The Great Repeal Bill

[UpTheBeehole]

No!

I possibly could be turned by the right chap, but I'm sure that chap isn't him!

Rowls is waiting for you He-Man

[Lancasterclaret]

"Paint me like your French Ladies Jack"

[Lancasterclaret]

Think I've just found Rowls chat up line on twitter

"Hey, hope you don't think I'm coming on too strong, but do you fancy leaving the single market before the UK does"

[Rowls]

Oh you guys!

Get a room yourself where you can chat Rowls all day long.

I'm confident that as soon as Brexit is legally binding all 400,000 French nationals in the UK will be immediately deported and the same will happen to me (as long as I'm lucky enough not to be shipped off to a concentration camp).

At this point, I'll start a blog for you and keep you updated with a never-ending series of blogs on my life of unremitting misery.

[RingoMcCartney]

Fill me in Rowls

I've only been listening to political commentators and reading stuff on it. I have to admit not having considered the views of a barman from France, but I'm open to anything you may have to add to the debate.

Enjoy your day in the sun with the benefit of EU freedom of movement and employment.

Many people live in countries all over the world. It's not dependent on being in the EU.

Your mixing up causation and correlation Lancs.

[Rowls]

Rowls is waiting for you He-Man

Hahah.

But remember - that's Lancaster's fantasy. Not mine. He's the Good Guy in this.

[Lancasterclaret]

Nowt to do with me Rowls that particular one!

Ringo and Rowls for once I hope you are both 100% correct.

But at this moment in time, you cannot say that for sure.

[ngsobob]

Ringo, pay attention. I've already pointed out that a majority of Labour voters are pro-EU. Most of the UKIP vote went to the Tories who are doing UKIP's job for them. We're experiencing a right-wing coup. Recent research suggests that it was the collapse of the banks that lead to the Brexit vote. Somebody, anybody, to blame for austerity. Now we have a group of extreme right wingers driving a minority Tory government because, as ever, Tories always put party before country. That's why they've hung around so long. They're not daft, just lack morals.

[Rowls]

Nowt to do with me Rowls that particular one!
Ringo and Rowls for once I hope you are both 100% correct.
But at this moment in time, you cannot say that for sure.

Oh here's hoping hey, Lancaster?

[Lancasterclaret]

The onus is on the party in power to sort that out Rowls. They are doing a super dooper job so far.

Like you say, here's hoping

[Lancasterclaret]

Ringo, have a gander at the Great Enabling act of 1933.

[Colburn_Claret]

I don't think that the problem with this Bill has anything to do with Brexit at all. It's all to do with the Sovereignty of Parliament, and our democratic process.
There are 3 main elements to this bill.

1. Repealing the European Communities Act and thus returning all power to UK institutions

2. Converting EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into UK law before exiting the EU. This will allow businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not changed significantly overnight, and provides fairness to individuals, whose rights and obligations will not be subject to sudden change.

3. Creating powers to make secondary legislation. This will allow ministers to make amends to laws that would not function appropriately once we have left the EU.

I don't think many people have an issue with points 1. or 2., since we need something in place when we jump over the cliff edge. However, it is the third point that is highly controversial, since it theoretically gives powers to ministers to amend laws without Parliamentary assent. If Corbyn tried to do this then the tabloids would justifiably be up in arms, and the Tory Party would stand united against it. As things stand, however, it appears that most Conservatives will vote for it despite some Senior figures such as Dominic Grieve expressing serious concerns about Parliament giving their powers away like this.
I expect the Bill to go through but with some amendments to ensure that the full Sovereignty of Parliament is protected.

Agree with all of that, but wouldn't be overly concerned. What parliament vote away, they can always vote back again.
If any Government abused it they would be held accountable to the houses and the people.
That after all is democracy.

[UpTheBeehole]

Ringo, have a gander at the Great Enabling act of 1933.

Sidney1st also needs to have a read of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo, have a gander at the Great Enabling act of 1933.

Go on enlighten me! I'm at work and fair busy. But, and I'm not taking the p, what's the connection?

I still maintain that believing that Rowls right to live and work in France is due to EU membership. Is mixing up correlation and causation.

[Lancasterclaret]

Google it mate, I'm in exactly the same boat!

