Put your cards on the table, EU makes last Brexit call to Britain

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, nontabury said:

The U.K ( politicians )may backpedal. But the British people will not. They know what they voted for,and anything less will be forever rejected.

There could be a spare soapbox on Hyde Park corner. Just your ticket.  

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, nontabury said:

So it was Only the negligence of British banks that caused the 2008 recession, and there was me,thinking the major player was the USA financial institutions, along with the British and Europeon financial institutions, and not forgetting all of the governments.

 

 

Compare Canada's performance to the UK. Canada keeps a very tight rein on its banks. Canada had one year of decline following the financial collapse. It more than fully rebounded in 2010. It took the UK  until 2014 to achieve that.. In 2009 73% of Canada's exports went to the US and 63% of its imports came from the US. Canada is even more tightly bound to the US economy than is the UK to the EU. Yet it did a lot better.

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Glad you finally got the message that I have zero interest or regard for your comments. 

But you reply to them. Strange creature.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Compare Canada's performance to the UK. Canada keeps a very tight rein on its banks. Canada had one year of decline following the financial collapse. It more than fully rebounded in 2010. It took the UK  until 2014 to achieve that.. In 2009 73% of Canada's exports went to the US and 63% of its imports came from the US. Canada is even more tightly bound to the US economy than is the UK to the EU. Yet it did a lot better.

I suppose the high oil prices 2011-2014 had nothing to do with Canada's joy then?  Save us, somebody.

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I suppose the high oil prices 2011-2014 had nothing to do with Canada's joy then?  Save us, somebody.

Here's a comparison of Canada's unemployment rate history with the UK's.I don't know if they compute the statistics the same way but the important thing is that after the spike Canada's went steadily down. The UK spiked into a plateau that lasted for several years.

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I suppose the high oil prices 2011-2014 had nothing to do with Canada's joy then?  Save us, somebody.

There's also this:

"When European and North American banks teetered on the brink of meltdown in 2008, requiring bailouts and extraordinary central bank intervention, Canadian banks escaped relatively unscathed. History explains why, according to co-authors Michael Bordo, Angela Redish, and Hugh Rockoff in Why Didn't Canada Have a Banking Crisis in 2008 (or in 1930, or 1907, or ...)? (NBER Working Paper No. 17312). Starting in the nineteenth century, Canada and the United States took divergent paths: Canada set up a concentrated banking system that controlled mortgage lending and investment banking under the watchful eye of a single, strong regulator. The United States allowed a weak, fragmented system to develop, with far more small (and less stable) banks, along with a shadow banking system of less-regulated securities markets, investment banks, and money market funds overseen by a group of competing regulators."

http://www.nber.org/digest/dec11/w17312.html

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Here's a comparison of Canada's unemployment rate history with the UK's.I don't know if they compute the statistics the same way but the important thing is that after the spike Canada's went steadily down. The UK spiked into a plateau that lasted for several years.

Great answer.

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There's also this:

"When European and North American banks teetered on the brink of meltdown in 2008, requiring bailouts and extraordinary central bank intervention, Canadian banks escaped relatively unscathed. History explains why, according to co-authors Michael Bordo, Angela Redish, and Hugh Rockoff in Why Didn't Canada Have a Banking Crisis in 2008 (or in 1930, or 1907, or ...)? (NBER Working Paper No. 17312). Starting in the nineteenth century, Canada and the United States took divergent paths: Canada set up a concentrated banking system that controlled mortgage lending and investment banking under the watchful eye of a single, strong regulator. The United States allowed a weak, fragmented system to develop, with far more small (and less stable) banks, along with a shadow banking system of less-regulated securities markets, investment banks, and money market funds overseen by a group of competing regulators."

http://www.nber.org/digest/dec11/w17312.html

So the high oil revenues must have had nothing to do with it then? Oh well.

[bristolboy]

Just now, nauseus said:

So the high oil revenues must have had nothing to do with it then? Oh well.

Actually, high oil revenues have a limited effect on economies because of their concentrated nature. When there's a huge jump in oil prices, the effects may show up in GDP but not so much in the general economy since the prices are not related to productivity or employment levels. Whereas in manufacturing industries like automobiles a big increase in income is going to be directly tied to an increase in production. And because it's a lot more labor intensive the benefits are far more widely distributed.

[The Renegade]

What is with all the off topic Canada stuff ?

