Final proposal - PM Johnson to unveil Brexit offer to EU

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Of course it is -  has every currency dropped 16% against the dollar since 23rd Jun 2016?

 

The economic damage from the Brexit vote – even before the UK actually leaves the EU – is the result of the plunging pound squeezing household incomes and uncertainty hitting investment.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-brexit-boris-johnson-institute-fiscal-studies-growth-exports-a9146386.html

A silly question. But the topic was growth, which is now turning negative in Europe. Sterling has been driven down more by sentiment and speculation than actual UK economic data.

[sandyf]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

A silly question. But the topic was growth, which is now turning negative in Europe. Sterling has been driven down more by sentiment and speculation than actual UK economic data.

So in your view the IFS have got it wrong, no surprise there.

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, sandyf said:

So in your view the IFS have got it wrong, no surprise there.

Yes. No surprise. The IFS statements show that they are confusing the reasons for past "possible" growth and actual growth. The following para displays this:

 

'“We suspect the UK has missed out almost entirely on a bout of global growth, which would normally have boosted exports and investment,” its devastating report says.'

 

Now when I see the words "we suspect" then I read it as they that they are just guessing. My suspicion is confirmed when they mention some mythical "bout of global growth" (since 2016 I must assume); there has been no such bout of global growth, only weak or moderate growth in some countries and more contraction in the EU than the UK. 

[el torro]

But to be fair, it serves to reinforce the belief of other remainers who prefer to think of the article as 'fact' .

[Slip]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

Yes. No surprise. The IFS statements show that they are confusing the reasons for past "possible" growth and actual growth. The following para displays this:

 

'“We suspect the UK has missed out almost entirely on a bout of global growth, which would normally have boosted exports and investment,” its devastating report says.'

 

Now when I see the words "we suspect" then I read it as they that they are just guessing. My suspicion is confirmed when they mention some mythical "bout of global growth" (since 2016 I must assume); there has been no such bout of global growth, only weak or moderate growth in some countries and more contraction in the EU than the UK. 

So it's ok for you to have 'suspicion's but not for them to 'suspect'.  Ok got it.  Can anyone comment on this global growth?  I suspect it didn't happen also, but so hate to agree with you 55. ????

[Slip]

5 hours ago, el torro said:

 

You (deliberately, I suspect) misunderstand.

 

The Guardian and Independent used to be the only newspapers I'd buy - until brexit when they proved to be as biased as the bloody Express!

 

Shame on you for trying to infer that brexiteers' newspaper of choice is the Sun - 'lapped up' of course, by the odd remainer zealout .  (Deliberate mis-spelling ????)

Of course not!  It's the Mail for the top-set lot.  Meanwhile all we remainers live by the word of the Mirror.

[3NUMBAS]

He has to write to the EU asking for an extension to the 31st of October deadline. And the surrender act is very specific in the dates it applys to. So if the government brings the date forward by even1 hour to the 30th of October the surrender act becomes obsolete, defunct of no use.

[evadgib]

44 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

He has to write to the EU asking for an extension to the 31st of October deadline. And the surrender act is very specific in the dates it applys to. So if the government brings the date forward by even1 hour to the 30th of October the surrender act becomes obsolete, defunct of no use.

...a 59min extn would comply with the act and still enable Boris to leave on 31st ????

[Pattaya46]

31 minutes ago, evadgib said:

...a 59min extn would comply with the act and still enable Boris to leave on 31st ????

The content of the letter to send is part of the Ben Act,

and the delay request must ask for a delay to the 31 January 2020.

The PM has no choice on this date.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Slip said:

So it's ok for you to have 'suspicion's but not for them to 'suspect'.  Ok got it.  Can anyone comment on this global growth?  I suspect it didn't happen also, but so hate to agree with you 55. ????

The headline says the IFS says we are 66b worse off because they "suspect" it. Makes me suspicious. 555             

[kingdong]

On 10/9/2019 at 8:22 AM, DannyCarlton said:

This has been explained a hundred times on various threads but clearly you have no interest in listening to the accepted truth when you can spout nonsensical Brexiteer rhetoric.

What a shame these peasants won,t listen to you,oh for the days when people knew their place and didn,t muddle their heads with politics.

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, nauseus said:

Yes. No surprise. The IFS statements show that they are confusing the reasons for past "possible" growth and actual growth. The following para displays this:

 

'“We suspect the UK has missed out almost entirely on a bout of global growth, which would normally have boosted exports and investment,” its devastating report says.'

 

Now when I see the words "we suspect" then I read it as they that they are just guessing. My suspicion is confirmed when they mention some mythical "bout of global growth" (since 2016 I must assume); there has been no such bout of global growth, only weak or moderate growth in some countries and more contraction in the EU than the UK. 

We wait with baited breath on your detailed report on how the nations wealth deteriorated, but I suspect that we would be waiting a very long time. 

I suspect you would suspect it was anything other than brexit. But of course you believe the IFS have got it wrong and there has been no deterioration.

You can put any spin you want on a piece of text in isolation, a brexiteer policy in addressing information they do not like. These deliberate distractions lack any credibility and you should keep your suspicions to yourself unless you can prove otherwise.

 

Instead, the nation’s wealth has slumped by between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent, a loss of £55–£66bn, in the three years since the June 2016 vote, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-brexit-boris-johnson-institute-fiscal-studies-growth-exports-a9146386.html

[sandyf]

12 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

He has to write to the EU asking for an extension to the 31st of October deadline. And the surrender act is very specific in the dates it applys to. So if the government brings the date forward by even1 hour to the 30th of October the surrender act becomes obsolete, defunct of no use.

The timing of brexit is written in law and cannot be changed unless agreed by parliament and the EU.

By the same token any request for an extension is written in law and the EU would probably take the view that any amendment to that request would need to be approved by parliament.

The only feasible way out is a veto by an EU member and that cannot be ruled out with Hungary being the most obvious candidate.

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, sandyf said:

We wait with baited breath on your detailed report on how the nations wealth deteriorated, but I suspect that we would be waiting a very long time. 

I suspect you would suspect it was anything other than brexit. But of course you believe the IFS have got it wrong and there has been no deterioration.

You can put any spin you want on a piece of text in isolation, a brexiteer policy in addressing information they do not like. These deliberate distractions lack any credibility and you should keep your suspicions to yourself unless you can prove otherwise.

 

Instead, the nation’s wealth has slumped by between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent, a loss of £55–£66bn, in the three years since the June 2016 vote, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-brexit-boris-johnson-institute-fiscal-studies-growth-exports-a9146386.html

That's the problem. This link is not a detailed report and the IFS hasn't proved anything.