More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

[Damo]

there's nothing new to address there.

switzerland's deal for access is pretty crap and wouldn't suit us at all.

That isn't the point

[quoonbeatz]

That isn't the point

i didn't say it was, i said there was nothing new to address there.

apart from you being wrong about quotas.

[Damo]

We told you that you had ignored the fact that Switzerland was in Schengen when you said it had "immigration quotas".

Not a big lie in the context of Brexit, but still a pretty big whopper.

It wasn't a lie. I was simply wrong.

Anyway, I was just pointing out that it was you and Upthebeehole that was wrong when you called out dsr

[Lancasterclaret]

Wrong about Switzerland not being in Schengen? The way you phrased it suggests you didn't know.

Anyway, its not true and we all agree its not true. Now if only you could tell the other Brexiteers, especially those in power to do that we'd be in a far better place!

Interesting bit of data on the voting practices in the last election. Apparently no big surge in the youth vote, so what could possibly have made the Labour party gain 30 seats. WHAT COULD IT POSSIBLY BE?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Quickenthetempo]

Interesting bit of data on the voting practices in the last election. Apparently no big surge in the youth vote, so what could possibly have made the Labour party gain 30 seats. WHAT COULD IT POSSIBLY BE?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Tories are *****

[Sidney1st]

The Tories are *****

If Labour were any good they'd hold on to power for a lot longer, so it's probably easier to say both sides are ****

[UpTheBeehole]

Wrong about Switzerland not being in Schengen? The way you phrased it suggests you didn't know.

Anyway, its not true and we all agree its not true. Now if only you could tell the other Brexiteers, especially those in power to do that we'd be in a far better place!

Interesting bit of data on the voting practices in the last election. Apparently no big surge in the youth vote, so what could possibly have made the Labour party gain 30 seats. WHAT COULD IT POSSIBLY BE?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe all those idiots can shut up with the lie about Corbyn buying votes with tuition fee promises now

[Sidney1st]

On the plus side it would appear youngsters knew his offer/promise was ********

[Quickenthetempo]

If Labour were any good they'd hold on to power for a lot longer, so it's probably easier to say both sides are ****

You have a slight point but the country is in a worse state now than I've ever known it apart from jobs, but if jobs are aplenty then the country should be booming.

[Sidney1st]

You have a slight point but the country is in a worse state now than I've ever known it apart from jobs, but if jobs are aplenty then the country should be booming.

Due to a build up of issues that successive governments have failed to deal with.

Out of interest when you say the country is in a worse state than you've known it before, which parts do you mean?

Items go up in price quicker than wages, usually happens that way as far as I know.
NHS is a mess, just varies in levels depending on who's running the place.
Clueless MP's / Prime minister - again it's the same regardless of which part is in charge.
House prices are getting silly again, but this happens on what you'd call a regular basis, we are due a housing market crash though.
Recession - these happen regularly enough too.

[Bordeauxclaret]

You have a slight point but the country is in a worse state now than I've ever known it apart from jobs, but if jobs are aplenty then the country should be booming.

Maybe a large percentage of people have a job but instead of actually doing it spend their time posting on Football messageboards. On any subject. All day. Every day.

[Quickenthetempo]

Due to a build up of issues that successive governments have failed to deal with.

Out of interest when you say the country is in a worse state than you've known it before, which parts do you mean?

Items go up in price quicker than wages, usually happens that way as far as I know.
NHS is a mess, just varies in levels depending on who's running the place.
Clueless MP's / Prime minister - again it's the same regardless of which part is in charge.
House prices are getting silly again, but this happens on what you'd call a regular basis, we are due a housing market crash though.
Recession - these happen regularly enough too.

Police force- might as well disband apart from serious crime squad. Don't even come out for car crime or Burglary anymore. Theresa May to blame.
Ambulance service-the last 10 people I know who needed ambulances waited between 2-5 hours and three didn't turn up at all.
NHS- spend more time in corridors than on wards. Probably both parties to blame but worse than ever now.
Pot holes- horrendous state the roads are in. Government cut local councils budgets massively.
Prison service- so over run that not a chance in hell you get sent down or get a sentence the crime deserves.
How many charities are there these days? Where's the funding from the authorities?
Homelessness is at alarming rates. Boomed since the Tories took over.
Food banks. Why should they be needed in our country? I had never heard of one until the last ten years or so.

[Quickenthetempo]

Maybe a large percentage of people have a job but instead of actually doing it spend their time posting on Football messageboards. On any subject. All day. Every day.

