Brexit consequences

[Spinflight]

Can't find the old one, despite a search. Hence a year on...

I started it to compare the doom and gloom predictions from people who should know better, especially the treasury, to actual observable facts.

Thus far the treasury predicted our borrowing costs would soar by over 130 points. In fact they're down about 100.

No trade deals possible before (I forget the date they said, was far in the future though) compared to actual negotiations beginning with the USA later this month with the president firmly behind them. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, South Korea and several others I've forgotten have shown a great desire for a deal quickly.

Ftse 100 and 250 are well up, just shy of 7500.

Best of all from a macro economic perspective is inflation touching 3%. When you are £1800 billion in debt rating that away with inflation is far preferable to actually paying it off.

Growth has dropped a bit, though nowhere near the instant recession that was predicted. Bit early to say though this is likely due to the referendum.

External investment is actually nicely up, with several major companies announcing various large commitments.

Things could be rosier, though it would be a struggle to describe them generally as bad, quite contrary to 'informed' opinions. Even the oecd recently ate their pre referendum words.

Have you RTFT release? Some pretty immature acusations flying around, in particular some completely unfounded accusations of racism.

For the record: I don't think that all leavers are stupid, illiterate, etc. I do think that at best you were heavily paraphrasing the pp in your above post, Release The Guardian is far from perfect, and there is no doubt from that article what the writers opinions on Brexit are. However, if you read that Observer editorial you would see that there are links to other articles which back up its claims. More Guardian articles, yes- but if you don't trust those it is at least easy enough to see where they are getting there figures from (even if you disagree with the conclusions they draw from those numbers). PPs have also posted links from other papers that make similar conclusions to the Guardian links. I try to link to a variety of sources - hence the FT link upthread, which I don't think even the leavers on this thread could dismiss as having a left wing bias.

Not trusting the Guardian is one thing, but repeatedly dismissing any source that suggests there is a downside of Brexit, even when those sources cover a wide range of the political spectrum (as certain pps have done on this thread), does suggest a certain lack of objectivity and critical thinking. Which is not the same thing as being thick, of course.

Right back atcha Release. I don't think anyone is claiming The Guardian as the last bastion of intellectual reporting, but to dismiss it simply because you don't like what it says is, frankly, stupid.

I hope you don't all find Bloomberg far too below you intellectually...

Squishy

Re your earlier post ending with;
”PS: The three points you made above have nothing to do with Brexit, they are to do with the differences between Labour and Tory governments; except for point 3, which I would bloody well hope they will do no matter what deal we get, but which I will believe when I see it. And the benefits that the EU has brought to the science and technology industry are about much, much more than just investment.”

First of all, I was directly contradicting YOUR 3-points made a little earlier e.g. on the likelihood of investment/jobs returning here under a Conservative government, and clearly you have nothing to challenge the facts, as you were making stuff up as you went along – so lets move along.

Next on the ‘no EU deal is better than a EU bad deal’ tactic, clearly you are quite content to stick up for EU negotiators and their tactics, but you disagree with a Conservative government’s position – yet the UK ‘alternative’ is HM Opposition’s position of wanting to go into the EU negotiations still thinking that we can have ‘a little Single Market’, or a ‘little bit Customs Union’ (the EU have said are firm red lines) as McDonnell mentioned Sunday on the Andrew Marr show, he has not yet DECIDED on the latter - which is like going to a live auction trying to wing it, without a price cap in mind.

Labour’s manifesto stated they’d Leave the Single Market (as did the Tories), nowhere did it mention an impractical bit of free movement, a bit of the ECJ hanging over us for decades to come, or a bit of Customs Union not enabling us to conduct our own Trade deals – or it THAT the ‘Soft’ Brexit, not really leaving at all?

Finally for a poster so worried about our business/trade, how can you NOT be concerned with an anti business/profit Labour Party under a Marxist governance who ALREADY wants to build another Labour public spending spree by penalising the Private Sector with the likes of higher Corporate Tax, a Tobin /Robin Hood Tax, and god knows what else AFTER a general election – at a time posters are concerned to UK will lose our mainly (80%) Service based exports to the EU?

Exactly what will be the ATTRACTION for any UK business not reliant on domestic trade, staying in the UK with a Labour government run by the anti business Corbyn/McDonnell dream team???

TheaSaurass

You seems heavily invested in Brexit and politics.

