[Politics] Brexit

[JC Footy Genius]

Wrong again. I don't view it as derogatory - I automatically assumed you're just using it as some form of attempted smear as you do with everything else when it comes to The Labour Party.

Just trying to accurately classify your political leanings. So to recap you hate and loathe the Tories, want them out asap and want JC in asap would love to see the government disintergrate, red v blue etc Which will come as no surprise to anyone who has read your posts (apart from possibly dave).

 

[daveinprague]

Just trying to accurately classify your political leanings. So to recap you hate and loathe the Tories, want them out asap and want JC in asap would love to see the government disintergrate, red v blue etc Which will come as no surprise to anyone who has read your posts (apart from possibly dave).

 

[ManOfSussex]

Just trying to accurately classify your political leanings. So to recap you hate and loathe the Tories, want them out asap and want JC in asap would love to see the government disintergrate, red v blue etc Which will come as no surprise to anyone who has read your posts (apart from possibly dave).

Wrong again - I don't want Jeremy Corbyn in as soon as possible. The Tories are the ones boxed in on Brexit - all the others parties positions can be as fluid as anything for now. Having said that I know of Tories who want May out as soon as possible who voted leave who would risk The Government collapsing, as they think The Tories would win the next election anyway - it's red v blue through overall circumstances of where we are politically, the polls show that, though it's not just all about your ideological dream of Brexit - there are many other pressing matters in this country.

I'd vote Lib Dem if I lived in Eastbourne or Lewes for example. I voted Lib Dem at the last European election. What do you smear The Lib Dems as again? 'Extremist Loons' isn't it?

 

[Mental Lental]

I can't say I'm surprised at the number of irrelevant posts regarding Corbyn and Labour on this thread recently.

It seems no coincidence that Breximpletons seem to have a distinct inability to separate the complexities of the Brexit situation with their deeply ingrained political biases.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Wrong again - I don't want Jeremy Corbyn in as soon as possible. The Tories are the ones boxed in on Brexit - all the others parties positions can be as fluid as anything for now. Having said that I know of Tories who want May out as soon as possible who voted leave who would risk The Government collapsing, as they think The Tories would win the next election anyway - it's red v blue through overall circumstances of where we are politically, the polls show that, though it's not just all about your ideological dream of Brexit - there are many other pressing matters in this country.

I'd vote Lib Dem if I lived in Eastbourne or Lewes for example. I voted Lib Dem at the last European election. What do you smear The Lib Dems as again? 'Extremist Loons' isn't it?

Has someone hijacked the MoS account? Yes there are a myriad of positions and strange bed fellows my point was only ever it's mainly about a straight red v blue argument for some people which seemed a fairly non controversial point or so I thought.

Can it be a smear if it's true?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I can't say I'm surprised at the number of irrelevant posts regarding Corbyn and Labour on this thread recently.

It seems no coincidence that Breximpletons seem to have a distinct inability to separate the complexities of the Brexit situation with their deeply ingrained political biases.

3/10

 

[ManOfSussex]

Has someone hijacked the MoS account? Yes there are a myriad of positions and strange bed fellows my point was only ever it's mainly about a straight red v blue argument for some people which seemed a fairly non controversial point or so I thought.

Can it be a smear if it's true?

No - Any election, or the Government falling, should come at the point of if and when The Tories go to civil war mode over deal or no deal, presumably March time onward, as that was when Peter Bone for one indicated May should walk away and John Redwood was Tweeting about having a year before March 2019 to source alternative food supplies or something as well the other day. I wouldn't wish between now and then on anyone other than The Tories. Labour need to work with other parties and the sane element of The Conservative party such as Grieve and Clarke etc until then. In my opinion.

A smear if it's true? I'd call the Liberal Democrats many things, but I wouldn't refer to them as 'extremist loons', but whatever make you feel better.

 

[Baldseagull]

That's the Rand Corporation although sponsored by the U.S. government is predominantly affiliated to the Democrats. Which we all know Obama and the Clintons wanted Britain to remain in the EU. You know democrats. So let's just say it's another attempt at project fear.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/03/think-tank-employees-tend-to-support-democrats

That link says this "These institutions hire leading academics, as well as former diplomats, policymakers, and military personnel to study and formulate solutions to pressing national and global policy problems. "
It seems they hire people on the basis of knowing what they are talking about, I think this might be why they generally prefer Democrat policy and think Brexit is a bad idea, I doubt that it is just that they were just born into a Democrat family, and so go along with whatever the Democrat party says.

