Extreme Brexit could be worse than financial crisis for UK: BoE

[nontabury]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

corbyn? how so?

 

 

problem is you have a dysfunctional parliament

 

 

Correct, unfortunately two thirds of parliamentarians, do not agree with the electorate. Thus it’s now turning into the People v Parliament.

[Grouse]

19 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

I see, if you are even half right Grouse,

look to Sweden,

dunno if you follow my bits on building a functional government in Sweden,

there you have Ms Loof, the leader of the Swedish Centre party, a liberal party.

 

she must be the exact opposite of Corbyn,'

 

many are those who opine that she over the past 3-4 months could easily have

manoeuvred herself into the PM position

 

she never ever tried - the only leading star for that lady is the Centre party manifesto

 

many are those who praise her for that.

 

I do indeed follow Swedish politics as far as I am able. Shame a center coalition cannot be cobbled together after all this time. I'm an anti Muslim bigot but the Swedish Democrats just aren't, er, well, Swedish!

[Grouse]

29 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Correct, unfortunately two thirds of parliamentarians, do not agree with the electorate. Thus it’s now turning into the People v Parliament.

I believe a significant majority of parliamentarians favour remain. I do not think a majority of the electorate are pro leave anymore. But, it doesn't matter anyway because parliament is sovereign.

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I believe a significant majority of parliamentarians favour remain. I do not think a majority of the electorate are pro leave anymore. But, it doesn't matter anyway because parliament is sovereign.

Yes and Parliament chose to trigger art 50 and as you well know that means by law we have two years to agree a deal or leave. You are assuming that Parliament can do whatever it likes, it can't, do you think that the EU has a say on this matter.

[melvinmelvin]

18 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I do indeed follow Swedish politics as far as I am able. Shame a center coalition cannot be cobbled together after all this time. I'm an anti Muslim bigot but the Swedish Democrats just aren't, er, well, Swedish!

it seems to have been done now,

last night Socialdemocrats and Centre concluded their negotiations, Centre is ready to support

Mr Lofven as PM, S+C and a bit more is sufficient for majority without needing SD votes.

 

(might write a piece on it later if I feel inclined, after another Belhaven)

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I do indeed follow Swedish politics as far as I am able. Shame a center coalition cannot be cobbled together after all this time. I'm an anti Muslim bigot but the Swedish Democrats just aren't, er, well, Swedish!

In Finland we have made good amount of jokes about how indecisive foks the Swedes are and their inbuild need to 'talk a bit more' about even simplest issues. 

 

We have seen that in action in the past months in Sweden. 

 

Then again, no matter how much fun we make fun of Sweden (it's a thing for us Finns and I guess for the Norks as well), their country goes forward and simply works. I suppose there is no need to hurry a decision while the country performs rather well, even without newly formed government. 

[talahtnut]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I believe a significant majority of parliamentarians favour remain. I do not think a majority of the electorate are pro leave anymore. But, it doesn't matter anyway because parliament is sovereign.

The theory is that they govern by consent and execute

democracy in accordance with the majority decision.

The situation in Europe is worse, either it must listen

to the people or collapse.

You can't save what the elites mean by "Europe" and

also serve The People.  There is a fundamental opposition

of interests between those two entities.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Corbyn should act in the best interests of the country. He is ONLY interested in becoming PM and would sell his family to achieve that. Something like 75% of Labour are pro Remain now. Corbyn could halt Brexit immediately but becoming PM is more important to him. His second goal is to have a command economy but that would not be possible in the EU

"Something like 75% of Labour are pro Remain now."

 

Are you talking about Labour MPs/Labour membership or Labour voters?

[dick dasterdly]

39 minutes ago, oilinki said:

In Finland we have made good amount of jokes about how indecisive foks the Swedes are and their inbuild need to 'talk a bit more' about even simplest issues. 

 

We have seen that in action in the past months in Sweden. 

 

Then again, no matter how much fun we make fun of Sweden (it's a thing for us Finns and I guess for the Norks as well), their country goes forward and simply works. I suppose there is no need to hurry a decision while the country performs rather well, even without newly formed government. 

And the reason why Fins make fun of Sweden, is because they know that the Swedish look down on Finland.....

[owl sees all]

The MPs voted 6 to 1 to respect the referendum result and act on it.

 

Now it seems personal interests are more significant than honesty and democracy.

[melvinmelvin]

14 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And the reason why Fins make fun of Sweden, is because they know that the Swedish look down on Finland.....

thread with caution DD that is, even today, a fairly sensitive issue

 

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Yes and Parliament chose to trigger art 50 and as you well know that means by law we have two years to agree a deal or leave. You are assuming that Parliament can do whatever it likes, it can't, do you think that the EU has a say on this matter.

