Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Why does Nicola Sturgeon-Krankie think the Scottish Parliament has to get a vote on A50? Isn't that what their Westminster MPs are there for, if it comes to pass.

Looks like we're heading to the front of queue

Looks like we're heading to the front of queue

You think Trump's going to be rolling out free trade deals left, right and centre

Guess as a naive Brit, you don't have much of an idea what Trump represents. It's America first - if anything it's going to be open season for US private healthcare lobbyists who want to crack open the NHS.

We'll see

Looks like we're heading to the front of queue

There is no queue. Trump won at least in part on a promise to the rustbelt states that he would undo the 'damage' of NAFTA, TTP, and the prospective TTIP. Why would negotiating a trade deal with anyone, while trying to unpick ALL the others, be anywhere near a 'queue?

By the way, Fox's much trumpeted decision to set up city offices in the US seems to have precious little to do with reciprocal trade deals as such, despite his wider rhetoric. Her's set one office up in Minneapolis - and apart from some farm stuff the only big players in that city are multinational health care companies. The biggest is UnitedHealth, which is judged to be the worst major health company in the US. It also already has extensive contracts in the NHS. As Dr Fox would know.

There is no queue. Trump won at least in part on a promise to the rustbelt states that he would undo the 'damage' of NAFTA, TTP, and the prospective TTIP. Why would negotiating a trade deal with anyone, while trying to unpick ALL the others, be anywhere near a 'queue?

 

By the way, Fox's much trumpeted decision to set up city offices in the US seems to have precious little to do with reciprocal trade deals as such, despite his wider rhetoric. Her's set one office up in Minneapolis - and apart from some farm stuff the only big players in that city are multinational health care companies. The biggest is UnitedHealth, which is judged to be the worst major health company in the US. It also already has extensive contracts in the NHS. As Dr Fox would know.

I see that you were once again not really very good at forecasting election results, following on from your predictions of the outcome of the Labour leadership elections.

Regarding your assertion that we won't be at the front of the queue for a bilateral trade deal with Trump as President, this article paints an altogether more optimistic scenario on this subject.

https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/online-october-2016/president-trump-will-uk-business-back-queue/

The problem for the political parties is that virtually all the constituencies in England outside London voted to Leave. If any MPs from those constituencies vote to block May they know that they will be committing political suicide, as they won't make it through a general election, which would be almost certain, if May is blocked in Parliament.

As most MPs value their privileged positions, apart from the fanatical, Libs, Greens, SNP and those from constituencies that voted to Remain, most MPs from both Conservative and Labour will vote to invoke Article 50 without pre conditions.

The Supreme court is a sideshow with Europhile judges on it's panel. If it rules that the first ruling is right in law it will go to Parliament ASAP, more than likely as a one liner enabling bill and Article 50 will be invoked by the end of March.

I have a relation who is a very senior diplomat in Germany. They have been instructed as to what their position is. Brexit is their instruction, no ifs or buts get on with it. the German position is that they don't care whether we leave or go but they want it sorted so that there is certainty. There is no doubt that there will be a deal that is agreeable to Germany and the UK as the Germans have no intention of allowing their industries to be damaged by trade restrictions. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Looks like we're heading to the front of queue

Or, ninth in the queue.

Don't worry Fry , we've the top man on the job.

From tomorrow's telegraph

"Ministers will use Nigel Farage as an unofficial intermediary to build bridges with Donald Trump to ensure the “special relationship” does not falter in the wake of his election.

The Telegraph understands that ministers will be forced to seek Mr Farage’s advice because they have no links to the President-elect’s inner circle."

"Downing Street said that during the call, Mr Trump said that the UK is a “very, very special place for me and for our country” and suggested that he wants their relationship to be similar to the one enjoyed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan."

Don't worry Fry , we've the top man on the job.

 

From tomorrow's telegraph

 

"Ministers will use Nigel Farage as an unofficial intermediary to build bridges with Donald Trump to ensure the “special relationship” does not falter in the wake of his election.

 

The Telegraph understands that ministers will be forced to seek Mr Farage’s advice because they have no links to the President-elect’s inner circle."

 

"Downing Street said that during the call, Mr Trump said that the UK is a “very, very special place for me and for our country” and suggested that he wants their relationship to be similar to the one enjoyed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan."

