Brexit negotiations thread

[SARF]

Labours stance is hilarious. Almost as amusing as the tories..
Why did they move to go pro eu so early...

The upshot I’ll be may fronting up the remain rebels and they will fold with some whining.

Or a general election which will be solely about brexit..
This would be fantastic to watch as remain mp’s wind it in again for their constituents.. to try to avoid deselection ..
I would love to see a cross party pro brexit con/lab setup , as I fear there would not be enough time for UKIP to aqquire the balance of power again

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Labours stance is hilarious. Almost as amusing as the tories..
Why did they move to go pro eu so early...

The upshot I’ll be may fronting up the remain rebels and they will fold with some whining.

Or a general election which will be solely about brexit..
This would be fantastic to watch as remain mp’s wind it in again for their constituents.. to try to avoid deselection ..
I would love to see a cross party pro brexit con/lab setup , as I fear there would not be enough time for UKIP to aqquire the balance of power again

when did that happen?

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

when did that happen?

That was Friday, today things have gone back to normal...............tomorrow, who knows? :winking:

So it was good old David Davis (I'm resigning....no, I'm not) 'what changed' the wording agreed between May and the tory rebels.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...parliament-tory-theresa-may-mps-a8401166.html

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Surely today, we have the answer one age-old political axiom. YES! we do take the electorate for idiots! Whilst it is, of course, to be welcomed that Ms May is going to provide the NHS with a £20bn boost by 2023/4, the claim by her and the pro-Brexit press, that it is a 'Brexit boost,' is clearly just a downright lie, already disowned by MP's of her own party.
The idea that Brexit will be beneficial to the economy is already extremely contentious but I doubt anyone who would laud its possible, eventual benefits would consider these to be in the short term...........i.e. not before 2023/4. Anyway I'm assuming the kind of Brexit that would be economically advantageous (for some.....certainly not for all) is one where a welfare state, if it still existed, would be in name only. So spending on the NHS wouldn't be a problem, it would only need to provide a basic safety-net service for the poor.
Honesty really does appear to be pretty short on the menu at the moment. I think everyone would like to know...as there are no money trees.....where this money is going to come from. I, myself, would like an honest answer from someone promoting a hard Brexit as to exactly what kind of Britain they would envisage (i.e. social welfare and care) as we move from the late twenties to the thirties.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

That was Friday, today things have gone back to normal...............tomorrow, who knows? :winking:

So it was good old David Davis (I'm resigning....no, I'm not) 'what changed' the wording agreed between May and the tory rebels. :smile:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...parliament-tory-theresa-may-mps-a8401166.html

that article is about the Tories, I was asking SARF about his comment on Labour

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Brexit Dividend

this is how far we have come, after 2 years of apologists saying that the Leave campaign '£350m extra a week to the NHS' wasn't binding the government have now made it policy. Even though there is not one economist stating that we will not lose money in the short and medium term after Brexit the government have stated where they are going to spend this non existent money.

I'm struggling to take this at face value. They can't be that economically illiterate surely? So it's an outright lie. But why would they do that? I'm at a loss to work out the logic of this. Anyone?
(serious suggestions please not......you know)

 

[Benfleet A1]

Brexit Dividend

this is how far we have come, after 2 years of apologists saying that the Leave campaign '£350m extra a week to the NHS' wasn't binding the government have now made it policy. Even though there is not one economist stating that we will not lose money in the short and medium term after Brexit the government have stated where they are going to spend this non existent money.

I'm struggling to take this at face value. They can't be that economically illiterate surely? So it's an outright lie. But why would they do that? I'm at a loss to work out the logic of this. Anyone?
(serious suggestions please not......you know)

General Election maybe?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I’d be highly skeptical about anything an economist says if I were you (speaking as someone who studied Economics!).

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Surely today, we have the answer one age-old political axiom. YES! we do take the electorate for idiots! Whilst it is, of course, to be welcomed that Ms May is going to provide the NHS with a £20bn boost by 2023/4, the claim by her and the pro-Brexit press, that it is a 'Brexit boost,' is clearly just a downright lie, already disowned by MP's of her own party.
The idea that Brexit will be beneficial to the economy is already extremely contentious but I doubt anyone who would laud its possible, eventual benefits would consider these to be in the short term...........i.e. not before 2023/4. Anyway I'm assuming the kind of Brexit that would be economically advantageous (for some.....certainly not for all) is one where a welfare state, if it still existed, would be in name only. So spending on the NHS wouldn't be a problem, it would only need to provide a basic safety-net service for the poor.
Honesty really does appear to be pretty short on the menu at the moment. I think everyone would like to know...as there are no money trees.....where this money is going to come from. I, myself, would like an honest answer from someone promoting a hard Brexit as to exactly what kind of Britain they would envisage (i.e. social welfare and care) as we move from the late twenties to the thirties.

I seem to remember Mrs May telling a NHS nurse precisely that on QT just before last year's election.

General Election maybe?

Last year's GE result certainly.How long can she hold out before another one now?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I’d be highly skeptical about anything an economist says if I were you (speaking as someone who studied Economics!).

can you explain where a Brexit dividend is coming from?

 

[Member]

I’d be highly skeptical about anything an economist says if I were you (speaking as someone who studied Economics!).

I dunno, while I do agree to a certain extent, I also think economists are pretty good at handling uncertainty and recognise the limitations of their analysis, whereas the media just don't care and to a certain extent the public don't understand.

Economic modelling/forecasting can be thought of like the weather forecasts, you know that the forecast can change quite quickly and you'll know that often we're told it'll rain in a few hours and then it doesn't happen. the difference being that with the weather you know very quickly if the forecast was off, whereas with economics it could take years and it's hard to notice the effect.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I dunno, I have 3 degrees in economics and while I do agree to a certain extent, I also think economists are pretty good at handling uncertainty and recognise the limitations of their analysis, whereas the media just don't care and to a certain extent the public don't understand.

Economic modelling/forecasting can be thought of like the weather forecasts, you know that the forecast can change quite quickly and you'll know that often we're told it'll rain in a few hours and then it doesn't happen. the difference being that with the weather you know very quickly if the forecast was off, whereas with economics it could take years and it's hard to notice the effect.

Yes.Yes.But where is the magic money tree the "Brexit divident" is going to be found under? :unsure:

 

[rigsby]

Yes.Yes.But where is the magic money tree the "Brexit divident" is going to be found under? :unsure:

They only have to look under the Labour money tree. The one that will Provide the £300b to renationalise the railways. Don't waste your time asking any Labour MPs where it is because they can never answer.

 

[RobM]

"I dunno, I have 3 degrees in economics"

I bet there were some precious moments! (Oooh! Aah!)

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

They only have to look under the Labour money tree. The one that will Provide the £300b to renationalise the railways. Don't waste your time asking any Labour MPs where it is because they can never answer.

You are either misinformed or lying. Labour have been very clear about re-nationalising the railways. It would happen when each franchise expires, the cost would be capital expenditure so for that they would borrow the necessary funds but as the railways are profit making over time the nationalisation will pay for itself and turn a profit.

But why are you trying to change the subject. The subject was Thesesa May and her 'Brexit Dividend'.

When we leave the EU we have a divorce settlement to pay and have also agreed to keep up payments on various ongoing projects which would eat up any benefits from stopping our current level of payments and that would contra out around 2023/2024. Mrs May's NHS announcement was £20bn to the NHS up to 2023 paid for by a Brexit Dividend plus finding extra from elsewhere.

So can we all agree that Brexit Dividend is not an actual thing and Mrs May has announced £20bn of very welcome spending but that she should tell us what tax rises are going to pay for it?

Or can someone explain what and when the Brexit Dividend will be? Or can someone hazard a guess as to why she thinks taking Boris Johnson's 2 year old lies and just increasing the figure is a good way to communicate with the public?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

They only have to look under the Labour money tree. The one that will Provide the £300b to renationalise the railways. Don't waste your time asking any Labour MPs where it is because they can never answer.

FYI,All of the policies in Labour's manifesto last year were costed none of the Tories were.

Meanwhile on the "Brexit divident",even Jeremy Hunt (he's the Health Secretary btw), admits it won't be enough to fund improvements in the NHS.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

They only have to look under the Labour money tree. The one that will Provide the £300b to renationalise the railways. Don't waste your time asking any Labour MPs where it is because they can never answer.

Whilst I'd agree that there may be many questions unclear about Labour's policies and their funding, this is not the issue here. When a General Election is announced their plans will deservedly come under far harder scrutiny but we're not there yet. What we are dealing with is a government who have, happily, announced a large increase in spending on the NHS and whilst we wait for information on how this will be funded, we are being fed, by May and the right-wing Brexit press, a downright lie, that this is going to be helped by a 'Brexit Bonus.'

 

[MK Shrimper]

There is no Brucie Brexit Bonus as May and her cronies seem to have conviniently forgotten the £40Bn divorce bill. Income tax/NI will rise which is anathema to the Tory heartland.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

can you explain where a Brexit dividend is coming from?

I’m not sure that that is the best question to focus on, initially. Economics is not a science, and there is no ‘right answer’. Get 20 economists in a room and you will have 20 different answers. The reason being that economics is about predicting the future - the effects of changing circumstances on supply and demand. In terms of Brexit, there are so many variables that we could debate all day (and tomorrow, and the day after) and still not be ‘right’ in terms of what actually happens in the end.

Taking one isolated question from the current public debate on Brexit as an example: the cost of imports (be they finished products or raw materials). A lot of the debate takes a narrow view that everything everyone does, all behaviour and choices, will stay the same but prices will go up. This will not be the case, people and businesses will substitute products or suppliers for example if steel costs more from Europe, either the relative cost of buying from alternate sources (eg Australia, Canada) will become relatively cheaper. Or, production at home will be relatively cheaper. So more may be produced at home and/or more may be sourced elsewhere. Existing barriers to sourcing elsewhere could fall through the reduction/removal of EU tariffs and our agreement of trade deals that suit the UK with suppliers who are keen to sell. We can also manipulate policy levers at home to encourage domestic production in ways that we are currently prevented from doing by EU rules (which may currently suit other EU states far more than they do the UK).

All that is certain is that some changes will come about. It is up to us to identify the opportunities and then take advantage of them.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I’m not sure that that is the best question to focus on, initially. Economics is not a science, and there is no ‘right answer’. Get 20 economists in a room and you will have 20 different answers. The reason being that economics is about predicting the future - the effects of changing circumstances on supply and demand. In terms of Brexit, there are so many variables that we could debate all day (and tomorrow, and the day after) and still not be ‘right’ in terms of what actually happens in the end.

Taking one isolated question from the current public debate on Brexit as an example: the cost of imports (be they finished products or raw materials). A lot of the debate takes a narrow view that everything everyone does, all behaviour and choices, will stay the same but prices will go up. This will not be the case, people and businesses will substitute products or suppliers for example if steel costs more from Europe, either the relative cost of buying from alternate sources (eg Australia, Canada) will become relatively cheaper. Or, production at home will be relatively cheaper. So more may be produced at home and/or more may be sourced elsewhere. Existing barriers to sourcing elsewhere could fall through the reduction/removal of EU tariffs and our agreement of trade deals that suit the UK with suppliers who are keen to sell. We can also manipulate policy levers at home to encourage domestic production in ways that we are currently prevented from doing by EU rules (which may currently suit other EU states far more than they do the UK).

All that is certain is that some changes will come about. It is up to us to identify the opportunities and then take advantage of them.

Thomas Carlyle, of course,famously described economics as "the dismal science" But then he was an historian.:winking: