Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Burnley Ace]

How do you know that the record levels of foreign investment into the uk, are not because of the opportunities that the investors see in Brexit?

How do you know they aren't because we're leaving the EU?

However, If I were to point to record levels of foreign investment into the uk as EVIDENCE that brexit will have a POSITIVE impact on the uk.

.

What he would say is “ok, you have formed that opinion because you have considered the available evidence, you have read reports from a number of foreign investors that they are investing in the U.K. because they see an opportunity to get a good return on their investment.

He might go on to say “however, the majority of the money seems to be going into property speculation and that in itself won’t replace the investment into business that has left or benefit the Exchequer to the same amount”

Both using the same evidence but getting different opinions!

[RingoMcCartney]

How many times does it need repeating- evidence supports opinion, that’s how you form an opinion, based on the evidence. I can’t be added to repeat the Sun rising analogy, but one last time - why do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? All the available evidence supports that opinion. It’s as simple as that.

Your opinion on Brexit is formed by the evidence you choose to believe, People who don’t have the same opinion challenge the validity of that evidence in the same way you challenge the validity of their evidence.

Evidence only has a meaning when it’s used to support a belief.

Evidence.

You've all weekend



Not any of the following-


supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts .


I'll look forward to it.

[Burnley Ace]

You've all weekend to provide it.

Toodle pip

Lol that’s very apt!

The evidence supports my belief we have no game. In your opinion we do.

Job done

[martin_p]

I hold my hand up! I was looking forward to spurs. And I'd knocked back the chance to take my lad to that indoor ski thing near Trafford centre. He'll be well chuffed. Happy days!

Proof (if it were needed) that Wrongo doesn’t bother with research. He gets something into his head and it just becomes fact.

[martin_p]

Evidence.

You've all weekend



Not any of the following-


supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts .


I'll look forward to it.

No need to wait, I’ve already linked some evidence from today. It’s already costing us more than twice as much per week as that (incorrect) £350m on the side of a bus we were going to save.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... SApp_Other

[Jakubclaret]

To be entirely fair, I don’t think Jakub and Ringo are representative of all brexiters, but there do seem to be more of that type on that side than on the remain side.

They aren't a million miles away but just not as vocal & personally I don't blame them, flogging a dead horse with your mob.

[Greenmile]

How many different people have described your posts as drab or dull?...

Two, so far.

And as I said to Rowls, I have no problem with being dull (or drab). It beats being a simpleton any day.

[Lancasterclaret]

We are all waiting to be convinced by the evidence Jakub.

After two years and a continuing series of unholy **** ups, we suspect we will be waiting a very long time.

[Damo]

How rubbish has this thread gone? 18 pages of people posting definitions of the word evidence.
Roll on 29/03/2019

[Lancasterclaret]

You think that will stop these sort of threads!

After that, its all the **** with the trade agreements etc

We are stuck with this!

[Paul Waine]

It is my belief (opinion) that the sun will rise tomorrow. To support that belief I have EVIDENCE that the sun has risen since the earth was formed and I present that EVIDENCE to support my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Please Ace - and all others - I've already posted higher up this thread that the sun does not rise - it's the earth rotating. Wasn't it Galileo that proved that way back a few hundred years ago?

Come on, guys, if we want to discuss what things we know and what things we don't know, let's start with some accuracy around what we all know.

It does beg the question, should the June-2016 referendum result be cancelled because nobody had the intelligence to be able to cast their vote with any meaning?

Those with good memories - or search capabilites - might recall that I've posted way, way, back that there's an argument that the "intelligence of crowds" means that it doesn't matter what any individual knows or doesn't know, the right result is still the one that the majority vote for. (More's the pity may of us may sigh, given the quality of debate in the past 30+ months).

[Jakubclaret]

Two, so far.

And as I said to Rowls, I have no problem with being dull (or drab). It beats being a simpleton any day.

You can now make that 3 fella, as dull as ditchwater, less drama just lighten up & have a laugh matey

[Burnley Ace]

Please Ace - and all others - I've already posted higher up this thread that the sun does not rise - it's the earth rotating. Wasn't it Galileo that proved that way back a few hundred years ago?
.

