Nope. Climate scientists have no back information on what happens when the temperature rises by 0.5C for the next ten years from what it currently is in Baffin Island. But they do know what happens when ice melts elsewhere and how water flows are affected elsewhere and on and on. Repeat 10,000 times for 10,000 different areas of the world. Amalgamate and you have an estimate for the future. So they estimate what will happen in the future and you buy low-carbon electricity. If we go for Brexageddon Max (better than "Crash Brexit"?) then we'll go onto WTO terms. Under those, the EU will, under WTO rules, either impose their current tariff on vehicle imports from the UK or it will have to remove tariffs for all imports into the EU of vehicles from every country in the world with whom they have no FTA. It's a pretty slam dunk bet (given how protectionist you complain the EU is) that they'll go for the former. So you can predict, with a certain level of certainty that there'll be x% tariffs on cars. Economists know what happens when tariffs of x% are put on cars from places where it's happened. Do you disagree with that assessment of vehicle trade? Fine. Revise the model to what you think will happen. Repeat that 10,000 times on 10,000 other market sectors or products and you have a reasonable view of what will happen to the economy as a whole. Maybe individual items will be wrong but the overall number will be a reasonable estimate of what's likely to happen. (That also explains why the estimates have error ranges - to take into account the fact that they are estimates). And your response this time is "It's pure speculation presented as facts". Good. Vin PS I know this is boring but unfortunately, the Brexit bunch like to sweep details under the carpet rather than dealing with them - and the devil's in the tedious details of how WTO actually works rather than in the fantasies of the ERG. Sorry. I'll stop now.
They have worked these things out from what they know has happened already. You have agreed here. They are using past fact to create a trend. I have no problem believing the trend they show here. They have no past information for Brexit. It is not the same thing. They are speculating on the unknown with no past facts to base their speculation on. So you agree with me here and yes I agree with you. they know what the EU tariffs for outside EU are. Which only happen if there is no deal, and if there is a deal we move to transition where things stay the same and try and bang out an FTA which hopefully (although probably not entirely) will remove all or some tariffs. No answer on how these "forecasts" can put the actual tariffs/schedules the UK has submitted to the WTO will be? Any countermeasures there will be? All these forecasts are assuming that tariffs will be the WTO maximums, like for like with the EU (as retaliatory) and that all businesses will still source from the EU. They do not account for the UK reducing or zeroing tariffs. They do not take into account any government intervention. They do not take into account that a company might get their car parts made in India or China (to EU regulations) with a government waiving tariffs on car parts and thus reducing costs over getting them made in Portugal or Bulgaria. The only true part they have is the EU charging a tariff on the car being exported to the EU and assume that everything before remains the same as now. We both know that will not be correct. The only "fact" in there is the EU tariff for exports from us is already known. Everything before is an assumption based on everything staying the same as it is now. ---------------------------------------------------- I enjoy the discussion with you Vin and I do respect your opinion, but we aren't going to convince each other on these things. Nothing to do with religious beliefs or blindness. We just have very different opinions. Entrenched, quite possibly, like they keep saying on the TV. Maybe to you I am entrenched whereas you are just being sensible and open minded, however that is of course the nature of disagreement where "we" always think we are the sensible one and the other is stark raving bonkers....or stubborn.......or misinformed....or blinded by their own passion etc. ------------------------------------------------------ See if you can work this one out. It baffles me. We say to the EU we need them to alter the legally binding text in the WA. They say they can't change anything in the WA but they can provide paragraphs of reassurances. Now the media has recently started to use the term "politically binding." So tonight the TV media and those commentariat who tend to be on the EU side say "it isn't legally binding BUT it is politically binding so while it couldn't legally be enforced it would be impossible not to comply politically." So for me as Joe Public it is baffling why, if politically binding makes it impossible not to comply, they can;t make it legally binding..........unless they are just saying it is politically impossible when it isn't. i.e. it is a "Trust me" and not worth the paper it is printed on.
But the people have spoken..... and you missed my absolute favourite (very blue ink)... “A significant majority”
Morning, mate. Yes, but I could have written a thesis on the absurdities of the process. But you're right, they are phrases that make my teeth curl, if you'll allow me to mix my metaphors. Time for a strong and stable government. You never seem to find one when you want one.
I see that I quoted Imps views on the economy without comment. This can either be a) it was a cock up caused by gin drinking or b) a conspiracy to drip feed Imps' view until we all agree with him. Obviously, in the current climate the answer is c) no-one knows.
The truth is which ever way you voted the whole thing was going to be one mighty cock up. From a lot of the posts on the subject here I am beginning to think different questions needed to be asked at the referendum. The question was as I see it was remain or stay.......the people voted to leave. I am convinced there is not one of us on here that seriously thought the leave vote would win. All major parties were for remain. Now the people in power are watering down what was actually agreed by trying still to stay in but with different rules and very little say if any in them. (I am not decrying in any way the people that say they want another vote that is a separate argument) A general Election now with Labour winning really would be a disaster for this country. Corbyn just is not the person to lead this country he would be worse than May. (A lot of neutrals have agreed with this statement if there is such a thing) All I can say is no matter what happens now we are all in the ****...either because we have wasted two years when we could have been working on other things (although some have) or we should have had another vote (which may cause even worse problems Ignoring the first vote etc) Or the politicians actually go for the Brexit deal.......Either way we are cooked and a laughing stock............
