Alastair Campbell wants May to cancel Brexit...

lucs86 · Post by **lucs86** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:39 pm

Bacchus wrote:I think that's about the top and bottom of it, lucs

Christ.

dsr wrote:It may be a stat that isn't relevant to your particular agenda, but that's not the same as being untrue.

I hope that's not a stat supporting your own agenda, because it's totally useless, ignores the wider context.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:40 pm

lucs86 wrote:Is dsr saying that if everyone has to start paying 10% (for example) tariff on existing trade then the UK's tariff bill (£24bn) is less than the EU's tariff bill (£31bn), therefore we're at an advantage because 31 is bigger than 24?

Pretty much. I'm saying that as it stands we're paying £8bn a year EU fee for access to this free market; under various suggestions for the future we'd pay possibly even more; but all else being equal, if trade continues as before we'd be net recipients of (say) £7bn at 10%.

It may be that the remainers are right and our export business will collapse while we carry on importing at full speed. But I don't see why it should.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:59 pm

So if we carry on with the present balance of trade we will be better off because of the change in tariff payments (compared with EU fees). But surely we cannot afford to carry on with a substantial deficit in trade balance - isn't that what you were saying earlier?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:08 pm

Ouch, tweet from the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Lloyd Blankfein‏Verified account @lloydblankfein 1h1 hour ago

Just left Frankfurt. Great meetings, great weather, really enjoyed it. Good, because I'll be spending a lot more time there. #Brexit

https://twitter.com/lloydblankfein/stat ... 3368545280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:11 pm

keith1879 wrote:So if we carry on with the present balance of trade we will be better off because of the change in tariff payments (compared with EU fees). But surely we cannot afford to carry on with a substantial deficit in trade balance - isn't that what you were saying earlier?

Yes.

But the main point is that there has been a vast emphasis on how much we need to pay to access the single market; wheras in reality, albeit not in practice, they ought to be paying us.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:23 pm

dsr wrote:Yes.

But the main point is that there has been a vast emphasis on how much we need to pay to access the single market; wheras in reality, albeit not in practice, they ought to be paying us.

If you believe that access fees should be calculated as a % of current exports and no other factor, then yes. If you step away from la la land for a minute, then no

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:30 pm

You do realise when you write this...

dsr wrote:I wasn't talking about the negotiations, I was talking about the UK's position after the split...

...that everyone can see that your original post on this particular subject was this?

dsr wrote:I'm not sure that even Tory MPs understand that it's not just paying a fee so that we can get access to the EU market. It's also giving the EU access to our free market, which is something more valuable than our access to their market because it's bigger, but which apparently is worth less than nothing.

As far as the trade deal, the current position is that the EU won't talk about it. This makes it impossible to negotiate - all we can do at present is to accept what they give us, or have no deal at all. If (and only if) they agree to talk can we start talking about a practical trade deal.

I suspect this sort of thing is why people are calling you dishonest.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:40 pm

There are definitions of "bigger" in the English language that mean that a market of £310bn is bigger than a market of £240bn. If in this case you and the Remain world in general wish to say that £310bn is in fact smaller than £240bn, that is your prerogative. But don't claim that this makes you more honest.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:40 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:So to simplify (dsr). How many individual EU countries would take a hit of £240 billion or more?

Whilst you've kept going "round the houses", I'm still awaiting a reply to my question in post 434 (above).
(The only one I can think of is ...... the UK).

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:42 pm

dsr wrote:Yes.

But the main point is that there has been a vast emphasis on how much we need to pay to access the single market; wheras in reality, albeit not in practice, they ought to be paying us.

Well - I'm impressed that you're trying to make some sort of objective case but I'm not yet seeing an overall, fully comprehensive (albeit high level) view of what the economic advantage of leaving will be. You do seem to be making individual debating points without linking them into a coherent case.

Even that would be good to see but there is also the need to explain how you expect us to achieve it. (Not having a go at you personally - the "Leave" case seems to lack this objective vision completely).

