BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Cameron triggering article 50 if Leave won. He knew that he would resign, and that even if he had hung on, there was simply no way that this would happen.
There was no chance any leader would trigger article 50 the day after because no work or consideration had even gone into how to do it. Cameron knew this and lied.
Good example. So somebody telling a known lie such as the £350m could be threatened with jail if repeated ( an extreme example to illustrate a point) but how do you you stop somebody telling a lie that only becomes a lie after the result ie Cameron in the above example and Sadiq Khan with his fare freeze. I guess a year in prison would put most of them off.
If you wanted to go down that route, you would charge them with intentionally misleading the electorate (having introduced the offence), so Cameron would now have been facing criminal prosecutions. Of course, if Remain had won then he wouldn't face prosecution, so there would be an incentive to continue lying, but he would need to balance that with the risk of prosecution and other associated losses (after dinner speaking, books etc.)
The problem with the £350m "lie" is that the £350m in itself is not a lie i.e. "We send £350m a week to the EU" is correct, although I suspect there are no weekly payments, so on that basis it is a lie. What is a lie is to suggest that it is available in its entirety to fund other costs without mentioning that some of it comes back in the form of a rebate and various projects. So clearly saying "the UK could spend an additional £350m on the NHS" is an outright lie and would result in prosecution, but making the statement above would be less clear cut, but no doubt people would consider it misleading.
Politics is mostly about the former statement - misleading whilst being factually correct. Outright lies are relatively rare although the Brexit debate seemed to attract more of them than others.
Then you need to consider manifesto statements and never having any intention to actually implement the ideas.
It's all a bit tricky.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Cameron triggering article 50 if Leave won. He knew that he would resign, and that even if he had hung on, there was simply no way that this would happen.
There was no chance any leader would trigger article 50 the day after because no work or consideration had even gone into how to do it. Cameron knew this and lied.
Good example. So somebody telling a known lie such as the £350m could be threatened with jail if repeated ( an extreme example to illustrate a point) but how do you you stop somebody telling a lie that only becomes a lie after the result ie Cameron in the above example and Sadiq Khan with his fare freeze. I guess a year in prison would put most of them off.
If you wanted to go down that route, you would charge them with intentionally misleading the electorate (having introduced the offence), so Cameron would now have been facing criminal prosecutions. Of course, if Remain had won then he wouldn't face prosecution, so there would be an incentive to continue lying, but he would need to balance that with the risk of prosecution and other associated losses (after dinner speaking, books etc.)
The problem with the £350m "lie" is that the £350m in itself is not a lie i.e. "We send £350m a week to the EU" is correct, although I suspect there are no weekly payments, so on that basis it is a lie. What is a lie is to suggest that it is available in its entirety to fund other costs without mentioning that some of it comes back in the form of a rebate and various projects. So clearly saying "the UK could spend an additional £350m on the NHS" is an outright lie and would result in prosecution, but making the statement above would be less clear cut, but no doubt people would consider it misleading.
Politics is mostly about the former statement - misleading whilst being factually correct. Outright lies are relatively rare although the Brexit debate seemed to attract more of them than others.
Then you need to consider manifesto statements and never having any intention to actually implement the ideas.
It's all a bit tricky.
it is all a bit tricky but at the moment we are not even trying to keep it clean.0 -
It was more akin to £160m per week in fact.
But given we make 10 times that through membership of the single market, the offensive bus was misleading to the extreme. What it should have said is:
We'll take £840m out of the NHS every week to cover our losses.
And those damn immigrants, coming over here boosting our economy.
Grr.0 -
Tory MP Cheryll Gillan praises Davis for his "steady" progress. Commons bursts out laughing.
Davis: "The balance of negotiating advance is incredibly stacked our way." If he believes that, we're in real trouble.