 

Is someone trying to get the thread closed ??

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

What is with all the off topic Canada stuff ?

 

Is someone trying to get the thread closed ??

Someone complained that the EU didn't protect the UK from recession. I pointed out that the blame should be assigned to the bad decisions of the UK banking industry. As an example I showed that Canada has always kept tight control of its banking industry and fared much better when the recession hit. But some people just want to blame the EU when anything goes wrong instead of assigning responsibility to where it belongs..

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Someone complained that the EU didn't protect the UK from recession. I pointed out that the blame should be assigned to the bad decisions of the UK banking industry. As an example I showed that Canada has always kept tight control of its banking industry and fared much better when the recession hit. But some people just want to blame the EU when anything goes wrong instead of assigning responsibility to where it belongs..

NO, again, I said member states, not specifically the UK. And I have not blamed the EU for the recession either. Stop the misquoting. And you discount the significant oil revenue to the Canadian government's treasury from 2010-2014. 

[candide]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Someone complained that the EU didn't protect the UK from recession. I pointed out that the blame should be assigned to the bad decisions of the UK banking industry. As an example I showed that Canada has always kept tight control of its banking industry and fared much better when the recession hit. But some people just want to blame the EU when anything goes wrong instead of assigning responsibility to where it belongs..

I am not anti-EU as you may know, but to be honest it's true that the Eurozone economic policy (reduction of budget deficit) during the first years after the crisis was stupid as it was pro-cyclical, and the effect was close to a recession. Due to the high share of UK trade with the Eurozone, it is very likely that it had an impact on the UK economy. It may have been mainly impacted by the UK banking industry, but the Eurozone policy surely did not contribute to improve it.

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, candide said:

I am not anti-EU as you may know, but to be honest it's true that the Eurozone economic policy (reduction of budget deficit) during the first years after the crisis was stupid as it was pro-cyclical, and the effect was close to a recession. Due to the high share of UK trade with the Eurozone, it is very likely that it had an impact on the UK economy. It may have been mainly impacted by the UK banking industry, but the Eurozone policy surely did not contribute to improve it.

This is a fair comment about the Eurozone. And like the Eurozone, the Tories decided to attempt shrink the budget deficit when faced with the biggest recession since the great depression.. And instead of giving tax cuts to, the working and middle classes, who would be most likely to spend it and stimulate the economy, they gave it to the wealthiest citizens instead.

Edited July 7, 2018 by bristolboy

[kwilco]

Still waiting for a some thing to come from Brexit.

Perhaps someone could explain how Mays current plan has any advantages over remaining?

[kwilco]

people who use a single graph to support their untutored thoughts ae only displaying their inabilities in thinking for all to see.

[bristolboy]

On 7/6/2018 at 6:18 PM, nauseus said:

Only Economic History. For my tertiary study I chose something worthwhile. But as you mention it, economics is not the primary reason for the leave vote. Economics is a word applied to too many things, IMHO. The word economics is often used with other words like crisis. Strictly, the 2008 crisis should have been only termed financial crisis, brought about by poor financial, legal and economic policies. During the last crisis, being a member of the EU did not help avoid the effects of the recession. But as I am such an ameteur, can you tell me, if reasoning supposed to be an element of economics? 

9 hours ago, nauseus said:

NO, again, I said member states, not specifically the UK. And I have not blamed the EU for the recession either. Stop the misquoting. And you discount the significant oil revenue to the Canadian government's treasury from 2010-2014. 

So you're claiming now that your statement didn't apply to the UK?

"During the last crisis, being a member of the EU did not help avoid the effects of the recession. "

That the UK is not a member state?  Your objection makes no sense.

If you had said being a member of the Eurozone actually worsened the effects of the recession for most members, you would have had a point. But last time I checked, the UK was not a member.

 

And as for Canada getting increased revenues. Before the price of oil shot up, Canada engaged in big time deficit spending.That helped enormously. Whereas the UK government actually put front and center a plan to reduce the deficit. Poor John Maynard Keynes. A prophet is truly without honour in his own country.

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So you're claiming now that your statement didn't apply to the UK?

"During the last crisis, being a member of the EU did not help avoid the effects of the recession. "

That the UK is not a member state?  Your objection makes no sense.

If you had said being a member of the Eurozone actually worsened the effects of the recession for most members, you would have had a point. But last time I checked, the UK was not a member.

