How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 7)

[The Dangerous Elk]

Helicopter123 said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

Helicopter123 said:

You are mistaken re the Tory MPs.

Anna Soubry made her position very clear pre the 2017 election.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/not-a...

Only a right royal pain in the neck would need every post to include"a few exceptions" added to allow them to understand.

My point though is that a number of MP's did express a difference of opinion to their party manifesto on Brexit in 2017.

To therefore blast them as being somehow 'traitors' is lazy and wrong.

Their constituents knew where they stood and voted accordingly.

Yes, they did didn't they.

[JagLover]

John145 said:

The main problem now for all economists is that they are the boy who cried wolf. It will take years for them to recover the damage to their reputation caused by their blatant lying.

For the next 5 years for sure their opinion on most topics will be readily ignored by the majority of the electorate.

With the implication that any warnings they choose to give on the impact of some of Corbyn's more left wing policies will be ignored.

[ellroy]

John145 said:

The main problem now for all economists is that they are the boy who cried wolf. It will take years for them to recover the damage to their reputation caused by their blatant lying.

For the next 5 years for sure their opinion on most topics will be readily ignored by the majority of the electorate.

In fairness most people in the financial world, which i work in, view them as rune readers at best. They're very good at giving wide ranging parameters to their predictions and little that can be relied on specifically.

'Ask a hundred differing economists get a hundred different views.'

[JagLover]

don'tbesilly said:

Quick scan of Soubry's twitter feed tells me that both you and Soubry wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/10869339297545420...

Soubry: A vote for me is a vote for May & Brexit

As far as I know Clarke is the only Tory MP at the last election who campaigned with a different message to the manifesto, this is based on not having seen the material he sent out but an article by Redwood claiming this.

[SeeFive]

JagLover said:

John145 said:

The main problem now for all economists is that they are the boy who cried wolf. It will take years for them to recover the damage to their reputation caused by their blatant lying.

For the next 5 years for sure their opinion on most topics will be readily ignored by the majority of the electorate.

With the implication that any warnings they choose to give on the impact of some of Corbyn's more left wing policies will be ignored.

I guess the outcome of that is a little simpler to predict than the outcome of Brexit

[s2art]

ellroy said:

John145 said:

The main problem now for all economists is that they are the boy who cried wolf. It will take years for them to recover the damage to their reputation caused by their blatant lying.

For the next 5 years for sure their opinion on most topics will be readily ignored by the majority of the electorate.

In fairness most people in the financial world, which i work in, view them as rune readers at best. They're very good at giving wide ranging parameters to their predictions and little that can be relied on specifically.

'Ask a hundred differing economists get a hundred different views.'

Or as Dominic Cummings stated, with research to back it up, most so called experts in financial prediction do no better than a chimp throwing darts. (and many do worse than that!)s

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

It's not even close to universally accepted IMO. Brushed under the carpet by ardent Remainers is closer. The ONLY lies ever told were by Leave etc.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf was brought on by the Remain camp. Worse - it continues unabated. Hindsight wasn't required, just common sense. Do you think EU trade will be knocked by 80%? What about a 10% knock to GDP?

You might be sensible/pragmatic enough to treat these with a pinch of salt (subject to full transparency on the factors considered), but it's evident from the way some of the more challenged Remain supporters on here post that you don't appear to be a majority.

Things will not change if the methods employed do not change.

There are levels of hysteria on both sides. "The sky's falling in" from some who voted remain, "Traitorous quislings" from some who voted leave.

Neither extreme are indicative of the whole.

Personally, I don't know the numbers, but it seems on either side of the fence we're talking about how little something may drop by - rather than what it would gain by.

If I say that I get told "Ah but it wasn't about money", yet when you look on the thread where the government have scrapped the £65 settlement charge people seem put out that they've done it because £65 was a bargain, but if it wasn't about the money surely just accept the taxpayer picking up the bill as part of the cost of leaving?

There are some very mixed messages on all sides.

[tumble dryer]

Interesting position on a hard border, if No Deal - Irish Independent.

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/its-pre...

[Digga]

s2art said:

ellroy said:

John145 said:

The main problem now for all economists is that they are the boy who cried wolf. It will take years for them to recover the damage to their reputation caused by their blatant lying.

For the next 5 years for sure their opinion on most topics will be readily ignored by the majority of the electorate.

In fairness most people in the financial world, which i work in, view them as rune readers at best. They're very good at giving wide ranging parameters to their predictions and little that can be relied on specifically.

'Ask a hundred differing economists get a hundred different views.'