Are football messageboards that popular?

You may have a point about the whole social media section.

[Sidney1st]

Police force- might as well disband apart from serious crime squad. Don't even come out for car crime or Burglary anymore. Theresa May to blame.
Ambulance service-the last 10 people I know who needed ambulances waited between 2-5 hours and three didn't turn up at all.
NHS- spend more time in corridors than on wards. Probably both parties to blame but worse than ever now.
Pot holes- horrendous state the roads are in. Government cut local councils budgets massively.
Prison service- so over run that not a chance in hell you get sent down or get a sentence the crime deserves.
How many charities are there these days? Where's the funding from the authorities?
Homelessness is at alarming rates. Boomed since the Tories took over.
Food banks. Why should they be needed in our country? I had never heard of one until the last ten years or so.

Food Banks - that's been discussed on here before and whilst some people need them others take advantage where they can.

Prisons, NHS/Ambulance and Police are all as a result of several governments failure to deal with issues.
Acid attacks for example have become more common over the years and only recently was legislation created to specifically punish people who are caught carrying it in public....took the government long enough to see it was an issue

Charities - I don't keep track of how many there are, but sometimes it would appear that there are more charities than needed for one issue.

Pot Holes - again mentioned on here and it's a combination of poor work, ever expanding population and roads unsuitable for the amount of HGV's on them whilst places are being made bigger.

Homelessness - again it's been mentioned on here and there was a fair argument about it.

Successive governments play political football with the major issues whilst failing to actually deal with things properly.
Councils are the same on a lesser scale.

Are budget cuts too vast?
Yes it would appear so, but councils and government departments are guilty of overspending for years now so something had to give.
Labour pour the money in willy nilly and Tories chop it right back, yet what we need is a sensible middle ground.

There are reasons why large numbers of people don't bother voting and it's due to disillusionment with any party to deal with things that are clearly a problem.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Are football messageboards that popular?

You may have a point about the whole social media section.

Not your good self but there are a few on here who do it.
At least they claim to have jobs.

[Sidney1st]

Multi-tasking, you should try it sometime.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Multi-tasking, you should try it sometime.

Living the dream.

[Damo]

Wrong about Switzerland not being in Schengen? The way you phrased it suggests you didn't know.

Anyway, its not true and we all agree its not true. Now if only you could tell the other Brexiteers, especially those in power to do that we'd be in a far better place!

Interesting bit of data on the voting practices in the last election. Apparently no big surge in the youth vote, so what could possibly have made the Labour party gain 30 seats. WHAT COULD IT POSSIBLY BE?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No. You were wrong about Switzerland being in the single market, as opposed to having access to it.
The way you phrased it made it seem like you were doing so on the say so of Upthebeehole.

Not sure what the last part of your post relates to.
Is this "I'm not a fan of Corbyn but..." again?

[UpTheBeehole]

You need to tell Theresa May's government that they're wrong:

The European Economic Area (EEA)
The EEA includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It allows them to be part of the EU’s single market.

Switzerland is neither an EU nor EEA member but is part of the single market - this means Swiss nationals have the same rights to live and work in the UK as other EEA nationals.

https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea

[Lancasterclaret]

I never said that Switzerland was in the single market, because I know it isn't (not a full member) , just like I know Switzerland is in Schengen. Really weird that someone who comments on EU and Brexit not knowing that. Really, really, really, really strange in fact. But you said you were wrong, not that you lied and hoped we wouldn't notice, just like Dsr does. But its ok, you said you were wrong and what is important is that the correct facts are used.

But just to confirm

Switzerland is in Schengen, and does not have "quotas".

Last part? If its not the young people voting for JC, now then what could possibly have made 30 seats change hands? Tactical voting. Why did people tactically vote? Tactical voting stopped the Tory uber-Brexit. That tactical voting can make or break both May or Corbyn, and people in both parties need to think about why people tactically voted, and make decisions accordingly.

And yes, I tactically voted, and I did it because of Brexit. I seriously doubt I was alone in that.

[aggi]

Taking back control, here we come.

During the transition period, and in line with the European Council guidelines of 29 April 2017, the United Kingdom should remain bound by the obligations stemming from the agreements concluded by the Union, or by Member States acting on its behalf, or by the Union and its Member States acting jointly, while the United Kingdom should however no longer participate in any bodies set up by those agreements

The EU seems to have decided on a negotiating position http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32 ... 02en18.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[claretandy]

There's quite a big margin of error on this "the yoof didn't turn out" poll

[Damo]

I never said that Switzerland was in the single market, because I know it isn't (not a full member) , just like I know Switzerland is in Schengen. Really weird that someone who comments on EU and Brexit not knowing that. Really, really, really, really strange in fact. But you said you were wrong, not that you lied and hoped we wouldn't notice, just like Dsr does. But its ok, you said you were wrong and what is important is that the correct facts are used.

But just to confirm

Switzerland is in Schengen, and does not have "quotas".

Last part? If its not the young people voting for JC, now then what could possibly have made 30 seats change hands? Tactical voting. Why did people tactically vote? Tactical voting stopped the Tory uber-Brexit. That tactical voting can make or break both May or Corbyn, and people in both parties need to think about why people tactically voted, and make decisions accordingly.

And yes, I tactically voted, and I did it because of Brexit. I seriously doubt I was alone in that.

I have never claimed (unlike you) to be an expert on the bilateral agreements of foreign countries. So maybe you went a tad overboard with the "reallys" in your outburst.

As for your mealy mouthed excuse for voting Corbyn, I really don't care. Not sure why you ranted at me with regards to the voting intentions of young people. Odd

[dsr]

I never said that Switzerland was in the single market, because I know it isn't

When nil_d said that I was wrong about Switzerland not being in the single market, you said "DSR big issue is that he is quite happy to assume he won't be picked up on stuff like this". That's just mischief-making. You're trying to make out that I'm being deliberately misleading even though you knew all along that I was right.

[Lancasterclaret]

Andy - according to the article its fairly small margin of error

Damo - again, knowing Switzerland is in Schengen is anything to do with being an "expert", its to do with having a basic knowledge about a subject YOU decided to comment on.

and we have a system where in an awful lot of seats it is pointless voting for the candidate or party you want. People have realised that and tactically vote. You want to call that a "mealy mouthed excuse" if you want but its ignoring reality.

[Lancasterclaret]

That's just mischief-making. You're trying to make out that I'm being deliberately misleading even though you knew all along that I was right.

If only it was only the once eh?

[UpTheBeehole]

dsr is consistently deliberately misleading.

Terrible trait for an accountant to have

[claretandy]

Andy - according to the article its fairly small margin of error

Damo - again, knowing Switzerland is in Schengen is anything to do with being an "expert", its to do with having a basic knowledge about a subject YOU decided to comment on.

and we have a system where in an awful lot of seats it is pointless voting for the candidate or party you want. People have realised that and tactically vote. You want to call that a "mealy mouthed excuse" if you want but its ignoring reality.

If you look at the graph you can quite easily swap the 18-24 year old vote round within the margin of error to show that the turnout was higher than in 2015.

[nil_desperandum]

When nil_d said that I was wrong about Switzerland not being in the single market, .

Where did I say that?
You need to read my post more carefully.

[dsr]

Where did I say that?
You need to read my post more carefully.

True. You did confirm that the government website is wrong to say that Switzerland is a member of the single market.

That's not relevant to my point about Lancaster mischief-making though.

[CrosspoolClarets]

There's quite a big margin of error on this "the yoof didn't turn out" poll

That’s a fascinating graph, I’d seen that one before.

It suggests it wasn’t actually the youth who swung it Corbyn’s way in 2017 but the 25-40 age group who felt incentivised to turn out in greater numbers.

In other words, the group who have struggled to keep their wages up with the cost of living, who can’t buy a home for their young family, and who have big tuition fee debts to pay off.

So, so easy to solve for a Tory leader with the balls to do so. No doubts in my mind that compassionate conservatism (with two small c’s) can offer much to these people. Living wage - tick. House prices - disaster. Interest rates - tick. Tuition fees - disaster. House rents - disaster. NHS - disaster. School catchments - disaster. Tackle those things and many people will flock to the Tories and Corbyn is finished. Let’s be honest, Brexit gets emotions going but that stuff is the real elephant in the room. People simply do not feel their lives are fair, and deep down, they know Marxism isn’t the answer.

[Lancasterclaret]

You are talking about long term solutions there though Crosspool and most definitely "no austerity"

Not going to happen

[Spijed]

More on voting intentions:

http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes ... m9nBa5l_IW" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CrosspoolClarets]

You are talking about long term solutions there though Crosspool and most definitely "no austerity"

Not going to happen

No time to check my points for relevance to the issue at hand (attracting 25-40 y.o. voters), I’m only posting from my hols while my wife puts the little un to bed. But, my instinct would be, to solve the problems I identified (and I wouldn’t disagree with ain’t going to happen):

House prices and rents - interest rates have to normalise and QE wound down. Long term yes, but if people see the direction of movement they will feel positive about it. This is a BoE thing on the whole, but we all know they aren’t as “independent” as is suggested. The Chancellor can choose to influence this. Assets will fall in price, but that’s just a market cycle as I alluded to on the Woodford thread, stop trying to defer the inevitable.

Education - ensure people can get a school place in their catchment. How is it fair that a hard working young couple save up for a house they can hardly afford in a nice area, and then fail to get in their local school because other kids are being shipped across the city “to give them a better chance”. Not right. Easy to solve.

NHS - so easy to solve, but I’ve been trying for 30 years and politics always gets in the way. Remove that, things will be much better. Done the solutions to death on other posts in recent months.

Tuition Fees - halve them. Tell the unis that their new buildings cannot be quite so shiny (you should see the ones near me). Existing tuition fees could be somehow traded in for a first time buy house (e.g. swap the debt for a Help To Buy loan). I dunno, whatever the right answer is, do something. It was daft at the time and disincentivises poorer kids to go, who don’t have the nous and extended family wisdom to advise them that it’s worth it anyway, and those who ended up going get overwhelmed by the debt themselves. Lose, lose.

Austerity - yes, no austerity. That ship has now sailed. We never had austerity of course, we carried on making a loss each year. But whatever, we can’t be seen to be doing the same old.

These things don’t have to be hard. We just need compassionate politicians who will admit mistakes and take tough decisions, often ones the public don’t view as the right ones but they work anyway. Trump, for all his annoying Americanisms, is such a politician. There are one or two here who wouldn’t be scared to - Gove is one (though he is Marmite due to schools and Brexit).These folk rarely get near Government because they are Mavericks, and leaders can’t control them, but that to me is what we need. If the sitting Government cannot find one, invariably the British people will, and the latter will be a more risky, radical choice so better avoided.

[Damo]

Damo - again, knowing Switzerland is in Schengen is anything to do with being an "expert", its to do with having a basic knowledge about a subject YOU decided to comment on.

Aye. Yet you were wrong about Switzerland's participation in the single market you "expert" you

[Greenmile]

Ok, the free movement of persons.
Don't address my actual point though will you.

Switzerland are free to persue trade agreements of their own outside of the EU trading bloc, whilst still having access to the single market

*Edit to change spellcheck fail on persue, before any remoaners address that as opposed to my point

You should maybe have more faith in your spellchecker - persue isn’t a word.

/pedantry

[Loyalclaret]

Another ‘positive’ paper surpressed this morning relating to how better off we’ll Be under the three main Brexit options. Government not providing a running commentary of the analysis though...wonder why?

[Lancasterclaret]

Well, I'll go to the top of the stairs

Least damaging Brexit would be us leaving whilst staying in the Customs Union and the Single Market.

Full marks for the govt though, they know that those who want Brexit will believe absolutely anything that keeps those dreams of unicorns alive, so they have said that their preferred option (ie the fantasy one that they can't have) wasn't modelled.

[Lancasterclaret]

Peston nails it

https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/post ... 4464639622" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Take back control or economic prosperity

I'd say it was a logical choice, but then again I'm not smacked off my tits on bluepassportitus.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Stop talking Britain down Peston.

[martin_p]

Stop talking Britain down Peston.

He’s an ‘expert’, don’t listen!!

[UpTheBeehole]

The government's new analysis of the impact of Brexit says the UK would be worse off outside the European Union under every scenario modelled, BuzzFeed News can reveal.

The assessment, which is titled “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing” and dated January 2018, looked at three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios based on existing EU arrangements.

Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis.

The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%.

These calculations do not take into account any short-term hits to the economy from Brexit, such as the cost of adjusting the economy to new customs arrangements.

The assessment seen by BuzzFeed News is being kept tightly guarded inside government. It was prepared by officials across Whitehall for the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) and is reportedly being presented to key ministers in one-to-one meetings this week ahead of discussion at the Brexit cabinet subcommittee next week.

Asked why the prime minister was not making the analysis public, a DExEU source told BuzzFeed News: "Because it's embarrassing."

Even though the analysis assumes that the UK will agree a trade deal with the US, roll over dozens of the EU’s current trade agreements, and consider loosening regulations after Brexit, there is no scenario that does not leave the country worse off.

Officials believe the methodology for the new assessment is better than that used for similar analyses before the referendum.

The January 2018 analysis looked only at existing EU arrangements, which means bespoke arrangements have yet to be modelled. Prime Minister Theresa May has repeatedly said she is seeking a "deep and special partnership with the EU".

The other main findings of the analysis:

• Almost every sector of the economy included in the analysis would be negatively impacted in all three scenarios, with chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, and cars and retail the hardest hit. The analysis found that only the agriculture sector under the WTO scenario would not be adversely affected.

• Every UK region would also be affected negatively in all the modelled scenarios, with the North East, the West Midlands, and Northern Ireland (before even considering the possibility of a hard border) facing the biggest falls in economic performance.

• There is a risk that London’s status as a financial centre could be severely eroded, with the possibilities available under an FTA not much different to those in the WTO option.

• On the plus side, the analysis assumes in all scenarios that a trade deal with the US will be concluded, and that it would benefit GDP by about 0.2% in the long term. Trade deals with other non-EU countries and blocs, such as China, India, Australia, the Gulf countries, and the nations of Southeast Asia would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term.

The government has found itself in repeated difficulty over the existence – or lack – of Brexit impact studies. Last year, the Brexit secretary David Davis suggested that dozens had been carried out “in excruciating detail”, but after a Commons vote forced the publication of these assessments, he told MPs he had been misunderstood and they did not exist after all. DExEU published a series of broad "sectoral analyses" instead.

The biggest negative impact comes from the UK’s decision to leave both the EU’s customs union and the single market – the issue at the heart of the Conservative Party’s ongoing internal strife over Brexit.

Leaving these arrangements creates what the analysis calls “non-tariff barriers” to trade, such as loss of market access in certain sectors and new customs and border checks and practices.

Some of these can be minimised if Britain were to remain in the single market via the EEA, and the impact can also be partly offset through domestic policy or trade deals with the US and others, but the losses cannot be eliminated altogether once the UK is outside the customs union.

This new analysis suggests that there could be opportunity for the UK in agreeing trade deals with non-EU countries and deregulating in areas such as the environment, product standards, and employment law.

However, the analysis also casts doubt on the idea that these benefits would be enough to mitigate the losses to the economy caused by leaving the single market and customs union. Moving away from the existing set of rules and standards would also make it harder to trade with the EU in the future, and would be politically controversial domestically.

This specific debate risks deepening the conflict inside the Tory party between those, such as chancellor Philip Hammond, who want to remain more closely aligned to the EU for years, and the hardline Brexiteers, led by backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg.

A government spokesperson told BuzzFeed News: “We have already set out that the government is undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis in support of our EU exit negotiations and preparations.

"We have been clear that we are not prepared to provide a running commentary on any aspect of this ongoing internal work and that ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiation position.”

A government source said: “As part of its preparations for leaving the European Union, officials from across Whitehall are undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis.

"An early draft of this next stage of analysis has looked at different off-the-shelf arrangements that currently exist as well as other external estimates. It does not, however, set out or measure the details of our desired outcome – a new deep and special partnership with the EU – or predict the conclusions of the negotiations.

"It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependent on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”

[claretandy]

Well, I'll go to the top of the stairs

Least damaging Brexit would be us leaving whilst staying in the Customs Union and the Single Market.

Full marks for the govt though, they know that those who want Brexit will believe absolutely anything that keeps those dreams of unicorns alive, so they have said that their preferred option (ie the fantasy one that they can't have) wasn't modelled.

You've been listening to james obrien too much, "unicorns, blue passports" get your own material.

[UpTheBeehole]

Leaked government Brexit paper suggests UK economic hit

The UK economy will grow more slowly outside the European Union, no matter what deal is struck with Brussels, a leaked government document suggests.

BuzzFeed News reports the Whitehall analysis found growth over the next 15 years could be up to 8% lower than if the UK stayed in the EU.

The document is said to look at the likely impact of different scenarios.

Government sources say the UK will not be worse off, and its preferred bespoke trade deal option was not analysed.

According to Buzzfeed, the leaked document, titled EU Exit Analysis - Cross Whitehall Briefing and drawn up for the Department for Exiting the EU, suggests almost every part of the economy would suffer.

But Conservative MP and leave campaigner Iain Duncan Smith told the Today programme the paper should be taken "with a pinch of salt" as almost every single forecast on Brexit has been wrong.

"It's an incomplete report... deliberately leaked because it gives a bad view," he said.

The paper is likely to sharpen the debate in cabinet as the least bad option appears to be to remain close to the EU - the "Philip Hammond option", said the BBC's assistant political editor, Norman Smith.

But the broader impact on the political debate was questionable, he added, as the public have so far proven "remarkably resistant to these warnings of economic woe".

The report suggests UK economic growth would be 8% lower than current forecasts, in the years ahead, if the country left the bloc with no deal and reverted to World Trade Organisation rules.

'Significant caveats'
It says growth would be 5% lower if Britain negotiated a free trade deal and 2% lower even if the UK were to continue to adhere to the rules of the single market.

All scenarios assume a new deal with the US.

The government sources point out that the document has not modelled the effect of a bespoke deal covering trade and financial services - the government's preferred scenario - and it does not attempt to anticipate the outcome of negotiations.

The BBC understands the Treasury contributed to the document but sources say it is part of a much wider range of work going on in Whitehall.

The source said: "An early draft of this next stage of analysis has looked at different off-the-shelf arrangements that currently exist as well as other external estimates.

"It does not, however, set out or measure the details of our desired outcome - a new deep and special partnership with the EU - or predict the conclusions of the negotiations.

"It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependant on a wide range of assumptions."

The chairman of the European Research Group of Conservative MPs, Jacob Rees-Mogg, said that economic modelling so far had been "highly speculative" and often inaccurate.

Similar analysis carried out by the Treasury ahead of the Brexit referendum predicted large scale job losses if there was a vote to leave and had been "comprehensively wrong", he said.

But Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said it showed the need for the government to "urgently change course" and make staying in the single market and customs union its top priority.

Meanwhile, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has denied telling Tory Brexiteers to prepare for disappointment.

Speaking to The Sun about pressure on Prime Minister Theresa May, he criticised Tory MPs involved with negative briefings, saying "nothing that would happen would change the parliamentary arithmetic".

"We don't have a working majority, other than with the support of the Democratic Unionists, and we need to accept the reality of that. I know that there are always disappointed individuals but they're going to have to live with disappointment."

Mr Fox told the BBC his warning was to Mrs May's critics that they will be "disappointed" in their efforts to topple her or secure cabinet positions for themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42867668

[RingoMcCartney]

The only problem with this document , that's been leaked by civil servants that are Remoaners to try and undermine the UKs position. Is that it looks at options of 3 basic deal options. Non of which the government has said it's persuing! Also bare in mind, the people responsible for these forecasts said, simply a vote to Leave the EU, not actually the act of leaving, would see a rise in unemployment of between 500,000 and 850,000 within 2 years of that vote, due to the uncertainty caused by that vote. How blindingly wrong were they!?

At the end of the day, IF there was to be a negative economic impact of leaving the EU. Most people who voted to Leave did so for reasons other than financial. Having our own laws made here without interference of foreign judges. Having control over who comes into the country. And restoring our position as an independent sovereign state, that's not part of a Superstate , with its own flag, anthem, currency, army, trans national ministers with the power to intervene in individual nations fiscal and monetary policy.

Many like me, listened to eurosceptic Labour grandee, Tony Benn. He asked 5 questions-

WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?
WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?
IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?
TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?

Whether Remoaners like it or not. Brexiteers voted democracy first. Money second.

[UpTheBeehole]

The UK Government is acting like a superstate in taking Scotland and Northern Ireland out of the EU against their will

[RingoMcCartney]

The UK Government is acting like a superstate in taking Scotland and Northern Ireland out of the EU against their will

[UpTheBeehole]

Ringo your 5 questions have a major sticking point

She needs to exercise the best thing to the UK. That best thing, as proven in all reports put together, is to remain in the EU.
She is accountable to 100% of the population, ie 65,640,000 people. Only 17,410,742 voted to leave the EU.

[nil_desperandum]

Whether Remoaners like it or not. Brexiteers voted democracy first. Money second.

Great for the 35 on the right of the Tory party who can afford it I suppose, but what about hardworking people with families, with mortgages and food bills to pay?
People didn't knowingly vote for 15 years of decline.

[Sidney1st]

Ringo your 5 questions have a major sticking point

She needs to exercise the best thing to the UK. That best thing, as proven in all reports put together, is to remain in the EU.
She is accountable to 100% of the population, ie 65,640,000 people. Only 17,410,742 voted to leave the EU.

Not the governments fault if people didn't vote.
Should we apply the same thing to general elections, not everyone voted so the vote is null / void?
Do we apply the samething to Trade Union votes??