The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[Murph7355]

///ajd said:

...
Now, well, we'll have to see what we've gambled away. The message from the EU about whether our deal with them will be "better" or "worse" seems obvious.

Your stuck record is as bad as Merkel's.

Define "worse" from an EU perspective please?

Anything that is not "more EU" is "worse" in their eyes. And quite the opposite from the majority of ours.

So all is good. They keep their "better" "more EU", we get our "worse" "less EU". Everyone's happy apart from one or two on PH and Tony Blair who just saw his gravy train leave without him.

Now that's out of the way, let's agree our departure payment, agree how we will trade and move on.

[Tryke3]

Murph7355 said:

Your stuck record is as bad as Merkel's.

Define "worse" from an EU perspective please?

Anything that is not "more EU" is "worse" in their eyes. And quite the opposite from the majority of ours.

So all is good. They keep their "better" "more EU", we get our "worse" "less EU". Everyone's happy apart from one or two on PH and Tony Blair who just saw his gravy train leave without him.

Now that's out of the way, let's agree our departure payment, agree how we will trade and move on.

Don't get the TB gravy train, but I guess siundbites is how this country is ruled

[B'stard Child]

Tryke3 said:

Murph7355 said:

Your stuck record is as bad as Merkel's.

Define "worse" from an EU perspective please?

Anything that is not "more EU" is "worse" in their eyes. And quite the opposite from the majority of ours.

So all is good. They keep their "better" "more EU", we get our "worse" "less EU". Everyone's happy apart from one or two on PH and Tony Blair who just saw his gravy train leave without him.

Now that's out of the way, let's agree our departure payment, agree how we will trade and move on.

Don't get the TB gravy train, but I guess siundbites is how this country is ruled

Does this help

[Digga]

Tryke3 said:

Collateral damage would not be equal. Once we stop spending, we will be fked, don't worry about the details, let's just take the jump already

Massively, gruntingly simple assessment of it.

The truth is, despite leaving the EU, the UK will continue to be European, whether the UK or the EU likes it or not. The complex web of multi-national business makes the efficacy, and therefore also the likelihood of a scorched earth policy (on either side) slim.

[Tryke3]

B'stard Child said:

Does this help

Well no, not really

[Jockman]

Tryke3 said:

Murph7355 said:

Your stuck record is as bad as Merkel's.

Define "worse" from an EU perspective please?

Anything that is not "more EU" is "worse" in their eyes. And quite the opposite from the majority of ours.

So all is good. They keep their "better" "more EU", we get our "worse" "less EU". Everyone's happy apart from one or two on PH and Tony Blair who just saw his gravy train leave without him.

Now that's out of the way, let's agree our departure payment, agree how we will trade and move on.

Don't get the TB gravy train, but I guess siundbites is how this country is ruled

If that's the only thing you can critique from the post I assume you agree with the rest?

[Digga]

Tryke3 said:

Well no, not really

Networks.

Blair may not yet be a current beneficiary of the EU, but he has allies and contacts who are. He may yet desire a role within it. It is part of the big government cronyism he and his like are wedded to. A turkey will seldom vote for Christmas, even if, in their hear or conscience, they know it is the right thing.

[Tryke3]

Digga said:

Massively, gruntingly simple assessment of it.

The truth is, despite leaving the EU, the UK will continue to be European, whether the UK or the EU likes it or not. The complex web of multi-national business makes the efficacy, and therefore also the likelihood of a scorched earth policy (on either side) slim.

I'm not being trying to simply anything, find writing essays on the internet extremely boring and a waste. Once we leave the EU the EU will not want us to be European, regardless of what we hope for

[s2art]

Tryke3 said:

I'm not being trying to simply anything, find writing essays on the internet extremely boring and a waste. Once we leave the EU the EU will not want us to be European, regardless of what we hope for

That makes no sense whatsoever. The UK is part of Europe, the EU dont get to determine that.