Boris and Pence have already had a phone conversation. I think the administration of the United States of America and the UK Government can cobble something together between them without needing Nigel Farage's help.

Global banking businesses will face nightmarish decisions if the UK loses its access to euro-clearing trading as part of the Brexit negotiations, the Japanese ambassador to the UK has warned. Koji Tsuruoaka said that Japanese companies would be among those affected as he emphasised the seriousness of what is at stake as the UK prepares for Brexit. Some EU countries are determined to stop the UK retaining its euro-clearing rights post-Brexit, so the business would be transferred to Frankfurt and Paris. - Guardian

Boris and Pence have already had a phone conversation. I think the administration of the United States of America and the UK Government can cobble something together between them without needing Nigel Farage's help.

It's a wonderful, beautiful thing; our relationship with the British is the first thing I plan to look at, you betcha. Believe me. Big time.

Britain's contributions to the EU are going up - because the pound is now worth less as a result of the referendum vote. Another Brexit shot in foot. Delicious irony though

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/pound-raises-cost-of-britain-s-eu-budget-contribution-1.2866417?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Only a third of voters support Brexit unconditionally - ie leave regardless of the deal. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may

Only a third of voters support Brexit unconditionally - ie leave regardless of the deal. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may

a Poll these days is hardly anything accurate. Let alone one reported in the guardian on this subject

we'll be leaving the EU. which is good news

a Poll these days is hardly anything accurate. Let alone one reported in the guardian on this subject

 

we'll be leaving the EU. which is good news

So you think the Guardian influenced the results? Do you know the difference between commissioning and reporting Jamie?

Britain's contributions to the EU are going up - because the pound is now worth less as a result of the referendum vote. Another Brexit shot in foot. Delicious irony though

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/pound-raises-cost-of-britain-s-eu-budget-contribution-1.2866417?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

That's not quite what the article says though, is it? This bit gives it away...

But even though the British bill will rise in 2017, its contributions will decline in euro terms because a weaker pound means Britain’s economy appears smaller, further souring the atmosphere across the English Channel.

That's not quite what the article says though, is it? This bit gives it away...

 

But even though the British bill will rise in 2017, its contributions will decline in euro terms because a weaker pound means Britain’s economy appears smaller, further souring the atmosphere across the English Channel.

Which words are you struggling with? Do you need me to walk you through it?

"Pound raises cost of Britain’s EU budget contribution.....Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget next year is set to rise by hundreds of millions of pounds due to the drop in sterling".

The Jo Cox murder trial has started depressingly as expected. Opening arguments by prosecutors suggest this was a political murder by a white supremacist Brexiter.

The prosecution's case is that this was a "premeditated murder for a political and/or ideological cause."

Thomas Mair has entered a plea of not guilty.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/14/jo-cox-killed-in-politically-motivated-murder-trial-thomas-mair-hears

I reckon some murderers voted remain too.

I reckon some murderers voted remain too.

Ostensibly political muderers, pal? Needless to say you're not so dim as to not the understand the difference.

Ostensibly political muderers, pal? Needless to say you're not so dim as to not the understand the difference.

The bloke was just a nazi nut job. Trying to blame Brexit is just laughably dim.

Maybe we should just ban politics, just in case there is a politically motivated murder somewhere?

****ing idiot.

I reckon some murderers voted remain too.

I thought remoaners were gutless, lily livered snowflake generation pinko pussy wimps incapable of standing up for themselves so I'd be surprised if any one of us could even lift a Argos pen in anger, let alone a carving knife or piece of lead piping.

All the weapons are definitely on the leave side.

The bloke was just a nazi nut job. Trying to blame Brexit is just laughably dim.

 

Maybe we should just ban politics, just in case there is a politically motivated murder somewhere?

 

****ing idiot.

Who's blaming Brexit?

Conclusion: you are a bit dim.

Who's blaming Brexit?

 

Conclusion: you are a bit dim.

You are a bit dim if you can't see that this tragic murder is nothing more than the actions of some deranged nut job.

Anyone who tries to blame Brexit has issues - we all know Verbal has plenty.

The bloke was just a nazi nut job. Trying to blame Brexit is just laughably dim.