 

And as for Canada getting increased revenues. Before the price of oil shot up, Canada engaged in big time deficit spending.That helped enormously. Whereas the UK government actually put front and center a plan to reduce the deficit. Poor John Maynard Keynes. A prophet is truly without honour in his own country.

No, you just continue to misinterpret and twist my words, which you have actually quoted correctly this time. I did not say that my (correctly quoted above) statement did not also apply to the UK. It was you who picked out the UK alone and brought in mention of the Eurozone. I only bother replying so that others can see your persistent falsifications.

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, nauseus said:

There was no blame attached to anything. Your stock response is to claim such and its boring.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you not use the term "CU shackles", but of course you are perfectly free to deny the implication, will take that as read.

What is really boring is the stream of posts and opinion on the demise of the EU, like some sort of vindication for brexit. People should be more concerned about what is happening to the UK than the other side of the channel.

[sandyf]

Of course people were perfectly aware that when they voted to leave that they were voting to open Pandora's Box.

 

Anti-EU backbenchers refused to rule out triggering a leadership contest against the prime minister amid anger that she had convinced the cabinet to support a softer Brexit.

It comes as Ms May ordered her ministers to get behind the agreement, reached after a day of talks at her Chequers country retreat, or face being sacked.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-latest-theresa-may-ministers-rebel-cabinet-boris-johnson-trade-a8435981.html

[sandyf]

And it doesn't get any better.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-election-theresa-may-conservatives-party-leader-brexit-rebels-prime-minister-poll-a8435461.html

[The Renegade]

13 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Of course people were perfectly aware that when they voted to leave that they were voting to open Pandora's Box.

 

Anti-EU backbenchers refused to rule out triggering a leadership contest against the prime minister amid anger that she had convinced the cabinet to support a softer Brexit.

It comes as Ms May ordered her ministers to get behind the agreement, reached after a day of talks at her Chequers country retreat, or face being sacked.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-latest-theresa-may-ministers-rebel-cabinet-boris-johnson-trade-a8435981.html

2 quotes from Theresa May.

 

'' Brexit means Brexit '' and '' No deal is better than a bad deal ''

 

These 2 quotes will bring about her downfall. Her only saving grace at this moment in time is that the EU still might reject her '' cunning plan ''

 

Which might just have been her plan all along. I have been saying for weeks that it appears that May is slowly backing the EU into a corner.

 

Coming up with a plan that appeases remainers, only for it to be rejected by the EU. What a result that would be for her, if she is still determined to stick by the 2 above quotes.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

 

 

Which might just have been her plan all along. I have been saying for weeks that it appears that May is slowly backing the EU into a corner.

 

 

This reminds of what Mark Twain once said. Something triumpant to the effect that he hit his opponent's fist with his face.

[tebee]

3 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

2 quotes from Theresa May.

 

'' Brexit means Brexit '' and '' No deal is better than a bad deal ''

 

These 2 quotes will bring about her downfall. Her only saving grace at this moment in time is that the EU still might reject her '' cunning plan ''

 

Which might just have been her plan all along. I have been saying for weeks that it appears that May is slowly backing the EU into a corner.

 

Coming up with a plan that appeases remainers, only for it to be rejected by the EU. What a result that would be for her, if she is still determined to stick by the 2 above quotes.

I agree it will probably be rejected  by the EU - but May has already compromised and breached her own red lines. The EU have proved themselves much more skilled negotiators than her and I can see them using this to extract still more concessions from her  - - of course if she is still a remainder at heart as you believe, this may be precisely what she wants.

 

I can't see the hard brexiters getting more support for their position soon and they seem to believe they can't prevale now, so I think they have been neutralized. 

 

I still think EEA+ CU is likely end result. May does not want to be remembered as the PM that lost one million British jobs, so brexit means brexit may just mean brexit in name only.

 

Pleased to see the FT  thinks the same too 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/07013fbe-8120-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475

[The Renegade]

7 minutes ago, tebee said:

I agree it will probably be rejected  by the EU - but May has already compromised and breached her own red lines. The EU have proved themselves much more skilled negotiators than her and I can see them using this to extract still more concessions from her  - - of course if she is still a remainder at heart as you believe, this may be precisely what she wants.

tebee

 

If the EU accept this fudge, Theresa May will be gone. If she gives in to more concessions, she will be gone. She is currently hanging on by her fingernails.

