How can anyone defend TM right now?

[Bearbehind]

And I ask that as a life long Tory voter

• She repeatedly, categorically ruled out having a GE now, then completely u-turned
• she is too spineless to participate in tv debates
• she won't deny triple lock pensions will be scrapped
• she won't deny the freeze on tax hikes will be scrapped
• her 'red line' is immigration, which if you ask most Leavers, wasn't their 'red line'
• she is hell bent on screwing the economy to prove a point
• her Brexit team cannot answer even the most basic questions
• she showed her petticoat to Trump and even he has said the EU will come first
• she is operating under some kind of delusion that EU agencies can remain in what will be a non EU country.

Really, who in their right mind would vote for her?

Life long labour voters who are considering now voting Tory blow my mind.

Seriously, what was ever so bad about the EU that makes it worth all this?

anon thank you for taking the time to respond to each point but, as ever, you provide no support for any of your comments.

Just 2 for starters- EU agencies relocating and DD not being able to answer questions because he hasn't even looked at them, are indisputable facts.

You carry on with your head in the clouds if it suits you but many of us are choosing not to.

Bear - there is no support for your comments in the op, your the one making the claims so the burden of proof is yours.

EU agencies relocating
Yes, whats that got to do with your assertion that you know the state of TMs mind?

DD not being able to answer questions
He explained why it hadn't looked at that area yet. Why do you think its useful for DD to waste his time making specific predictions about the future that are likely to be very inaccurate?

So you still haven't given any support for the assertions you made in your OP. You can carry on with your head in the clouds trying to continue project fear if it suits you, but many of us are choosing not to.

There's no point in discussing this if you're going to be deliberately obtuse anon

He explained why it hadn't looked at that area yet. Why do you think its useful for DD to waste his time making specific predictions about the future that are likely to be very inaccurate? Every business in the UK that will be likely to affected by Brexit is making those predictions and assessing the risk and impact so that they can put plans in place to minimise the damage. As I recall that comment was in response to a question about customs arrangements, which if non EU arrangements apply either need years of planning to put arrangements in place or the possibility of very long delays at our points of entry. Businesses are already planning for this because it not only is a real risk but also will have a considerable impact. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the person planning arrangements for Brexit for the whole of the country to have done what every logistics manager in a well run company, big or small, is doing ......

There are plenty of leave supporters who are highlighting the risks and challenges and agree that for a government minister to not have already assessed and planned is to show a wilful refusal to confront the risks and impacts of Brexit, and to be culpably negligent of their duty to manage the economy in the interests of the country.

Financial passporting: I just happen to know a lot of top executives in banking, banking regulation and banking/commercial law as I am old enough to be the same generation as CEO's and senior partners and as those are the friends in my London circle (just by chance really - I know nobody in the media or films or creative industries or retail or politics). I am going by their unanimous views. My only friend who predicts otherwise is in advertising. Of course banks' public posturing is going to be different as they want to gain as many hand-outs and advantages as might be on offer. And yes, banks are putting in contingency plans to move a brass plate from London to some EU country just in case FP doesn't continue, but they won't take more than 5 staff with them and they are still optimistic it will be business as usual, or better, centred in London, once we leave the EU.

Those who predicted recession and stockmarket doom following a vote to Leave were also not singing from the same hymn sheet as my banking friends who voted Leave confident that the stockmarket would then rise. They will also be right about FP. It would not be in the EU's interests to do otherwise.

Bear,

It is you being obtuse. You always insist that anyone opposed to your position produce detailed, evidence based (and referenced?!) arguments. Yet your OP is a load of biased unevidence based personal opinion and hot air.

How about you engage meaningfully with the two upgrades to the uk's growth forecasts cited in the (properly referenced and evidenced) article? Persistently referring to the value of GBP is a bit feeble, really. FX rates are notoriously unreliable economic indicators and GBP's value vs the Euro is probably around its average since the Euro'a launch.

Or are you suggesting that the USD's current strength is a global vote of confidence in president Trump?

I think Anon makes some good points and ducking out of debating with her/him weakens your case.

larry if you and anon refuse to accept the fact that DD has failed to look into several key areas, including reciprocal healthcare and the impact of 'no deal', and he has been quoted as saying the location of the EMA and EBA is still subject to negotistion when the EU have been very clear it's not, it does rather make arguing with you pointless.

I accept the growth forecasts are promising but we are still waiting for answers on some
massive issues, not least tariffs and NTB's so growth forecasts are somewhat meaningless until the goalposts are fixed.

Bear,

Why do you think you know what DD has looked into or not looked into? Maybe you are right but can you provide some evidence please? You need to hold yourself accountable to the same standards as you jhold others.

Larrygrylls - you can't possibly be implying that DD lied to the Select Committee?

I know that they're covered by parliamentary privilege and the courts accept that people accept that politicians DO lie but even so.....

Notgetting You do not indeed understand the City, or what your friends actually do. It is not a homogenous mass. Like any other industries it has many segments aimed at different markets. Of course there are senior managers that face markets where they see Brexit and deregulation as an opportunity, private banking, certain hedge funds that will be able to deal with more clients and in ways that are more risky. However I suspect your friends have nothing to do with the big global players or the vast majority who work in the City. It isn't just my friends ( that include lawyers, accountants, all the service industries that rely on the City, a few former CEOs who had earned enough and were done with sorting out the crap created by other less talented managers by 50, and many many in middle and senior management), my entire community, one that relies on financial services to a great degree, regards Brexit as a mad act of self harm to the UKs most lucrative industries, (also including the creative industries, the knowledge economy, science and tech) that will see us a less attractive place to operate in many of our markets. That is part of the reason that the vote was 70% Remain. If your friends are CEOs of any banks that are leading players that do have a wider offering in global markets (and the British players are not really that successful compared with the UBSs etc ) then either you are bullshitting or they are very complacent about the threats. Since I know the Asian markets very well and the strategies that the major players are adopting I assure you that the threats are very serious and a brass plaque will not mitigate them. Never market a product that does not have real substance and full access to European markets was a major competitive advantage which the European players (and their governments) will be only too happy for us to concede.

Agree with what

From a business perspective the vast amount of dhs colleagues (not going to say all) think that brexit will be bad news

Thats not to suggest that everyone doing those type of jobs think the same way

Why do you think you know what DD has looked into or not looked into?

Er, because he told to the Brexit select committee he hadn't looked at the things I mentioned.

How much more evidence would you like?

Maybe the link to the transcript or could you manage to find that yourself? [Hmm]

Bear,

I assume you are talking of a select committee hearing over a month ago? What is the point of a detailed analysis of 'no deal' years ahead of time and with an infinite number of permutations around it. Your other points are very minor and not really related to your OP.

You consistently sow FUD on these boards, happy to use the current position of GBP (a poor indicator of anything) to back your domesday scenario, but questioning more reliable multivariate forecasts whenever they are optimistic.

Every time anyone addresses your questions you disengage, ask a different question and then complain about the lack of detailed evidence based answers.

Are you here for s discussion or as a propagandist?

Actual LOL.

larry, why is the fact the Brexit select committee meeting was a month ago relevant?

It was still 9 months after the referendum and the man responsible for the details of leaving has failed to look as some pretty significant issues.

I do not disengage or ask different questions, in fact I've been asking the same questions about how the consequences of Brexit are going to be outweighed by the benefits for months now with not a single sensible reply.

Would you care to attempt to answer that one?

What is Brexit going to bring that counters my so called doomsday scenarios, which are actually facts including-

• inflation
• loss of financial passport
• loss of EU agencies like EMA and EBA
• lack of investment due to uncertainty
• the fact we are a net exporter and appear to have made no provision for producing things we import ourselves so we either pay more or go without
• trade tariffs
• NTB's

Yet your OP is a load of biased unevidence based personal opinion and hot air.

Going back to a comment you made yesterday larry, which of the points in the OP are personal opinion?

You might choose not to be bothered by them but they have actually happened/ are happening and, with the possible exception of screwing the economy, can be easily proven.

Larry I assume you are talking of a select committee hearing over a month ago? What is the point of a detailed analysis of 'no deal' years ahead of time and with an infinite number of permutations around it. I have already highlighted "the point". It isn't just the risk of no deal which May has made into a possibility that is both a risk and will have a huge impact if it is not planned for. May has said that we will come out of the customs union and that has definite concrete consequences in terms of the operations of our border forces, and a huge potential increase in their workload. The lorries that just drive through customs will have to stop and go through the same procedures and paperwork that non EU ones already do. It isn't just the logistics industry highlighting the risks of not planning the systems and manpower needed for this, which will take years, it is several prominent leavers. It is that strange thing called reality, in all its complexity, that businesses plan for all the time, uncertainty is one of the perimeters they deal with by assessing probability and impact and analysing the consequences and how best to deal with them. If Davis were responsible for Strategic Planning in any well run company in the country he would not dare go in front of the board or shareholders and said he had done none of that, he would lose his job, and yet he is responsible for planning for a major seismic shock not just for a company but the entire country.

Larry In the past I had some respect for your arguments, you had clearly thought things through, but this is just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la, la, la"

I think the big problem is that there are no alternatives.

No other credible leaders in the wings from any party.

The election is a tactical one and nothing to do with brexit.

An exercise in ratifying her appointment.

Why is TM seen as a third rate player , given an opportunity by Brexit? She's been Party Chair, and Home Secretary for years. Surely that at least qualified her to be in the running?

Lib Dem party member btw, no Tory allegiance

noeuf I don't think anyone has said she shouldn't have been in the running for PM but the fact is, she got the job because no one else wanted it and since then has made a significant number of very cynical, divisive moves backed up with nothing more than sound bites and rhetoric.

My biggest issue with her atmis her complete refusal to participate in live tv debates for an election she called with only 7 weeks to campaign- that stinks on multiple levels.

I know quite a bit about the EU agencies eg the Medicines one. Obviously the many anti Brexiters in the Tory party know it's not great that these institutions will almost certainly have to move. From the day after Brexit it we knew it was unlikely if the UK hosts XYZ Eu agency then it can hardly remain in a non EU state at least long term. So one is remotely surprised. The staff at the EMA for example have been worried since the vote about jobs and many are from all over the EU and will have children in schools here but it's something that will have to be dealt with. The Government has a lot of senior civil servants who know all about these kinds of agencies and bodies. Don't worry that the Tories aren't prepared. Obviously we will negotiate the best Brexit we can even those of us who are remainers - it is in no one's interests to mess it up and then say told you so.

From the day after Brexit it we knew it was unlikely if the UK hosts XYZ Eu agency then it can hardly remain in a non EU state at least long term

That's why I don't think newest and the governments stance in this now.

They should accept a non EU country cannot host an EU agency and move on instead of claiming it's still up for discussion which just makes us look foolish and arrogant (which we are)