Really? Is that what you get from that analogy? It’s so much easier to write “rise” than “the earth keeps rotating causing light waves, generated by the sun, striking the earth in such a manner that it has the optical effect of appearing to rise over the horizon on a regular basis that we, in describing or defining how Long it takes for the earth to rotate have called a day”

Whatever floats your boat but hopefully you got the point as no one ever uses the phrase “sunrise”

[martin_p]

Please Ace - and all others - I've already posted higher up this thread that the sun does not rise - it's the earth rotating. Wasn't it Galileo that proved that way back a few hundred years ago?

Come on, guys, if we want to discuss what things we know and what things we don't know, let's start with some accuracy around what we all know.

It does beg the question, should the June-2016 referendum result be cancelled because nobody had the intelligence to be able to cast their vote with any meaning?

Those with good memories - or search capabilites - might recall that I've posted way, way, back that there's an argument that the "intelligence of crowds" means that it doesn't matter what any individual knows or doesn't know, the right result is still the one that the majority vote for. (More's the pity may of us may sigh, given the quality of debate in the past 30+ months).

Can we just assume we’re talking from the perspective of the viewer, in which case the sun rises.

[Burnley Ace]

How rubbish has this thread gone? 18 pages of people posting definitions of the word evidence.
Roll on 29/03/2019

And the only one we are waiting for is Ringo!

[Paul Waine]

Another theme of this thread seems to be what will happen to the UK post-Brexit - with the argument being that no country has ever left the EU before. And, I think we can all agree that this is 100% accurate.

So, has any other country in the world left a trade group? Maybe that's the place to look at what might happen yet.

We shouldn't be looking to learn anything useful from the central european countries that left the communist bloc - because the bloc was a failed economic entity - and the majority of central european countries were only members against their will, backed up by soviet tanks in too many cases, including Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968.

New Zealand is possibly the nearest example of a country that lost its major trading partner and had to adjust. I'm sure we all know the impact on New Zealand when the UK joined the EEC and the Common Agricultural Policy froze out New Zealand agricultural exports to the UK. NZ had to work hard to adjust and it has adjusted successfully.

Whether we can draw further parallels between NZ's situation back then and the UK's situation today, I don't know. There are numerous areas where the UK's economy is very different. There are also numerous differences in the rest of the world.

I'd expect many economics "experts" will have been studying NZ experience. Has anyone seen anything that's been reported in this area?

[CrosspoolClarets]

.It does beg the question, should the June-2016 referendum result be cancelled because nobody had the intelligence to be able to cast their vote with any meaning?

There were 2 good debates on the box last night. Question Time had some good comments about the above and This Week explored the Citizen's Panel or whatever it is called. The latter is probably the biggest joke of the whole 2 years - Stella Creasy wants 250 random people to decide our future despite all the evidence on this board being that (about) 250 people can't agree on anything let alone the complexities of a trade deal.

This is why the Government has to agree foreign affairs matters itself like it has for 200 years (even if they do it badly), because there are so many opinions and interpretations the Commons can make - we have Gina Miller to thank for the current farce.

[Paul Waine]

Can we just assume we’re talking from the perspective of the viewer, in which case the sun rises.

Hi martin, I think that was what got Galileo "thrown out" (excommunicated being the formal word) of the church for - the church wanted to believe that the earth was the centre of their world.

I'd always go with the facts - especially when the argument is can we deduce something based on those facts. I feel it devalues the argument if the starting point is incorrect.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I've just read an article on NZ Paul, thanks for raising it. I wasn't aware of that story beforehand.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irisht ... 3fmode=amp

[martin_p]

Hi martin, I think that was what got Galileo "thrown out" (excommunicated being the formal word) of the church for - the church wanted to believe that the earth was the centre of their world.

I'd always go with the facts - especially when the argument is can we deduce something based on those facts. I feel it devalues the argument if the starting point is incorrect.

Are you saying that from the perspective of us stood on Earth the sun doesn’t rise?

Do you also call moonlight ‘sun light reflected by the moon’? Or refuse to use the word ‘still’ as everything on the earth’s surface is actually moving at about 1000 mph?

