now think they are any keener to keep FOM?
You seem to have been quite involved in the Remain campaign which was adamant that a vote to leave meant leaving the SM and everything else.
Were you and the Remain camp guilty of peddling bullshit?

The government's leaflet said "No other country has managed to secure
significant access to the Single Market, without having to:
• follow EU rules over which they have no real say
• pay into the EU
• accept EU citizens living and working in their country"

So it was clear that you cannot have one without the other.

That is what I have been saying. That is why I think SM access is unattainable.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

No, but I have always maintained that deciding that FOM was somehow not possible post ref was a peculiar Mayism.

IIRC for a large part of this thread,people, perhaps including you, were saying that some of industries and services, particularly the NHS, would suffer post Brexit because EU citizens would no longer be able to come here under FOM.
It was accepted on here that FOM and the SM access went hand in hand. What has changed for you? Do yo really expect a 'softer' deal under Johnson than May?

Not sure what you mean by the bolded bit.

FOM is obviously beneficial for everyone involved; economically at the very least.

I was pointing out that people realised that Brexit meant the end of FOM and were even pointing out the ramifications in their view.

SM access requires FOM, which people seemed to accept. I don't see what has changed.

Why did Brexit mean the end of FOM when the entire leave campaign said leaving the single market was never an option?

Old ground this.
The leave camp could only give an aspiration of staying in the SM without FOM, but as you well know, negotiations could only start after A50. The EU have been consistent throughout that we can't have one without the other.
You have stated plenty of times that in your opinion the Brexit campaign and Brexiteers were all about stopping forriners coming here so why do you now think they are any keener to keep FOM?
You seem to have been quite involved in the Remain campaign which was adamant that a vote to leave meant leaving the SM and everything else.
Were you and the Remain camp guilty of peddling bullshit?

The government's leaflet said "No other country has managed to secure
significant access to the Single Market, without having to:
• follow EU rules over which they have no real say
• pay into the EU
• accept EU citizens living and working in their country"

So it was clear that you cannot have one without the other.

That is what I have been saying. That is why I think SM access is unattainable.

Well yes, because literally everyone on leave was saying "if we win we won't leave the SM" - ergo, they weren't going to deliver on stopping FOM.

Gov't was taking vote leave's word that they really wouldn't leave the SM and so therefore wouldn't deliver on stopping FOM, because leaving SM was so obviously a bad idea, as everyone on both sides articulated.

You really can't blame the losing side for believing the lies of the winning side. You must remember, staying in the SM was a given on both sides, and anyone who sniffed that leave weren't being honest about that were given short shrift. Do I need to post Hannan's quote again?

ballysmate

I could post Cameron telling the Commons what Leave would mean.
Yes he has now gone but at the time was PM and leading the Remainders. It was his referendum and at the time it would be him to carry out the result

Stevo_666

darkhairedlord said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

In relation to other currencies? Yes, clearly.
This is the World that we live in, not isolation, but in relation.
When we go to make great trade deals with the Trumpster what denomination will be most relevant?

If you pick a random foreign unit of measurement you can demonstrate a lot of things.

Our functional currency is Sterling so that's how we measure UK GDP: any other currency is not relevant - unless you are trying to twist the facts.

So 1920's Weimar Republic GDP growth must have been exceptional...

I think we can discount inflation as a material factor from the scenario we are considering.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

I'm sure you realise that GDP stated in a foreign currency will contain foreign exchange fluctuations.

Let's use domestic currency for each country and you will see it paints a rather different picture:
.

Ahahahahahahahaha

I expected you to pipe up after my 'raison 'd'etre' post

Keep up the quality contributions to the thread...

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

No, but I have always maintained that deciding that FOM was somehow not possible post ref was a peculiar Mayism.

IIRC for a large part of this thread,people, perhaps including you, were saying that some of industries and services, particularly the NHS, would suffer post Brexit because EU citizens would no longer be able to come here under FOM.
It was accepted on here that FOM and the SM access went hand in hand. What has changed for you? Do yo really expect a 'softer' deal under Johnson than May?

I made the same point a while back - while staying in the single market is still theoretically possible, what odds will anyone get on that?

I think Rick is showing the truth of the old saying that the last thing to die is hope, rather than any realistic expectation of that as an outcome.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

I could post Cameron telling the Commons what Leave would mean.
Yes he has now gone but at the time was PM and leading the Remainders. It was his referendum and at the time it would be him to carry out the result

You get my point though, right? His point wasn't that the UK would leave the SM - his point was Leave won't deliver on FOM because that would mean to leave the SM, which they specifically ruled out.

Get me?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

I think Rick is showing the truth of the old saying that the last thing to die is hope, rather than any realistic expectation of that as an outcome.

It's not hope, it's a real disappointment that the system has failed to create a genuine debate on what the best Brexit ought to be. Instead, what we got was a group within one of the parties deciding what they thought it should be, which parliament binned, and so another group within the same party has now tweaked it.

Nowhere has anyone actually sat down and thought right, now the UK is leaving, what is the optimal way to do so. It's all stupid. That's why it's not satisfactory, because no-one feels that everything has been appropriately weighed up.

I don't know why more people like yourselves are not disappointed by this.

rick_chasey

Seriously, have a look on this very thread in the run up to the vote.

kingstongraham

I just tried looking back to page 70ish. It's an argument about how being in the EU stops us training young people to be builders because the Polish have trained their young people to be builders.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

I think Rick is showing the truth of the old saying that the last thing to die is hope, rather than any realistic expectation of that as an outcome.

It's not hope, it's a real disappointment that the system has failed to create a genuine debate on what the best Brexit ought to be. Instead, what we got was a group within one of the parties deciding what they thought it should be, which parliament binned, and so another group within the same party has now tweaked it.

