Brexit discussion thread II

murphaph · 31-10-2017 06:43PM

Calina wrote: »

I seem to recall there were issues with campaign finance returns for the previous election yes. But I also recall the general discussion the day before she called the election being she'd be mad not to given the polling figure at that time. I know that popularly, Nick Timothy is given credit for the election this year. It seems to me that this was not dealt with strategically.

My main concern at the moment is that the high profile alternatives aren't great. The Tory party has no options at all. Labour's problem is that Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn probably don't fully agree on what strategy to follow with respect to Brexit if they suddenly wound up in charge. I'm not sure that a change is necessarily beneficial in other words.

You might well be right in fairness. I just despise May so much.

Labour are really quite pathetic in all this. Afraid to take a strong position either way, even as the cliff edge comes into sight.

Brexit is such a watershed moment that the UK needs a cross party movement to form a brand new party or to coalesce around the liberals who are more or less unashamedly anti-Brexit already.

Maybe too many MPs genuinely still believe it'll somehow be alright on the night. My good mate who voted Brexit listens to my arguments but can't quite believe there could be airline chaos etc. if there's a no deal walk out. Perhaps this attitude permeates to the highest levels.

solodeogloria · 31-10-2017 06:46PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This does seem to be the case. I'm still hopeful that this nonsense can be stopped at some point though.

Good evening!

With all due respect this is a delusional pipe dream. The only nonsense is the idea that Brexit will be stopped.

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer. That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

The sooner that reality is embraced firmly by all involved the sooner post-Brexit clarity will be reached.

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha · 31-10-2017 06:54PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer. That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

By what metric was EU membership not working? Source please. By the way, I'm still awaiting a source for your claim that most remain voters are Eurofederalists.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

The only person peddling this drivel is you. You have yet to provide any sort of evidence that things are going well so I'm afraid you'll just have to get used to the pessimism on and off this board until something positive emerges from this debacle.

Calina · 31-10-2017 07:01PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

With all due respect this is a delusional pipe dream. The only nonsense is the idea that Brexit will be stopped.

All due respect but I don't think that's for you to decide. Either way, you don't get to tell people that they cannot hope. In the words of Aragorn, there is always hope.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer.

In what way was membership not working? I'd like a detailed answer and not handwavy nonsense about how people were just unhappy.

solodeogloria wrote: »

That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

I think ultimately the long term is as the long term happens. As Aslan said nobody is ever told what would have happened. But given much of the commentary lately suggests that the UK will take a substantial step backwards in GDP for 20-30 years, then I'd have to see that not happening at the very least for the word "good" to be appropriate.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The sooner that reality is embraced firmly by all involved the sooner post-Brexit clarity will be reached.

The reality is embraced by the EU. Unfortunately, despite actively wanting Brexit, reality is not embraced by the UK.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world.

No For that we have climate change.

However, we're not in the zone about talking about whether it will be the end of the world or not. That lacks ambition. What matters is whether it can be good.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far.

I'm not certain I would agree with you. The currency dropped substantially post vote, jobs are are starting to leave. BoE estimates 75000 jobs are directly at risk in the banking sector and those jobs support a lot of service jobs.

The UK has a low unemployment rate at the moment but the dropping of the unemployment rate did not see much of a rise in payroll taxes. Many working people are on income support of one kind or another. Even if Brexit never happened, this would augur badly for UK plc.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Keep calm and carry on is not a policy. At best, it's a slogan. The UK needs more than slogans to progress. I'm disappointed that you think you can close the debate in this way.

Enzokk · 31-10-2017 07:43PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

With all due respect this is a delusional pipe dream. The only nonsense is the idea that Brexit will be stopped.

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer. That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

The sooner that reality is embraced firmly by all involved the sooner post-Brexit clarity will be reached.

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

You mentioned in an earlier post that taking back as much control as possible in the headline issues is the best option. You never really expanded what as much control as possible is? What control would you be happy to concede to the EU in law? Same question for borders, money and trade policy?