[Paul Waine]

I've just read an article on NZ Paul, thanks for raising it. I wasn't aware of that story beforehand.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irisht ... 3fmode=amp

Thanks for posting, crosspool. I'd not thought of Republic of Ireland seeing themselves as equivalent to New Zealand - thinking about their economies are both strongly agriculture based.

[duncandisorderly]

The sun rises. It's called sunrise. The fact that it doesn't 'actually' rise only matters if you feel literal butterflies in your belly when nervous, instead of, you know, butterflies, or you stab actual pins and needles into your hands instead of just feeling the tingling sensation we call 'pins and needles'. This is where FACT and TRUTH collide, but both can be right. It is FACT that the sun doesn't rise, it is TRUTH that I see the sun rising. Or vice versa. I forget.

[Lancasterclaret]

I can see lots of differences between NZ and Ireland straight away.

Saw this on Youtube about the Irish border. Remember that I used to work for two Irish companies before, during and after the GFA, and the economic take off was extraordinary.

Worrying in a way, but a ray of hope at the end.

But if this results in a return to the troubles, then as someone who saw first hand the differences and the barriers, then its just not worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRMwCz_Q9b4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Waine]

Are you saying that from the perspective of us stood on Earth the sun doesn’t rise?

Do you also call moonlight ‘sun light reflected by the moon’? Or refuse to use the word ‘still’ as everything on the earth’s surface is actually moving at about 1000 mph?

Hi martin, I hope I'm saying lets get the facts right - rather than misunderstand what is happening because we are "standing" in a certain position.

I do know that when we see the moon it is because it is reflecting sunlight - and the moon has no light source of its own. When the moon is not reflecting the sun it is in darkness.

It does get more complicated when we think of the speed of rotation of the earth. I'm flying to US next week for business. I know my plane will fly at, maybe 500 mph. I also know it will fly at a similar speed when I return. But, flight times will differ because of the strong tail winds on the return journey - and, I assume, strong head winds on the way out. Throw in the earth's rotation and you will have my head spinning.

We all understand these facts - and the natural scientists can explain them all to us clearly and with great certainty.

However, what is going on in an economy has much more complexity and many, many more variables and unknowns and uncertainties. We can all understand that, all other things being equally (ceteris paribus, I believe the economists phrase is) that higher demand and a fixed supply will, in the short term, lead to higher prices. Then as when extend the time period, higher prices may encourage increased supply or result in substitute products becoming more competitive and so equilibriums changing. Add all this into an economy for a 12 months period and you can start to get a sense of the complexity of building economic models and using them to create forecasts. Extend this period to 10 years and the variables, unknowns and the weaknesses of the modelling assumptions become more and more challenging. The truth of the forecaster is the knowledge that their forecasts will always be wrong - as all in the forecasting business know.

As you say, it's all from the perspective of where we stand....

[dpinsussex]

I can see lots of differences between NZ and Ireland straight away.

Saw this on Youtube about the Irish border. Remember that I used to work for two Irish companies before, during and after the GFA, and the economic take off was extraordinary.

Worrying in a way, but a ray of hope at the end.

But if this results in a return to the troubles, then as someone who saw first hand the differences and the barriers, then its just not worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRMwCz_Q9b4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before and after Grand Feft Auto ???

[Lancasterclaret]

Nice to know that LRGS ****** your ability to spell as well!

[Paul Waine]

I can see lots of differences between NZ and Ireland straight away.

Hi Lancs, I think we all know that NZ and Ireland have lots and lots of differences.

I brought NZ into the discussion as the only example that I'm aware of where a country has had to adjust after losing its previous longstanding trading arrangements.

Crosspool then discovered that the Irish paper has an article comparing Ireland with NZ. So, new information for all of us, I guess.

And, I agree, I'm not aware of New Zealand needing a Good Friday Agreement - or being politically divided between the two islands. (Though, there was a film I saw that involved a lot of fighting in the NZ mountains and valleys).

[Lancasterclaret]

The difference is Paul that NZ had a new market on its doorstep.

Ireland does not. It has an established market on its doorstep. There is another much bigger country with an established market on its doorstep which is going to take an even bigger hit.

And its solution appears to be asking countries that they shafted in the 70s to take them back.

I'm not sure they are aware that those countries have massively changed in forty odd years to be honest, because to them nothing has changed.

