Brexit - Post Match Reaction

I was wrong. It is more than that, according to May:

"I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU."

I was wrong. It is more than that, according to May:

Listen and learn and stop being a spineless sheep. You're being played pal - not for the first time in your life I bet.

https://mobile.twitter.com/daily_politics/status/1008293091919269888/video/1

I make the Brexit dividend about £384 m PW more to spend on the NHS, according to May.

Sarah Woolaston MP, ( Conservative ), says that Mrs May is talking "tosh", and the IFS says there will be 'no Brexit dividend'. Even Mrs May hinted that some of the 'extra' money will have to be generated through taxation, and in real terms the 3.4 % is less than the average annual rise that the NHS has historically experienced.

looks like the £350m PW to the NHS was wrong. It is going to be more than that.....

Try not to believe everything that the PM makes up.

Nice to see that Pompey Poly only taught how to make horrible chemicals and didn't teach you anything about logical, reasoned debate.

Maybe we can spend the Brexit dividend on some reading comprehension and maths lessons for JJ.

Sarah Woolaston MP, ( Conservative ), says that Mrs May is talking "tosh", and the IFS says there will be 'no Brexit dividend'. Even Mrs May hinted that some of the 'extra' money will have to be generated through taxation, and in real terms the 3.4 % is less than the average annual rise that the NHS has historically experienced.

Canaries were used in mines to warn of a toxic build up of poisonous fumes. When the canary died, the miners got out of the mine. The prospect of the restriction of the free movement of economic migrants from outside the EU in Germany is the canary. Should freedom of movement end in Germany and Merkel quits, the basic principle of the EU, upon which it was founded ends and the EU is dead. This was picked up in the Times today, by Niall Ferguson.

 

 

 

Nice to see that someone has been reading my posts...

I see what you mean, the Dutch government is indeed worried that German border controls on migrants will hurt tourism and trade and ultimately it could blow up the Schengen treaty. If that would mean the end of the current EU remains to be seen but there are definitely serious headaches at this moment in Brussels with Merkel in trouble. However, a different track for the EU is still far away. A proposal from Italy's populist party Lega which would mean that refugees ask for asylum in Europe instead of one of the member states might be a way out for the EU but I wonder if they can put enough pressure on the Visigrad countries to accept their fair share of the migrants. Denmark and Austria are working on plans for refugee camps outside of the EU and that might work as I assume Libya or some other country in North Africa is willing to accept billions for giving shelter.

Should say Arch Remainer Sarah Woolaston of the Soubry / Grieve clique.

Well, either she is right or the PM is, and with what has been published/quoted so far, I think it's Mrs May who is playing Pinocchio.

Denmark and Austria are working on plans for refugee camps outside of the EU and that might work as I assume Libya or some other country in North Africa is willing to accept billions for giving shelter.

Well, either she is right or the PM is, and with what has been published/quoted so far, I think it's Mrs May who is playing Pinocchio.

Soubry and Grieve are lawyers, and set certainly haven't got anything right so far when it comes to how the economy would come to pass after the vote.

After their experience with Turkey, I can't see the EU or the countries that have to contribute money going for another deal like that one...

Though the Turkey deal is not ideal (especially sending migrants back from Greece to Turkey doesn't work due to Greek officials), I have the impression that politicians are positive about it as there are less migrants coming in. Suppose the EU can run their own refugee camps in North Africa (instead of being dependable from Erdogan cs), it might be a better solution.

Though the Turkey deal is not ideal (especially sending migrants back from Greece to Turkey doesn't work due to Greek officials), I have the impression that politicians are positive about it as there are less migrants coming in. Suppose the EU can run their own refugee camps in North Africa (instead of being dependable from Erdogan cs), it might be a better solution.

I prefer the Australian system:

Rather than assess the asylum claims of people arriving by boat or rescuing them at sea, the Australian navy intercepts asylum seekers, towing them back or putting them into small sealed pods and sending them off in the direction of Indonesia. Those who reach Australian territory are sent to detention camps on Nauru or Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. Both camps are paid for by the Australian government and run by private contractors. The inmates can claim asylum there – but not in Australia – while they remain in miserable conditions of confinement designed to deter others from attempting the same journey. If people seeking asylum are never allowed to reach Australian shores, so the logic goes, they will never have a legitimate claim to refugee status in the country or access to its legal protections and welfare benefits.

 

Maybe we can spend the Brexit dividend on some reading comprehension and maths lessons for JJ.

Not much chance of him learning anything.

He would just copy and paste huge chunks out of the textbook.

I think its whois Financials you believe. Those who have been wrong in every other step in the last three years who don't believe the "Brexit dividend" will come in. Or those that believe that if you don't give money to the EU you have that money to spend.