I'll declare my hand - I don't believe there is an economic advantage of leaving but I'm open to objective persuasion.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:45 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Whilst you've kept going "round the houses", I'm still awaiting a reply to my question in post 434 (above).
(The only one I can think of is ...... the UK).

The answer is none. There's no way the UK will take a hit of £240bn because exports won't stop.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:48 pm

keith1879 wrote:Well - I'm impressed that you're trying to make some sort of objective case but I'm not yet seeing an overall, fully comprehensive (albeit high level) view of what the economic advantage of leaving will be. You do seem to be making individual debating points without linking them into a coherent case.

Even that would be good to see but there is also the need to explain how you expect us to achieve it. (Not having a go at you personally - the "Leave" case seems to lack this objective vision completely).

I'll declare my hand - I don't believe there is an economic advantage of leaving but I'm open to objective persuasion.

There are economic advantages of leaving and economic disadvantages; there are also political advantages, and presumably disadvantages (though I'm not sure about that one) and there are democratic advantages (I don't know of any democratic disadvantages). On balance, especially because of point 3, IMO the benefit is to leave.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:52 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Whilst you've kept going "round the houses", I'm still awaiting a reply to my question in post 434 (above).
(The only one I can think of is ...... the UK).

To be as pedantic as you lot.

The UK is not a Country.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:53 pm

dsr wrote:There are economic advantages of leaving and economic disadvantages; there are also political advantages, and presumably disadvantages (though I'm not sure about that one) and there are democratic advantages (I don't know of any democratic disadvantages). On balance, especially because of point 3, IMO the benefit is to leave.

Economic advantages should be capable of quantifying. Otherwise we are doing this potentially "at any cost". That is my worry. The other matters are opinion really.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:53 pm

aggi wrote:Ouch, tweet from the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Lloyd Blankfein‏Verified account @lloydblankfein 1h1 hour ago

Just left Frankfurt. Great meetings, great weather, really enjoyed it. Good, because I'll be spending a lot more time there. #Brexit

https://twitter.com/lloydblankfein/stat ... 3368545280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would be remain campaign funding CEO of Goldman Sachs.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:58 pm

keith1879 wrote:Economic advantages should be capable of quantifying. Otherwise we are doing this potentially "at any cost". That is my worry. The other matters are opinion really.

They can't be quantified in advance because we don't know what deal, if any, will be made about the free market. If the EU agrees to start talking we might get some idea.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:01 pm

So we're doing it at any cost. Here ends my postings.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:01 pm

claretandy wrote:That would be remain campaign funding CEO of Goldman Sachs.

And also the CEO of a company that carries a fair bit of clout and employs 6,000+ people in the UK (who pay a lot of tax).

It doesn't really matter that he's biased, he's still in a position of significant influence to cost the UK.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:02 pm

dsr wrote:There are definitions of "bigger" in the English language that mean that a market of £310bn is bigger than a market of £240bn. If in this case you and the Remain world in general wish to say that £310bn is in fact smaller than £240bn, that is your prerogative. But don't claim that this makes you more honest.

Your argument about numbers is stupid and bears no relevance to the wider conversation, but it's not dishonest (if you truly believe it).

What is dishonest (and, frankly, insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this thread properly) is claiming...

dsr wrote:I wasn't talking about the negotiations...

...when it's plain to see that that's precisely what you were talking about.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:03 pm

dsr wrote:They can't be quantified in advance because we don't know what deal, if any, will be made about the free market. If the EU agrees to start talking we might get some idea.

Merkel is saying that trade will be discussed in December. They could probably get on with it sooner, but as per Laura Kuenssberg's tweet just now, "May called for 'urgency' arriving in BXL, but we've just spoken to 10 different EU leaders who all say it's for UK to act"

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:05 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:To be as pedantic as you lot.

The UK is not a Country.

I think you'll find that it is.
Out of interest what would you consider it to be?
And what name would you give to our country if not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:11 pm

This thread is ace.