[martin_p]

Hi martin, I hope I'm saying lets get the facts right - rather than misunderstand what is happening because we are "standing" in a certain position.

I do know that when we see the moon it is because it is reflecting sunlight - and the moon has no light source of its own. When the moon is not reflecting the sun it is in darkness.

It does get more complicated when we think of the speed of rotation of the earth. I'm flying to US next week for business. I know my plane will fly at, maybe 500 mph. I also know it will fly at a similar speed when I return. But, flight times will differ because of the strong tail winds on the return journey - and, I assume, strong head winds on the way out. Throw in the earth's rotation and you will have my head spinning.

We all understand these facts - and the natural scientists can explain them all to us clearly and with great certainty.

However, what is going on in an economy has much more complexity and many, many more variables and unknowns and uncertainties. We can all understand that, all other things being equally (ceteris paribus, I believe the economists phrase is) that higher demand and a fixed supply will, in the short term, lead to higher prices. Then as when extend the time period, higher prices may encourage increased supply or result in substitute products becoming more competitive and so equilibriums changing. Add all this into an economy for a 12 months period and you can start to get a sense of the complexity of building economic models and using them to create forecasts. Extend this period to 10 years and the variables, unknowns and the weaknesses of the modelling assumptions become more and more challenging. The truth of the forecaster is the knowledge that their forecasts will always be wrong - as all in the forecasting business know.

As you say, it's all from the perspective of where we stand....

And the complexities of those economic models is why they come with margins of error and often model different potential scenarios giving the input variables different values. But when different forecasters, probably using slightly different models, are all saying the impact of Brexit will be bad then it’s worth taking notice. And the models provide much more reliable evidence than saying ‘I believe it’ll be fine’.

The treasury report into the impact of Brexit in the first two years after the referendum predicted GDP would be 3.6% worse than it would’ve been had we voted remain. Calculations that have appeared in various media sources over the last couple of days show that GDP is about 2% worse than if we’d voted remain. Not quite as bad as feared, but probably close to the range in the report. So it’s looks like the forecasters are getting it about right in some areas, people who ignore the predictions of gloom because they don’t suit their agenda are deluded.

[Paul Waine]

The difference is Paul that NZ had a new market on its doorstep.

Ireland does not. It has an established market on its doorstep. There is another much bigger country with an established market on its doorstep which is going to take an even bigger hit.

And its solution appears to be asking countries that they shafted in the 70s to take them back.

I'm not sure they are aware that those countries have massively changed in forty odd years to be honest, because to them nothing has changed.

Let's take each of your comments in turn.

1) It's the Irish journalist making comparisons between Ireland and NZ. I agree with you, in one sense, that Ireland remains one of the EU27 and so has "an established market on its doorstep." But, I guess the journalist is making the comparison because Ireland's most important customer is the UK - and, for a large part of the Irish produce they haven't, yet got established customers in the rEU. But, as you say, it will be a new market for Ireland, so they should do well.

2) When the UK joined EEC it had to cut trade relations with all of the agriculture based members of the Commonwealth. I understand the UK was reluctant to do this, but the EEC required all members to comply with CAP. and, the UK has done "ok" in the 40 years since, maybe better than it would have done if we hadn't joined up - and trade relationships have become established over the years. The comparison with NZ, however, is that established trade relationships can be replaced with new relationships. I understand the view is that NZ has done well, overall, over the past 40 years - and, it is in the part of the world where prospects for growth are strongest in the years ahead - China + 1bn population, India + 1bn population - and both economies now open to trade, whereas this wasn't the case 20-30 years ago.

I don't think the UK is thinking - all we need is to open up agricultural trade with NZ, though there's no reason why we won't be buying more NZ lamb again in future. I think the plan is China, India and all the other growing world economies.

I thought you were arguing a little earlier that what happened in the 1940s shouldn't count towards what is happening today and in the future. Surely, this also applies between the UK and NZ and all the other commonwealth countries? Or, is your belief that the changes that have occured while the UK has been a member of EEC/EU have pulled the UK further and further away from the rest of the world? Surely, that can't be right? What is it saying about the EU? Is the EU also more distant?

