BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

joelsim

Then add the loss in tax income at the exchequer and we are well and truly f*cked.

joelsim

Which is exactly why I'm calling people names. Not difficult to understand.

joelsim

And for what? So that some nationalists can get rid of some Poles? Or as many of the leavers think, some Pakis.

joelsim

Urgh. They make me sick.

briantrumpet

finchy wrote:

And here's what Theresa May privately thought about Brexit before the vote.

Oops. Doesn't half sound like something out of The Thick Of It. Maybe the whole thing is an Armando Ianucci script being played out in front of us, and none of it is real. How we'll laugh when we realise...

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

There is nothing that rules us out of the single market. Polls are showing that most people want to prioritise SM membership over immigration. The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

Anyway, as I said, an EU which is divided on a trade deal with the UK is not good news for us. Why do you think so many countries want a deal with the EU?

The number of countries wanting one is likely to decline when they see Canada wasting 7 years of hard work.

If reports are true that the deal would have seen Canadian companies being able to sue EU member states for policies which affect their profits (I don't have the time to research whether or not this really is the case), then maybe they could just adjust their demands accordingly.

They already have. Looks like protectionism by the socialist Walloon administration who represent less than 4 million people, scuppering a deal for the other 500 million.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/explainer-ceta-wallonia-europe-and-canada/article32489554/

joelsim

briantrumpet wrote:

finchy wrote:

And here's what Theresa May privately thought about Brexit before the vote.

Oops. Doesn't half sound like something out of The Thick Of It. Maybe the whole thing is an Armando Ianucci script being played out in front of us, and none of it is real. How we'll laugh when we realise...

I can't believe you haven't seen that mate. Check her views on Heathrow too.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

There is nothing that rules us out of the single market. Polls are showing that most people want to prioritise SM membership over immigration. The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

Anyway, as I said, an EU which is divided on a trade deal with the UK is not good news for us. Why do you think so many countries want a deal with the EU?

The number of countries wanting one is likely to decline when they see Canada wasting 7 years of hard work.

If reports are true that the deal would have seen Canadian companies being able to sue EU member states for policies which affect their profits (I don't have the time to research whether or not this really is the case), then maybe they could just adjust their demands accordingly.

They already have. Looks like protectionism by the socialist Walloon administration who represent less than 4 million people, scuppering a deal for the other 500 million.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/explainer-ceta-wallonia-europe-and-canada/article32489554/

As I said Steve, protection for their local businesses. And rightly so. If only more governments were like that then we'd all be better off.

pinno

finchy wrote:

The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

If the government wait long enough until UKIP completes their implosion, no one has to worry about the UKIP vote. At this rate, it could well be the case.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well have to see what happens to inflation and wages.

We've been there before in the period just after the GFC and survived it.

The problem is, where do we go if we have another big economic crisis? Interest rates are down at 0.25% so cutting them to stimulate lending isn't as viable as in 2008. More QE? Possibly, but how much longer can this policy be carried on? George Osborne's economic plans were based on sustained high levels of immigration and increasing personal debt, so I'm not sure how many options the government will have if the next recession comes within the next couple of years.

Survive it again. If it happens. The GFC had pretty severe economic impacts - more than are being forecast here - and we got through that.

briantrumpet

Joelsim wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

finchy wrote:

And here's what Theresa May privately thought about Brexit before the vote.

Oops. Doesn't half sound like something out of The Thick Of It. Maybe the whole thing is an Armando Ianucci script being played out in front of us, and none of it is real. How we'll laugh when we realise...

I can't believe you haven't seen that mate. Check her views on Heathrow too.

Well, I did know she was sort-of Remain. Now she's sort of in deep doodoo with the whole sorry mess. I can't see how this is going to play out, other than a thousand times worse than if people hadn't swallowed the lies of milk-and-honey of Brexit.

Time machine, please.

joelsim

Joelsim wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

finchy wrote:

And here's what Theresa May privately thought about Brexit before the vote.

Oops. Doesn't half sound like something out of The Thick Of It. Maybe the whole thing is an Armando Ianucci script being played out in front of us, and none of it is real. How we'll laugh when we realise...