Today's posts alone:
www.mumsnet.com/SearchArch?mustmatch=&dontmatch=&nickname=TheaSaurass&src_displ_option=s_m_d_m&fromDate=18%2F07%2F17&toDate=18%2F07%2F17&topicmode=All&availtops=-1

Posts in general:
www.mumsnet.com/SearchArch?mustmatch=&dontmatch=&nickname=TheaSaurass&src_displ_option=s_m_d_m&fromDate=&toDate=&topicmode=All&availtops=-1

You never seem to post on other topics

Very strange

Squishy

Re your following;

“Here you go, a Financial Times article for you. You can't accuse them of a lefty, anti-business bias surely?”

”How a ‘no deal’ could bring Britain to a halt”

Firstly, the F.T. has been very pro EU, as confirmed a few months ago when the EU starting leaking a £60-100 billion UK-EU ‘divorce’ bill, and they assumed we should just pay it – and it got quite heating on the Weekly Politics Thursday night – when the F.T. editor demanded someone withdrew the ‘pro EU’ label and was virtually told on the evidence, to FRO.

I see the EU Negotiator Barnier with a small army of Brussels bureaucrats underneath him and 27 other member states, is about to throw a wobbler as the UK is not coming up with THEIR invoiced bill, on what the medium to long term obligations of the UK is to the EU – how come they don’t know in advance when putting out those U.O.Me telephone numbers – which can only mean that failing EU Ponzi Scheme, are trying to financial knob us.

Lets see whose side the F.T. comes down on, if negotiations are effected e.g. postponed, because the EU refuses to present to the UK government/taxpayers, a detailed divorce figure that would affect what the senior non government Leavers mentioned on the side of a bus - that could come to the likes of the NHS AFTER we leave/paid our bill to the EU – that those Remainers liking mantras, like to pretend the then ‘remain position UK government was going to put in, WHILE STILL PAYING the EU bill. Duh

On the “no deal bringing Britain to a halt”, pray tell as the EU exports far, far, more solid ‘stuff’ to our mainly Services exports, why are you assuming that all the far more affected exporters in the EU will not lobby/march on their member governments to instruct Brussels to DO a deal before hand - or within your pro EU ‘repertoire’, can you only talk down the UK side?

abilockhart

Nice of you to worry about me, but I had not posted on News or Politics for a few day, can other posters here say the same - as if they did, or have continually been on Brexit for months, are you saying the same to them?

(If there is a quota, please advise what it is, otherwise if worried about my input, why not raise your own game rather than censor others opinions different to 'the majority'?)

"First of all, I was directly contradicting YOUR 3-points made a little earlier e.g. on the likelihood of investment/jobs returning here under a Conservative government"

I think you might be confusing me with any poster, because I have done no such thing. I have outlined why I think the country's economy will suffer under an extreme, ideologically driven Brexit, and how "no deal" would be worse. I am trying not to get drawn into a left/right partisan cul-de-sac, as I think that the issues around Brexit are wider than narrow party politics. As I said before, you keep trying to derail this thread into a Labour vs Conservative thing, and it isn't.

How do you know I'm not concerned about trade and investment under a "Marxist" government? Start a thread on that.
You take any criticism against your ideal Brexit as a direct attack on Conservatism. You are wrong.

"how come they don’t know in advance when putting out those U.O.Me telephone numbers"
..that makes even less sense to me than your bit about the windy lemons, sorry.

If the FT are pro-EU (although I prefer the term brexit-sceptic), why do you think that might be?

"why are you assuming that all the far more affected exporters in the EU will not lobby/march on their member governments to instruct Brussels to DO a deal before hand - or within your pro EU ‘repertoire’, can you only talk down the UK side?"

They may do. But Britain will still be more affected by a reduction in trade, as has been explained many times before: The UK may import more than it exports to the UK, but the proportion of both UK imports and exports that come from the EU is much higher than the the proportion of EU imports/exports that come from the UK.

I thought that one of the leaver's objections to the EU was that it was slow at agreeing trade deals, and (due to its size) was less influenced by specific national industries than an individual country would be. If that is the case - if the EU is so inefficient at responding to the concerns of the population of the member countries, than its not going to respond quickly to those marching exporters, is it? And if it will be quick to act in their interests, than its not quite the inflexible, bureaucracy it was portrayed as, is it?

And by the way - I am not "talking down my country". I am worried for my country, and care a lot about its future.

why are you assuming that all the far more affected exporters in the EU will not lobby/march on their member governments to instruct Brussels to DO a deal before hand

Because if German auto makers won't, no one will. And the German car companies have already made their intentions clear.