Jim2007 · 31-10-2017 07:49PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

The conversion is complete! Keep calm and carry on => we have no idea what to do next, we just hope someone will figure it out....

Professor Moriarty · 31-10-2017 08:56PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

The government has to deliver Brexit, regardless if it is Labour or Tories, by March 2019 it will be done as far as being out of the EU is concerned.

You had better ring May and tell her that her transition request isn't a runner.

Sam Russell · 31-10-2017 09:11PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1031/916519-uk-to-hire-8-000-staff-by-next-year-to-gear-up-for-brex/

8,000 new staff, that's a lot of nurses and doctors that could of been hired

I would guess the cost of a civil servant would be of the order of £100,000 per year if office, pension, etc is included. That would suggest £800 m/year as a direct cost for Brexit. Add in the direct cost for customs staff probably adds as much again. Then there is all the new staff to replicate or replace EU standards and other services. We know about the EMA, Euratom, EBA, and there are many more.

If the additional cost to industry to comply with these new systems of standards and customs and other administration, I think that Brexit will cost significantly more than remaining part of the EU. That is of course before the lost trade and reduced GDP.

blanch152 · 31-10-2017 09:27PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

With all due respect this is a delusional pipe dream. The only nonsense is the idea that Brexit will be stopped.

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer. That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

The sooner that reality is embraced firmly by all involved the sooner post-Brexit clarity will be reached.

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I suppose the worst of the doomsday scenarios - immediate collapse of the British economy - have been shown to be wrong so far, but I would guess that over 90% of the doomsday scenarios are still in play, while only about 30% of the best outcome scenarios are in play (where is that £350m for the NHS? Haven't seen the queues of countries lining up to do trade deals - apart from Americans with their chlorinated chickens).

Really Interested · 31-10-2017 10:06PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I suppose the worst of the doomsday scenarios - immediate collapse of the British economy - have been shown to be wrong so far, but I would guess that over 90% of the doomsday scenarios are still in play, while only about 30% of the best outcome scenarios are in play (where is that £350m for the NHS? Haven't seen the queues of countries lining up to do trade deals - apart from Americans with their chlorinated chickens).

The same Americans who put almost a 300% tariff on planes where a major part comes from NI. That what Brexit people forgot outside a free trade area you can agree tariff free trade and when politics comes to play your exports can face huge tariffs over night.

After seeing how the U.K. plays expect to see some serious tariffs in the future.

Capt'n Midnight · 31-10-2017 10:07PM

breatheme wrote: »

I hope they don't get passporting rights, unless there's also Freedom of Movement.

The EEA countries have to accept Freedom of Movement without getting passporting rights so very unlikely especially since if they give those rights to the UK they'd have to offer them to the Norwegians and Swiss too.

The UK might mention the Swiss model as way to get more access.

But Switzerland was only given those rights because it looked like they were going to join the EU. Also with the exception of flights to non-EU destinations all movement of goods and people has to go through the EU. The UK leaving is a completely different situation

Also it does NOT offer passporting rights for financial services.

So the UK needs a closer deal than Norway get.
And Norway pay as much per capita as the UK does.

It's like being an Associate Member of a club and still having to pay the full membership price.

https://infacts.org/briefings/swiss-option/

Gerry T · 31-10-2017 11:44PM

solodeogloria wrote:

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer. That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

Wrong and wrong.
The referendum was advisory and means absolutely nothing. Parliament will decide most likely.
Membership was most definitely working and the UK prospered. But that wasn't enough but it most definitely was working.
I'm sure with time it will be sortef

mickoneill31 · 01-11-2017 08:37AM

I've been listening to this podcast. This week's is good.

http://pca.st/wR6O
That's a link from pocket casts. I'm sure searching for Brexit podcast will find it in whatever app you use. It's the Oct 31 episode.

They talk about what Brexit means for the scientific community. It's another example of taking back a little bit of control while getting rid of loads more.