This guy is a tool of the very highest order.0 -
You were saying these matters are too complex and we need to elect people to take decisions for us. The underlying issues in a general election span a whole range of areas and so are more complex than the issues in a referendum. So based on your logic....briantrumpet wrote:
Quite different - in general elections you have a range of people with differing views, and you select the one you feel best represents your range of views (or the least worst): that person then represents you in the further democratic process of parliamentary process. Parliamentary process has a long history of checks and balances, and though I'll happily concede it throws up curious decisions from time to time, overall it has served us pretty well in the modern era.Stevo 666 wrote:
I guess you're not in favour of general elections either then? More complex than referendums as they cover who is representing us on most things.briantrumpet wrote:
If you've read my analogy about juries, you should know my answer.Stevo 666 wrote:SC, you've already answered it once, I was asking Mr. Trumpet. (I do appreciate that you do try to address these sorts of questions)
If you're saying that because someone doesn't believe that referendums are the best way to decide complex single issues it means that they don't believe that general elections are the least worst option for electing a government, then I'd suggest your analysis is mistaken."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:
You were saying these matters are too complex and we need to elect people to take decisions for us. The underlying issues in a general election span a whole range of areas and so are more complex than the issues in a referendum. So based on your logic....briantrumpet wrote:
Quite different - in general elections you have a range of people with differing views, and you select the one you feel best represents your range of views (or the least worst): that person then represents you in the further democratic process of parliamentary process. Parliamentary process has a long history of checks and balances, and though I'll happily concede it throws up curious decisions from time to time, overall it has served us pretty well in the modern era.Stevo 666 wrote:
I guess you're not in favour of general elections either then? More complex than referendums as they cover who is representing us on most things.briantrumpet wrote:
If you've read my analogy about juries, you should know my answer.Stevo 666 wrote:SC, you've already answered it once, I was asking Mr. Trumpet. (I do appreciate that you do try to address these sorts of questions)
If you're saying that because someone doesn't believe that referendums are the best way to decide complex single issues it means that they don't believe that general elections are the least worst option for electing a government, then I'd suggest your analysis is mistaken.
There probably isn't anything that any politician can do after a general election that would have anywhere near as much impact as a hard Brexit will. Parliament wouldn't allow it.0 -
In your view, maybe. In many peoples view, Corbyn could do a lot more damage if he got in, which is why Labour are still so far behind in the polls despite a hard Brexit being a possibility.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You were saying these matters are too complex and we need to elect people to take decisions for us. The underlying issues in a general election span a whole range of areas and so are more complex than the issues in a referendum. So based on your logic....briantrumpet wrote:
Quite different - in general elections you have a range of people with differing views, and you select the one you feel best represents your range of views (or the least worst): that person then represents you in the further democratic process of parliamentary process. Parliamentary process has a long history of checks and balances, and though I'll happily concede it throws up curious decisions from time to time, overall it has served us pretty well in the modern era.Stevo 666 wrote:
I guess you're not in favour of general elections either then? More complex than referendums as they cover who is representing us on most things.briantrumpet wrote:
If you've read my analogy about juries, you should know my answer.Stevo 666 wrote:SC, you've already answered it once, I was asking Mr. Trumpet. (I do appreciate that you do try to address these sorts of questions)
If you're saying that because someone doesn't believe that referendums are the best way to decide complex single issues it means that they don't believe that general elections are the least worst option for electing a government, then I'd suggest your analysis is mistaken.
There probably isn't anything that any politician can do after a general election that would have anywhere near as much impact as a hard Brexit will. Parliament wouldn't allow it."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:
In your view, maybe. In many peoples view, Corbyn could do a lot more damage if he got in, which is why Labour are still so far behind in the polls despite a hard Brexit being a possibility.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You were saying these matters are too complex and we need to elect people to take decisions for us. The underlying issues in a general election span a whole range of areas and so are more complex than the issues in a referendum. So based on your logic....briantrumpet wrote:
Quite different - in general elections you have a range of people with differing views, and you select the one you feel best represents your range of views (or the least worst): that person then represents you in the further democratic process of parliamentary process. Parliamentary process has a long history of checks and balances, and though I'll happily concede it throws up curious decisions from time to time, overall it has served us pretty well in the modern era.Stevo 666 wrote:
I guess you're not in favour of general elections either then? More complex than referendums as they cover who is representing us on most things.briantrumpet wrote:
If you've read my analogy about juries, you should know my answer.Stevo 666 wrote:SC, you've already answered it once, I was asking Mr. Trumpet. (I do appreciate that you do try to address these sorts of questions)
If you're saying that because someone doesn't believe that referendums are the best way to decide complex single issues it means that they don't believe that general elections are the least worst option for electing a government, then I'd suggest your analysis is mistaken.