I’ve enjoyed reading the back and forth here as well, fair play guys. Basically though Imp, you have just agreed that brexit is a huge gamble? You’re willing to risk potentially thousands of people’s jobs and livelihoods? For what gain? This is my biggest issue. It comes down to Risk v Reward. In my eyes, the reward that Brexiteers are offering is no where near worth the risk (or the time wasted by politicians arguing over Brexit - which could be utilised so much more usefully)
Personally, I think Parliament should decide either agree on May´s deal, or if rejected the UK stays in. People voted for an agreed exit. May has got one, but her own side (Mogg, Johnson et al) have let her down and are the obstructions to famed and much abused phrase, "the will of the people." What could happen if May´s deal is rejected, is that she extends Article 50, calls a General Election and resigns for someone else to pick up the baton.
I think the deal will be rejected.........God help us if Corbyn is chosen to get us through this........is all I can say........I'm not particularly fond of Mays deal to be honest but I suppose it is a bit of a compromise perhaps.
Millions of people voted leave based on either minimal information, or downright untruths. More than 2 years later, we still don`t know what the implications of this embarrassing shambles are to our economy and essential services. Remainer May is still advocating continuing into the abyss. I`m biased becaused I`m Scottish, and like the majority of my compatriots, we voted remain - but I can`t see any reasoned logic for not having another referendum. The vote will go the other way (the bookies say so!) - that is the will of the people. That is democracy.
Beddy, you have made IMO a couple of important points here. The first is that I disagree. If there had been a 2% swing and we had stayed, then nothing would have changed. We would have carried on as we were, growing and thriving in the world's second largest economy, with freedom of movement between the member states and already agreed trading agreements in place. We had a huge voice in the EU, even now if we change our mind we won't be listened to. Yes and no. A simple leave/remain would have been fine. IF we knew the facts. Maybe a better plan would be to ask if we should remain or leave and the outcome is then debated in parliament and a plan drawn up. Only after the plan do we get to vote again. That way the people KNOW what they are voting for. I do think though that the public shouldn't be voting on important things like this anyway - we elect MPs for this. Those of you that have a dog, do you go around barking yourself? They did indeed (see my bit above). When we vote normally that is our feeling at the time. Over 2 years later things have changed. Things evolve. Maybe we should have asked the EU if they want us to remain? Maybe they would realise at the time they needed us and would make some of the concessions we will get with leaving? It is too late now.
Article 50 can’t be extended, only cancelled. This isn’t the same as cancelling Brexit, although it could easily turn into it. What it would do is give time for a new withdrawal deal under a different government to be negotiated, free from May’s red lines which boxed her into a corner. When the new deal has been agreed on all sides in Parliament, then a second referendum could be held, with the public having full knowledge of the consequences of leaving. Assuming there is still a majority to leave, then Article 50 can be invoked again and the transition period starts immediately. Personally I don’t think any deal can be as good as staying in, and I’m confident that this will eventually be realised by the British public.
Quite a bit of a compromise but as often happens in such outcomes, no-one is really happy. What is required is a consensus around which people are agreed on prepared to move forward with. At present that is not likely, there’s too much personal/party ambition chasing going on. A so called People’s Vote will not bring consensus in my view, just more (and worse than) of what we are experiencing now. The MP’s have to work this out, that’s what they’re paid to do and we should tell them to cease this nonsense and talk with each other until some common sense eventually arrives!! They should not be encouraged in any way to promote a second referendum, they must take the full responsibility of this whole mess and get on with solving this between them. It is possible.
We seem to have a new project fear - Corbyn might get in. Well, he might, but the media will brief against him big-style. Even if he does, I can't see him lasting 6 months. All this talk about the Tory division. Man, the Labour Party are somewhere else. We desperately need the sane voices in the Labour Party to emerge. I know they are there - I happen to be served by an excellent Labour MP for example - but Momentum's purity of thought campaign is dominant right now. I think there is more chance of Chester City winning the Champions League than Corbyn becoming PM! But I've been wrong before .......
Who started "The people have spoken?" It was actually "The British people have spoken." answers on a postcard!
It's not quite so simple. The ruling was quite clear that the withdrawal must be "in good faith". Trying unilaterally to revoke A50 with even a suggestion that we'll renegotiate then restart the process is not possible as it will not be "in good faith". A50 can, however, be extended by unanimous agreement amongst EU governments and it's already been made clear that the various goverments would consider a delay for another referendum acceptable but an extension just for more negotiations unacceptable. The best resources for keeping in touch with the legalities of Brexit are to follow Steve Bullock (@guitarmoog on Twitter) or to listen to him on his excellent podcast, Cake Watch. He's a former member of the UK EU negotiation team and knows the law backwards. That's not to suggest that his podcast is either dry or unbiased. Because he understands the intricacies of trade law and how impossible the UK's position is, he's quite despairingly funny about what's going on. Worth a listen, though it does mean that listening to No Deal ERG MPs on the Today programme is always punctuated by my strangled "But that's not bloody possible, you utter cretin..." and you realise with shock that you know more about international law than the Brexageddon branch of politics. Vin