Chips Lovell · 01-11-2017 10:39AM

Interesting piece in the Economist this week about how fiendishly difficult it is to calculate the pension liability element of the UK exit bill. The EU doesn't pre-fund it's pensions so, on the face of it, it should be relatively straightforward. But, the discount rate it uses in its accounts is calculated in a different way to the one applied to contributions of employees.

One potential easy solution would be for Britain to just pay its share every year, but this probably wouldn't go down well with the pro-Brexit press as it could potentially be funding pensions until 2070 or so.

However, there was this amusing bit at the end of the piece:

Perhaps some cunning British civil servant has found a way of escaping this dilemma. When Buttonwood contacted the Department for Exiting the EU (DEXEU), he was told it was a matter for the Treasury; the Treasury said it was a matter for DEXEU. There was no news on whether either department planned to hold its Christmas party in a brewery.

It's all very Yes Minister.

Gerry T · 01-11-2017 10:48AM

blanch152 wrote:

I suppose the worst of the doomsday scenarios - immediate collapse of the British economy - have been shown to be wrong so far, but I would guess that over 90% of the doomsday scenarios are still in play, while only about 30% of the best outcome scenarios are in play (where is that Â£350m for the NHS? Haven't seen the queues of countries lining up to do trade deals - apart from Americans with their chlorinated chickens).

Was doomsday not a prediction of brexit. Brexit hasn't happened yet and a fiscal prediction would take several years to manifest. The UK is a large economy and will have traction resisting a slow down, but that won't last forever.

demfad · 01-11-2017 10:51AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Perhaps if Chief Brexiter David Davis would release the 58 Brexit impact reports he commissioned instead of suppressing the results everybody (including Brexiters) could make a more informed judgement on Brexit's likely impact.

He won't though. Objective information is the enemy of Brexit.

The challenge for remainers is to patiently get the information on what Brexit actually means out to everyone.

demfad · 01-11-2017 10:59AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

The conversion is complete! Keep calm and carry on => we have no idea what to do next, we just hope someone will figure it out....

I've heard the term 'wing growers' mentioned. They are prepared to jump off a cliff confident they will somehow grow wings on the way down.

Peregrinus · 01-11-2017 11:00AM

Gerry T wrote: »

Was doomsday not a prediction of brexit. Brexit hasn't happened yet and a fiscal prediction would take several years to manifest. The UK is a large economy and will have traction resisting a slow down, but that won't last forever.

There were some predictions to the effect that even a Brexit vote would have such an impact on business and market confidence that it would lead to immediate and dramatic consequences. Apart from a dramatic decline in the value of sterling those immediate consequences did not ensue.

But, basically, you're right. The fact that the most overwrought and overblown predictions from the remain side haven't eventuated doesn't mean that the more reasonable and thoughtful predictions won't eventuate. And of course for the most part its the predictions of the Brexit side that are not being borne out - at least, those of them which should have been borne out in the time since the vote. The promise of all that extra lolly being avaiable for worthy causes like the NHS was revealed as bogus even before the vote, the assurance that the UK could trade on the same terns with the EU but not accept free movement has not been borne out, and the claim that a UK/EU trade deal would be the easiest thing to negotiate turns out to be incorrect. We'll know on Brexit day whether the UK really will be ready to hit the ground running with a bunch of really spiffy free trade deals; right now, it's not looking very promising.

Can anybody, in fact - not looking at anyone in particular, solo - can anybody point to a quantifiable Brexit promise which has been borne out at this stage?

ambro25 · 01-11-2017 11:24AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

<...> Can anybody, in fact - not looking at anyone in particular, solo - can anybody point to a quantifiable Brexit promise which has been borne out at this stage?

Reducing net EU immigration levels, I'd say (but presently lack the resources to search for a corroborating link or two).