 

[Baldseagull]

The second main story on BBC News all day has been a report by an American think tank warning that “nearly all” the possible outcomes of Brexit will see the UK worse off than staying in the EU. Of course the Rand Corporation, which published the report, is funded by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Union Research Executive Agency. Not that the Beeb thought to mention that…

Guido has read the Rand report so you don’t have to. It is filled with flaws and biases – for example it says the Brexit bill will be up to €75 billion (fact check: it’s between £35-39 billion). The report looks at many types of supposed models for Brexit, but it bizarrely doesn’t assess the outcome of the UK signing trade deals with multiple countries, one of the main reasons for leaving: “We did not explore the… model in which the UK would complete FTAs with numerous countries”. This is the government’s plan, why is it not included in the study?

Then there is the model Rand say they have used to determine their figures – it is the same as the infamous Treasury model that wrongly predicted a calamitous aftermath of a Leave vote. Debunked…

The report admits that “research for this study was completed as of 15 September 2017”. Eh? Quite a lot has happened since September – not least talks moving onto phase 2 when just a few months ago Remainers said they were doomed. Maybe if the study was up to date they’d have got the Brexit bill right…

And remember how the Beeb noted that “nearly all” of the outcomes were dire? What their coverage didn’t mention today is Rand’s finding that if the UK agrees FTAs with both the EU and the US we would see double the amount of GDP growth than any one of the so-called soft Brexit scenarios. Odd that this finding was missing from the BBC’s own coverage…

UPDATE: And the Rand report finds almost no difference in terms of GDP impact between the EEA minus or CETA plus models.

https://order-order.com/2017/12/12/bbc-hypes-gloomy-brexit-report-by-eu-funded-think-tank/

I find a good test for any think tank or economists predictive powers is finding out what they had to say about the Uk joining the Euro, did they predict the 2008 crash, did they predict any economic crash/downturn .... swallowing and parrotting any data that suits a pre concieved position is easier obviously.

I thought the positive finding was not for two trade deals, one with the US and one with the EU, but for one trade deal between all three, a trilateral agreement?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

No - Any election, or the Government falling, should come at the point of if and when The Tories go to civil war mode over deal or no deal, presumably March time onward, as that was when Peter Bone for one indicated May should walk away and John Redwood was Tweeting about having a year before March 2019 to source alternative food supplies or something too the other day. Labour need to work with other parties and the sane element of The Conservative party such as Grieve and Clarke etc until then. In my opinion.

A smear if it's true? I'd call the Liberal Democrats many things, but I wouldn't refer to them as 'extremist loons', but whatever make you feel better.

I still think self-preservation will outway the simmering tensions over Brexit if there's one thing the Tories are good at it's putting themselves first. Even if it does turn nasty I can't see enough Tories voting to facilitate a possible/likely Corbyn government.

As I have said before extremist loons on the specfic issue of not accepting the referendum result ,this would apply to any party including the Tories if they had gone down that road. Utter madness and extremely dangerous disregarding such a vote.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I still think self-preservation will outway the simmering tensions over Brexit if there's one thing the Tories are good at it's putting themselves first. Even if it does turn nasty I can't see enough Tories voting to facilitate a possible/likely Corbyn government.

Well, you speak from the horses mouth when it comes to The Tories, so who are any of us to disagree with you.

Brexit is utter madness and extremely dangerous

Corrected for you. Goodnight.

 

[CheeseRolls]

The second main story on BBC News all day has been a report by an American think tank warning that “nearly all” the possible outcomes of Brexit will see the UK worse off than staying in the EU. Of course the Rand Corporation, which published the report, is funded by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Union Research Executive Agency. Not that the Beeb thought to mention that…

Guido has read the Rand report so you don’t have to. It is filled with flaws and biases – for example it says the Brexit bill will be up to €75 billion (fact check: it’s between £35-39 billion). The report looks at many types of supposed models for Brexit, but it bizarrely doesn’t assess the outcome of the UK signing trade deals with multiple countries, one of the main reasons for leaving: “We did not explore the… model in which the UK would complete FTAs with numerous countries”. This is the government’s plan, why is it not included in the study?