 

Maybe we should just ban politics, just in case there is a politically motivated murder somewhere?

 

****ing idiot.

Maybe you should dial down the rage. That, after all, is what this case is about.

And to repeat: the prosecution case is that this was a man killing a young mother and MP for a 'political cause'; not a random 'nut job' but a planned political killing in the name of that cause.

I reckon some murderers voted remain too.

None so blind as those that will not see.

The bloke was just a nazi nut job. Trying to blame Brexit is just laughably dim.

 

Maybe we should just ban politics, just in case there is a politically motivated murder somewhere?

 

****ing idiot.

I reckon some Nazi nut jobs voted remain too, right?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/whitehall-struggling-to-cope-with-scale-of-work-arising-from-brexit-vote

No plan and the three brexiteeers fighting like cats in a sack while we watch them throw millions of pounds of public money on the bonfire.

Who knew?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/whitehall-struggling-to-cope-with-scale-of-work-arising-from-brexit-vote

 

 

No plan and the three brexiteeers fighting like cats in a sack while we watch them throw millions of pounds of public money on the bonfire.

 

Who knew?

Shocker huh? And they'd covered it up so well with that united front.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/whitehall-struggling-to-cope-with-scale-of-work-arising-from-brexit-vote

 

 

No plan and the three brexiteeers fighting like cats in a sack while we watch them throw millions of pounds of public money on the bonfire.

 

Who knew?

And the government is going to hire an additional 30,000 civil servants just to cope with Brexit issues. The EU employs just 24,000 in total.

It seems Fox is showing his true colours, threatening EU members that if we dont get what we (he) wants then they will be sued by non-eu countries for compenstaion as result of lack of access to the Single market via their UK holdings. What a prize pudding, it is the UK who will be held liable for this, we are the ones who are instigating leave. And to think there are people who actually think this Governemnt knows what it is doing.

Maybe you should dial down the rage. That, after all, is what this case is about.

 

And to repeat: the prosecution case is that this was a man killing a young mother and MP for a 'political cause'; not a random 'nut job' but a planned political killing in the name of that cause.

I don't doubt that, I'm sure in this nutter's head he was doing it for some political cause. Whatever the cause was is pretty irrelevant tho IMO.

Wether it was a Labour voter killing a Tory, Tory killing Labour - it means absolutely jack **** and it is a disgusting thing to use that poor woman's death as a political football. Sadly it's the sort of thing I would expect from you.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/whitehall-struggling-to-cope-with-scale-of-work-arising-from-brexit-vote

 

No plan and the three brexiteeers fighting like cats in a sack while we watch them throw millions of pounds of public money on the bonfire.

 

Who knew?

Like many of the Remoaners, you only like to see and hear what you want to. If you would care to read down through the article, this part throws a different light on things:-

It is understood the report was written by a consultant at the professional services firm Deloitte. A government source said it was “unsolicited” and its contents were not recognised.

 

Chris Grayling, the transport secretary who sits on the government’s Brexit cabinet committee, said he had no idea where the report had come from and denied it had been commissioned by ministers.

 

“The process is complex but by no means the challenge that is set out in today’s newspaper story,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “I have a team of people in my department who are working with David Davis on issues like aviation, but I do not see the scale of the challenge that is in today’s newspaper.”

 

Asked if the government was planning to hire 30,000 civil servants to cope with the extra pressures of the negotiations, Grayling said: “I have not seen anything to suggest that is the case. We have got people in my department [and] in other departments working with the Brexit department. I don’t know what 30,000 extra people would do.”

 

A government spokesman also denied the existence of an official memo, which the Times said had been drafted by an outside consultant. The spokesman said: “This is not a government report and we don’t recognise the claims made in it. We are focused on getting on with the job of delivering Brexit and making a success of it.”

 

It is understood not to have been seen by ministers or commissioned as an official report by the Cabinet Office.

Like many of the Remoaners, you only like to see and hear what you want to. If you would care to read down through the article, this part throws a different light on things:-

Of course Grayling denies it, he could hardly admit it was a true picture. However, The Times seems to assume the documents leaked to it are genuine.

Of course Grayling denies it, he could hardly admit it was a true picture. However, The Times seems to assume the documents leaked to it are genuine.