But the big question is, what is the net amount of 'saving' that is available to spend ? It is almost certainly much less than the £350million per week, taking into account the 'rebate' and payments the UK recieves from the EU, and that basic figure also excludes any potential economic hit consequential to leaving the EU trading bloc.

We could take an "economic hit" if we stayed in the EU.

Everything but the £350mil is guesswork.

The "economic hit" is rubbish though isn't it. We either pay £350mil a week or we don't.

 

.

Yeah, the thing is, we don't pay £350m a week.

 

Everything but the £350mil is guesswork.

And the £350mill is a complete fabrication.

And the £350mill is a complete fabrication.

No. It really isn't. It was always the Gross amount of money we paid to the EU each week.

So we won't get back £350m per week will we, we will recover the amount nett of applying the rebate. Therefore, anybody claiming we would be £350m per week 'better off' is lying.

So we won't get back £350m per week will we, we will recover the amount nett of applying the rebate. Therefore, anybody claiming we would be £350m per week 'better off' is lying.

Plus the fact we will need to fund the various regulatory bodies across medicine, aviation etc that we now need to set up because we're walking away from the economic efficiency of sharing that administrative burden.

And the forecast hit to the economy on top of that reducing the tax take and expected hit on inward investment.

Fair play to Theresa May: she's got the brass neck to spin that increase to the NHS as a completely fictitious Brexit dividend, it'll make the front page of the Daily Mail and various idiots will lap it up as we are seeing here. Right out of the Trump playbook.

NHS boost: questions raised by May’s £20bn-a-year proposal

Financial Times

Delphine Strauss

Theresa May insisted her promise of an extra £20bn a year for the NHS by 2023 would be funded by a “Brexit dividend”, as well as by asking the country to contribute more. In fact, an analysis of the prime minister’s options suggests that taxpayers could end up footing the entire bill — unless the government abandons its fiscal targets.

Is there any Brexit dividend?

No.

A cornerstone of the Leave campaign was the claim that Britain could spend an extra £350m a week on the NHS by redeploying the money it sends to Brussels.

In reality, since this figure did not include the UK’s budget rebate, or the funds it receives through EU programmes, the putative net saving is at most £150m a week.

But no new money will be freed up in the period up to 2023, because the government will still be making payments to Brussels, under the divorce settlement sketched out last December, and it has also committed to replacing EU funding for British farmers, researchers and poorer regions for a period after Brexit.

Even on this simple arithmetic, Mrs May’s claim of a Brexit dividend therefore fails, because “over the period, there is literally zero available,” said Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Moreover, the figures — set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility in March — do not factor in additional costs the government may need to shoulder as a result of Brexit, such as new customs controls or setting up new bodies to replicate the work done by EU agencies.

Far more important, though, is the OBR’s forecast that Brexit will weaken the UK’s public finances by some £15bn a year, or almost £300m a week. “Payments to the EU will fall, but tax revenues will fall more,” Mr Johnson said, adding that this was, in effect, the government’s own position, since it adopts the OBR’s forecasts.

How else can the boost for the NHS be funded?

The government cannot increase borrowing to this extent unless it abandons its fiscal targets: its stated aim is to reach an overall budget balance by the middle of the next decade and, the IFS notes, it is already heading for a deficit of £21bn in 2022-23.

To find the money by cuts to other public services would be “totally incredible,” Mr Johnson said. The NHS has been protected from the full force of austerity, with health spending rising from 26 per cent of total spending on public services in 2009-10 to 30 per cent today. The Treasury’s forecasts assume that day to day spending will fall by a further £5bn over the next five years, but it is under intense pressure to find more money for defence, when a review of Britain’s capabilities concludes next month, and to relieve the acute strains on local authority budgets, police and prisons.

Higher taxes are the only remaining option.

What could this mean for taxpayers?

Mrs May said the country would be “contributing a bit more” to fund the NHS increase, but gave no details of who would end up paying higher taxes.

An IFS online calculator suggests that if the full £20bn came from taxation, it would cost £706 a year per household. Mr Johnson said it was roughly equivalent to adding 3 pence to income tax, national insurance or value added tax.

Rather than changing these headline rates, however, he said more obvious options for the Treasury might include cancelling planned cuts in corporation tax, or freezing tax-free allowances for higher rate taxpayers.

Philip Hammond, chancellor, has struggled to push through much more modest tax increases. His attempt last year to increase national insurance contributions for the self-employed would have raised a mere £145m a year, but he was forced by No 10 to scrap the measure after an outcry over the impact on “white van man”.

Is this money enough to solve the NHS’s problems?

No. The increase is significant, but it still falls short of the minimum that economists think necessary to ease the immediate strains on the system.