There probably isn't anything that any politician can do after a general election that would have anywhere near as much impact as a hard Brexit will. Parliament wouldn't allow it.
Even he couldn't damage trade so quickly.0 -
For anyone wondering just how much a hard Brexit is likely to cost you, circa £1,000 per person per annum. That's £4,000 less disposable income and/or tax/cuts before the increased costs of food, beer, holidays etc due to the collapse in Sterling.
To put even more into perspective, for a 40% tax payer with a wife and two kids that could be a pay cut of c.£11,000 per annum before increased costs of goods and services just to stand still.
Please click.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Happy f*cking days.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/7 ... 07128852480 -
This is very simple really.
Can you accept that human beings move location and we're all equal?
Or are you willing to take an £11k pay cut to keep dirty foreigners out?
Which is it to be?0 -
What if you are not a 40% tax payer? A painter and decorator who hasn't had a pay rise in years, for example.0
-
Loses £4000 disposable income year on year based on a family of 4.TheBigBean wrote:What if you are not a 40% tax payer? A painter and decorator who hasn't had a pay rise in years, for example.
That's a lot of food, beer or a good holiday up the spout.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:
Loses £4000 disposable income year on year based on a family of 4.TheBigBean wrote:What if you are not a 40% tax payer? A painter and decorator who hasn't had a pay rise in years, for example.
That's a lot of food, beer or a good holiday up the spout.
And a likely far higher proportion of disposable income than the £11k of the 40% tax payer.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Loses £4000 disposable income year on year based on a family of 4.TheBigBean wrote:What if you are not a 40% tax payer? A painter and decorator who hasn't had a pay rise in years, for example.
That's a lot of food, beer or a good holiday up the spout.
And a likely far higher proportion of disposable income than the £11k of the 40% tax payer.
he will probably see a hit to his income as his potential clients will have less money so be inclined to leave it a year or do it themselves. This is why he has not had a payrise in years but the effect will accelerate. He will also pay through poorer public services.0 -
Alternatively, he or she might get a pay rise as a result of reduced competition.0
-
Joelsim wrote:This is very simple really.
Can you accept that human beings move location and we're all equal?
Or are you willing to take an £11k pay cut to keep dirty foreigners out?
Which is it to be?
Joel - you have to understand your enemy. These people knew all this and still voted out. If you want to change their mind you need to prove that non-white, non-christian immigration will rise post-Brexit0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rolf F wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Loses £4000 disposable income year on year based on a family of 4.TheBigBean wrote:What if you are not a 40% tax payer? A painter and decorator who hasn't had a pay rise in years, for example.
That's a lot of food, beer or a good holiday up the spout.
And a likely far higher proportion of disposable income than the £11k of the 40% tax payer.
he will probably see a hit to his income as his potential clients will have less money so be inclined to leave it a year or do it themselves. This is why he has not had a payrise in years but the effect will accelerate. He will also pay through poorer public services.
This is a British painter and decorator, is it? One area where there might actually be a boost to income due to reduced competition surely. (Which increases the effect on people in other jobs.)0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Alternatively, he or she might get a pay rise as a result of reduced competition.
unless we start deporting people that is unlikely and as I say our hero will be competing against do it yourselfers.
He should channel his inner SteveO and look for the opportunity - in this scenario it would be to qualify in a trade that joe public can not have a go at himself. Then he will be perfectly placed to take advantage of a skills shortage.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rolf F wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Loses £4000 disposable income year on year based on a family of 4.TheBigBean wrote:What if you are not a 40% tax payer? A painter and decorator who hasn't had a pay rise in years, for example.
That's a lot of food, beer or a good holiday up the spout.
And a likely far higher proportion of disposable income than the £11k of the 40% tax payer.
he will probably see a hit to his income as his potential clients will have less money so be inclined to leave it a year or do it themselves. This is why he has not had a payrise in years but the effect will accelerate. He will also pay through poorer public services.
This is a British painter and decorator, is it? One area where there might actually be a boost to income due to reduced competition surely. (Which increases the effect on people in other jobs.)