[Digga]

s2art said:

Tryke3 said:

I'm not being trying to simply anything, find writing essays on the internet extremely boring and a waste. Once we leave the EU the EU will not want us to be European, regardless of what we hope for

That makes no sense whatsoever. The UK is part of Europe, the EU dont get to determine that.

That whole post is colossally dumb.

I was being polite before, but I'm not being dragged down to such a facile level of discussion.

[powerstroke]

Tryke3 said:

I'm not being trying to simply anything, find writing essays on the internet extremely boring and a waste. Once we leave the EU the EU will not want us to be European, regardless of what we hope for

Great so the EU will be sending a fleet of tugs to tow us out into the mid atlantic ???
THE EU ISN'T EUROPE IT'S just a load of pen pushing socilist tossers , Europe is a place , peoples and history...

[don'tbesilly]

Tryke3 said:

Digga said:

Massively, gruntingly simple assessment of it.

The truth is, despite leaving the EU, the UK will continue to be European, whether the UK or the EU likes it or not. The complex web of multi-national business makes the efficacy, and therefore also the likelihood of a scorched earth policy (on either side) slim.

I'm not being trying to simply anything, find writing essays on the internet extremely boring and a waste. Once we leave the EU the EU will not want us to be European, regardless of what we hope for

.........

[alfie2244]

Tryke3 said:

I'm not being trying to simply anything, find writing essays on the internet extremely boring and a waste. Once we leave the EU the EU will not want us to be European, regardless of what we hope for

What on earth are you on?

We are European, always have been and will always be whether the EU likes it or not.....but if they are going to tow us off into the Atlantic somewhere I just hope we go a bit further south but not too near to the equator.

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

I said no such thing - the key point under discussion was the debt incurred during that period. No surprise you'd try and twist pretend I'd said something quite different.

But the fact that you don't understand that some parts of the economy e.g. the impact of a massive deficit (particularly a large structural deficit) can take a long time to be addressed, whereas other government actions etc fiscal and monetary policy can have much shorter impacts is very telling.

As before, if you want to claim that Labour managed the economy well prior to 2010 and it was in good shape when the Coalition took over in 2010 then you go for it.

To anyone with even a basic understanding of the issues you just look like a fool.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 28th April 06:37

There is a pattern here.

Sidicks says something

Someone else points out the implications of his statement - usually embarrassing for him for one reason or another

Sidicks then says:

- I didn't say that
- You don't understand x and y
- You're a fool

This is not an infrequent occurrence.

PS you were totally owned on the other thread. HTH.

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

There is a pattern here.

Sidicks says something

Someone else points out the implications of his statement - usually embarrassing for him for one reason or another

Sidicks then says:

- I didn't say that
- You don't understand x and y
- You're a fool

This is not an infrequent occurrence.

It's certainly a common occurrence, given that (unfortunately) there are plenty of people who choose to comment on things they don't understand.

Likewise, you can guarantee that you'll chip in on any thread to try and score points by supporting someone diasagreeing with me, regardless of the topic or whether what they've claimed is basically stupid.

Then you'll also try and misrepresent what has been said. And true to form...

///adj said:

PS you were totally owned on the other thread. HTH.

I've no doubt you think so, however, once and for all:

The discussion was about the amount of debt incurred when Labour were in power compared to when the Conservative / Coalition were in power.

It's without question that in 1997 Labour inherited a broadly balanced budget and promised to continue with the Tory spending plans. Hence little debt was incurred in the in first couple of years.

Conversely, when the Coalition took office there was a deficit of £160bn, including a large structural deficit.
Only an economic moron would blame that government for the increased debt incurred while they were battling with that millstone, whilst at the same time bleating about 'austerity' cuts to spending I.e. There is a considerable lag to the impact of the debt.

However, it's quite clear that other changes - e.g. tax changes have a much more immediate impact on the economy (I.e, there is a much smaller lag).

