So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[woolley]

1 hour ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

The OBR allowed for this in their central estimate.

 

37 minutes ago, P.K. said:

So everything will be fine because you say so.

Got it!

As to not dealing in a big "if" brexit has always been a massive "if" - as big as a whole coutry's economy in fact.

Happy to pontificate on that though, aren't you....?

You need an awful lot of patience around here.

If "no deal" turns into "some deal" which in the (still unlikely) scenario of "no deal", it undoubtedly would, then it is impossible to put figures on it at this distance without knowing what "some deal" looks like. That is entirely on the EU. For starters, we don't know what pressures will be brought to bear on both sides to free up business to trade normally. Those pressures are likely to be irresistible and not long in coming. The most that anyone can say with certainty is that there would be some short term turbulence, followed by a neutral medium term and probably benefits in the long term. But there is not much point in modelling  projections for scenarios that are not yet settled, so why are they doing it? Obvious answer.

Of course, this is a far bigger deal than just trade, but I know you are just la la la on all of that.

[Bobbie Bobster]

9 minutes ago, woolley said:

why are they doing it?

Someone needs to calculate the cost of runaway sovereignty and the OBR are best placed to do it.

Imagine what you could do with £30bn a year!

[Freggyragh]

Imagine if the financial elite had to pay their taxes. That’s the real issue here. 

[woolley]

9 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

Imagine if the financial elite had to pay their taxes. That’s the real issue here. 

I'm not at all convinced of this, Freggy, although I've heard it bandied about a lot. But supposing it's true. Are we comfortable with having our taxation laws set in Brussels by a trading bloc?  That doesn't seem like a road we should be going down. 

[Freggyragh]

I am not comfortable with having taxation laws set anywhere but in a sovereign state, with a couple of provisos: 1. For the purpose of fair competition the members of a single market or parties to a trade deal can make a collective decision on sales tax / VAT, with individual states able to have reasonable opt-outs (such as children’s clothes and books). 2. Members of a socially responsible single market can work together to close loopholes and prevent new loopholes opening that allow the financial elite of a sovereign state to avoid paying fair contributions towards the costs of governing the state and maintaining services. 

[Bobbie Bobster]

41 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

Imagine ...

[woolley]

16 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

I am not comfortable with having taxation laws set anywhere but in a sovereign state, with a couple of provisos: 1. For the purpose of fair competition the members of a single market or parties to a trade deal can make a collective decision on sales tax / VAT, with individual states able to have reasonable opt-outs (such as children’s clothes and books). 2. Members of a socially responsible single market can work together to close loopholes and prevent new loopholes opening that allow the financial elite of a sovereign state to avoid paying fair contributions towards the costs of governing the state and maintaining services. 

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'm with your first line, but we part company on the provisos and this touches on the fundamental objection to setting law at a supranational level. Who decides how far the scope of this wider jurisdiction goes now and in the future? It has 70 years of form for mission creep in something that started ostensibly as a forum to regulate coal and steel production. Where will it be in another 70? This is why I chuckle when people talk about the security of the "status quo". There isn't one. It is constantly evolving, pausing to scout out the ground and then encompassing some more. "Ever closer union" means what it says.

Perhaps supranational legislation is fine when you agree with the aim? I have said many times here that taxes should be fair, not excessive and, importantly, levied and paid where business is conducted. However, what about on other occasions, perhaps far into the future, when you won't agree with the aims?

When empires were dismantled it was recognised that the national governments replacing colonial rule might be corrupt and inefficient, but at least they were THEIR governments, which were an improvement on rule by outsiders. I think that if our stable needs cleaning out as you are implying then we should be the ones to do it. What does it say about our country if we would trust foreigners to bring our house in order more than we trust ourselves? That seems to be the thrust of your argument on tax. Perhaps our problem is at home and we need to solve it here. We don't do that by ceding the power.

[P.K.]

32 minutes ago, woolley said:

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'm with your first line, but we part company on the provisos and this touches on the fundamental objection to setting law at a supranational level. Who decides how far the scope of this wider jurisdiction goes now and in the future? It has 70 years of form for mission creep in something that started ostensibly as a forum to regulate coal and steel production. Where will it be in another 70? This is why I chuckle when people talk about the security of the "status quo". There isn't one. It is constantly evolving, pausing to scout out the ground and then encompassing some more. "Ever closer union" means what it says.

@woolley

You talk about "Project Fear" as though it's a lever used by pro-EU folks to try and push back on all the lies peddled by the brexiteers.

And here you are pushing the most ridiculous "Project Fear" yet based entirely on one of the biggest brexit lies of them all - that the EU is not a democratic institution.

The Brexit Party MEP's turning their backs on the chamber was an absolute disgrace. The imagery was spot on to remind all those gathered in the chamber just how much they suffered under Nazism. They are also well aware of the tory faithful slavering over narcissistic, lying, scheming, serial philanderer Boris Johnson.

Our democratic institutions used to be the gold standard and the envy of the civilised world.