Then there is the model Rand say they have used to determine their figures – it is the same as the infamous Treasury model that wrongly predicted a calamitous aftermath of a Leave vote. Debunked…

The report admits that “research for this study was completed as of 15 September 2017”. Eh? Quite a lot has happened since September – not least talks moving onto phase 2 when just a few months ago Remainers said they were doomed. Maybe if the study was up to date they’d have got the Brexit bill right…

And remember how the Beeb noted that “nearly all” of the outcomes were dire? What their coverage didn’t mention today is Rand’s finding that if the UK agrees FTAs with both the EU and the US we would see double the amount of GDP growth than any one of the so-called soft Brexit scenarios. Odd that this finding was missing from the BBC’s own coverage…

UPDATE: And the Rand report finds almost no difference in terms of GDP impact between the EEA minus or CETA plus models.

https://order-order.com/2017/12/12/bbc-hypes-gloomy-brexit-report-by-eu-funded-think-tank/

I find a good test for any think tank or economists predictive powers is finding out what they had to say about the Uk joining the Euro, did they predict the 2008 crash, did they predict any economic crash/downturn .... swallowing and parrotting any data that suits a pre concieved position is easier obviously.

The cost of Brexit and the compensation to be agreed with the EU are not the same thing. (Fact check.) Double feels about right. We have at least 5 years of legislative, trade, customs and standards negotiations and changes to work through. The further we settle away from. EU alignment the higher the bill.

Sent from my KFDOWI using Tapatalk

 

[Baldseagull]

The second main story on BBC News all day has been a report by an American think tank warning that “nearly all” the possible outcomes of Brexit will see the UK worse off than staying in the EU. Of course the Rand Corporation, which published the report, is funded by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Union Research Executive Agency. Not that the Beeb thought to mention that…

Guido has read the Rand report so you don’t have to. It is filled with flaws and biases – for example it says the Brexit bill will be up to €75 billion (fact check: it’s between £35-39 billion). The report looks at many types of supposed models for Brexit, but it bizarrely doesn’t assess the outcome of the UK signing trade deals with multiple countries, one of the main reasons for leaving: “We did not explore the… model in which the UK would complete FTAs with numerous countries”. This is the government’s plan, why is it not included in the study?

Then there is the model Rand say they have used to determine their figures – it is the same as the infamous Treasury model that wrongly predicted a calamitous aftermath of a Leave vote. Debunked…

The report admits that “research for this study was completed as of 15 September 2017”. Eh? Quite a lot has happened since September – not least talks moving onto phase 2 when just a few months ago Remainers said they were doomed. Maybe if the study was up to date they’d have got the Brexit bill right…

And remember how the Beeb noted that “nearly all” of the outcomes were dire? What their coverage didn’t mention today is Rand’s finding that if the UK agrees FTAs with both the EU and the US we would see double the amount of GDP growth than any one of the so-called soft Brexit scenarios. Odd that this finding was missing from the BBC’s own coverage…

UPDATE: And the Rand report finds almost no difference in terms of GDP impact between the EEA minus or CETA plus models.

https://order-order.com/2017/12/12/bbc-hypes-gloomy-brexit-report-by-eu-funded-think-tank/

I find a good test for any think tank or economists predictive powers is finding out what they had to say about the Uk joining the Euro, did they predict the 2008 crash, did they predict any economic crash/downturn .... swallowing and parrotting any data that suits a pre concieved position is easier obviously.

Regarding the funding of Rand, the report in question was funded by Rand Venture, a pot of money that is from philanthropic donation and returns on an endowment, not at all by the EU, in any way. Rand do list the EU in various forms amongst its clients and grantors, as they do the UK government in various departments, perhaps Davis could ask them for an impact assessment. Far and away the largest financial input is from various departments of US government, more than 70%. The report was not commissioned by any client, it was decided by RAND that this was a worthwhile study to do.

I dont know why your source is asking why they didn't include a multiple FTA model, the explanation came directly after the statement they manged to quote, here it is :

"We did not explore the ‘Singapore of the Atlantic’ model, in which the UK would complete FTAs
with numerous countries. Of these potential agreements, an FTA with the United States would
be by far the most productive, but analysis of a UK–US FTA indicates the relative value of having
a series of other FTAs as well. Depending on the countries selected for trade deals, it would take
many FTAs to create a set of free trade partners that had the same size economy as that of the
United States. Furthermore, negotiating numerous FTAs would be challenging and extremely
time-consuming, especially for a country – the UK – that has not had an independent trade policy
for more than 40 years and therefore has little experience negotiating trade deals. Finally, each
FTA would have its own set of rules, adding complexity to businesses conducting international
trade. Therefore, signing many FTAs, but not an FTA with the United States, would not have as
large an economic effect as an FTA with the United States. In this way, the results of modelling
an FTA with the United States come close to modelling an upper bound of the 'Singapore of the
Atlantic Scenario' if the UK were to have no deal with the EU27 "

Basically they disregarded it as it would not be possible to achieve, certainly not in the ten year time frame. The USA has set up FTA's with 20 nations since 1985. Some of these have taken 5 or 6 years to negotiate, some have taken 5 years to come into force, after negotiations were concluded, and take 5 years or more of being in force before the full effects are implemented.