Brexit has serious implications for UK manufactuers, too: my large London listed employer is moving some production capacity to Poland and has delayed work on a new plant until we have an answer to the single market question. Many of my colleagues dont think brexit will happen (govt too compromised/ too incompetent to deliver it) but in the meantime capital spending is being directed outside the UK.

"Obviously that is true, but importing /exporting from /to the EU means no hold ups as there are no checks within the single market. "

That is so so wrong motherof 4. It amazes me that pro -europeans, believe that the eu is some sort of 'free trade' area where everyone within its borders, just willy nilly ships loads of stuff around and makes loads of money. It really really isnt. If you think a Dutch cattle farmer, slaughters a cow in his back yard, throws it onto his pick up and sells it over in Belgium, you are massively mistaken.

"But post Brexit - we might get it directly from Brazil, who knows ? But whether it is Brazil or Poland we will still have to have somewhere to put the goods to deal with all the inspections and paperwork and an IT system that can cope."

This doesnt make sense motherof4. Are you saying in this post, that the UK are going to implement a whole new set of regulatory standards for EU goods?

Squishy, I truly dont know where to start with your long FT post. (Though couldnt see the article as behind a paywall).

So forgive me for not going line by line, due to most of which are the usual squishy hyperbole.

But in short, Ill try and cover a huge chunk, with just one key point that is utterly ignored by the anti-brexit army. Regulatory bodies. Here, for example, is how the BSI works.

Leaving the EU, doesnt impact ISO and IEC. Full stop. You then look at CEN and CENELEC (which are EU specific) but our representation on these boards will not be affected by not being in the EU, not being a member of EEA or EFTA or ETSI. Thats because the BSIs rules of membership are not reliant on the UKs EU membership. They are utterly separate. As are our memberships on most regulatory bodies. Add to that that the vast majority of CEN and CENELEC standards are lifted from the WTO ones and tweeked slightly, (and various EU states have legislated that these are then 'voluntary only'....like France) nothing changes, whether we're in or out.

We already have 'membership' of regulatory bodies across all industries, that doesnt rely on our being a member of the EU.

As I explained to you (was it here or another thread) about the UK passport, and why the UK passport stands alone. Its legislated for in every nation within the EU. Remainer scaremongering trys to conflate the EEA Identity Card scheme (which is EU only and which yes, we could and should suspend accepting instantly on the 1/4/2019), but the EEA ID card doesnt apply to UK citizens. We dont use it.

The point is, every member nation of schengen, under EU law, has the right at any time, to stop EEA ID cards and enforce their own national border controls. Because of that 'right', all national passports recognised by that nation, 'stand alone' outside of EU controls.

The problem is squishy, that most of your 'problems' in your post, are simply not true.

So in the spirit of getting back on thread, the UK deficit is down, uk unemployment is at its lowest levels for 40 years, and inflation is down despite a whole raft of contrary predictions from very clever remainer people over the last year.

Caroline, Squishy has reproduced the text of the FT article in her post. Those are the words of the journalist, not Squishy.

I admire your patience

Thats directed at everyone on these threads who come back time after time with their evidence (whether i agree with it ir not)

I can't be bothered to keep debating as I can't see the point when people are so far apart in their unmovable views but i am still lurking and learning

Oh good, saves me having to repeat myself. Its utter selective and inaccurate reporting. Ignoring squishys opening inaccurate hyperbole, (is she writing a novel for her own amusement?) quite simply, FT have written a "find me someone who'll comment on a jumping off a hypothetical cliff scenario". As youve seen in here, theres plenty out there. Technically, if such and such were in place then such and such could happen. Which means we're all going to die, so there we are.

Luckily, those that actually know whats going on, are cracking on, much to the utter confusion of the 'but we're all going to die' propheteers.

Yep Irelands tax haven status will continue to draw business. Yep, Polands highly subsidised new business areas, (which strangely arent in the areas Poland desperately need new business support) will continue to attract business, etc etc etc. Hungary should have a healthy influx, once their 9% corporate tax kicks in (unless they can be cut off at the pass by Merkel and Co rushing new legislation through on harmonised taxation). None of which are impacted in the slightest by 'brexit'.

The EU, is not the 'free trade ' area, vocal remainers wish to believe it is. Its a tax union. It raises tax. Its never in its life 'given' anything free. And you and I, and the other 500 million joe average citizens in the EU community pay for it. Its called VAT and its charged on almost every item we buy every day of every week.

Sorry Rufus, that wasnt directed at you. That post was to grapes post.