It's still early days of course, but the Brexit EU immigration message, honed and refined as it has been by the Home Office since, has got through loud and clear throughout the EU27 and the resident EU immigrants since June 2016: more EU immigrants leaving, less EU immigrants arriving.

I'll pass on the fact that the UK achieved this result through tanking its more noble and desirable societal brand values.

Professor Moriarty · 01-11-2017 01:01PM

demfad wrote: »

I've heard the term 'wing growers' mentioned. They are prepared to jump off a cliff confident they will somehow grow wings on the way down.

Perhaps May, Fox, Davies and Johnson can be compared to Icarus and the Sun to a glorious imperial past.

demfad · 01-11-2017 03:44PM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/electoral-commission-to-investigate-arron-banks-brexit-donations-eu-referendum?CMP=share_btn_tw

The UK electoral commission finally going to investigate Arron Banks and the source of his funding of various EU campaigns. This new investigation into Banks and his entity 'Better for the Country Limited' announced today.

There is already a separate investigation from into Leave.EU, which Banks' also funded.
The main question here is whether or not 'Better for the Country Limited' was the true source of donations made to referendum campaigners in its name or if it was acting as an agent. If it was an agent, who was it an agent for to the value of £2.3m and why didn't they declare it publicly?

The Electoral Commission will investigate donations worth £2.3m, assessing whether Banks was the “true source” of loans made in his name. It will also establish whether Better for the Country was the “true source” of donations made to Brexit campaigners or whether it was “acting as an agent” for some other source of funds. Banks is a director of 'Better for the Country' and the majority shareholder.

The money given by Banks to Leave.EU in the run-up to the referendum was believed to be the biggest donation in British political history. Banks has previously claimed he is worth £100m. An estimate by the Sunday Times puts his fortune at £250m. However, an analysis by Open Democracy suggests the actual figure may be considerably lower.

According to a statement from the Commission, the investigation will also investigate whether “any individual facilitated a transaction” with a “non-qualifying person”. Donors from outside the UK and Gibraltar were impermissible donors for referendum campaigning.

The investigation will also assess whether the recipients of the donations took appropriate steps to identify the source of funds.

Questions have been raised about overseas influence in both the referendum campaign and the US election won by Donald Trump. This week, the former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has surrendered to federal authorities after charges were filed against him over money laundering and conspiracy against the United States. Manafort’s links with Russia have come under close scrutiny.

Banks has boasted about meeting the Russian ambassador, but insisted no political funding came from Russian sources.

[URL="[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/2jb2v7n.jpg[/IMG]"]

[/URL]

In other news, Russia has just denied it!
https://www.rt.com/uk/408461-banks-farage-brexit-interference/

solodeogloria · 01-11-2017 03:58PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can anybody, in fact - not looking at anyone in particular, solo - can anybody point to a quantifiable Brexit promise which has been borne out at this stage?

Good afternoon!

The negotiations are still ongoing, the verdict on the Brexit campaign will be made as Brexit itself is delivered.

At the current standpoint the UK is doing much better than the prophesies of doom during the referendum campaign suggested.

At the present standpoint taking back control of borders, money and laws are looking very much possible.

Enzokk wrote: »

You mentioned in an earlier post that taking back as much control as possible in the headline issues is the best option. You never really expanded what as much control as possible is? What control would you be happy to concede to the EU in law? Same question for borders, money and trade policy?

You misinterpreted my point. I support getting a deal that provides as much control as possible. This means much more Canada than Norway. This means I don't support any acceptance of freedom of movement, I don't support any deal that would restrict the UK's ability to sign trade deals with other countries or any deal that would see the UK paying huge sums of money. Any shared control should be handled through a joint arbitration panel not through the ECJ.

Gerry T wrote: »

I don't think there's a problem with UK flights landing in the EU provided the flight started outside the EU. My understanding is a UK operator can't fly within the EU, from 1 EU airport to another EU airport.
There's plenty of EU carriers to meet demand.