I think Rowls is 100% safe unless we fall out of the EU without agreement. If that goes tits up and we continue to be punitive against low income/low skilled immigration in that situation, then who knows?

I'm 100% genuine in that I don't want anything like that to happen to anybody, be that Rowls or any of the 3 million EU citizens over here.

[RingoMcCartney]

Agree with all of that, but wouldn't be overly concerned. What parliament vote away, they can always vote back again.
If any Government abused it they would be held accountable to the houses and the people.
That after all is democracy.

The very same point has been made by 3 separate posters to day. But Remoaners, prefer to behave like political Henny Pennys claiming it's the start of the 4th Reich!

We all know it's a front for trying to undermine and obstruct brexit.

Some one tell them there's such a thing as general elections and ballot boxes!!!

[RingoMcCartney]

Google it mate, I'm in exactly the same boat!

I think Rowls is 100% safe unless we fall out of the EU without agreement. If that goes tits up and we continue to be punitive against low income/low skilled immigration in that situation, then who knows?

I'm 100% genuine in that I don't want anything like that to happen to anybody, be that Rowls or any of the 3 million EU citizens over here.

If I get chance I will. Bear in mind I've to remember though!

[UpTheBeehole]

Go on enlighten me! I'm at work and fair busy. But, and I'm not taking the p, what's the connection?

I still maintain that believing that Rowls right to live and work in France is due to EU membership. Is mixing up correlation and causation.

Key paragraphs:

The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) was a 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag.

Although they received five million more votes than in the previous election, the Nazis failed to gain an absolute majority in parliament, and depended on the 8% of seats won by their coalition partner, the German National People's Party, to reach 52% in total.

Under the Act, the government had acquired the authority to pass laws without either parliamentary consent or control. These laws could (with certain exceptions) even deviate from the Constitution. The Act effectively eliminated the Reichstag as active players in German politics. While its existence was protected by the Enabling Act, for all intents and purposes it reduced the Reichstag to a mere stage for Hitler's speeches. It only met sporadically until the end of World War II, held no debates and enacted only a few laws.

Reads awfully similar to Theresa May's minority government taking powers away from Parliament and solely into the hands of her and her party, dontcha think?

The last quoted paragraph is where we could end up heading under this power-mad leader

[JohnMcGreal]

This is nothing but a naked power grab by a phoney Prime Minister and her weak government, and every citizen should be concerned by this, regardless of how you voted in the EU referendum.

This is a decent write-up, with a sobering conclusion: 'They use the language of democracy to dismantle democracy.'

http://politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09/12/ ... -democracy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Waine]

The comparison between the normal use of secondary legislation powers, and what is proposed here is absolutely invalid.

Normally, secondary legislation derives from a specific act of parliament granting the secretary of state particular powers in defined circumstances as described in the ultimate act of parliament that "enables" the right to make secondary legislation. The scope of the subject matter of that ultimate act of parliament defines the scope of the secondary legislation that can be made (so for example, a transport act might permit the secretary of state to make regulations relating to a particular transport scheme - HS2 being a good example of this).

What is being proposed here is far, far wider - its the ability to re-write every law which has derived from Brussels over the past 50 years. Which as every Brexiteer knows, is a lot of our laws. Indeed, the only precedent for this is itself the ability of the government to make regulations in relation to the domestic application of EU law, which is precisely what we are trying to reclaim in the name of parliamentary sovereignty.

We all know that Brexit is going to profoundly change the country, and we are going to try and differentiate ourselves from Europe after Brexit (whatever its form) takes effect. For the government to put forward legislation predicated on the assumption that it should have the right to determine this, without necessarily having to consult parliament, is a grotesque affront to democracy which ought to offend everyone in the land.

Hi claretspice, I agree your description of the draft bill - and, that's the bit that should be changed - a few carefully crafted amendments that places parameters around the "henry VIII" actions that the government can take. Anything more major, bring back to parliament. Job sorted. Democracy wins. No one needs to be offended.

One of the ways that we can democratically control these issues would be with some "sunset" clauses.

But, no "big excitement" if we take a sensible approach - and , no "brexit is a disaster...."

Keep calm - and carry on.

[Paul Waine]

Ringo, pay attention. I've already pointed out that a majority of Labour voters are pro-EU. Most of the UKIP vote went to the Tories who are doing UKIP's job for them. We're experiencing a right-wing coup. Recent research suggests that it was the collapse of the banks that lead to the Brexit vote. Somebody, anybody, to blame for austerity. Now we have a group of extreme right wingers driving a minority Tory government because, as ever, Tories always put party before country. That's why they've hung around so long. They're not daft, just lack morals.

Hi ngsobob, I'm fascinated with your psephology. What happened to the "old and uneducated" voted brexit analysis?

And, how do we connect the "global financial crisis" with brexit?

[ngsobob]

Hi, Paul. Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been searching for the reference re the study about the World Financial collapse, but typically can't find it. It's new, probably saw a ref on my twitter feed. The argument was that the bank collapse in 2008 led to austerity policies, most savagely in the UK with the Osborne budget in 2010. Other economies, like the US, and our own under Labour recharged the economy with investment packages. That's why the US under Obama recovered better than most. Remember the scrappage schemes here, for example. As a result, by the time Labour left office , the economy was growing at an annualised rate of 2.4%. Osborne's budget collapsed the economy, against the advice of economists generally. Cameron/Osborne then followed austerity policies for ideological reasons which has meant the slowest recovery in 300 years, low pay, low productivity etc. The referendum gave the populace a binary chance to kick 'the establishment', them politicians, and so on. In a healthier economy, people would have been less p....d off and less liable to hit themselves in the face with a dustbin lid. That's the gist, and it makes sense to me.

As for 'old and uneducated', you'll search a long time to find any reference from me on those lines and still fail. Some young folk might anyway consider me old, and I accept being uneducated about modern music. Too much is made of that - a goodly proportion (was it a third?) of the 65+ age group voted remain.

Final point is that GDP will fall by between 6% (HM Treasury) and 10% (IFS) every year if we leave - that's every year. As the welfare budget's largest slice is pensions, stand by for blast off. Ready yourself for the NHS listing ailments it won't treat (I have a sore heel they won't treat until I'm crippled). The poor will get even poorer. Ideal conditions for civil unrest. And this is Albion, with it's mother of parliaments. For shame.

[KateR]

well I for one am glad it passed through

[nil_desperandum]

well I for one am glad it passed through

It hasn't, and it's unlikely it will. For it to go through in it's current form, it means that the rebel Tories will have to back down, and I can't see that happening.
Points 1 & 2 won't be contested but point 3 will be amended. I can't see Theresa May and Davis risking losing this vote, so at some point a compromise will be made.
This should be good news to Brexiteers since:
1. It means the House of Lords will probably give the Bill a much easier and quicker passage
2. It means that no one will challenge and delay it through the courts.
3. The sovereignty that you wanted restoring to Parliament will not be under threat.

[RingoMcCartney]

Key paragraphs:







Reads awfully similar to Theresa May's minority government taking powers away from Parliament and solely into the hands of her and her party, dontcha think?

The last quoted paragraph is where we could end up heading under this power-mad leader

Thanks for the info matey. ( genuinely)

But to link May with one of historys biggest tyrants is a bit of a quantum leap, don't you think?

Given that roughly 50 of voters are left, the others are right. If ever a government of any colour tried to lurch to their respective extreme. There's be enough of the "other side" to counter balance that lurch at the ballot box.

The fact that your there. And I'm here. Kind of backs up my assertion.

But I'll stick to my viewpoint that all this is a smoke screen for obstructing brexit.

But cheers for saving me my homework.!

[Sidney1st]

Sidney1st also needs to have a read of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Is that because I laughed at your Nazi comment?

I don't need to read it again, but thanks again for your concern about my knowledge of history....

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo, pay attention. I've already pointed out that a majority of Labour voters are pro-EU. Most of the UKIP vote went to the Tories who are doing UKIP's job for them. We're experiencing a right-wing coup. Recent research suggests that it was the collapse of the banks that lead to the Brexit vote. Somebody, anybody, to blame for austerity. Now we have a group of extreme right wingers driving a minority Tory government because, as ever, Tories always put party before country. That's why they've hung around so long. They're not daft, just lack morals.