It would count as discretionary spend (you can delay the work or DIY) so I imagine he will not benefit. His potential clients having less money post financial crisis will be why he has not had a payrise in years.
Strangely this simple scenario helps to explain how nearly everybody is effected by macro-economic conditions0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rolf F wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Loses £4000 disposable income year on year based on a family of 4.TheBigBean wrote:What if you are not a 40% tax payer? A painter and decorator who hasn't had a pay rise in years, for example.
That's a lot of food, beer or a good holiday up the spout.
And a likely far higher proportion of disposable income than the £11k of the 40% tax payer.
he will probably see a hit to his income as his potential clients will have less money so be inclined to leave it a year or do it themselves. This is why he has not had a payrise in years but the effect will accelerate. He will also pay through poorer public services.
This is a British painter and decorator, is it? One area where there might actually be a boost to income due to reduced competition surely. (Which increases the effect on people in other jobs.)
It would count as discretionary spend (you can delay the work or DIY) so I imagine he will not benefit. His potential clients having less money post financial crisis will be why he has not had a payrise in years.
Strangely this simple scenario helps to explain how nearly everybody is effected by macro-economic conditions
Not entirely. Increased competition caused by free movement will also have had an effect. It's one of the benefits of free movement.0 -
Joelsim wrote:For anyone wondering just how much a hard Brexit is likely to cost you, circa £1,000 per person per annum. That's £4,000 less disposable income and/or tax/cuts before the increased costs of food, beer, holidays etc due to the collapse in Sterling.
To put even more into perspective, for a 40% tax payer with a wife and two kids that could be a pay cut of c.£11,000 per annum before increased costs of goods and services just to stand still.
Please click.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Happy f*cking days.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/7 ... 0712885248
Strangely, the figures in this scenario do not mention that there will be 3 million less people contributing to the GDP figure. Care to reproduce your figures taking that into account?
And when did total GDP become the be all and end all figure that demonstrates the health of the economy? Looks like the only way we achieved GDP 'growth' in recent years is through importing 300,000 people a year0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Joelsim wrote:For anyone wondering just how much a hard Brexit is likely to cost you, circa £1,000 per person per annum. That's £4,000 less disposable income and/or tax/cuts before the increased costs of food, beer, holidays etc due to the collapse in Sterling.
To put even more into perspective, for a 40% tax payer with a wife and two kids that could be a pay cut of c.£11,000 per annum before increased costs of goods and services just to stand still.
Please click.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Happy f*cking days.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/7 ... 0712885248
Strangely, the figures in this scenario do not mention that there will be 3 million less people contributing to the GDP figure. Care to reproduce your figures taking that into account?
And when did total GDP become the be all and end all figure that demonstrates the health of the economy? Looks like the only way we achieved GDP 'growth' in recent years is through importing 300,000 people a year
Where have 3 million people disappeared to?
This is a poorly written article. This figure seems to assume the rate of growth will be 0.6% lower each year. Through the miracle of compound growth (see Einstein and strongest force in the universe, interest = growth) after 15 years you end up with a reduced tax take of £66bn. This is a figure net of our £8bn EU contribution.
To be honest this is nothing new. It was known all along and was deemed a price worth paying - it is only a net drop of £4.4bn a year.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Alternatively, he or she might get a pay rise as a result of reduced competition.
unless we start deporting people that is unlikely and as I say our hero will be competing against do it yourselfers.
Is that a new role for office workers - paint and compute at the same time?0 -
Which part of 'up to £66bn per year' in tax revenues don't people understand? Or 'trade would be around a fifth lower than it otherwise would have been'?
By all means dig your heads in the sand, but despite what that muppet Davis says we have no real negotiating position. We're sitting at the table with 27 other players and we've been dealt a 2 and a 6.
Whichever way you look at this, we are f*cked, although I hear Middle Earth are keen to do a trade deal on shoes.0 -
The only taking back control will be banks taking back control of people's houses.0
-
TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Alternatively, he or she might get a pay rise as a result of reduced competition.
unless we start deporting people that is unlikely and as I say our hero will be competing against do it yourselfers.