With regards to withdrawing Article 50:

1) The parliament is sovereign as has been pointed out. 

2) The EU doesn’t have a say on this matter as has been ruled by the ECJ. 

[sandyf]

On 1/11/2019 at 11:48 AM, Chartist said:

 

Yea we should all take advice from Shinzo Abe look how well Abenomics worked for Japan, a massive QE program designed to raise inflation and increase growth. Which was a spectacular failure, Japan has the largest gross debt to GDP ratio in the world and just posted the biggest decrease in productivity for 4 years. It's a slow moving train wreck, one which Abe nor anyone else seems to have the answers to. They should get on great with the Eurozone another slow moving train wreck, when the wheels inevitably come off one or the other we can have the global recession remainers have been praying for, sure they'll attempt to blame Brexit but het you can't teach stupid.

You are perfectly free to believe that Japanese companies and their investment is of little significance to the UK and that Mr Abe has no say in the matter.

Having a rant about the Japanese economy has little bearing on the UK problems.

[sandyf]

On 1/11/2019 at 12:34 PM, talahtnut said:

The reality is that for years, no-one is buying new cars,

and there are millions of new cars just rotting in acres

and acres of land in the UK. Worth a quick Google.

 

That may well be the case but should the remnants of UK vehicle production be put at further risk.

 

Are you saying that Honda are not going to pause production because of brexit, that the Independent has just made it up. I am sure the workers will be glad to hear it.

As for JLR & Ford, never claimed to be brexit related, just reality in midst of brexit but shooting the messenger is par for the course.

[talahtnut]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

That may well be the case but should the remnants of UK vehicle production be put at further risk.

 

Are you saying that Honda are not going to pause production because of brexit, that the Independent has just made it up. I am sure the workers will be glad to hear it.

As for JLR & Ford, never claimed to be brexit related, just reality in midst of brexit but shooting the messenger is par for the course.

I only wrote simply what I wrote, I don't understand

what you're on about.  However, the UK has no auto

industry, it just sticks other countries cars together.

There is no such thing as an English car.

Car overproduction is a world wide problem, based

on stupid economics.

[melvinmelvin]

7 minutes ago, talahtnut said:

I only wrote simply what I wrote, I don't understand

what you're on about.  However, the UK has no auto

industry, it just sticks other countries cars together.

There is no such thing as an English car.

Car overproduction is a world wide problem, based

on stupid economics.

there is Allard

 

[nontabury]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

That may well be the case but should the remnants of UK vehicle production be put at further risk.

 

Are you saying that Honda are not going to pause production because of brexit, that the Independent has just made it up. I am sure the workers will be glad to hear it.

As for JLR & Ford, never claimed to be brexit related, just reality in midst of brexit but shooting the messenger is par for the course.

 

 While the Independent did not make up that news, they forgot to mention that this is a common practice in the industry.

 Another piece of news that you may have missed this week. Is that with the support of an E.U grant, paid in part by the British tax payers. Some car production from Jag/Land Rover will be transferred to Slovakia.

 Not that this is major news, as this has been the trend for the last 10yrs, unfortunately not only in the automobile industry. All to the benefit of the multi nationals. But why should selfish people be concerned,especially if it doesn’t affect them.

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2019 by nontabury

[rixalex]

20 hours ago, Grouse said:

Of course they didn't! And guess what? Parliament is sovereign! Brexit SHOULD have been canned immediately May lost her majority. If we had a proper opposition, that is what would have happened. If it is not canned now, Corbyn is to blame.

If canning Brexit was as easy as you suggest, parliamentarians would have already done it.

 

Continually repeating the mantra, "parliament is sovereign", and lamenting why politicians don't just get on with scrapping Brexit, implies a very simplistic, black and white understanding of the situation without any appreciation for all the nuances that exist in a modern democracy.

 

It's akin to someone not happy with a certain minister continually repeating the mantra, "royal prerogative", over and over again, and lamenting why the Queen doesn't, as is her power, simply summon said minister and dismiss him or her.

 

Just because people have the power to do something, doesn't mean they really can.

 

Politicians know even though they COULD scrap Brexit, having voted to pass this decision over to the people, having promised to abide by the vote, having voted to trigger article 50, having had the nation vote at a general election 85% in favour of parties promising to respect the outcome of the vote, it is simply not possible now to bin the whole thing and move on as if nothing had happened, much as they would love to. The situation is more complicated than that.

[sandyf]

8 hours ago, talahtnut said:

I only wrote simply what I wrote, I don't understand what you're on about. 

Selective memory?

"That naughty old Independant has turned the car crisis

into an anti-brexit argument."

Is this the anti brexit argument being referred to?