Of course the Times wants to give the impression that it believes that the documents are genuine. Apparently it is however the case that these "leaked" documents that they are making such a song and dance about were written by a consultant from Deloitte, unsolicited by the Government and not recognised by them. Therefore it seems to be a load of guff, a very poor effort at destabilising the Brexit process by putting out disinformation in an attempt to deceive the electorate.

All very well the Times being so confident about the document, when they won't have the balls to publish the name of the author, so it should be filed under the heading of Chinese whispers.

This tactic is only to be expected, and it is clear that the Remoanians will try anything and everything they can to persuade the electorate that Brexit is more trouble than it is worth, so that if it comes to a general election being called, this sort of thing will play on the minds of the waverers. Thankfully, most are sensible enough to take this sort of story with a giant pinch of salt and recognise that the financial meltdown prophesied immediately after the referendum vote to leave the EU never materialised, so they are now naturally a lot more cynical of similar propaganda from the usual suspects like the Times, Guardian and the Not Independent.

......

Good news eh!

**** me , Europhile paper using Europhile treasury line, and Europhile posters posting it like its gospel. Andrew Neil read out the treasury forecast for an immediate downturn & economic shock following a VOTE TO LEAVE , (note , not when we leave but following a vote to leave as he had to point out time and time again to his dopey Europhile guest) on DP today . Why should we believe anything these chumps say, wrong then - wrong now

**** me , Europhile paper using Europhile treasury line, and Europhile posters posting it like its gospel. Andrew Neil read out the treasury forecast for an immediate downturn & economic shock following a VOTE TO LEAVE , (note , not when we leave but following a vote to leave as he had to point out time and time again to his dopey Europhile guest) on DP today . Why should we believe anything these chumps say, wrong then - wrong now

Yeah quite why all those chumps in the city read such a fanciful publication clearly full of nothing but nonsense is beyond comprehension. Maybe they should be reading the Express and purring off their embarrassing pro-Brexit BS non-articles?

I notice how frequently you mention your beloved Andrew Neil. Obviously your independent thinker of choice or do you just have a series link to Daily Politics?

They could try honesty.

"We're in uncharted territory so we don't know what's going to happen. Let's wait and see"

I was referring to the FT, but as I was typing I realised that it does actually apply equally well to the government

Yeah quite why all those chumps in the city read such a fanciful publication clearly full of nothing but nonsense is beyond comprehension. Maybe they should be reading the Express and purring off their embarrassing pro-Brexit BS non-articles?

 

I notice how frequently you mention your beloved Andrew Neil. Obviously your independent thinker of choice or do you just have a series link to Daily Politics?

As usual you Remoaners choose to ignore the little words and nuances that suggest that some caution and scepticism is required about this sort of shrill, alarmist article.I feel certain that most of the Financial Times readership are intelligent enough to conclude that the article is based on conjecture, but maybe you are not.

the deterioration in the outlook, still a forecast and highly uncertain

These are the sort of words that an objective person will pick up, plus the fact that the projected figures are over a five year period.

I realise why you don't approve of a mention of Andrew Neil, as he so effectively demolished the last set of doom-laden forecasts put out by the treasury.

As usual you Remoaners choose to ignore the little words and nuances that suggest that some caution and scepticism is required about this sort of shrill, alarmist article.I feel certain that most of the Financial Times readership are intelligent enough to conclude that the article is based on conjecture, but maybe you are not.

 

 

 

These are the sort of words that an objective person will pick up, plus the fact that the projected figures are over a five year period.

I realise why you don't approve of a mention of Andrew Neil, as he so effectively demolished the last set of doom-laden forecasts put out by the treasury.

The wurzel turned wittengenstein strikes again

Yes Les I think most people can grasp ordinary english: that 'forecasts' and 'outlooks' are just that i.e. they are not reality. Who here has suggested otherwise? Lest anyone be in doubt, the words are even in bold in the main headline! Not sure why you're pompously grizzling on about 'little words' and 'nuances'.

As usual you Remoaners choose to ignore the little words and nuances that suggest that some caution and scepticism is required about this sort of shrill, alarmist article.I feel certain that most of the Financial Times readership are intelligent enough to conclude that the article is based on conjecture, but maybe you are not.