My sense is that the world is getting smaller and smaller - distances between countries are less and less. Whether we call this "globalisation" and whether we think of "globalisation" as positive or negative - I think it's positive, I love all the diversity at every level you can think of - I'd expect the next 20 years to be one of growth in trade across the world. Whether the UK is in the EU or whether the UK is outside the UK will still prosper.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I thought that the Irish article was interesting about NZ, and there are some similarities in that Ireland has to try to sell less to the U.K. and more to other countries, but generally I was more interested in the NZ element rather than the Irish link.

Seeing as Ireland has been brought up though, I do think they will be the big losers in all this. Has anyone seen the Irish Independant Editorial today? This is what I have been saying will happen for 2 years. The penny is beginning to drop that nobody cares much about them in the EU, the irony is that the U.K. cares more. If they meet us half way that would suit both. But they have to meet us halfway.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/edit ... 18812.html

[Paul Waine]

And the complexities of those economic models is why they come with margins of error and often model different potential scenarios giving the input variables different values. But when different forecasters, probably using slightly different models, are all saying the impact of Brexit will be bad then it’s worth taking notice. And the models provide much more reliable evidence than saying ‘I believe it’ll be fine’.

The treasury report into the impact of Brexit in the first two years after the referendum predicted GDP would be 3.6% worse than it would’ve been had we voted remain. Calculations that have appeared in various media sources over the last couple of days show that GDP is about 2% worse than if we’d voted remain. Not quite as bad as feared, but probably close to the range in the report. So it’s looks like the forecasters are getting it about right in some areas, people who ignore the predictions of gloom because they don’t suit their agenda are deluded.

Hi martin, it would be great if the media could include information on the models that the different forecasters are using and the "margins of error" in the outcomes that are forecast. We'd all have a better understanding if this was the case.

I'd also like the reports to include identification of the "key assumptions" i.e. which assumptions really make the difference in the modelled outcomes. If they said "if I adjust this assumption by 10% there will be a change in the model's outcome by 10%" we would then see what really drives the model. If the values weren't 10% and 10% but, say, 10% and 1% again we'd have a sense of the robustness of the model.

"Worse than" and "better than" conclusions are so dependant on what the model assumed to be the outcome of the base case - and I'd assume that the "base case" for the Treasury was "remain in the EU." But, to understand the "3.6% worse than" it is also necessary to undertand the assumption of the "remain in the EU" model.

Interesting, however, "3.6% worse than" predicted versus the outcome of "2% worse than" - but, this suggests an error of nearly 45%. That's an enormous error, it's not something "about right in some areas." I'd want to know how could the Treasury model get things so wrong. I'd start by looking at what the Treasury assumptions were for the EU growth over this period - and what the EU's position was at the end of the period. I'd then extend the analysis to the rest of the world, weighted, I think, to the areas of UK trade - and any changes in these patterns of trade.

I'd argue against your conclusion and aim for a more dispassionate understanding of what's going on and what might happen in the future. You know my glass is always half full.

Thanks for the quality of the debate.

[Paul Waine]

Copy/paste from Crosspool's link above

Irish Independant Editorial - Friday 15th

Editorial: 'EU cannot allow us to burn as may fiddles over brexit'

We had hoped Poland's foreign minister was a different drummer marching in another direction when he broke ranks with the EU band, suggesting last month that Ireland has "treated the UK harshly" over the backstop.
It now looks as though it could be Ireland that is out of step, not Poland's Jacek Czaputowicz.
Had our confidence in our position not been fortified by cast-iron commitments from top brass in Brussels? Perhaps.
But across the water, Theresa May and the Ultras had waged a €39bn bet (the price of the EU divorce bill) on Ireland being forced into diluting the backstop once the EU was confronted with the prospect of losing the pot. And with just six weeks to go to Brexit, it looks as if the gamble could pay off.
A forthright and frankly chilling interview with someone described as a "senior EU diplomat" yesterday came like a glass of cold water in the face.
The un-named source said: "In a no-deal scenario, Ireland would have to choose between setting up a physical Border with Northern Ireland and de facto leaving the single market. If there is no physical Border, the customs checks would have to take place on all goods coming from Ireland."
So we bring in a hard Border or leave the single market. It's really that stark. A blunt "our way or the highway" ultimatum, veiled in the velvet language only anonymity allows. No matter how much Iveagh House may try to calm nerves these quotes cannot be dismissed.
They were carried by the Reuters news agency - the go-to source favoured by the EU when feeding unpalatable truths into the mainstream.