OK. I don't consider this a massive deal. What proportion of flights on UK carriers are between two non-UK EU cities? I suspect the vast minority. I think the easyJet option is the right approach for business affected by this. As long as UK to EU traffic is not grounded this is fine by me personally.

This means that the Israel option (no ECJ direct jurisdiction) for flights in and out of Britain is a good one. This seems to be a natural consequence of leaving the single market and really not the end of the world.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint · 01-11-2017 04:07PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The negotiations are still ongoing, the verdict on the Brexit campaign will be made as Brexit itself is delivered.

At the current standpoint the UK is doing much better than the prophesies of doom during the referendum campaign suggested.

At the present standpoint taking back control of borders, money and laws are looking very much possible.

You misinterpreted my point. I support getting a deal that provides as much control as possible. This means much more Canada than Norway. This means I don't support any acceptance of freedom of movement, I don't support any deal that would restrict the UK's ability to sign trade deals with other countries or any deal that would see the UK paying huge sums of money. Any shared control should be handled through a joint arbitration panel not through the ECJ.

OK. I don't consider this a massive deal. What proportion of flights on UK carriers are between two non-UK EU cities? I suspect the vast minority. I think the easyJet option is the right approach for business affected by this. As long as UK to EU traffic is not grounded this is fine by me personally.

This means that the Israel option (no ECJ direct jurisdiction) for flights in and out of Britain is a good one. This seems to be a natural consequence of leaving the single market and really not the end of the world.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Having an Irish EU Passport to use at anytime to ones discretion i do believe would make one believe that nothing is really a big deal. As there is always an 'out' if push came to shove.

demfad · 01-11-2017 04:24PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The negotiations are still ongoing, the verdict on the Brexit campaign will be made as Brexit itself is delivered.

At the current standpoint the UK is doing much better than the prophesies of doom during the referendum campaign suggested.

At the present standpoint taking back control of borders, money and laws are looking very much possible.

They were always possible. The question is are they possible without the destruction of the UK economy. The impact reports Davis commissioned might shed some light there. But he is afraid to release them even to his own MPs. Why do you think that is?

You misinterpreted my point. I support getting a deal that provides as much control as possible. This means much more Canada than Norway.

Control of what? Under a Canada arrangement the UK wont get near the depth and access to the single market it enjoys now. It LOSES control over how much trade it can do with the EU. The question is which control is more important: Control of free movement or control over the fortunes of your economy.

ambro25 · 01-11-2017 04:52PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

At the current standpoint the UK is doing much better than the prophesies of doom during the referendum campaign suggested.

So says the guy at each passing floor, whilst free-falling off the empire state building :pac:

solodeogloria wrote: »

At the present standpoint taking back control of borders, money and laws are looking very much possible.

Mr Brexit himself, David Davis, disagrees with you on at least the money point.

On the control of borders point, I don't believe we're any further forward than the last time borders were discussed to any extent in the thread. I.e. everyone is still in the pitch-black dark, because NI.

On the control of laws point, I don't believe we're any further forward than the last time the Repeal/Withdrawal Bill was discussed to any extent in the thread. I.e. about 2 or 3 weeks ago when Leadsom cancelled Parliamentary debates about it under threat of a Tory rebellion.

Still, good to see you around still fighting the good fight. Keep the faith and all that

murphaph · 01-11-2017 06:03PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

OK. I don't consider this a massive deal. What proportion of flights on UK carriers are between two non-UK EU cities? I suspect the vast minority. I think the easyJet option is the right approach for business affected by this. As long as UK to EU traffic is not grounded this is fine by me personally.

This means that the Israel option (no ECJ direct jurisdiction) for flights in and out of Britain is a good one. This seems to be a natural consequence of leaving the single market and really not the end of the world.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK has no internationally recognised certification authority for civil aviation. UK aircraft are allowed to fly over/to third countries because the UK airlines are overseen by EASA.

The UK will need to establish a competent and internationally recognised UK equivalent of EASA. Note the CAA does not perform this role. If this authority is not set up on Brexit day then in the event of no deal, UK aircraft would be at best in legal limbo and more likely simply couldn't land anywhere outside the UK.

"The responsibilities of EASA include to analysis and research of safety, authorising foreign operators, giving advice for the drafting of EU legislation, implementing and monitoring safety rules (including inspections in the member states), giving type-certification of aircraft and components as well as the approval of organisations involved in the design, manufacture and maintenance of aeronautical products."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Aviation_Safety_Agency

Enzokk · 01-11-2017 06:51PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You misinterpreted my point. I support getting a deal that provides as much control as possible. This means much more Canada than Norway. This means I don't support any acceptance of freedom of movement, I don't support any deal that would restrict the UK's ability to sign trade deals with other countries or any deal that would see the UK paying huge sums of money. Any shared control should be handled through a joint arbitration panel not through the ECJ.

What you are posting now is not as much control as possible but full control. Full control of immigration, full control of trade and full control of of laws. So maybe you just made a mistake by now asserting you want to take as much control as possible. I still don't see how you can ask for a arbitrator when you want to participate in a EU institution.

In any case, it seems that the UK will need to at least hope that all other trade deals they currently have as being part of the EU will continue on the other countries goodwill. Seems that the chief negotiator doesn't think that verbal agreements mean much and other countries could well go back on their agreements (UK agreeing to negotiating timeline and trying to throw it out!).

UK Could Lose Free Trade Deals With 65 Countries After Brexit, Admits UK's Top Negotiator

Fox’s chief negotiator Crawford Falconer warned MPs that even agreements struck in principle could be tossed aside as countries seek to improve trade deals.

Falconer, who was appearing alongside Fox, added: “They have agreed that that’s what they intend to do.

“All I would say is I’ve been around negotiations a lot and what people say today sometimes changes tomorrow.”

In other news Liam Fox seems to be on a different wave length than Michael Gove regarding chlorinated chicken from the US. Then again Michael Gove only said the UK will back out of a trade deal if it lowers food safety standards. But the question would surely then be if the UK would consider a food substance banned by the EU as unsafe for consumers.

Brexit: Liam Fox says he has 'no objection' to people eating chlorinated chicken

Liam Fox has said British consumers could be allowed to eat chlorine-washed chicken as he hinted the UK would be open to concessions on standards as part of a prospective trade deal with the United States.

The International Trade Secretary risked reopening the row over post-Brexit food standards, as he said there were “no health reasons” why consumers could not eat chlorinated poultry, which is permitted under US laws but banned in the EU.

His comments appear to contradict Environment Secretary Michael Gove, who vowed that the UK would back out of any trade deal with the US that lowered food standards for consumers.

steddyeddy · 01-11-2017 07:20PM

The Bank Of England predicts 10,000 jobs lost on Brexit day and 75,000 in the long term.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/city-jobs-brexit-bank-of-england-sam-woods

Is there anybody saying that Britain will be better off economically post Brexit? The party line seems to have changed from "we'll be better off making our own deals" to "we'll survive Brexit".

A Little Pony · 01-11-2017 07:40PM

But given much of the commentary lately suggests that the UK will take a substantial step backwards in GDP for 20-30 years

What evidence is this based on? I am highly skeptical of such claims which are over a long distance of time when a multitude of things can happen, it's simply silly to speculate that far. Let's see the full picture once Brexit happens and then judge it on it's merits.

A Dub in Glasgo · 01-11-2017 07:47PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

This means I don't support any acceptance of freedom of movement, I don't support any deal that would restrict the UK's ability to sign trade deals with other countries or any deal that would see the UK paying huge sums of money. Any shared control should be handled through a joint arbitration panel not through the ECJ.

I have not had a peek in here for a while as it was the same stuff restated loads of times but the above is from a person who voted Remain?

I assume you are giving up your right of free movement by giving up your Irish citizneship (forgive me if this was mentioned previously)

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments