So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[ballaughbiker]

Pinched from somewhere else about effects of brexit and adapted:

 

Bank of England : Bad

 

Treasury : Bad

 

Economists : Bad

 

Pharma industry : Bad

 

Manufacturing : Bad

 

Trade : Bad

 

Irish Border : Bad

 

Scotland : Bad

 

*

 

Random anonymous wind up fella on MF with too much time on his hands :  Project Fear

 

Country : OK let's do it.

 

 

 

 

*could go on but what's the point.

Edited December 4, 2018 by ballaughbiker
*

[woody2]

1 minute ago, ballaughbiker said:

Pinched from somewhere else about effects of brexit and adapted:

 

Bank of England : Bad

 

Treasury : Bad

 

Economists : Bad

 

Pharma industry : Bad

 

Manufacturing : Bad

 

Trade : Bad

 

Irish Border : Bad

 

Scotland : Bad

 

Random anonymous wind up fella on MF with too much too much time on his hands :  Project Fear

 

Country : OK let's do it.

 

 

bullsh1t from a remoaner.....

[woody2]

Quote

When Tony Blair and Boris Johnson unite in their condemnation of the “deal” under which Theresa May proposes that the U.K. should leave the EU, you know something has gone badly wrong. The withdrawal agreement is less a carefully crafted diplomatic compromise and more the result of incompetence of a high order. I have friends who are passionate Remainers and others who are passionate Leavers. None of them believe this deal makes any sense. It is time to think again, and the first step is to reject a deal that is the worst of all worlds.

There have been three episodes in modern history when the British political class let down the rest of the country: in the 1930s, with appeasement; in the 1970s, when the British economy was the “sick man” of Europe and the government saw its role as managing decline; and now, in the turmoil that has followed the Brexit referendum. In all three cases, the conventional wisdom of the day was wrong. 

In the first two instances, it took a revolution: in 1940, the dismissal of the prime minister and his replacement by someone better suited to the role of wartime leader; in the 1970s, a political and intellectual upheaval, and a radical new government capable of changing course. Both times, the country escaped ruin by the skin of its teeth. Today’s challenge is of a similar order. 

Britain is not facing an economic crisis. It is confronting a deep political crisis. Parliament has brought this on the country. It voted overwhelmingly to hold a referendum. The public were told they would decide. And the rules of the game were clear: Fifty percent of the vote plus one would settle the matter. The prime minister and the chancellor of the exchequer at the time said unequivocally that Brexit meant leaving Europe’s single market and customs union. This was the Brexit that, after the referendum, both main political parties promised to deliver. 

But a majority of members of Parliament were against leaving, and both parties were split down the middle. For members of the Labour opposition, the opportunity to undermine the government outweighed their views on the issue at hand, momentous though it was. A divided governing party was unable to rely on a majority to support any plan to deliver Brexit. 

To be sure, no coherent plan has ever been presented. There are arguments for remaining in the EU and arguments for leaving. But there is no case whatever for giving up the benefits of remaining without obtaining the benefits of leaving. Yet that is exactly what the government is now proposing. It simply beggars belief that a government could be hell-bent on a deal that hands over £39 billion, while giving the EU both the right to impose laws on the U.K. indefinitely and a veto on ending this state of fiefdom.

Preparations for Brexit based on trade under WTO terms should have started in 2016, immediately after the referendum, as I said at the time. Britain needed a fall-back position — it is foolish to negotiate without one — and that was the form it should have taken. An immigration policy for the post-Brexit world could and should have been published in 2016. But there was no such planning. Instead, the government pretended that everything could be postponed until an imaginary long-term deal could be negotiated. This was naïve at best, and in the event has proven disastrous. And so Project Fear turned into Project Impossible. It is incompetence on a monumental scale.

Before the referendum, official economic projections intended to scare the country into voting Remain didn’t succeed. Based on flimsy and arbitrary assumptions, they were subsequently proved wrong. The same strategy has resurfaced. 

It saddens me to see the Bank of England unnecessarily drawn into this project. The Bank’s latest worst-case scenario shows the cost of leaving without a deal exceeding 10 percent of GDP. Two factors are responsible for the size of this effect: first, the assertion that productivity will fall because of lower trade; second, the assumption that disruption at borders — queues of lorries and interminable customs checks — will continue year after year. Neither is plausible. On this I concur with Paul Krugman. He’s no friend of Brexit and believes that Britain would be better off inside the EU — but on the claim of lower productivity, he describes the Bank’s estimates as “black box numbers” that are “dubious” and “questionable.” And on the claim of semi-permanent dislocation, he just says, “Really?” I agree: The British civil service may not be perfect, but it surely isn’t as bad as that. 

The U.K. is a European country, and always will be. Trade and contacts among the nations of Europe can and should continue much as before. And I have no doubt they will do so. But the political nature of the EU has changed since monetary union. The EU failed to recognize that the euro would demand fiscal and political integration if it was to succeed, and that countries outside the euro area would require a different kind of EU membership. It was inevitable, therefore, that, sooner or later, Britain would decide to withdraw from a political project in which it had little interest apart from the shared desire for free trade.