Tánaiste Simon Coveney's office was anxious to dismiss the report. A spokesman said: "I would point to people who put their names to statements like President Tusk and President Juncker who have repeatedly said the EU is determined to do all it can, deal or no deal, to avoid the need for a Border and to protect peace..."
We are in no doubt the EU will do "all that it can". This has never been in question.
The difficulty, and it is a grave one, is that it can do nothing. It will not allow a 500km hole to be opened up in the heart of the customs union, should the UK depart messily.
As the EU frontier is on our side, responsibility for protecting the zone's trade will almost certainly come back to us. European solidarity and fellowship will only get you so far, especially if it comes to jeopardising the integrity of the biggest trading bloc in the world.
Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated.
Talk is cheap - and what will it say about the strength of the union if Mrs May fiddles but it is Ireland that burns?

--------------------------------------------

There are some very strong words in the Irish Indpendent editorial. Something for everyone in the UK to think about, both those on the remain side of the argument and those on the leave side.

[martin_p]

Hi martin, it would be great if the media could include information on the models that the different forecasters are using and the "margins of error" in the outcomes that are forecast. We'd all have a better understanding if this was the case.

I'd also like the reports to include identification of the "key assumptions" i.e. which assumptions really make the difference in the modelled outcomes. If they said "if I adjust this assumption by 10% there will be a change in the model's outcome by 10%" we would then see what really drives the model. If the values weren't 10% and 10% but, say, 10% and 1% again we'd have a sense of the robustness of the model.

"Worse than" and "better than" conclusions are so dependant on what the model assumed to be the outcome of the base case - and I'd assume that the "base case" for the Treasury was "remain in the EU." But, to understand the "3.6% worse than" it is also necessary to undertand the assumption of the "remain in the EU" model.

Interesting, however, "3.6% worse than" predicted versus the outcome of "2% worse than" - but, this suggests an error of nearly 45%. That's an enormous error, it's not something "about right in some areas." I'd want to know how could the Treasury model get things so wrong. I'd start by looking at what the Treasury assumptions were for the EU growth over this period - and what the EU's position was at the end of the period. I'd then extend the analysis to the rest of the world, weighted, I think, to the areas of UK trade - and any changes in these patterns of trade.

I'd argue against your conclusion and aim for a more dispassionate understanding of what's going on and what might happen in the future. You know my glass is always half full.

Thanks for the quality of the debate.

Looking at the treasury report the 3.6% is the maximum variance from the baseline during the two year period, whereas the 2% recently reported is the position as of now, so I’m not quite right in directly comparing the figures. Looking at some analysis where the treasury report didn’t quite get it right is that they thought the initial post referendum fall would be big (the 3.6%) but then recover slightly in the second year. The actuality has been a steadier fall, however the end result isn’t to far off being on forecast.

I posted this link earlier in the thread that gives the detail on the accuracy of the post leave vote GDP forecast from the treasury.

https://fullfact.org/economy/how-accura ... eferendum/

[CrosspoolClarets]

Economic models are interesting now we have 2 years post 2016 to feed into the figures, but despite the models (currently) supporting the Leave argument I don’t feel they ever address the big issues.

For example - being in an expanding EU is like a big Quid Pro Quo. What does each country get, what does it give?

We give £Xbn annually to (essentially) fund the development of poorer nations. Those poorer nations have little to export to us, but what we do ask for is cheap labour. BUT, that may benefit our GDP but does it trickle down to the person in the street? Arguably not, arguably it flattens wage growth, causes social incohesion and prevents investment in company infrastructure. The rich have made a fortune out of it. The poor stagnate.

Whereas Germany, in the Eurozone, also benefits from the new entrants weakening the currency to benefit Germany’s exports. A huge difference to the UK. That is why the economic models are deceptive for me, and also why, in my view, we had to leave.