And I disagree with your opinion that brexit was brought about by the economic collapse.
The vast majority of constituencies that returned a Labour MP voted brexit. (Burnley 66ish %) This was after their manifesto promised "leaving the single market" and "ending free movement"! There were only 12 Labour MPs who voted with the government last night. If anybody's putting party before country it's the duplicitous Labour party. Otherwise , the vast majority of Labour MPs would have voted with the government.

[Sidney1st]

2017 and people are trying to imply that the Tories are heading down the same route as the Nazis'.
To call May power mad is also amusing, considering people like Blair have been PM...

That's pretty impressive, even for this forum.

I'm well aware of what happened in Germany in the first half of the 20th century, but last time I checked we hadn't lost a world war in living memory, nor were we under economic sanctions or paying reparations etc and felt aggrieved with how we were being treated by the victors of said war.
Completely different set of circumstances.

I've already stated it should be a cross party group set up to get through some of these changes in a more efficient manner, but we all know it won't happen, nor will it be suggested, because the opposition parties would rather sit there sniping instead of actively trying to help.

That applies to whoever is the opposition party.

[UpTheBeehole]

Very soon the UK will be paying 'reparations' to the EU, with many people feeling aggrieved about that. Read the Daily Mail or Daily Express, or the words of David Davis. They're frothing at the mouth at the prospect of paying the UK's agreed contributions to the EU.

Theresa May is power mad. She called a completely unnecessary general election when her government should have been concentrating on getting its **** in order for the brexit negotiations. Her entire campaign was based upon her; in most of her election material there wasn't even a mention of the Conservatives, it was all Theresa May.

[keith1879]

I'm inclined to feel that the Nazi analogy is way over the top - but I do think we are downplaying the significance of a bad trade deal (or no trade deal) far too readily. Disagreements over commerce are often the seeds that cause wars - and it's more or less inevitable that we wouldn't be able to foresee it until it happened. I don't agree that Theresa May is power mad - but the Conservatives as a whole are and have been ever since Margaret Thatcher's time. There is a section of that party who will ruin the country if it feeds their agenda - and of course they won't feel the pain.

[nil_desperandum]

There were only 12 Labour MPs who voted with the government last night. If anybody's putting party before country it's the duplicitous Labour party. Otherwise , the vast majority of Labour MPs would have voted with the government.

Ringo. I'll have one last go.
If the vote were just about Brexit, then Labour MPs would have been instructed by the whips to vote with the Govt. There's no doubt about this, and I doubt any of them would have defied the party whip, since it's party policy. All agree that a simple bill of this nature is needed.
What Labour and the other opposition MPs voted against was the additional unnecessary clause to the Bill, which removes the need for Parliamentary scrutiny BEYOND us leaving the EU, and to use your term having already "taken back control". No sane person would give any executive this level of power. It's points 1 & 2 of the Bill that will give us control of our laws the day after we leave the EU.
If it's passed without point 3, you will have your Brexit, so it makes no sense to say that the Labour Party is delaying the process. The only people jeopardising / potentially delaying the process are Davis, May and their team, by trying to snatch executive powers to legislate, when - in fact - they are a minority administration.
As I implied in my first contribution to this thread, if Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbot were trying to do this you'd be justifiably frothing at the mouth.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo. I'll have one last go.
If the vote were just about Brexit, then Labour MPs would have been instructed by the whips to vote with the Govt. There's no doubt about this, and I doubt any of them would have defied the party whip, since it's party policy. All agree that a simple bill of this nature is needed.
What Labour and the other opposition MPs voted against was the additional unnecessary clause to the Bill, which removes the need for Parliamentary scrutiny BEYOND us leaving the EU, and to use your term having already "taken back control". No sane person would give any executive this level of power. It's points 1 & 2 of the Bill that will give us control of our laws the day after we leave the EU.
If it's passed without point 3, you will have your Brexit, so it makes no sense to say that the Labour Party is delaying the process. The only people jeopardising / potentially delaying the process are Davis, May and their team, by trying to snatch executive powers to legislate, when - in fact - they are a minority administration.
As I implied in my first contribution to this thread, if Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbot were trying to do this you'd be justifiably frothing at the mouth.

Thanks for tolerating me and I apologise for any exasperation I'm causing. I'll go back to my original points.

1 That Labour used the henry 8th in the 1970s when they were a minority government.

2. Also, these powers have , ironically, been used to incorporate EU law into British, while we've been in the EEC/ EU.

3 If they were genuinely concerned about parliamentary sovereignty. Why have they been happy and compliant, in giving it away to unelected eurocrats for the last 40 odd years!?

4 (a foot note really) Teresa May getting her own way on this Bill. Will not. I repeat not, lead to Philip Hammond, David Davies and Boris Johnson suddenly looking like German characters from Allo Allo !!!


I'll leave it at that. Let's call it a draw. Something I'll settle for at Anfield this weekend.

[Sidney1st]

Very soon the UK will be paying 'reparations' to the EU, with many people feeling aggrieved about that. Read the Daily Mail or Daily Express, or the words of David Davis. They're frothing at the mouth at the prospect of paying the UK's agreed contributions to the EU.

Theresa May is power mad. She called a completely unnecessary general election when her government should have been concentrating on getting its **** in order for the brexit negotiations. Her entire campaign was based upon her; in most of her election material there wasn't even a mention of the Conservatives, it was all Theresa May.

She had that bell end in Scotland constantly reminding us that May was an unelected PM...

Well worth the election just to see the win shoved up the nose of Sturgeon.

As for manifestos etc they generally aren't worth the paper they're written on and that goes for all parties.

[Bacchus]

Ringo. I'll have one last go.

Don't waste your time. Ringo is a fully paid up Brexit cultist. He'd unquestioningly get behind literally anything if someone told him it was in aid of Brexit and attack anyone / anything accused of frustrating the process. Logical or reasoned discussion is wasted on him.

[Paul Waine]

Hi, Paul. Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been searching for the reference re the study about the World Financial collapse, but typically can't find it. It's new, probably saw a ref on my twitter feed. The argument was that the bank collapse in 2008 led to austerity policies, most savagely in the UK with the Osborne budget in 2010. Other economies, like the US, and our own under Labour recharged the economy with investment packages. That's why the US under Obama recovered better than most. Remember the scrappage schemes here, for example. As a result, by the time Labour left office , the economy was growing at an annualised rate of 2.4%. Osborne's budget collapsed the economy, against the advice of economists generally. Cameron/Osborne then followed austerity policies for ideological reasons which has meant the slowest recovery in 300 years, low pay, low productivity etc. The referendum gave the populace a binary chance to kick 'the establishment', them politicians, and so on. In a healthier economy, people would have been less p....d off and less liable to hit themselves in the face with a dustbin lid. That's the gist, and it makes sense to me.

As for 'old and uneducated', you'll search a long time to find any reference from me on those lines and still fail. Some young folk might anyway consider me old, and I accept being uneducated about modern music. Too much is made of that - a goodly proportion (was it a third?) of the 65+ age group voted remain.

Final point is that GDP will fall by between 6% (HM Treasury) and 10% (IFS) every year if we leave - that's every year. As the welfare budget's largest slice is pensions, stand by for blast off. Ready yourself for the NHS listing ailments it won't treat (I have a sore heel they won't treat until I'm crippled). The poor will get even poorer. Ideal conditions for civil unrest. And this is Albion, with it's mother of parliaments. For shame.

Hi ngsobob, no probs with timing of responding - I've been out for a walk.

So, austerity was an option and ideologically driven? What about the UK's deficit and the amount of debt that had been built up by "no more boom and bust" Brown? What about the "there's no money left" when Brown lost the 2010 election? And, what about the fact that "austerity" hasn't been a reduction in expenditure, just a slow down in the rate of growth? Where was the "collapse of the economy" that you mention? The "world financial crisis" was massive, yes, the bankers had a big part in it, so did Blair/Brown "management" of the economy and the "spending splurge" that they'd been on leading up to 2007/08. (Hence, Brown's claim of "no more boom or bust"). It doesn't surprise me that we are still struggling to emerge from the WFC 10 years afterwards - I forecast in 2009 that we (the world economy, not just the UK) would be still feeling the effects 10 years afterwards.

Yes, the referendum gave the electorate the opportunity to vote on membership of the EU. And, as it had been 40 years since the last time we'd been asked to vote on the EEC - but were not previously asked to vote on the EU - it is unsurprising that there was some "let's tell the establishment what we think of them." The think is, are we "kicking" the UK political establishment or are we kicking the EU political establishment? Some might argue "aren't they one and the same" and others might think "let's divide and conquer."

You've got me on modern "music" too: if the artist hadn't recorded at least one album before 1975 I don't know much about them.

GDP falls: wow, I'm pretty sure you've got your decimal points in the wrong place for those forecasts. George Osborne's Treasury, as part of "project fear" made a forecast that GDP per capita would be, at worst, £4,800 (from memory) lower in 2030 if we left the EU - and we'd need an "emergency budget" immediately after the referendum. The Treasury has since withdrawn this "project fear" forecast (and, I think, there's been admission by the Treasury that they were wrong to make the forecast). The £4,800 figure was the extreme in their forecast range - and picked up by the media as the "forecast prediction" as though it was "fact" - there were other figures in the model's range that were much more modest. Try the maths, by the way, if you don't believe me on the 6% fall figure: start in year 1 with index 100, year 2 index 94, year 3 88.36, year 4 83.06, and so on.

It's more likely that what the Treasury (and IFS) have been forecasting is that the rate of growth will be lower by the percentages you have quoted. So, if we assume growth was forecasted as 2.5% if we stayed in the EU, then the Treasury is saying that 2.5% would "fall" to 2.35% - and the IFS model is suggesting 2.25%. Most of us, as individuals, wouldn't notice the difference between 2.5% and 2.25%.

[ngsobob]

Paul,

'There's no money left' was a private joke commonly made between Chief Secs - unfortunately the classless Law (who had to resign over his expenses) made it public. There's always been plenty of money but the rich are allowed to keep hold of it. As you can see, austerity has failed to reduce the deficit meaningfully and the national debt (not that it matters) has tripled. So, austerity was and remains an ideological pursuit. Economists warned that cutting public spending when the economy is flat and interest rates are so low was the wrong policy. They were right. We have a stagnant economy, as I referred to before. Even with a 20% devaluation, the trade gap is widening. Exports are up but to the EU more than anywhere else, imports up more. You'll note that the eurozone and most other European economies are growing faster than ours. Inflation up too. Osborne's Panic Budget was another example of his unsuitability to be Chancellor. I groaned when he said it, stupid man. Even so, Project Fear is showing to be Project Fact.

I take your point about HMT/IFS figures. I'll check it out when I can be persuaded to put down the latest John Le Carre (brilliant so far).

[Paul Waine]

Paul,

Osborne's Panic Budget was another example of his unsuitability to be Chancellor. I groaned when he said it, stupid man. Even so, Project Fear is showing to be Project Fact.

I take your point about HMT/IFS figures. I'll check it out when I can be persuaded to put down the latest John Le Carre (brilliant so far).

Agree re Osborne. The only thing that he did I liked was the idea of the "northern powerhouse." We now need to get Andy Burnham driving for the government to follow thru on these plans.

No worries re the HMT/IFS figures - Le Carre writes better stories.

[ngsobob]

Having a rest from A Legacy of Spies so as not to finish it too quickly. Found this:

Taking account of these dynamic effects, and assuming WTO rules, NIESR, CEP and HM Treasury all find that GDP could be more than 7% less in the long run than it would otherwise have been.
Source: IFS Report 116: Brexit and the UK's Public Finances

The forecast (only a forecast but these people know their stuff) is a fall in total GDP, not the rate of growth of GDP. Grim.

[Paul Waine]

Having a rest from A Legacy of Spies so as not to finish it too quickly. Found this:

Taking account of these dynamic effects, and assuming WTO rules, NIESR, CEP and HM Treasury all find that GDP could be more than 7% less in the long run than it would otherwise have been.
Source: IFS Report 116: Brexit and the UK's Public Finances

The forecast (only a forecast but these people know their stuff) is a fall in total GDP, not the rate of growth of GDP. Grim.

Hi ngsobob, let's look at what those words say: "GDP could be more than 7% less in the long run than it would otherwise have been."

That's not "a fall in total GDP" - it's a lower GDP figure than "it would otherwise have been" if we hadn't left the EU - always assuming that everything else happens in the future in the way that we have assumed it would have happened...

Note the forecast says "in the long run" - let's assume that that equates to 15 years in to the future - a little like Osborne's "project fear" 2030 forecast said, thus 2030 and beyond is "the long run..."