The annual real-terms increase of 3.4 per cent applies only to NHS England; it represents a smaller increase of 2.9 per cent in the Department of Health’s total budget for England. Leading think-tanks argue that annual increases of 4 per cent a year in the medium term, with more in the short run, are needed to see even modest progress on priorities such as waiting times or improved mental health provision.

Restricting the funding boost to NHS England could be presented as a means of focusing resources on care at the frontline. Mrs May said the government wanted “to make sure that the money is spent wisely…in the interests of patients”.

But Sally Gainsbury, senior policy analyst at the Nuffield Trust, said it made no sense to ignore equally acute presures on capital spending, training and public health programmes. There would be no new money for buying new hospital equipment; training new doctors and nurses; or plugging a £1bn backlog in “high-risk maintenance”, where buildings and machinery were in such bad repair that operations were being delayed and wards closed.

A bigger concern is that the funding boost will initially be enough only to meet urgent financial strains, not to improve the quality of healthcare.

Ms Gainsbury said it implied a cash increase of £6bn in the next financial year, which would be barely enough to bail out hospitals that are in deficit, fund the recent pay deal and meet the cost of recent changes to pension rules.

Even more worrying, she added, was that the overall package appeared to be unfunded. “Do we end up with a 10-year spending plan that we find out half way through is unaffordable for the country?”

How does this increase compare with historical trends in NHS funding?

Health spending has risen by an average 3.7 per cent a year in real terms since the NHS was founded. Over the past eight years, spending growth of 1.4 per cent a year has been slower than at any time in the service’s history. Adjusted for the growth and ageing of the population, it has been a negligible 0.1 per cent a year since 2009-10.

However, pressures on the NHS are exacerbated by the swingeing cuts in councils’ spending on social care — which has fallen almost 10 per cent since 2009-10. The government found an extra £2bn last year to avert a crisis in the sector, but has yet to explain how it plans to make the system sustainable in the longer term.

https://www.ft.com/content/a66bd826-7215-11e8-b6ad-3823e4384287

FT stands for F***ing Tedious when it comes to Brexit.

FT stands for F***ing Tedious when it comes to Brexit.

Still keeping Guido hard, I see. Facts must be a real turnoff for your ilk.

FT stands for F***ing Tedious when it comes to Brexit.

Perhaps you could explain how, in your understanding, Teresa May is going to find the money to deliver the additional NHS money; how much will the 'Brexit dividend' prove to be, ( clue - it won't be £350m per week ), and how much might therefore be left for the tax payer ?

FT stands for F***ing Tedious when it comes to Brexit.

Higher taxes it is then.

FT stands for F***ing Tedious when it comes to Brexit.

A very clever point-by-point rebuttal of the FT's argument. You must be so proud.

Higher taxes it is then.

Cannabis taxation

A very clever point-by-point rebuttal of the FT's argument. You must be so proud.

I don't blame them. Theyre in the pockets of ardent remain organizations such as Goldman Sachs, but because of that they severely lack credibility.

Went bother rebutting made up numbers? They haven't got anything right so far. There is no evidence to say they'll get anything related to Brexit right, now or in the future.

 

I don't blame them. Theyre in the pockets of ardent remain organizations such as Goldman Sachs, but because of that they severely lack credibility.

And it seems like the Russians buy your fruit and veg, my little jihadist friend. Stop with the looney- tune conspiratorial talk. It's the ruse of people who are out of their depth. For what it's worth many of the numbers that the FT cites are government numbers which are being used each day to form policy.

When you take your head out of your arse, you'll see the economy is performing poorly relative to history and peers. And no it has little to do with the weather as you desperately claimed last time

And it seems like the Russians buy your fruit and veg, my little jihadist friend. Stop with the looney- tune conspiratorial talk. For what it's worth many of the numbers that the FT cites are government numbers which are being used each day to form policy.

 

When you take your head out of your arse, you'll see the economy is performing poorly relative to history and peers. And no it has little to do with the weather as you desperately claimed last time [emoji38]

Cannabis taxation

I'm all for it.

You tone of discourse does you no favours, locksy.

Nor your grammar.

Went bother rebutting made up numbers? They haven't got anything right so far. There is no evidence to say they'll get anything related to Brexit right, now or in the future.

 

I don't blame them. Theyre in the pockets of ardent remain organizations such as Goldman Sachs, but because of that they severely lack credibility.

So not only has the FT never said anything whatsoever that's true, they're also "in the pockets" of Jewish banker.

Does this line of argument sound in any way familiar to you, mein herr?

Won't bother rebutting made up numbers.

£350 million is a "made up number".

Made up from the amount of money we paid into the EU in 2016 divided by 52.

It's more than that now...

Made up from the amount of money we paid into the EU in 2016 divided by 52.

 

It's more than that now...