[Greenmile]

You can now make that 3 fella, as dull as ditchwater, less drama just lighten up & have a laugh matey

This isn't the first time you've accused me of being "dramatic" and I don't get it. Doesn't really fit in with my dull as ditchwater persona and I don't think I'm generally one for hyperbole or loads of emojis and exclamation marks or anything.

As for lightening up and having a laugh, is that like when Ringo tries to insult folk by calling them "ladies"? Because if it is I'll pass, thanks.

[Jakubclaret]

This isn't the first time you've accused me of being "dramatic" and I don't get it. Doesn't really fit in with my dull as ditchwater persona and I don't think I'm generally one for hyperbole or loads of emojis and exclamation marks or anything.

As for lightening up and having a laugh, is that like when Ringo tries to insult folk by calling them "ladies"? Because if it is I'll pass, thanks.

I can't speak for ringo, as a group you are being systematically obliterated, I'll check in on the 30th March 2019 to see the evidence.

[CombatClaret]

For example - being in an expanding EU is like a big Quid Pro Quo. What does each country get, what does it give?

Tariff free, friction less trade to 33 out of the 39 advanced economies in the world. Those probably include a few ones you think of as "poor countries"
eg: Greece, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia etc.

But yes glad we're taking back control of our money, well the 0.3% of GDP which goes to Europe. We get control of that back.

"We can do deals with Africa" we were told! Africa, that vast continent who's entire GDP of all countries combined amounts to half the GPD of France!

[AndyClaret]

Copy/paste from Crosspool's link above

Irish Independant Editorial - Friday 15th

Editorial: 'EU cannot allow us to burn as may fiddles over brexit'

We had hoped Poland's foreign minister was a different drummer marching in another direction when he broke ranks with the EU band, suggesting last month that Ireland has "treated the UK harshly" over the backstop.
It now looks as though it could be Ireland that is out of step, not Poland's Jacek Czaputowicz.
Had our confidence in our position not been fortified by cast-iron commitments from top brass in Brussels? Perhaps.
But across the water, Theresa May and the Ultras had waged a €39bn bet (the price of the EU divorce bill) on Ireland being forced into diluting the backstop once the EU was confronted with the prospect of losing the pot. And with just six weeks to go to Brexit, it looks as if the gamble could pay off.
A forthright and frankly chilling interview with someone described as a "senior EU diplomat" yesterday came like a glass of cold water in the face.
The un-named source said: "In a no-deal scenario, Ireland would have to choose between setting up a physical Border with Northern Ireland and de facto leaving the single market. If there is no physical Border, the customs checks would have to take place on all goods coming from Ireland."
So we bring in a hard Border or leave the single market. It's really that stark. A blunt "our way or the highway" ultimatum, veiled in the velvet language only anonymity allows. No matter how much Iveagh House may try to calm nerves these quotes cannot be dismissed.
They were carried by the Reuters news agency - the go-to source favoured by the EU when feeding unpalatable truths into the mainstream.

Tánaiste Simon Coveney's office was anxious to dismiss the report. A spokesman said: "I would point to people who put their names to statements like President Tusk and President Juncker who have repeatedly said the EU is determined to do all it can, deal or no deal, to avoid the need for a Border and to protect peace..."
We are in no doubt the EU will do "all that it can". This has never been in question.
The difficulty, and it is a grave one, is that it can do nothing. It will not allow a 500km hole to be opened up in the heart of the customs union, should the UK depart messily.
As the EU frontier is on our side, responsibility for protecting the zone's trade will almost certainly come back to us. European solidarity and fellowship will only get you so far, especially if it comes to jeopardising the integrity of the biggest trading bloc in the world.
Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated.
Talk is cheap - and what will it say about the strength of the union if Mrs May fiddles but it is Ireland that burns?

--------------------------------------------

There are some very strong words in the Irish Indpendent editorial. Something for everyone in the UK to think about, both those on the remain side of the argument and those on the leave side.

I posted a similar article a few days ago, Lancaster dismissed it as it doesn't suit his narrative.

[Lancasterclaret]

You posted the same one.

I didn't dismiss it, but it's full of unnamed quotes.

I do like it though, as it says in the event of a No Deal, there will be a hard border. As that is part of "Project Fear" (or in this case, stone cold reality) which has been dismissed by people like you, then I'm more than happy to see you acknowledging reality.