GraceGrape is right, they are not my words but the words of Chris Giles, an Economics editor at the FT and former senior research economist for the institute of Fiscal studies. Including the opening.
I thought I was being helpful by posting it for those who can't get round the pay wall, but oh well.
I like the idea of a novel but if I were to write one I think I wold expand the Angela and Zoe story I posted earlier. Its much more hyperbolic, and I love a strung out metaphor. I wouldn't steal from my opening from the FT.

We're just going backwards and forwards on the points about leaving with no deal; I have reason to believe that what you post is factually innacurate and have explained why, you come back and repeat that I am wrong and try to show this by repeating what you initially said but with little to back it up. eg, you claim that there are no new agreements needed to grant 3 months access to the EU on a UK passport, and your evidence for this amounts to "because I say there are stand alone deals in place". I have already explained why it is not that simple, and I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Back to the spirit of the thread:

I know that there are many on here who are worried about the political turmoil in the UK, for various reasons. In particular those who fear the threat of an anti-business, Marxist Labour seizing power and running the country into the ground.
Do we accept that this is more likely now than it was before the Brexit vote?

If we had voted to remain, where would we be?

2 years into a Cameron government, with the Conservatives still holding onto a healthy majority. Corbyn may or may not still be Labour leader, but I sincerely doubt he would still be in place by 2020. He would have been replaced by a more moderate leader, having shifted Labour's position leftwards. There would still be some maneouvering and jostling for power within the Conservatives, as someone will have to take over from Cameron but I suspect the disagreements will not be played out in such an ugly, public way.

So, do we agree that a tumultuous, unpredictable political environment with May heading up a precarious minority government backed up by the DUP, with an empowered Jeremy Corbyn stirring things up as a direct consequence of Brexit?

squishy I am delurking just to say how much I appreciate your posts and those of others like you who manage to keep their calm and coherently counter such blatant attempts to spread disinformation.

Squishy, Ive always got for you, which is why I reply in the first place. Of course, we're all going to disagree, isnt that the point, but I think Ive provided far far more information than most as to why I hold the opinions I do. You disagree. Thats fine.

So in the spirit of moving on...

"So, do we agree that a tumultuous, unpredictable political environment with May heading up a precarious minority government backed up by the DUP, with an empowered Jeremy Corbyn stirring things up as a direct consequence of Brexit?"

Yes, but only in that we've seen a huge engagement with young voters, on any issue, which imo is a good thing. If JC had stood on an election promise of reversing the referendum, then Id entirely agree with you. As it was, the lib dems did, then crashed and burned. So No, our political unrest isnt a relefection of brexit. But yes, we wouldnt have had a GE if it hadnt been for brexit. LOL.

Shall we agree of sorts? Im certainly happy to agree the entire bunch are incompetant muppets, who reflect the fact, that no one has seriously had to 'govern' for the last 20 years as the EU has made all the hard decisions for us.

Thanks Bananagio that's really sweet. I am not an expert on economics or international trade or anything, and don't pretend to be but I try not to present anything as fact unless I can back it up, and I try to keep as open a mind as possible on these things.
Thanks to Caroline as well.

I agree that the engagement of young voters was a good thing, although Brexit was not the only big issue of the last GE, in my opinion. I don't think that Labour's brexit stance in the last GE either proves or disproves that Brexit has massively disrupted UK politics.

Before the referendum, the Conservative party was divided on the EU. I think that healing those divisions was a major motivation for Cameron calling the referendum in the first place. It was a gamble, and unfortunately for us it backfired on Cameron.

Instead of healing divisions within the Tory party, the result of the Brexit vote has caused massive rifts within the Labour party, and widened the divisions in the Conservatives. It has also caused a big split among voters across the political spectrum. Many traditional Lib-Dem voters were leavers, even if the party was pro-EU.

It has had a centrifugal effect on politics, imo; the last GE felt like a choice between two extremes. It feels like all the nuance has been sucked out of political discussions. As a fairly centrist person, I miss the centre ground! My theory is that this polarisation rather counter intuitively hurt the lib dems, as many more people than normal felt themselves forced to vote tactically. Anecdotal, but although I felt like the lib dems were the closest to my views politically (not just on brexit) I was too scared to vote for them, as doing so would effectively be a protest vote in my area. I think this was the case for many other voters.

I don't think that all our politicians are incompetent muppets, I think there are competent people on both sides of the house of commons but unfortunately I don't think we will see these people in power soon, thanks to the polarising effect of brexit.

I do think that Brexit is largely responsible for the political chaos we see now.
Beyond Brexit, there are many huge issues affecting the UK that need addressing imminently. I worry that it will be very difficult for any government to adequately address these, as dealing with Brexit and it's consequences will demand so much attention, time and energy.