"Honda announced it will pause production at its Swindon plant in April in anticipation of border disruption after Brexit on 29 March."

[sandyf]

6 hours ago, nontabury said:

 Another piece of news that you may have missed this week. Is that with the support of an E.U grant, paid in part by the British tax payers. Some car production from Jag/Land Rover will be transferred to Slovakia. 

Not missed, just nothing surprising. A great deal of foreign investment came to the UK because it was a major player in the EU. Once the UK is out why should they stay, logistically speaking it is better to be on the mainland. Not sudden death, more like a cancer over the coming years.

Do you really think that EU grants in the UK were never paid in part by non British taxpayers?

As I heard someone say yesterday, the UK will have to leave before the full impact of the mistake will be recognised.

[sandyf]

Three years down the line and not a lot has changed, Project Fear was always at the heart of the Leave argument.

 

Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, said that reversing the decision to leave the European Union would “open the door” to “extremist” populist political forces and lead to divisions not seen since the English Civil War.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-delay-block-far-right-extremists-surge-grayling-criticism-a8724281.html

[Grouse]

20 minutes ago, rixalex said:

If canning Brexit was as easy as you suggest, parliamentarians would have already done it.

 

Continually repeating the mantra, "parliament is sovereign", and lamenting why politicians don't just get on with scrapping Brexit, implies a very simplistic, black and white understanding of the situation without any appreciation for all the nuances that exist in a modern democracy.

 

It's akin to someone not happy with a certain minister continually repeating the mantra, "royal prerogative", over and over again, and lamenting why the Queen doesn't, as is her power, simply summon said minister and dismiss him or her.

 

Just because people have the power to do something, doesn't mean they really can.

 

Politicians know even though they COULD scrap Brexit, having voted to pass this decision over to the people, having promised to abide by the vote, having voted to trigger article 50, having had the nation vote at a general election 85% in favour of parties promising to respect the outcome of the vote, it is simply not possible now to bin the whole thing and move on as if nothing had happened, much as they would love to. The situation is more complicated than that.

There is truth in what you say

 

My point is that we need foundations based on fact

 

1) Parliament is not bound to implement the referendum result

 

2) Cameron did commit the CONs to do so

 

3) But May lost their majority

 

4) MPs are duty bound to vote for what they themselves believe to be in the best interest of their constituents

 

5) The "degree of separation" from the EU was not voted upon. 

 

6) Many MPs act to protect their own seats rather than act as they truly believe to be in the best interest of their constituents 

 

So, what way forward? Now we get to opinions. 

 

I dont think the UK will be a good member of either the EU or EFTA

 

However, staying in the single market and the customs union are obviously desirable

 

The UK is over crowded. We need to control immigration somehow. I would give priority to the EU to retain membership of the single market and retain reciprocal rights

 

On top of all that, I think our electoral system is no longer fit for purpose and I want a new referendum to enable PR so that we get multiple parties and coalition government. I wish to see the back of the CONs and LAB.

 

So let parliament agree to leave the EU but retain SM and CU (and Euratom and Galileo etc etc). Keep Sterling and stay out of Schengen.

 

Have a referendum to ratify the decision and also a referendum on the same day to introduce PR and then have an election in 12 months.

 

I think that solution would have significant majority.

[talahtnut]

20 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Not missed, just nothing surprising. A great deal of foreign investment came to the UK because it was a major player in the EU. Once the UK is out why should they stay, logistically speaking it is better to be on the mainland. Not sudden death, more like a cancer over the coming years.

Do you really think that EU grants in the UK were never paid in part by non British taxpayers?

As I heard someone say yesterday, the UK will have to leave before the full impact of the mistake will be recognised.

Sandy, you're taking the 'p' out of us..'UK a major player

in the EU'.  Did you mean major payer perhaps?

'As I heard someone say yesterday'....  Brilliant, now

we understand your POV.

[wilcopops]

21 minutes ago, talahtnut said:

Sandy, you're taking the 'p' out of us..'UK a major player

in the EU'.  Did you mean major payer perhaps?

'As I heard someone say yesterday'....  Brilliant, now

we understand your POV.

UK was a major player in the EU and extremely influential; the economy was set to be bigger than Germany's by 2020......... this of course now won't happen, even if Brexit is scrapped it will take time to repair the damage.

[melvinmelvin]

36 minutes ago, Grouse said:

There is truth in what you say

 

My point is that we need foundations based on fact

 

1) Parliament is not bound to implement the referendum result

 

2) Cameron did commit the CONs to do so

 

3) But May lost their majority

 

4) MPs are duty bound to vote for what they themselves believe to be in the best interest of their constituents

 

5) The "degree of separation" from the EU was not voted upon. 