Leaving the EU is not the end of the world, any more than it will deliver the promised land. Nonetheless the country is entitled to expect something better than a muddled commitment to perpetual subordination from which the U.K. cannot withdraw without the agreement of the EU. 

Many MPs will argue that “we are where we are,” that it’s too late to change course, and that May’s deal is the only deal available. But remember, this is a political not an economic crisis. If Blair and Johnson, from opposing political viewpoints, can see the fatal weaknesses of this proposed deal, politicians of all hues should try to do the same. This deal will not end the divisiveness of the debate about Britain’s relationship with the EU. The Remain camp will continue to argue, correctly, that to align the country indefinitely with laws over which it has no influence is madness, and a second referendum is vital to escape from this continuing nightmare. And the Leave camp will argue, also correctly, that it is intolerable for the fifth largest economy in the world to continue indefinitely as a fiefdom.

If this deal is not abandoned, I believe that the U.K. will end up abrogating it unilaterally — regardless of the grave damage that would do to Britain’s reputation and standing. Vassal states do not go gently into that good night. They rage. If this parliament bequeaths to its successors the choice between a humiliating submission and the abrogation of a binding international treaty, it will not be forgiven — and will not deserve to be.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-04/mervyn-king-says-may-s-brexit-deal-is-a-betrayal

[ballaughbiker]

There was a typo in the original post (purely by accident of course) that was on screen for no more than 10 seconds yet a random anonymous wind up fella managed to capture it and decide that it was worthy of reply.

 

What's that tell you?

 

Gotcha

Edited December 4, 2018 by ballaughbiker

[Freggyragh]

2 hours ago, woody2 said:

trade schedules have passed the 90 day mark.....

#Woodyfacts

The deadline for objections was 24/10/18. There were 15 objections submitted against the EU proposals, and 19 against the UK’s. 

Talks will continue in the New Year and may not reach a conclusion before March 2019. 

https://iegpolicy.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com/PL218118/UK-to-enter-into-negotiations-with-WTO-partners-on-Goods-Schedule-after-TRQ-objections

[P.K.]

10 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

#Woodyfacts

The deadline for objections was 24/10/18. There were 15 objections submitted against the EU proposals, and 19 against the UK’s. 

Talks will continue in the New Year and may not reach a conclusion before March 2019. 

https://iegpolicy.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com/PL218118/UK-to-enter-into-negotiations-with-WTO-partners-on-Goods-Schedule-after-TRQ-objections

Errr excuse me but the International Trade Secretary stated that:

 The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history

Liam Fox

20 July 2017

 

 

[woody2]

1 hour ago, ballaughbiker said:

 

 

What's that tell you?

 

 

your a thicko remoaner......

[woody2]

23 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

#Woodyfacts

The deadline for objections was 24/10/18. There were 15 objections submitted against the EU proposals, and 19 against the UK’s. 

Talks will continue in the New Year and may not reach a conclusion before March 2019. 

https://iegpolicy.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com/PL218118/UK-to-enter-into-negotiations-with-WTO-partners-on-Goods-Schedule-after-TRQ-objections

did you read what i said......

trade schedules have passed the 90 day mark.....

regardless of any outcome, the uk is now free to trade on its trade schedules once it has left the eu.......

 

 

[woody2]

16 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Errr excuse me but the International Trade Secretary stated that:

 The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history

Liam Fox

20 July 2017

 

 

well when they get round to discussing it we'll know.......

[TheTeapot]

2 hours ago, woody2 said:

i hear madron has chickened out on his tax rise........

good to see the water cannons in use.........

But by the fact that he's 'chickened out' you could argue that the water cannons failed.

[woody2]

1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

But by the fact that he's 'chickened out' you could argue that the water cannons failed.

nah his policy failed......

protest- its the future.......

wait till it kicks off in london.......

 

 

[Mr. Sausages]

26 minutes ago, woody2 said:

your a thicko remoaner......

You are.

[P.K.]

40 minutes ago, woody2 said:

did you read what i said......

trade schedules have passed the 90 day mark.....

regardless of any outcome, the uk is now free to trade on its trade schedules once it has left the eu.......

Britain has won the right to negotiate deals with third countries during the transition period (not before) but they cannot be implemented until after December 2020

 

[Freggyragh]

3 hours ago, woody2 said:

did you read what i said......

trade schedules have passed the 90 day mark.....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1MZ28D

Can I have a #fakenews? 

[woody2]

3 hours ago, P.K. said:

Britain has won the right to negotiate deals with third countries during the transition period (not before) but they cannot be implemented until after December 2020

 

of course.....

but if its a no deal exit the uk can trade straight away on wto (just as it does in the eu) and start implementing trade deals.....

no deal exit is the best for the uk......

for the record the uk can and has been negotiating trade deals during art.50.....

don't you know anything.......