The economic reason for Brexit does not stack up (I've said this since the start) and all you leavers are doing is convincing me that to some, Brexit is like a religion, you can just ignore the bits that don't stack up.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:13 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:This thread is ace.

The economic reason for Brexit does not stack up (I've said this since the start) and all you leavers are doing is convincing me that to some, Brexit is like a religion, you can just ignore the bits that don't stack up.

I think it's just that there's more to life than money.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:15 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I think you'll find that it is.
Out of interest what would you consider it to be?
And what name would you give to our country if not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Our Country is England.

The United Kingdom is made up of 4 countries which are England,Scotland,Wales and N Ireland.

ClaretEngineer · Post by **ClaretEngineer** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:16 pm

There is a lot more to life than money.

Unfortunately if you look up from your school books, the reality is that money DOES make the world go round.

It seems some of you would rather see Great Britain in financial ruin just to prove a point that winning is winning.

Like cutting your nose off to spite your face, rather than just picking out the dirty great bogey.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:17 pm

There certainly is dsr, but there are a hell of a lot of people who are not as well off who voted for this because very well off men told them to.

And they are the ones that are going to suffer, and the very well off men will get even more well off.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:17 pm

I'm British Quick, what are you?

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:19 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm British Quick, what are you?

Human

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:25 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:Our Country is England.

The United Kingdom is made up of 4 countries which are England,Scotland,Wales and N Ireland.

The UK is a sovereign state, no matter which source you use to look it up.
It's a country made up of 4 countries and many smaller islands.
Not sure what you mean by "our country". Is that just arrogance or ignorance? (quite few Welsh, Scots and Irish frequent this forum you know).

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:26 pm

Of course anyone who voted to leave did this all on the back of lies. If you voted to remain it was all based on truths.

All politicians bend and twist the truth. Some of the sandal brigade are very sour and bitter.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:27 pm

dsr wrote:I think it's just that there's more to life than money.

Yes. Who cares if we crash our economy and leave loads of people jobless and skint? There's more to life than money.

There's also more to life than football, or breathing oxygen, but I wouldn't want to give either up to score some kind of political point.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:28 pm

Blackrod wrote:Of course anyone who voted to leave did this all on the back of lies. If you voted to remain it was all based on truths.

All politicians bend and twist the truth. Some of the sandal brigade are very sour and bitter.

Not true, Blackrod, the emergency 'punishment' budget is scheduled for next week and World War 3 set to begin the day we leave the EU.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:30 pm

Wait, I thought all the rich, experts keep telling us we are heading for disaster?

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:31 pm

dsr wrote:I think it's just that there's more to life than money.

I don't remember seeing that on the side of a bus.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:32 pm

ClaretEngineer wrote:There is a lot more to life than money.

Unfortunately if you look up from your school books, the reality is that money DOES make the world go round.

It seems some of you would rather see Great Britain in financial ruin just to prove a point that winning is winning.

Like cutting your nose off to spite your face, rather than just picking out the dirty great bogey.

No, because in my opinion Great Britain won't be in financial ruin. In my opinion, if there is a financial hit, it will be trivial. Our economy is already too shot to join the Euro if we wanted to, and a combination of export prices not going up (because of exchange rates) while import costs rocket (because of exchange rates and tariffs), will not make things any worse.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:34 pm

Ah Wait, I get it now. The rich people that remain voters have quoted are robin hood types, who are just looking out for the poor people who were told to vote leave by the rich, nasty, villainous Brexiteer men, who want to keep the scruffy oik's in their place?

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:34 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:The UK is a sovereign state, no matter which source you use to look it up.
It's a country made up of 4 countries and many smaller islands.
Not sure what you mean by "our country". Is that just arrogance or ignorance? (quite few Welsh, Scots and Irish frequent this forum you know).

Our Country as in Mine and yours.

Where you get arrogance and ignorance from I will never know.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:42 pm

Yeah, you've got it in one Damo.