Is that a new role for office workers - paint and compute at the same time?
you may have wallpaper paste in your eyes - it says competing0 -
My point was that "do it yourselfers" will not be doing offices, industrial etc. I suspect homes are a small part of the market. So a painter and decorator is highly likely to be paid more as a result of Brexit.
Your argument would work much better with something like nannies. The supply may plummet, but so too could the demand.
Offices and the like will continue to be painted even in a recession.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Joelsim wrote:For anyone wondering just how much a hard Brexit is likely to cost you, circa £1,000 per person per annum. That's £4,000 less disposable income and/or tax/cuts before the increased costs of food, beer, holidays etc due to the collapse in Sterling.
To put even more into perspective, for a 40% tax payer with a wife and two kids that could be a pay cut of c.£11,000 per annum before increased costs of goods and services just to stand still.
Please click.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Happy f*cking days.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/7 ... 0712885248
Strangely, the figures in this scenario do not mention that there will be 3 million less people contributing to the GDP figure. Care to reproduce your figures taking that into account?
And when did total GDP become the be all and end all figure that demonstrates the health of the economy? Looks like the only way we achieved GDP 'growth' in recent years is through importing 300,000 people a year
Where have 3 million people disappeared to?
This is a poorly written article. This figure seems to assume the rate of growth will be 0.6% lower each year. Through the miracle of compound growth (see Einstein and strongest force in the universe, interest = growth) after 15 years you end up with a reduced tax take of £66bn. This is a figure net of our £8bn EU contribution.
To be honest this is nothing new. It was known all along and was deemed a price worth paying - it is only a net drop of £4.4bn a year.
The 3 million have not gone anywhere, they have just not migrated to the UK. (I'm not getting into a discussion on what immigration could be in 15 years time!)
So that is 300,000 people a year, ergo that is a 0.5% increase in UK population (roughly) which is almost exactly the lower growth rate figure you wrote. Calculate it on working age population and the figures are likely to cancel each other out.
As this treasury document was requested by dear boy George to enhance his project fear projections we can safely discredit it and this article. As you say it is poorly written, and it is based on a worst case scenario request by George.
Lies, damn lies and statistics but someone on here has been so sucked in by these that he has lost any clarity of the situation and is continuing to pedal project fear...0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Joelsim wrote:For anyone wondering just how much a hard Brexit is likely to cost you, circa £1,000 per person per annum. That's £4,000 less disposable income and/or tax/cuts before the increased costs of food, beer, holidays etc due to the collapse in Sterling.
To put even more into perspective, for a 40% tax payer with a wife and two kids that could be a pay cut of c.£11,000 per annum before increased costs of goods and services just to stand still.
Please click.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Happy f*cking days.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/7 ... 0712885248
Strangely, the figures in this scenario do not mention that there will be 3 million less people contributing to the GDP figure. Care to reproduce your figures taking that into account?
And when did total GDP become the be all and end all figure that demonstrates the health of the economy? Looks like the only way we achieved GDP 'growth' in recent years is through importing 300,000 people a year
Where have 3 million people disappeared to?
This is a poorly written article. This figure seems to assume the rate of growth will be 0.6% lower each year. Through the miracle of compound growth (see Einstein and strongest force in the universe, interest = growth) after 15 years you end up with a reduced tax take of £66bn. This is a figure net of our £8bn EU contribution.
To be honest this is nothing new. It was known all along and was deemed a price worth paying - it is only a net drop of £4.4bn a year.
The 3 million have not gone anywhere, they have just not migrated to the UK. (I'm not getting into a discussion on what immigration could be in 15 years time!)
So that is 300,000 people a year, ergo that is a 0.5% increase in UK population (roughly) which is almost exactly the lower growth rate figure you wrote. Calculate it on working age population and the figures are likely to cancel each other out.
As this treasury document was requested by dear boy George to enhance his project fear projections we can safely discredit it and this article. As you say it is poorly written, and it is based on a worst case scenario request by George.
Lies, damn lies and statistics but someone on here has been so sucked in by these that he has lost any clarity of the situation and is continuing to pedal project fear...
No lies here fella. Carney said as much too.
But it doesn't suit your agenda.
By the way, are you a racist?0 -
Joelsim wrote:
By the way, are you a racist?
Such a comment is unbecoming.0