Then run some maths: year 1 100, year 2 102.5 and so on... compared with year 1 100, year 2, 102.3 and so on....

I don't think I'm so far away from my post above (though, I've not set the spreadsheet up).

As I said, most of us wont notice the difference between EU single market and Brexit and WTO terms..... And, then there are all the other things that can happen to knock an economy sideways - or encourage it to grow faster....

Le Carre may well tell a grimmer tale.

[Lancasterclaret]

Fifth story down on Robert Pestons Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/?hc_ ... nI&fref=nf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sums it up rather nicely, and surprisingly not mentioned at all by anyone on this thread who thinks there is nothing wrong with it.

[ngsobob]

Paul, your response is quite worrying. Your attempt to justify your view on GDP doesn't stack up. All economies expect and plan for a rate of growth. Otherwise we have depression or recession. It may be well earned or it may be dragged along by the rest of the world viz. the eurozone and our neighbours in the EU are growing more rapidly than we are but we get some benefit. The economics commentators are quite clear that GDP will fall by a considerable margin below expectations if we leave the EU. The extent of that fall depends on whether we drop to WTO or gain some sort of deal. The IFS and colleagues say as much as 7%. Finessing it with your assumptions doesn't change the fact that we will be poorer as we won't be growing at a rate that can sustain our standard of living. There is no rational economist who doesn't agree that the UK will take a big hit if we leave the EU.

You think that 'most of us won't notice the difference....' Everybody will notice the difference, though they may not attribute it to Brexit, just as some blamed the EU for austerity when it was, and is, a UK government policy. We are already suffering from the 20% depreciation of sterling and that's just the overture. Everybody will notice the deterioration in public services, most of them already in critical condition. NHS, social care, schools, all the services we find precious and essential will no longer be affordable at their current rate, which anyway is below what we need. Expect an increase in private medicine, BUPA care homes for those who can afford it, private schools. That's what the right wing coup want to see. Complacency and indifference will allow it to happen and it requires Brexit.

What will it take to make folk think beyond meaningless slogans?

[quoonbeatz]

if you didn't think this was a power grab, there was a motion passed last night (by just 19 votes) that gives the tories control of the selection committees.

they can basically implement whatever brexit related laws they like now.

this country is ******.

[Sidney1st]

The country has been ****** for as long as I can remember anyway.

[claretandy]

if you didn't think this was a power grab, there was a motion passed last night (by just 19 votes) that gives the tories control of the selection committees.

they can basically implement whatever brexit related laws they like now.

this country is ******.

Did you not have a problem with it when these EU laws were being waved through without votes in the first place?

[Lancasterclaret]

Thats utter horseshit Sidney

We live in one of the nicest, most advanced and safest countries in the world.

A few newspaper headlines and the occasional really bad thing does not change that

[Lancasterclaret]

Did you not have a problem with it when these EU laws were being waved through without votes in the first place?

You've lost everybody with that one.

[Lancasterclaret]

And as has been said more than once on this thread, the people who are waving this away as unimportant would be going totally, utterly bat **** mental if it was Corbyn and Labour doing it.

[quoonbeatz]

Did you not have a problem with it when these EU laws were being waved through without votes in the first place?

eh?

i thought the point of brexit was parliamentary sovereignty? this all but removes that.

[ecc]

"The poorer end of society are already feeling the effects, the last thing they want, for example, is for any rights concerning work to be eroded."

Are there any left (to be eroded)?

[nil_desperandum]

if you didn't think this was a power grab, there was a motion passed last night (by just 19 votes) that gives the tories control of the selection committees.

they can basically implement whatever brexit related laws they like now.

this country is ******.

I think the only consolation - assuming this Govt survives beyond Brexit, is that by the next general election, it will be clear (to all but the most blind), who got us into this mess, and they won't be able to hide from it. If - despite being a minority administration, they are going to exclude other parties, (except the DUP of course!), from decision making, then they won't be able to apportion blame on anyone else.
The worst thing now would be for opposition parties to start making compromises with an increasingly divided government, led by a desperate executive.
As time goes on, hopefully the other parties will increasingly distance themselves from the Tory vision / version of Brexit, and, as businesses desert the Tories, and the economy is in turmoil, I can see quite a number of Tories jumping ship before it totally sinks