Nowhere has anyone actually sat down and thought right, now the UK is leaving, what is the optimal way to do so. It's all stupid. That's why it's not satisfactory, because no-one feels that everything has been appropriately weighed up.

I don't know why more people like yourselves are not disappointed by this.

As I recall there was a vote in the HoC on different types of Brexit (6 variants IIRC). None of them commanded enough support to be taken forward, but to my mind that constitutes a consideration of the possibilities.

ballysmate

Stevo, please don't get adding to the disappointment.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

I think Rick is showing the truth of the old saying that the last thing to die is hope, rather than any realistic expectation of that as an outcome.

It's not hope, it's a real disappointment that the system has failed to create a genuine debate on what the best Brexit ought to be. Instead, what we got was a group within one of the parties deciding what they thought it should be, which parliament binned, and so another group within the same party has now tweaked it.

Nowhere has anyone actually sat down and thought right, now the UK is leaving, what is the optimal way to do so. It's all stupid. That's why it's not satisfactory, because no-one feels that everything has been appropriately weighed up.

I don't know why more people like yourselves are not disappointed by this.

As I recall there was a vote in the HoC on different types of Brexit (6 variants IIRC). None of them commanded enough support to be taken forward, but to my mind that constitutes a consideration of the possibilities.

I don't know whether you listened to the debate, but debate it wasn't. It was posturing from the various sides - the fact it ended in just a rejection of everything and that there was no attempt to come to a kind of consensus shows that that was probably the case.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

I think Rick is showing the truth of the old saying that the last thing to die is hope, rather than any realistic expectation of that as an outcome.

It's not hope, it's a real disappointment that the system has failed to create a genuine debate on what the best Brexit ought to be. Instead, what we got was a group within one of the parties deciding what they thought it should be, which parliament binned, and so another group within the same party has now tweaked it.

Nowhere has anyone actually sat down and thought right, now the UK is leaving, what is the optimal way to do so. It's all stupid. That's why it's not satisfactory, because no-one feels that everything has been appropriately weighed up.

I don't know why more people like yourselves are not disappointed by this.

As I recall there was a vote in the HoC on different types of Brexit (6 variants IIRC). None of them commanded enough support to be taken forward, but to my mind that constitutes a consideration of the possibilities.

I don't know whether you listened to the debate, but debate it wasn't. It was posturing from the various sides - the fact it ended in just a rejection of everything and that there was no attempt to come to a kind of consensus shows that that was probably the case.

The Brady amendment and the BoJo deal both received majority support. None of the other proposals did.

tailwindhome

Tony Connelly
@tconnellyRTE
NEW Von der Leyen: without the free movement of people you cannot have the free movement of capital and services. The more divergence there is the more distant the partnership will be.

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

Tony Connelly
@tconnellyRTE
NEW Von der Leyen: without the free movement of people you cannot have the free movement of capital and services. The more divergence there is the more distant the partnership will be.

It's possible that there will be greater divisions between the commission and the EU27 in the next round. For example, I read somewhere that the commission is keen to go for phasing again, but that a number of the EU27 are much less keen given the shambles of last time.

morstar

TheBlueBean said:

tailwindhome said:

Tony Connelly
@tconnellyRTE
NEW Von der Leyen: without the free movement of people you cannot have the free movement of capital and services. The more divergence there is the more distant the partnership will be.

It's possible that there will be greater divisions between the commission and the EU27 in the next round. For example, I read somewhere that the commission is keen to go for phasing again, but that a number of the EU27 are much less keen given the shambles of last time.

Good point. Up until December 12th, GB was disunited whilst EU was United.
Now with a large Tory majority, the GB side will be more united whilst the EU will potentially have more disparity in agendas.
Trouble is that delays simply lead towards increased likelihood of a hard Brexit.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

I think Rick is showing the truth of the old saying that the last thing to die is hope, rather than any realistic expectation of that as an outcome.

It's not hope, it's a real disappointment that the system has failed to create a genuine debate on what the best Brexit ought to be. Instead, what we got was a group within one of the parties deciding what they thought it should be, which parliament binned, and so another group within the same party has now tweaked it.

Nowhere has anyone actually sat down and thought right, now the UK is leaving, what is the optimal way to do so. It's all stupid. That's why it's not satisfactory, because no-one feels that everything has been appropriately weighed up.

I don't know why more people like yourselves are not disappointed by this.

As I recall there was a vote in the HoC on different types of Brexit (6 variants IIRC). None of them commanded enough support to be taken forward, but to my mind that constitutes a consideration of the possibilities.

I don't know whether you listened to the debate, but debate it wasn't. It was posturing from the various sides - the fact it ended in just a rejection of everything and that there was no attempt to come to a kind of consensus shows that that was probably the case.

It was up to them how much they put into to considering the options - point is, we (i.e. the HoC) had a vote on them.

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Tony Connelly
@tconnellyRTE
NEW Von der Leyen: without the free movement of people you cannot have the free movement of capital and services. The more divergence there is the more distant the partnership will be.

Von der Leyen in her first 'No sh!te Sherlock' moment. Good to see she's on the ball...

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Tony Connelly
@tconnellyRTE
NEW Von der Leyen: without the free movement of people you cannot have the free movement of capital and services. The more divergence there is the more distant the partnership will be.

Von der Leyen in her first 'No sh!te Sherlock' moment. Good to see she's on the ball...

Maybe mention that to the guy promising near unrestricted access to the SM with no concessions on FoM or anything else. Essentially the same Vote Leave nonsense as 2016. Alex, I think his name is. Not that the so-called Australian-style points system is likely to change anything much once various schemes for seasonal workers and what have you are taken into account.