REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Deutsch Wolf]

Doesn't necessarily mean anything to the electorate. They routinely set out to make poor people poorer and yet poor people still vote for them.

 

[Langers]

But leave means leave

But Brexit means Brexit

4 legs bad, 2 legs good etc etc.

 

[Tom Hark]

I've discovered a bit more about Norway plus. I think it's basically this: the Norway bit is that we leave the EU join EFTA and the EEA, have access to the single market but pay the EU a bit less than we do now, leave the CAP and the CFP, agree to free movement but can apply a (probably theoretical) 'emergency brake' on immigration if necessary. Not sure about how far we have to comply with EU regs and/or ECJ. The plus bit is that we also are in a customs union with the EU. So, Brexit (very) lite.

I think this is becoming more likely by the day. It's better than full Brexit for the EU, it saves face for leavers who are now aghast at the reality of leaving and it negates the need for a second referendum because all that is required to satisfy the 'will of the people' is that we leave the EU.

Oliver Letwin (May supporter) gave a decent summary on the Today programme this morning at about 8.55. (He's clearly biased in favour, so doesn't specify any downside, but I imagine the basics must be correct.)

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It could be the bestest deal in the world ever. The problem is it isn't on the table. And the EU have made it clear it won't be.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I couldn't say either way whether it would be a good deal (I haven't looked into it enough) but if you choose to waste almost two and a half years of negotiation time with the following:

- Invoking A50 with no plan at all
- Unilaterally drawing up self-contradictory red lines which ruled out many potential options
- Having Paul Dacre as your political muse
- Taking years to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already settled in the UK
- Calling a General Election
- Losing a parliamentary majority
- Employing three incompetent buffoons to lead negotiations as part of a silly political game
- Continually slating the EU in public
- Threatening to break the (EU backed) Good Friday Agreement, multiple times
- Continually promising the EU one thing and immediately reneging on it
- Failing to do any research or meaningful work whatsoever, to the point where the Government's own reports were clearly cribbed from Wikipedia

Amongst many other offences, then you are never going to get a good deal.

 

[Tom Hark]

It could be the bestest deal in the world ever. The problem is it isn't on the table. And the EU have made it clear it won't be.

And they will continue to do so until the parliamentary vote makes it clear that continued intransigence would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. The British electorate might be that stupid; hopefully Brussels will have learned better.

How many things have our beloved PM made clear were never going to happen that are now under consideration? (A second referendum, for a start, which I think you've suggested might now happen.)

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I get that. However the point as I keep trying to make is that you are asking for change in stance from the EU. And they have all the cards.

They have made it abundantly clear that there are three possibilities

1. This deal
2. No deal crash out
3. No Brexit (which is their preference)

There is simply no reason whatsoever for the EU to even consider deviating from that line now.

I don't think a second referendum is under consideration by the government at all. I think they will probably end up being forced into it if this vote is lost.

There is also a clear reason why this economic advice (and strangely not the legal advice) is hitting the public domain now. They want to pretend choice 3 doesn't exist and present the horrors of choice 2 to influence their own MPs to vote for choice 1. All the while conveniently overlooking the fact that choice 1 is clearly economically inferior to choice 3.

 

[machin05]

There's also the famous images of David Davies attending meetings in Brussels with no so much as a scrap of paper and a pen!

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Plus "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" appears to have taken its place in the lexicon of great lies of our time alongside "I'll love you in the morning", "the cheque is in the post" and "I am from head office and am here to help you".

 

[leedswolf]

The owner's been buried with his/her chequebook springs to mind.

 

[lemonjelly]

:blah-sleeping1:

Not sure if this was aimed at the general public, or myself specifically, but all I did was post a link. Last night I also saw that the FT listed an article advising similar figures (4.4%?). Today the governments own analysis is also saying the same.

Predicting the future exactly is impossible. But you can develop strategies with regard to the most likely outcomes based on the evidence and information available.
Currently, the vast majority of the evidence backs up the position that the majority of people will be worse off, and the country financially will be worse off. All the reports I have seen suggest GDP - the measure you put forward - is going to go down.

We can only make a decision based upon the information available. The referendum itself was pole axed by a distinct lack of information. We're now getting some information, and economically, it does not look optimistic.

I apologise if I have over-reacted to your post, or taken it the wrong way.

 

[Tom Hark]

I get that. However the point as I keep trying to make is that you are asking for change in stance from the EU. And they have all the cards.

They have made it abundantly clear that there are three possibilities

1. This deal
2. No deal crash out
3. No Brexit (which is their preference)

There is simply no reason whatsoever for the EU to even consider deviating from that line now.

I don't think a second referendum is under consideration by the government at all. I think they will probably end up being forced into it if this vote is lost.

There is also a clear reason why this economic advice (and strangely not the legal advice) is hitting the public domain now. They want to pretend choice 3 doesn't exist and present the horrors of choice 2 to influence their own MPs to vote for choice 1. All the while conveniently overlooking the fact that choice 1 is clearly economically inferior to choice 3.

I get that too. The scenario I think might arise, though, is that the parliamentary vote removes choice 1. May then decides that a Plan B (e.g. Norway plus) is preferable to a second referendum and gets parliamentary approval (which removes choice 3), then goes back to EU and says it's Plan B or no deal. EU then has to consider which of the two it would prefer: us both shooting ourselves in the foot or a plan that's better for everyone than no deal. We'll soon see, anyway.

 

[Langers]

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1067735722482958336

 

[Deleted Cyber]

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1067735722482958336

why would you phone in to his show. Its like wolves fans ringing a baggies phone in.

 

[Langers]

why would you phone in to his show. Its like wolves fans ringing a baggies phone in.

Is he wrong in what he said?

 

[Penk Wolf]

Not sure if this was aimed at the general public, or myself specifically, but all I did was post a link. Last night I also saw that the FT listed an article advising similar figures (4.4%?). Today the governments own analysis is also saying the same.

Predicting the future exactly is impossible. But you can develop strategies with regard to the most likely outcomes based on the evidence and information available.
Currently, the vast majority of the evidence backs up the position that the majority of people will be worse off, and the country financially will be worse off. All the reports I have seen suggest GDP - the measure you put forward - is going to go down.

We can only make a decision based upon the information available. The referendum itself was pole axed by a distinct lack of information. We're now getting some information, and economically, it does not look optimistic.

I apologise if I have over-reacted to your post, or taken it the wrong way.

I have an issue with people predicting the future especially as 100% of the time they are wrong.

It’s all guesswork (obviously) and does nobody any favours.

Like you’ve inadvertently pointed out estimates in two articles are already 1.1% apart, which is massive.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Is he wrong in what he said?

:confused-smiley-013 dunno is he? Didnt listen to it just heard the presenter put him in his box and knew the tone was set. Much like on here when I post something the three amigos pop up en masse :icon_lol:

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I have an issue with people predicting the future especially as 100% of the time they are wrong.

It’s all guesswork (obviously) and does nobody any favours.

Like you’ve inadvertently pointed out estimates in two articles are already 1.1% apart, which is massive.

If there were that degree of uncertainty though, you'd expect at least some studies suggesting that GDP will actually go up.

There are no credible ones. None.

If we re-appointed Saunders tomorrow, some people (me, perhaps) might predict that we wouldn't get another 10 points all season and we'll go down. And we'll get relegated forever so long as he's there. Others might say that hey, we've got some points on the board already, we've got some really good players, there are some really shit teams in this league, it'll probably be a really low points total to stay up this season, so we'll survive, it's happening so get behind the team and we'll still be in the PL in 2019. Not one person would forecast that we'd be better off under Saunders than Nuno. In which case, you wouldn't bloody do it, would you.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Every time I’ve heard him he reminds me of Piers Morgan, puts words in people’s mouth to try to make them look silly.

 

[Templeton Peck]

'Philip Hammond’s admission that Brexit is going to cost our country between £40 and £150 BILLION per year is surely the first time in our history, other than in war, when a British Chancellor has advocated a policy that will inevitably mean cuts to the NHS, Schools, Defence etc?'

The wonderful Owen Smith there, clearly not au fait with austerity.