I can't believe you haven't seen that mate. Check her views on Heathrow too.

2008: it will undermine climate targets and seriously damage the health of the local community.

2016: it shows we are successful.

FFS.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

There is nothing that rules us out of the single market. Polls are showing that most people want to prioritise SM membership over immigration. The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

Anyway, as I said, an EU which is divided on a trade deal with the UK is not good news for us. Why do you think so many countries want a deal with the EU?

The number of countries wanting one is likely to decline when they see Canada wasting 7 years of hard work.

If reports are true that the deal would have seen Canadian companies being able to sue EU member states for policies which affect their profits (I don't have the time to research whether or not this really is the case), then maybe they could just adjust their demands accordingly.

They already have. Looks like protectionism by the socialist Walloon administration who represent less than 4 million people, scuppering a deal for the other 500 million.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/explainer-ceta-wallonia-europe-and-canada/article32489554/

As I said Steve, protection for their local businesses. And rightly so. If only more governments were like that then we'd all be better off.

Protectionismnis jot the way to go generally.

If it was a trade deal between Canada and Wallonia or even Canada an Belgium, fair enough. But this is 3.5m poeple screwing it up for 500m people.

And also goes directly against what you have been saying all along that the lack of a EU trade deal is bad for UK businesses, but somehow the lack of a Canada trade dea is good for Wallonia businesses. How do you reconcile that?

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well have to see what happens to inflation and wages.

We've been there before in the period just after the GFC and survived it.

The problem is, where do we go if we have another big economic crisis? Interest rates are down at 0.25% so cutting them to stimulate lending isn't as viable as in 2008. More QE? Possibly, but how much longer can this policy be carried on? George Osborne's economic plans were based on sustained high levels of immigration and increasing personal debt, so I'm not sure how many options the government will have if the next recession comes within the next couple of years.

Survive it again. If it happens. The GFC had pretty severe economic impacts - more than are being forecast here - and we got through that.

IMO the effects of Brexit will be far worse than those suggested by Project Fear. You only need to look at what's happened so far to see that some indicators are already far worse, and that's based on markets alone.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well have to see what happens to inflation and wages.

We've been there before in the period just after the GFC and survived it.

The problem is, where do we go if we have another big economic crisis? Interest rates are down at 0.25% so cutting them to stimulate lending isn't as viable as in 2008. More QE? Possibly, but how much longer can this policy be carried on? George Osborne's economic plans were based on sustained high levels of immigration and increasing personal debt, so I'm not sure how many options the government will have if the next recession comes within the next couple of years.

Survive it again. If it happens. The GFC had pretty severe economic impacts - more than are being forecast here - and we got through that.

Just saying "survive it again" isn't really a policy though, is it? Last time round, there were things that the government could do - slash interest rates, QE. The question is (and I'm not telling you that I have the answer), would the same measures be possible this time (interest rates probably not, QE maybe), would they be effective, and are there any alternative policies which could be put in place?

For over a year now, I've been hearing economists and central bankers saying that the world is effectively out of economic ammunition for dealing with the next downturn. I hope they're wrong, but I haven't seen anyone really present a counter-argument, so I suspect they're right.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

There is nothing that rules us out of the single market. Polls are showing that most people want to prioritise SM membership over immigration. The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

Anyway, as I said, an EU which is divided on a trade deal with the UK is not good news for us. Why do you think so many countries want a deal with the EU?

The number of countries wanting one is likely to decline when they see Canada wasting 7 years of hard work.

If reports are true that the deal would have seen Canadian companies being able to sue EU member states for policies which affect their profits (I don't have the time to research whether or not this really is the case), then maybe they could just adjust their demands accordingly.

They already have. Looks like protectionism by the socialist Walloon administration who represent less than 4 million people, scuppering a deal for the other 500 million.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/explainer-ceta-wallonia-europe-and-canada/article32489554/

As I said Steve, protection for their local businesses. And rightly so. If only more governments were like that then we'd all be better off.

Protectionismnis jot the way to go generally.

If it was a trade deal between Canada and Wallonia or even Canada an Belgium, fair enough. But this is 3.5m poeple screwing it up for 500m people.