 

 

 

These are the sort of words that an objective person will pick up, plus the fact that the projected figures are over a five year period.

I realise why you don't approve of a mention of Andrew Neil, as he so effectively demolished the last set of doom-laden forecasts put out by the treasury.

Which of course is not the same as the Brexiteers approach of just wait and see, it will be OK honest, and if anything looks bad or contrary to your believes dismiss out of hand as "a load of old pony". Yours and your fellows contempt for knowledge and evidence based forecast knows no bounds yet you unswervingly claim everything will be better, based on………………….the square root of sweet FA.

The wurzel turned wittengenstein strikes again

 

Yes Les I think most people can grasp ordinary english: that 'forecasts' and 'outlooks' are just that i.e. they are not reality. Who here has suggested otherwise? Lest anyone be in doubt, the words are even in bold in the main headline! Not sure why you're pompously grizzling on about 'little words' and 'nuances'.

You never fail to amuse or disappoint with your usual arrogant, know it all responses. You Remoaners gleefully post up anything you can find to paint a black picture of the consequences of the vote to leave your beloved EU, then don't recognise the irony when subsequently acknowledging that these sorts of articles are purely speculative as you have just done. Of course, having trumpeted the shrill headline of doom and gloom, it would look a bit weak for the Financial Times to admit that really the entire article is based on conjecture of economic projections of entirely speculative future trade arrangements which haven't even begun to be negotiated with the EU or indeed the rest of the World.

So are you admitting that the article is really pie in the sky and that the reality actually could turn out to be very much better than the Financial Times reports? Go on, I know how balanced and reasonable you would like to appear by accepting the possibility of the more optimistic scenario.

I realise that you naturally ignore economists who take the more optimistic line like Patrick Minford, but here is his opinion on why the Treasury projections both in the short term (5 years) and the longer are flawed.

http://brexitcentral.com/patrick-minford-treasurys-economic-modelling-brexit-proven-wrong-yet-failed-abandon-unjustified-pessimism/?utm_source=BrexitCentral+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=ad66c766ec-Mailchimp+bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_23a30e67d9-ad66c766ec-11208551

No doubt you will look at it objectively and with your vast knowledge of economics, post back your critique on how you have dissected the parts where his conclusions are wrong.

brexitcentral sounds a very objective non-flawed site FT - pah.

Sorry at work so no time to open up

As usual you Remoaners choose to ignore the little words and nuances that suggest that some caution and scepticism is required about this sort of shrill, alarmist article.I feel certain that most of the Financial Times readership are intelligent enough to conclude that the article is based on conjecture, but maybe you are not.

 

 

 

These are the sort of words that an objective person will pick up, plus the fact that the projected figures are over a five year period.

I realise why you don't approve of a mention of Andrew Neil, as he so effectively demolished the last set of doom-laden forecasts put out by the treasury.

why did you assume i don't approve of Neill. I commented about how someone appears to be besotted.

And funny how I have been labelled a Trump supporter, a leftie and islamaphobe and a Remoaner (chuckle chuckle Toby Young si so funny) on here.

Waiting to be called the liberal elite for the set

why did you assume i don't approve of Neill. I commented about how someone appears to be besotted.

And funny how I have been labelled a Trump supporter, a leftie and islamaphobe and a Remoaner (chuckle chuckle Toby Young si so funny) on here.

Waiting to be called the liberal elite for the set

But I didn't suggest that you disapproved of Andrew Neil. I suggested that you disapproved of a mention of him. He is a very effective commentator and interviewer, but it seems that if one references something he says more than a couple of times, one must be besotted with him (just like Shorluck must be with Wittgenstein if he mentions him one more time. But if he were, then surely he would have spelled his name correctly in his last post )

Regarding the labelling, I have never attached those labels to you. I have only used Remoaners to those collectively who opposed the referendum decision. As it was a bilateral decision, posters on here fall into one or the other camp, as I do not recall any posts from people purporting to be fence sitters.

Laughable stuff from Whelk. Quotes the FT, the very same FT that was the euro cheerleader & as late as 2015 was still claiming it was better for us to join. Wrong then-wrong now .

Speaking of Andrew Neil earlier, this really is excellent:-