Or as Dominic Cummings stated, with research to back it up, most so called experts in financial prediction do no better than a chimp throwing darts. (and many do worse than that!)s

IMHO, there are things the experts do well at, but forecasting specific data is not one of them.

If you look at the anti-capitalist movement and, right now, the gilets jaune, there have been a number of leading economists who have zeroed in on the wealth and and inequality being a growing and dangerous phenomenon. The lack of sufficient checks and balances within the system to prevent this is a primary concern, with regard to the future of capitalism.

[Sway]

Helicopter123 said:

You are mistaken re the Tory MPs.

Anna Soubry made her position very clear pre the 2017 election.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/not-a...

How could she have emailed all her constituents, as presented in that link?

[Sway]

tumble dryer said:

Interesting position on a hard border, if No Deal - Irish Independent.

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/its-pre...

They're doubling down on the Russian roulette...

Or to use another analogy, fulling sticking their heads in the sand in the hope someone takes their problems away.

[don'tbesilly]

JagLover said:

don'tbesilly said:

Quick scan of Soubry's twitter feed tells me that both you and Soubry wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/10869339297545420...

Soubry: A vote for me is a vote for May & Brexit

As far as I know Clarke is the only Tory MP at the last election who campaigned with a different message to the manifesto, this is based on not having seen the material he sent out but an article by Redwood claiming this.

I don't have an issue with Clark his position on the EU is well known, and I believe he has always voted against anything to do with leaving the EU.

Soubry's pre-election campaigning locally and what she had published is available for everyone to see (as above in bold which came from her pre election campaign), to suggest she didn't stand on the Tory manifesto in her local constituency is blatant lies, as is the claim that her constituents were aware of what she stood for, how could they when her own press stated clearly the opposite.

Yet some refer to her as a 'True patriot' in the same way as MP's embroiled in the 2009 expenses scandal are also 'True patriots'.

[anonymous-user]

SpeckledJim said:

Can anyone wheel out an expert who can explain why employment booms when a depression with a known start date looms?

Sounds like a Nobel-winning piece of research, so surely someone's hard at it?

Wage growth and employment numbers always lags economy growth, in a cycle based system, which is what we live in, you will always see wages rising faster and more people on the payroll when the downturn hits because of this. It's pure lag factors in the system.

[Sway]

Still struggling to understand how she got the email addresses of her some 100k constituents in order to email them all...

Nothing on Grieve, Boles, Greening, etc.?

If I remember correctly, Clarke ensured a mail drop to every home in his constituency pointing out where he couldn't support the manifesto. Perhaps not ideal, but I feel a lot more comfortable with the assertion "they knew what they were voting for" with him.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Don't most people just vote for the party not the specific individual representing it?

[Sway]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Don't most people just vote for the party not the specific individual representing it?

Certainly that is what is believed overall. There do appear to be some outliers, as is always the case.

Which is why the manifesto is so key. Brown's erosion of their importance was in hindsight more impactful than it seemed perhaps at the time. This fracas merely embeds a mistrust of political campaigns during a GE period.

[Balmoral]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Don't most people just vote for the party not the specific individual representing it?

Yes, but she's toast whatever happens and will need to be replaced or the Tories could well lose the seat. Majority of 839 in a big leave constituency.

[JagLover]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Don't most people just vote for the party not the specific individual representing it?

With all the focus on the parties' manifestos, and with the national debates, this is true for the most part. But if Clarke ensured that every home had a letter detailing where he differed from the manifesto he is still acting honourable IMO.

What I cant stand is those like Soubry who seem to think if they tweeted some opposition (or some such) then their constituents should know where they stand.

[The Dangerous Elk]

JagLover said:

With all the focus on the parties' manifestos, and with the national debates, this is true for the most part. But if Clarke ensured that every home had a letter detailing where he differed from the manifesto he is still acting honourable IMO.

What I cant stand is those like Soubry who seem to think if they tweeted some opposition (or some such) then their constituents should know where they stand.

It is the only excuse they can come up with........

[SpeckledJim]

jsf said:

SpeckledJim said:

Can anyone wheel out an expert who can explain why employment booms when a depression with a known start date looms?

Sounds like a Nobel-winning piece of research, so surely someone's hard at it?

Wage growth and employment numbers always lags economy growth, in a cycle based system, which is what we live in, you will always see wages rising faster and more people on the payroll when the downturn hits because of this. It's pure lag factors in the system.

Granted, but this is, apparently, a very obvious depression with a defined start date of 30th March. Most depressions don't call ahead to make an appointment. Who on earth is still taking people on whilst that precious information is available to them!?

(yes, a bit facetious )