And also goes directly against what you have been saying all along that the lack of a EU trade deal is bad for UK businesses, but somehow the lack of a Canada trade dea is good for Wallonia businesses. How do you reconcile that?

As I said, protection of local businesses is vital to the community. One, they pay more tax, two they improve the fabric of the locale. Simply there is nothing wrong with that at all. We are partly where we are now through govt submission to power.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

finchy wrote:

The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

If the government wait long enough until UKIP completes their implosion, no one has to worry about the UKIP vote. At this rate, it could well be the case.

Started to happen already. Next one will be interesting if the pattern continues:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

joelsim

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well have to see what happens to inflation and wages.

We've been there before in the period just after the GFC and survived it.

The problem is, where do we go if we have another big economic crisis? Interest rates are down at 0.25% so cutting them to stimulate lending isn't as viable as in 2008. More QE? Possibly, but how much longer can this policy be carried on? George Osborne's economic plans were based on sustained high levels of immigration and increasing personal debt, so I'm not sure how many options the government will have if the next recession comes within the next couple of years.

Survive it again. If it happens. The GFC had pretty severe economic impacts - more than are being forecast here - and we got through that.

Just saying "survive it again" isn't really a policy though, is it? Last time round, there were things that the government could do - slash interest rates, QE. The question is (and I'm not telling you that I have the answer), would the same measures be possible this time (interest rates probably not, QE maybe), would they be effective, and are there any alternative policies which could be put in place?

For over a year now, I've been hearing economists and central bankers saying that the world is effectively out of economic ammunition for dealing with the next downturn. I hope they're wrong, but I haven't seen anyone really present a counter-argument, so I suspect they're right.

Experts. Pah!

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

finchy wrote:

The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

If the government wait long enough until UKIP completes their implosion, no one has to worry about the UKIP vote. At this rate, it could well be the case.

Started to happen already. Next one will be interesting if the pattern continues:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

FFS Steve, will you please stop looking at this from a Tory in power perspective. Labour is piss-poor currently, and the Tories are jackbooting over everyone to the detriment of 95% of the population. Stop being an arse.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

There is nothing that rules us out of the single market. Polls are showing that most people want to prioritise SM membership over immigration. The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

Anyway, as I said, an EU which is divided on a trade deal with the UK is not good news for us. Why do you think so many countries want a deal with the EU?

The number of countries wanting one is likely to decline when they see Canada wasting 7 years of hard work.

If reports are true that the deal would have seen Canadian companies being able to sue EU member states for policies which affect their profits (I don't have the time to research whether or not this really is the case), then maybe they could just adjust their demands accordingly.

They already have. Looks like protectionism by the socialist Walloon administration who represent less than 4 million people, scuppering a deal for the other 500 million.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/explainer-ceta-wallonia-europe-and-canada/article32489554/

As I said Steve, protection for their local businesses. And rightly so. If only more governments were like that then we'd all be better off.

Protectionismnis jot the way to go generally.

If it was a trade deal between Canada and Wallonia or even Canada an Belgium, fair enough. But this is 3.5m poeple screwing it up for 500m people.

And also goes directly against what you have been saying all along that the lack of a EU trade deal is bad for UK businesses, but somehow the lack of a Canada trade dea is good for Wallonia businesses. How do you reconcile that?

As I said, protection of local businesses is vital to the community. One, they pay more tax, two they improve the fabric of the locale. Simply there is nothing wrong with that at all. We are partly where we are now through govt submission to power.

You are still congratulating Wallonia for rejecting the same sort of trade deal that you think we cannot live without.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

finchy wrote:

The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

If the government wait long enough until UKIP completes their implosion, no one has to worry about the UKIP vote. At this rate, it could well be the case.

Started to happen already. Next one will be interesting if the pattern continues:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

FFS Steve, will you please stop looking at this from a Tory in power perspective. Labour is piss-poor currently, and the Tories are jackbooting over everyone to the detriment of 95% of the population. Stop being an ars*.

I was commenting on the collapse of UKIP.