If you're claiming anything that contradicts the above then you're a bigger idiot than I previously gave you credit for.

HTH

[///ajd]

Anyway.


It seems that the EU is ramping up the rhetoric on settling up before any trade discussions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/28/reveale...

There is a risk here that the govt will be so cowed into not looking weak infront of hungry brexiteers that they'll play brinkmanship with the EU. This is actually quite dangerous.

I wonder if the govt will find ways to give the EU money without it looking like it, to ensure we don't end up in a nasty hole of our own making.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

Anyway.


It seems that the EU is ramping up the rhetoric on settling up before any trade discussions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/28/reveale...

There is a risk here that the govt will be so cowed into not looking weak infront of hungry brexiteers that they'll play brinkmanship with the EU. This is actually quite dangerous.

I wonder if the govt will find ways to give the EU money without it looking like it, to ensure we don't end up in a nasty hole of our own making.

Can you outline why you think it's dangerous?

Do you think that what ever figure the EU conjure up the UK should pay?

[alfie2244]

don'tbesilly said:

Can you outline why you think it's dangerous?

Do you think that what ever figure the EU conjure up the UK should pay?

I've about 8 Euros knocking about in a drawer if it helps.

[Likes Fast Cars]

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

There is a pattern here.

Sidicks says something

Someone else points out the implications of his statement - usually embarrassing for him for one reason or another

Sidicks then says:

- I didn't say that
- You don't understand x and y
- You're a fool

This is not an infrequent occurrence.

It's certainly a common occurrence, given that (unfortunately) there are plenty of people who choose to comment on things they don't understand.

Likewise, you can guarantee that you'll chip in on any thread to try and score points by supporting someone diasagreeing with me, regardless of the topic or whether what they've claimed is basically stupid.

Then you'll also try and misrepresent what has been said. And true to form...

///adj said:

PS you were totally owned on the other thread. HTH.

I've no doubt you think so, however, once and for all:

The discussion was about the amount of debt incurred when Labour were in power compared to when the Conservative / Coalition were in power.

It's without question that in 1997 Labour inherited a broadly balanced budget and promised to continue with the Tory spending plans. Hence little debt was incurred in the in first couple of years.

Conversely, when the Coalition took office there was a deficit of £160bn, including a large structural deficit.
Only an economic moron would blame that government for the increased debt incurred while they were battling with that millstone, whilst at the same time bleating about 'austerity' cuts to spending I.e. There is a considerable lag to the impact of the debt.

However, it's quite clear that other changes - e.g. tax changes have a much more immediate impact on the economy (I.e, there is a much smaller lag).

If you're claiming anything that contradicts the above then you're a bigger idiot than I previously gave you credit for.

HTH

One look at Greece gives a good lesson in structural debt - and going about managing it in the wrong way.
Labour started to take a similar to Greece when they were in power, thank God they didn't get as far down the track as the Greeks (which was racked up over a much longer period of time).

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

Can you outline why you think it's dangerous?

Do you think that what ever figure the EU conjure up the UK should pay?

Its dangerous as the tories are clearly taking a line to keep hardline brexiteers happy - perhaps on the basis they see that as a safe source of votes.

The problem is that looking tough infront of hardliners could be detrimental to our negotiations - indeed there is already talk from some near the frontline of not paying.

Of course I don't want to see the UK get a poor or expensive deal - one of the reasons to remain of course as the risk of having little practical choice is so significant.

The problem is we may be given little choice - we're about to see who has the stronger cards and has the upper hand. How long can Merkel keep saying "pay up or no trade talks"? I suspect longer than we can afford to keep being bolshy.

And this is the danger - faced with losing face and having to capitulate to the EU, some in this govt like Fox (he has been quiet recently, no? gagged?) would quite happily crash out in a tantrum rather than try and get a trade deal. They really don't seem to care about the likely negative consequences.

Do you really think we can expect a good deal if we don't settle what we have committed to, at least in part or on a basis the EU might consider fair?