 

Whether she is still a remainer at heart is immaterial. She drew her own personal red lines with these:

 

27 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

'' Brexit means Brexit '' and '' No deal is better than a bad deal ''

It is also being reported that MP's were given were a 3 page summary of a 100 page document. It is not clear that the full document, once disseminated and digested will be accepted by the Tory Party. As always, the devil is in the details.

 

1. ECJ jurisdiction ends

2. Free movement ends

3. No further annual payments to the EU.

 

Forget the Tory Party for the time being. Are the EU really going to accept this ?

 

The cynic in me says there is not a snowflakes chance in hell of this being accepted.

[The Renegade]

For those remainers that cannot see past the remainer Bibles, AKA The Guardian and the Independent.

 

A take from the BBC.

 

Quote

But critics - including business leaders and MPs - say the plan would be "unworkable" and could cost the Conservatives the next election.

 

Quote

The Observer reports that more than 100 entrepreneurs and business leadersregard Mrs May's plan as "unworkable" and "costly and bureaucratic".

 

Writing in the Mail on Sunday, Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen said the "time has come for a new leader" which he believes should be Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44755049

 

Watch how fast she is ousted if the the EU accept this fudge.

[tebee]

4 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

tebee

 

If the EU accept this fudge, Theresa May will be gone. If she gives in to more concessions, she will be gone. She is currently hanging on by her fingernails.

 

Whether she is still a remainer at heart is immaterial. She drew her own personal red lines with these:

 

It is also being reported that MP's were given were a 3 page summary of a 100 page document. It is not clear that the full document, once disseminated and digested will be accepted by the Tory Party. As always, the devil is in the details.

 

1. ECJ jurisdiction ends

2. Free movement ends

3. No further annual payments to the EU.

 

Forget the Tory Party for the time being. Are the EU really going to accept this ?

 

The cynic in me says there is not a snowflakes chance in hell of this being accepted.

As I said before, it's not going to be accepted. But it's a chink in the armor and the EU, unlike the UK has decent negotiators. They will use it - May might be happy to aquese to this - even I don't know for sure!

 

The red lines were stupid - I think even she has started to relaize this  now. If an excuse can be found to dump them it will be used.

 

As to her being replaced - well no one seems to want to lead the charge do they ? Plenty of threats, but they'd all prefer to keep their ministerial cars rather than walk.

 

So if she agrees more compromise, sells it to the public - I've only had to do this to save hundreds of thousands of British jobs - - who is going to step up and say - this isn't the brexit that was promised, vote for me and we'll give you it, but lose all those jobs - how would that go down with the great unwashed ?

 

  

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you not use the term "CU shackles", but of course you are perfectly free to deny the implication, will take that as read.

What is really boring is the stream of posts and opinion on the demise of the EU, like some sort of vindication for brexit. People should be more concerned about what is happening to the UK than the other side of the channel.

If you want to read that as blaming then some kind of blaming might be read into everything that people write. Why cannot the EU's bigger troubles be considered with Brexit; they are relevant but remainers hate to discuss them. 

Edited July 8, 2018 by nauseus

[The Renegade]

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

how would that go down with the great unwashed ?

A quick look at your avatar and perhaps you should be the one answering that one.

 

4 minutes ago, tebee said:

So if she agrees more compromise, sells it to the public - I've only had to do this to save hundreds of thousands of British jobs - - who is going to step up and say - this isn't the brexit that was promised,

There will be nothing to sell to the public -- She will be gone.

 

Try widening your reading material to outside of Pro - Remain media.

[nauseus]

34 minutes ago, tebee said:

I agree it will probably be rejected  by the EU - but May has already compromised and breached her own red lines. The EU have proved themselves much more skilled negotiators than her and I can see them using this to extract still more concessions from her  - - of course if she is still a remainder at heart as you believe, this may be precisely what she wants.

 

I can't see the hard brexiters getting more support for their position soon and they seem to believe they can't prevale now, so I think they have been neutralized. 

 

I still think EEA+ CU is likely end result. May does not want to be remembered as the PM that lost one million British jobs, so brexit means brexit may just mean brexit in name only.

 

Pleased to see the FT  thinks the same too 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/07013fbe-8120-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475

I don't think that just saying non, pas bon et encore non are the signs of particularly great negotiating skills. The EU hasn't had to do any serious negotiating. It's all a farce. But cheer your heroes on.....