It's a start at least.

[AndyClaret]

You posted the same one.

I didn't dismiss it, but it's full of unnamed quotes.

I do like it though, as it says in the event of a No Deal, there will be a hard border. As that is part of "Project Fear" (or in this case, stone cold reality) which has been dismissed by people like you, then I'm more than happy to see you acknowledging reality.

It's a start at least.

And who is going to put in this hard border ?

[TVC15]

Alan Titchmarsh ?

[Lancasterclaret]

Reality and international law Andy

Who else?

Look, if you want to take me on with this, feel free but you want Brexit ahead of rational concerns, so you dismiss those rational concerns.

I don't, which is why people like me, greenmile etc are very often right while the "Brexit means Brexit" lot are nearly always wrong.

And I've no idea what form this "hard border" will come in, but there will be a border there in the event of a "No Deal". There has to be.

Its not your fault to be fair, there are pictures of Brexiteers stood on the Swiss border, next to a customs post barrier claiming "Look, there is no hard border between Germany and Switzerland" and people just ignore the evidence of their own eyes because they want to believe there is a solution.

I've posted a video just a bit further up and its worth a watch. Too many people in England have absolutely no idea what it was like in northern ireland when it wasn't great. Seeing the first police station on my first work visit was a proper eye opener.

[AndyClaret]

Reality and international law Andy

Who else?

Look, if you want to take me on with this, feel free but you want Brexit ahead of rational concerns, so you dismiss those rational concerns.

I don't, which is why people like me, greenmile etc are very often right while the "Brexit means Brexit" lot are nearly always wrong.

And I've no idea what form this "hard border" will come in, but there will be a border there in the event of a "No Deal". There has to be.

Its not your fault to be fair, there are pictures of Brexiteers stood on the Swiss border, next to a customs post barrier claiming "Look, there is no hard border between Germany and Switzerland" and people just ignore the evidence of their own eyes because they want to believe there is a solution.

I've posted a video just a bit further up and its worth a watch. Too many people in England have absolutely no idea what it was like in northern ireland when it wasn't great. Seeing the first police station on my first work visit was a proper eye opener.

And for a second time, who is going to put up a hard border ? it's not a trick question my friend.

[Burnley Ace]

And for a second time, who is going to put up a hard border ? it's not a trick question my friend.

It will have to go out to “tender”

[Lancasterclaret]

Tell you what Andy, ask Jacob Rees-Mogg what his solution is for dealing with the Irish border.

At this moment in time, for reasons of political necessity, no one is saying they will put up a hard border in the event of a "No Deal".

Which is fine, if you believe stuff that politicians say.

Just reinforces the need for a deal, and for that to happen, the ERG and the DUP have to be realistic.

But that brings us back to what do the ERG and the DUP really want?

Answer - ERG "No Deal" DUP (against the GFA remember) "Hard Border".

[AndyClaret]

I see your mate O'Brien is being eviscerated on Twitter by Peter Hitchens, this is what happens when you tell lies and play with the big boys.

https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/ ... 5464560640" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndyClaret]

Tell you what Andy, ask Jacob Rees-Mogg what his solution is for dealing with the Irish border.

At this moment in time, for reasons of political necessity, no one is saying they will put up a hard border in the event of a "No Deal".

Which is fine, if you believe stuff that politicians say.

Just reinforces the need for a deal, and for that to happen, the ERG and the DUP have to be realistic.

But that brings us back to what do the ERG and the DUP really want?

Answer - ERG "No Deal" DUP (against the GFA remember) "Hard Border".

So you can't answer, that's fine, just say so.

[Greenmile]

So you can't answer, that's fine, just say so.

He did answer. Twice.

Reality and international law will mean a border is mandatory under a no deal scenario. As to who exactly will put it up, the answer is “some builders” probably. If your question is who will employ those builders, the answer is the uk govt. if your next question is why would the uk govt do that, the answer is reality and international law.

[Lancasterclaret]

Mate, this isn't a debate with an easy answer.

I would have thought you'd have worked that out by now.

And no, I've no idea who will build it, or even what it will look like. All I know is that there will be a border that is different to the one that is there now (ie you only know because the signs change!) and that is something that is an added complication is an already very complicated issue.