Grow up and stop the name calling

finchy

Just backing up what I said before about the next recession.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

There is nothing that rules us out of the single market. Polls are showing that most people want to prioritise SM membership over immigration. The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

Anyway, as I said, an EU which is divided on a trade deal with the UK is not good news for us. Why do you think so many countries want a deal with the EU?

The number of countries wanting one is likely to decline when they see Canada wasting 7 years of hard work.

If reports are true that the deal would have seen Canadian companies being able to sue EU member states for policies which affect their profits (I don't have the time to research whether or not this really is the case), then maybe they could just adjust their demands accordingly.

They already have. Looks like protectionism by the socialist Walloon administration who represent less than 4 million people, scuppering a deal for the other 500 million.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/explainer-ceta-wallonia-europe-and-canada/article32489554/

As I said Steve, protection for their local businesses. And rightly so. If only more governments were like that then we'd all be better off.

Protectionismnis jot the way to go generally.

If it was a trade deal between Canada and Wallonia or even Canada an Belgium, fair enough. But this is 3.5m poeple screwing it up for 500m people.

And also goes directly against what you have been saying all along that the lack of a EU trade deal is bad for UK businesses, but somehow the lack of a Canada trade dea is good for Wallonia businesses. How do you reconcile that?

As I said, protection of local businesses is vital to the community. One, they pay more tax, two they improve the fabric of the locale. Simply there is nothing wrong with that at all. We are partly where we are now through govt submission to power.

You are still congratulating Wallonia for rejecting the same sort of trade deal that you think we cannot live without.

It does sound like the sort of unanimous agreement we would have advocated so maybe things will be easier without us.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well have to see what happens to inflation and wages.

We've been there before in the period just after the GFC and survived it.

The problem is, where do we go if we have another big economic crisis? Interest rates are down at 0.25% so cutting them to stimulate lending isn't as viable as in 2008. More QE? Possibly, but how much longer can this policy be carried on? George Osborne's economic plans were based on sustained high levels of immigration and increasing personal debt, so I'm not sure how many options the government will have if the next recession comes within the next couple of years.

Survive it again. If it happens. The GFC had pretty severe economic impacts - more than are being forecast here - and we got through that.

Just saying "survive it again" isn't really a policy though, is it? Last time round, there were things that the government could do - slash interest rates, QE. The question is (and I'm not telling you that I have the answer), would the same measures be possible this time (interest rates probably not, QE maybe), would they be effective, and are there any alternative policies which could be put in place?

For over a year now, I've been hearing economists and central bankers saying that the world is effectively out of economic ammunition for dealing with the next downturn. I hope they're wrong, but I haven't seen anyone really present a counter-argument, so I suspect they're right.

You are still assuming it will happen. You've said this before.

Although like I said a few pages back, its the EU that I would be more worried about on account of the single currency, brewing banking crisis and possible other political shocks.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

finchy wrote:

The government could accept that, rather than base their policy on avoiding Tory voters switching to UKIP.

If the government wait long enough until UKIP completes their implosion, no one has to worry about the UKIP vote. At this rate, it could well be the case.

Started to happen already. Next one will be interesting if the pattern continues:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

FFS Steve, will you please stop looking at this from a Tory in power perspective. Labour is piss-poor currently, and the Tories are jackbooting over everyone to the detriment of 95% of the population. Stop being an ars*.

I was commenting on the collapse of UKIP.

Grow up and stop the name calling

Think about it. If you honestly think that's a good thing, when much of the Brexit vote is based on 'it can't get much worse' then you really need to look at yourself.

That's not name-calling, it's a foundation built on sand that will come back and bite us on the arse even harder in a few years' time.

Grow up and stop being Tory boy.

coopster_the_1st

finchy wrote:

And here's what Theresa May privately thought about Brexit before the vote.

You are all missing something. It does not matter what TM thinks, she is employed to carry out the instructions of the electorate.

In a general election, this is based on the party manifesto. For a referendum, it is on the question asked. Her vote in a referendum is worth the same as yours or mine, one vote!

So, as Prime Minister she has been instructed to deliver Brexit. David Cameron did not want to do as instructed by the electorate so resigned. If TM did not want to deliver Brexit she should not have stood for Conservative party leader.