In 2016 we paid £13.1 billion into the EU budget, so that comes to just shy of £252m per week. According to the House of Commons Library, we paid exactly the same amount in 2017. ( Unless, of course, the HoC is making up numbers ).

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886

Made up from the amount of money we paid into the EU in 2016 divided by 52.

 

It's more than that now...

Have you ever considered getting facts from source as opposed to Daily Express 'facts'?

Oh dear, maybe things won't be as rosy, post Brexit, as Mrs May wishes;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44570931

Oh dear, maybe things won't be as rosy, post Brexit, as Mrs May wishes;

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44570931

Airbus has warned it could leave the UK if the country exits the European Union single market and customs union without a transition deal.

Yeah, right. So Airbus is worried about the UK being out of the single market. I think what they mean is the UK being out of their single "illegally state subsidised" market.

The European Union told the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement body .... that it had acted within days of a WTO ruling to bring its funding of planemaker Airbus into line with WTO rules, a trade official who attended the meeting said.

They have more to worry about from the US and WTO than whether we are in their grubby club...

Meanwhile, back in January, the BBC reported here:

Airbus to increase aircraft production in China - Airbus has struck a deal to increase the number of planes it makes in China as part of a state visit by French President Emmanuel Macron. The European giant aims to produce six of its A320 jets each month by 2020 at its final assembly plant near Beijing.

I know it's far fetched, but next, the EU will be supporting the transfer of the Eastleigh Transit factory to Turkey. Oh, hang on....

Now, remind me. Are Turkey and China in the EU single market?

Meanwhile, back in January, the BBC reported here:

 

 

 

I know it's far fetched, but next, the EU will be supporting the transfer of the Eastleigh Transit factory to Turkey. Oh, hang on....

 

Now, remind me. Are Turkey and China in the EU single market?

I'm sure all those facing redundancy will appreciate your analysis.

I read to "consider".

Because they can "consider" anything they want.

Yeah, right. So Airbus is worried about the UK being out of the single market. I think what they mean is the UK being out of their single "illegally state subsidised" market.

 

 

They have more to worry about from the US and WTO than whether we are in their grubby club...

Jihadi “I couldn’t predict tomorrow’s date” John strikes again.

Do you know why Airbus is planning to build aircraft in China? Because unlike the UK it’s a bloody big market and it’s very hard to access it without making concessions - something which the UK will painfully discover as it attempts to do deals with protectionist heavyweights like China, albeit with none of the bargaining power of the EU.

FWIW the WTO is widely seen as toothless and hasn’t been helped by US efforts to starve it’s courts of personnel and resources.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-wto/diplomats-search-for-way-to-save-trade-system-after-u-s-vetoes-judges-idUSKBN1DR2PR

You still misquoting that beeb article pal? Christ you make Tim Martin look like Mastermind.

Airbus have been slowly edging their way out the door for a long time now to pursue larger markets. Brexit just gives them an out so they don't look like greedy capitalists.

Airbus have been slowly edging their way out the door for a long time now to pursue larger markets. Brexit just gives them an out so they don't look like greedy capitalists.

Thats simply untrue. Their presence in the UK and UK suppliers was growing until Brexit.

Meanwhile, back in January, the BBC reported here:

 

 

 

I know it's far fetched, but next, the EU will be supporting the transfer of the Eastleigh Transit factory to Turkey. Oh, hang on....

 

Now, remind me. Are Turkey and China in the EU single market?

Basics for you.

1. The Chinese plant is final assembly only, so will actually create work for British suppliers

2. China ordered 180 airbus planes last year. Its standard practice to expect some local production for that volume of work.

3. The global market for commercial planes is growing. The new factory is additional, not a replacement

Here's something else the BBC reported...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44120525

Boeing Subsidies (US) Ruled Illegal by WTO

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38131611

"The reality is that neither of these companies can exist without government subsidies. The development costs of new aircraft are just too big, and the risks and rewards too great, for governments to stay out of it.

Boeing gets money from NASA and the US Department of Defence; Airbus from very, very cheap government loans. For years this was the case and an uneasy truce reigned over the world aerospace market throughout the 1990s and beyond.

Then, in 2004, all hell broke loose and the lawyers on both sides have been at each others throats for 12 years - a nice little earner for them.

Could the end of this legal gravy plane be in sight? Perhaps. It's not just the US and Europe who are at it. Canada's government subsidises Bombardier, and then there is the biggest threat to the Airbus and Boeing duopoly. It is called Comac, the state-funded Chinese plane maker with the world commercial aviation market its number one target."

WTO Probe Illegal Subsidies to Bombardier (Canada)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/wto-to-probe-canadian-jet-subsidies-in-new-blow-to-bombardier

US Challenges China's Tax Exemption for Locally Produced Planes

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-planes-idUSKBN0TR1RL20151208