The model used is indeed the same as that used by the Treasury, the model is not "debunked" though, the Treasury applied the model to one scenario and set the time frame as immediate. This study applies the model to 8 scenarios and sets the time frame over ten years.

Not a lot has happened since September, we are still negotiating, we still do not know for sure how hard or soft Brexit will be.

Rand had a trilateral deal UK/US/EU as the best scenario, but a very unlikely one to happen, a bilateral is tough enough with either one.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The second main story on BBC News all day has been a report by an American think tank warning that “nearly all” the possible outcomes of Brexit will see the UK worse off than staying in the EU. Of course the Rand Corporation, which published the report, is funded by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Union Research Executive Agency. Not that the Beeb thought to mention that…

Guido has read the Rand report so you don’t have to. It is filled with flaws and biases – for example it says the Brexit bill will be up to €75 billion (fact check: it’s between £35-39 billion). The report looks at many types of supposed models for Brexit, but it bizarrely doesn’t assess the outcome of the UK signing trade deals with multiple countries, one of the main reasons for leaving: “We did not explore the… model in which the UK would complete FTAs with numerous countries”. This is the government’s plan, why is it not included in the study?

Then there is the model Rand say they have used to determine their figures – it is the same as the infamous Treasury model that wrongly predicted a calamitous aftermath of a Leave vote. Debunked…

The report admits that “research for this study was completed as of 15 September 2017”. Eh? Quite a lot has happened since September – not least talks moving onto phase 2 when just a few months ago Remainers said they were doomed. Maybe if the study was up to date they’d have got the Brexit bill right…

And remember how the Beeb noted that “nearly all” of the outcomes were dire? What their coverage didn’t mention today is Rand’s finding that if the UK agrees FTAs with both the EU and the US we would see double the amount of GDP growth than any one of the so-called soft Brexit scenarios. Odd that this finding was missing from the BBC’s own coverage…

UPDATE: And the Rand report finds almost no difference in terms of GDP impact between the EEA minus or CETA plus models.

https://order-order.com/2017/12/12/bbc-hypes-gloomy-brexit-report-by-eu-funded-think-tank/

I find a good test for any think tank or economists predictive powers is finding out what they had to say about the Uk joining the Euro, did they predict the 2008 crash, did they predict any economic crash/downturn .... swallowing and parrotting any data that suits a pre concieved position is easier obviously.

The RAND group publish papers and engage in peer-review. Judging from what you have written, I don’t think you fully understand what either of these terms mean in the context of academic research.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

3/10

I must admit that I do quite admire a man who fights his corner with such energy. But, goodness me, what's with the 'Bringer of TRUTH' thing? Is it ironic? This is the sort of thing that nutters used to have on their sandwich boards. Do yourself a favour and get rid. Honestly, it won't make you any less credible.

 

[Baldseagull]

I wanted to add, the Guido post JC posted, rubbishes the Rand report, but wants to keep the part that has the EEA minus and Ceta plus options as having equal economic impact.

 

[Baldseagull]

I still think self-preservation will outway the simmering tensions over Brexit if there's one thing the Tories are good at it's putting themselves first. Even if it does turn nasty I can't see enough Tories voting to facilitate a possible/likely Corbyn government.

As I have said before extremist loons on the specfic issue of not accepting the referendum result ,this would apply to any party including the Tories if they had gone down that road. Utter madness and extremely dangerous disregarding such a vote.

I don't think the Lib Dems have said they do not accept the referendum result, they have not been asking for a recount or for the result to be rejected. What they have said is they would like the country to change its mind, and to give them the opportunity to do so.
I think if someone attempts self harm, you get them some help for the things that are leading them to do that, half the Tories are just trying to blunt the knife a bit, the other half are shouting about the health benefits of bloodletting.

 

[Berty23]

I still don't understand what could be more democratic than having a vote in the final deal once we know what it is. If leaving is a good idea then they will win by more. If it becomes clear it is a bad idea then the public might like to avoid shouting themselves in the foot. We elect governments based on a manifesto and if we don't like how they do it then we vote them out. We voted leave on guesses and promises from both sides so why not then have another vote to decide once more facts are known?

That would stop all arguments wouldn't it?

1. Accept deal
2. No deal but leave
3. Cancel article 50.

If one doesn't get 50.01% then second preference.

Simple.

 

[daveinprague]

The very thought of any 2nd vote sends Brextremists apoplectic. Dont be cruel.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The settled status is back in the news. I find it bizarre that the UK has never asked people to register that they are living in the UK. How many other countries is this the case? Is this common?