We are now seen as a bunch of xenophobic, tiny-minded Little Englanders.

Thanks to the Brexiteers....

[woolley]

@ PK. That bilious outburst has absolutely nothing to do with my reply to Freggy. Would you like to be in a united states of the entire world without being consulted? Provided it was nominally "democratic"?

[P.K.]

3 hours ago, woolley said:

@ PK. That bilious outburst has absolutely nothing to do with my reply to Freggy. Would you like to be in a united states of the entire world without being consulted? Provided it was nominally "democratic"?

"Nominally democratic" indeed....

Really laying it on thick, aren't you Woolster?

My post had everything to do with your reply to Freggy in that it challenged your nonsensical view of the future of trading blocs....

[Freggyragh]

7 hours ago, woolley said:

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'm with your first line, but we part company on the provisos and this touches on the fundamental objection to setting law at a supranational level. Who decides how far the scope of this wider jurisdiction goes now and in the future? It has 70 years of form for mission creep in something that started ostensibly as a forum to regulate coal and steel production. Where will it be in another 70? This is why I chuckle when people talk about the security of the "status quo". There isn't one. It is constantly evolving, pausing to scout out the ground and then encompassing some more. "Ever closer union" means what it says.

Perhaps supranational legislation is fine when you agree with the aim? I have said many times here that taxes should be fair, not excessive and, importantly, levied and paid where business is conducted. However, what about on other occasions, perhaps far into the future, when you won't agree with the aims?

When empires were dismantled it was recognised that the national governments replacing colonial rule might be corrupt and inefficient, but at least they were THEIR governments, which were an improvement on rule by outsiders. I think that if our stable needs cleaning out as you are implying then we should be the ones to do it. What does it say about our country if we would trust foreigners to bring our house in order more than we trust ourselves? That seems to be the thrust of your argument on tax. Perhaps our problem is at home and we need to solve it here. We don't do that by ceding the power.

Interesting points. I’m a bit concerned about this ‘mission creep’ - concerned that you might have been reading Boris Johnson kipper tales. Care to share your concerns. As ever, one example will do. 

[Non-Believer]

Kippers have as much right to pillows as the rest of us...

[RIchard Britten]

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/07/19/weve-been-misled-brexit-party-mp-hopefuls-left-out-in-the-cold/?fbclid=IwAR2sDkxmi6FBe-9oLsvWFAPjEQRFcGhtoZj_pPuCO9VL46C7ULKTqO3-ubo

"In recent weeks, Byline Times has been following the Brexit Party’s Apprentice-like search for parliamentary talent. 

Back in May, Nigel Farage’s group announced that it would be seeking applications from rank-and-file Brexiters who want to run for Parliament. The online process took just 10 minutes to complete before applicants were met with a demand for a £100 non-refundable payment. 

By June, the party was claiming that 3,000 people had signed up and that 200 wannabe MPs had already been vetted. 

Earlier this month, Farage paraded his first 100 candidates at the NEC in Birmingham. But, of the small number identifiable, it was unlikely that any had landed the gig through the online process. All of those present were chums, associates and business acquaintances of people already in the party."

[P.K.]

It would appear that the lies, like "the easiest trade deals in history" - are starting to come up against reality. That's the reality the brexiteers like to label "Project Fear" in the hope it will give the impression it's not true....

Ministers admit almost 65 existing trade deals with non-EU countries are ‘at risk because of Brexit’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trade-deals-lost-eu-liam-fox-caroline-lucas-theresa-may-latest-a8201596.html

[woolley]

3 hours ago, RIchard Britten said:

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/07/19/weve-been-misled-brexit-party-mp-hopefuls-left-out-in-the-cold/?fbclid=IwAR2sDkxmi6FBe-9oLsvWFAPjEQRFcGhtoZj_pPuCO9VL46C7ULKTqO3-ubo

"In recent weeks, Byline Times has been following the Brexit Party’s Apprentice-like search for parliamentary talent. 

Back in May, Nigel Farage’s group announced that it would be seeking applications from rank-and-file Brexiters who want to run for Parliament. The online process took just 10 minutes to complete before applicants were met with a demand for a £100 non-refundable payment. 

By June, the party was claiming that 3,000 people had signed up and that 200 wannabe MPs had already been vetted. 

Earlier this month, Farage paraded his first 100 candidates at the NEC in Birmingham. But, of the small number identifiable, it was unlikely that any had landed the gig through the online process. All of those present were chums, associates and business acquaintances of people already in the party."

Cronyism in politics, eh? Who knew? Politics does cost money, and then there is Nigel to keep in the manner to which he has become accustomed. No doubt we will hear of the adventures or misadventures of the prospective candidates who divvied up in due course. If we accept that there are indeed 100 cronies for the best chance seats, it still leaves plenty to go at. I suppose if you were to get through and were put up in one of those Corbyn hating Labour Leave strongholds, £100 against the prospect of an MP's salary and expense account is a decent punt.