 

6) Many MPs act to protect their own seats rather than act as they truly believe to be in the best interest of their constituents 

 

So, what way forward? Now we get to opinions. 

 

I dont think the UK will be a good member of either the EU or EFTA

 

However, staying in the single market and the customs union are obviously desirable

 

The UK is over crowded. We need to control immigration somehow. I would give priority to the EU to retain membership of the single market and retain reciprocal rights

 

On top of all that, I think our electoral system is no longer fit for purpose and I want a new referendum to enable PR so that we get multiple parties and coalition government. I wish to see the back of the CONs and LAB.

 

So let parliament agree to leave the EU but retain SM and CU (and Euratom and Galileo etc etc). Keep Sterling and stay out of Schengen.

 

Have a referendum to ratify the decision and also a referendum on the same day to introduce PR and then have an election in 12 months.

 

I think that solution would have significant majority.

 

Think EU's stance on immigration has softened somewhat over the last 2 years.

 

If Tory could split in 2 or 3 and Labour in 2 you would have a possible political terrain where PR could

be discussed.

However, introducing PR in a country like UK requires lots and lots of thinking, not easy at all

and would require a host of political decisions.

 

PR systems also have some of the potential side effects that fptp has,

there are ways to mitigate/reduce the side effects.

 

 

[vogie]

Good advice from the land down under.

 

 

[anon676545345]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

Good advice from the land down under.

 

 

 

We need someone like her running this country, she hit the nail on the head, just walk away 

[7by7]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 9:44 AM, rixalex said:

But I wasn't the one making condescending remarks about your English comprehension. If you'll recall, it was YOU making condescending remarks about me and my ability to understand English

 

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 3:22 AM, rixalex said:

No, no problem has been solved. I was condescended to by a member who questioned my ability to understand question marks (and mockingly suggested i have someone else help explain things for me)

 

This pettiness all started because you tried to score a pathetic point by treating a question I asked another poster as if it were a statement.

 

But to paraphrase my old mum, it doesn't matter who started it; I'm finishing it.

[rixalex]

16 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

This pettiness all started because you tried to score a pathetic point by treating a question I asked another poster as if it were a statement.

 

But to paraphrase my old mum, it doesn't matter who started it; I'm finishing it.

No. This isn't about pettiness. This is about civility and courtesy, and why for some reason you lack it and chose to attack me as being stupid for reading your sentence as being a statement, when there was a question mark at the end. However, as can be clearly seen by the quoted sentence below:

 

 

On 1/5/2019 at 4:58 PM, 7by7 said:

 

Are you incensed because, like many Brexiteers, you want to keep all the advantages of EU membership only to find that, unsurprisingly, the EU have said that we can't leave the club and expect to retain the advantages of membership?

 

...your sentence is indeed a question, but one that contains within it, a statement about "many Brexiteers".

 

When i replied to you on that statement, contained within your question, disagreeing with you that many Brexiteers do take that view, it would have been one thing to disagree with me and argue that in your opinion many Brexiteers do hold that view, but you didn't. Instead you accused me of being stupid for not being able to understand question marks.

 

As i say, i am genuinely baffled as to what this aggressive and confrontational approach is all about.

[rixalex]

On 1/13/2019 at 9:50 AM, Grouse said:

The UK is over crowded. We need to control immigration somehow. I would give priority to the EU to retain membership of the single market and retain reciprocal rights.

We need to control immigration somehow.

 

Somehow. Yes. Indeed. Says it all.

 

Retaining reciprocal rights certainly isn't going to help, but i can appreciate, as a British man living in the EU, why you might be keen on having those maintained.

 

I think for many British people, the issue of immigration is a key component of the debate, and not, as often gets depicted, because of an anti-foreign sentiment, or a desire to keep foreigners out, (although sadly every country has its share of those sorts), but because of a disagreement with, in principle, the idea of open-door immigration, in which certain people from certain countries are allowed to walk in without any sort of vetting. I am against this for two reasons.

 

One, i think it's unsustainable to allow immigration in this way because authorities can't plan ahead and sometimes, even if they could, they wouldn't be able to cope with the demand. Two, i think it's wrong to discriminate in the way immigrants get treated. I think regardless of their passports, they should all undergo the exact same vetting process, and whether they be granted access be dependent on how well they can integrate into the country and what skills they offer. That doesn't of course necessarily mean only allowing in rocket scientists. If there is a shortfall of workforce in the labour industry, immigration department can allow in more labourers, and so on.

 

Retaining reciprocal rights might satisfy a British man living in the EU, because even if the overcrowding issue doesn't get dealt with, no matter, there are personal benefits to be had.

 

I don't think it will satisfy lots of other British people, especially those who voted to leave, and who are fed up with words and no action.