As much as many of you want to happen in this instance, you cannot ask the country for an instruction, and then ignore it and follow your own views. We are not Russia or North Korea :roll:

coopster_the_1st

Duplicate

joelsim

Coopster the 1st wrote:

finchy wrote:

And here's what Theresa May privately thought about Brexit before the vote.

You are all missing something. It does not matter what TM thinks, she is employed to carry out the instructions of the electorate.

In a general election, this is based on the party manifesto. For a referendum, it is on the question asked. Her vote in a referendum is worth the same as yours or mine, one vote!

So, as Prime Minister she has been instructed to deliver Brexit. David Cameron did not want to do as instructed by the electorate so resigned. If TM did not want to deliver Brexit she should not have stood for Conservative party leader.

As much as many of you want to happen in this instance, you cannot ask the country for an instruction, and then ignore it and follow your own views. We are not Russia or North Korea :roll:

Interesting you should say that, clearly you aren't keeping up with the reality of most people not wanting to be made poorer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ce=twitter

I'll tell you now, every day that goes by sees Brexit's case weakening. Come March the situation will be so poor, and legals still pending, and parliament scrutinising, that it will be delayed. It simply won't happen. May has backed the wrong horse and she'll go down in history as a total prick. She's already backtracking on hard Brexit, and frankly there is no choice. Hard or no.

People like you will be laughed at. Oh and there'll be riots from the c*nts.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well have to see what happens to inflation and wages.

We've been there before in the period just after the GFC and survived it.

The problem is, where do we go if we have another big economic crisis? Interest rates are down at 0.25% so cutting them to stimulate lending isn't as viable as in 2008. More QE? Possibly, but how much longer can this policy be carried on? George Osborne's economic plans were based on sustained high levels of immigration and increasing personal debt, so I'm not sure how many options the government will have if the next recession comes within the next couple of years.

Survive it again. If it happens. The GFC had pretty severe economic impacts - more than are being forecast here - and we got through that.

Just saying "survive it again" isn't really a policy though, is it? Last time round, there were things that the government could do - slash interest rates, QE. The question is (and I'm not telling you that I have the answer), would the same measures be possible this time (interest rates probably not, QE maybe), would they be effective, and are there any alternative policies which could be put in place?

For over a year now, I've been hearing economists and central bankers saying that the world is effectively out of economic ammunition for dealing with the next downturn. I hope they're wrong, but I haven't seen anyone really present a counter-argument, so I suspect they're right.

You are still assuming it will happen. You've said this before.

Although like I said a few pages back, its the EU that I would be more worried about on account of the single currency, brewing banking crisis and possible other political shocks.

It's got to happen at some point. The world's top economists wouldn't be able to put an exact date on when it will happen, so I'm not going to start making specific predictions.

And if the EU takes a massive hit, I'm pretty sure that the brown stuff will hit the fan in the UK as well.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

finchy wrote:

And here's what Theresa May privately thought about Brexit before the vote.

You are all missing something. It does not matter what TM thinks, she is employed to carry out the instructions of the electorate.

In a general election, this is based on the party manifesto. For a referendum, it is on the question asked. Her vote in a referendum is worth the same as yours or mine, one vote!

So, as Prime Minister she has been instructed to deliver Brexit. David Cameron did not want to do as instructed by the electorate so resigned. If TM did not want to deliver Brexit she should not have stood for Conservative party leader.

As much as many of you want to happen in this instance, you cannot ask the country for an instruction, and then ignore it and follow your own views. We are not Russia or North Korea :roll:

Interesting you should say that, clearly you aren't keeping up with the reality of most people not wanting to be made poorer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ce=twitter

I'll tell you now, every day that goes by sees Brexit's case weakening. Come March the situation will be so poor, and legals still pending, and parliament scrutinising, that it will be delayed. It simply won't happen. May has backed the wrong horse and she'll go down in history as a total prick. She's already backtracking on hard Brexit, and frankly there is no choice. Hard or no.

People like you will be laughed at. Oh and there'll be riots from the c*nts.

Let's review that in March shall we. Hopefully you won't have to eat your words.