I mean you believe in Brexit, so its pretty clear you'll believe absolutely anything.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:51 pm

******* Brexit its like listening to Zippy George and Bungle fall out over the building blocks.

Do the EU need the UK? Probably more than they need about 20 odd of the other countries that make up the EU. The Trade negotiations aren't even going to start until the 'divorce bill is agreed' but just watch it all ******* unravel then. We aren't sure what we want and the EU will have 27 countries who will all want something different.

It was **** before we voted brexit ,it's been **** since we voted brexit, it would be **** if we voted again and remained, it will be **** if we continue along our current path. In terms of individual **** ness 2005 & 2007 were terrible years for my family and myself so I can pretty much handle anything else they throw at me.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:53 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yeah, you've got it in one Damo.

I mean you believe in Brexit, so its pretty clear you'll believe absolutely anything.

Brexit is an actual thing Lancaster.
It's not the tooth fairy is it? I thought you were an expert?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:07 pm

Is it though?

You'll never change your mind, but look at Dsr, he's admitted its going to be bad news for the economy.

Now imagine if people who were not so set in their ways started to go "Hang on a sec, thats not we were promised?"

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:09 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:but look at Dsr, he's admitted its going to be bad news for the economy.

When?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:22 pm

Sorry, you admitted that the economic damage will be "trivial".

Thats fine , but its economic damage caused by Brexit.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:23 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Is it though?

You'll never change your mind, but look at Dsr, he's admitted its going to be bad news for the economy.

Now imagine if people who were not so set in their ways started to go "Hang on a sec, thats not we were promised?"

I thought we had been through this?
It's exactly what we were promised.
George Osborne told us all about the implications didn't he? It wasnt exactly true like but we were promised.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:28 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Sorry, you admitted that the economic damage will be "trivial".

Thats fine , but its economic damage caused by Brexit.

"if there's a financial hit, it will be trivial"

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:31 pm

Nice of you to determine that the poorer people in the country will be able to manage being even poorer.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:38 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:Our Country as in Mine and yours.

Where you get arrogance and ignorance from I will never know.

So arrogance and ignorance it is then. How do you know what country mine is?
You're arrogant enough to assume I'm English, and ignorant of whether you are correct or not.
Anyway - just to get back to the point.
The EU, (not a country) is negotiating with a sovereign country the UK. It's NOT negotiating with England, although some in authority might like to think they are.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:45 pm

dsr wrote:"if there's a financial hit, it will be trivial"

Worth following up. Can you (approximately) say what the hit will be in your opinion? Measurable in terms of GDP or the borrowing requirement?
I'm genuinely interested to know what is trivial - and if we will ever be able to measure what the effect is.

(I think you may be right by the way).

My only recollection of a specific financial promise from the campaign was that we would be £350 million pounds better off every week as a nation.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:53 pm

I'm just happy we are at the stage where we know that even Brexiteers think we will take an economic hit.

Small steps and all that.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:57 pm

keith1879 wrote:Worth following up. Can you (approximately) say what the hit will be in your opinion? Measurable in terms of GDP or the borrowing requirement?
I'm genuinely interested to know what is trivial - and if we will ever be able to measure what the effect is.

(I think you may be right by the way).

My only recollection of a specific financial promise from the campaign was that we would be £350 million pounds better off every week as a nation.

No, I can't say what the hit will be. But there's no reason why exports would be badly hit because the exchange rate fall has taken care of the potential tariff increase; and if the cost of imports rises and we keep paying it, it means we can afford it. That specific promise was wrong, because it didn't take account of what we get back from the EU. But if there is no "annual payment" and no free access to the EU, we save about £8bn per year (£150m per week) and also gain some income on tariffs on our imports, unless imports from the EU fall so dramatically (or exports rise so dramatically) that we suddenly get a balance of payments surplus - which in itself would be good news.

Add to that that tariffs on non-EU exports and imports will mostly, if not entirely, get no higher, and possibly lower. There's a fair bit of good news as well as bad.