FluidFlow wrote:

The real problem about Brexit is not actually Brexit itself, that could have been a success if it would have been planned and executed properly (what would probably have taken 10-15 years overall).

The problem is, that Brexit came in combination with the Loony Toons as a government. Getting a Ferrari sounds nice, but if you get a Ferrari driven by a monkey you should probably not shout shotgun and jump in...

The reason all this is crumbling is not Brexit per se, it is the fact that the ERG and now the Tory party are riddled with subpar (and this is me being nice) politicians. Most of them are either selfish or outright on the left side of the normal distribution regarding their IQ. It was bound to fail...

The problem is with that thinking is that in this day and age you can survive without being part of a group and that premise is disproven. Even the U.S. is part of at least 5-6 different trade groups. Now it takes an enormous amount of ego/vanity to not see the obvious but have far-fetched ideas. Another thing to think, would the U.S. come to secure U.K. against a foreign adversary ? What happened in Afghanistan, the U.S. bugged out without telling the UK. Remember the U.S. stuck a deal with Taliban, did it involve the UK, not at all.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timel ... ghanistan/

And as can be seen most of the work was done when Trump was the president.

pune wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

The real problem about Brexit is not actually Brexit itself, that could have been a success if it would have been planned and executed properly (what would probably have taken 10-15 years overall).

The problem is, that Brexit came in combination with the Loony Toons as a government. Getting a Ferrari sounds nice, but if you get a Ferrari driven by a monkey you should probably not shout shotgun and jump in...

The reason all this is crumbling is not Brexit per se, it is the fact that the ERG and now the Tory party are riddled with subpar (and this is me being nice) politicians. Most of them are either selfish or outright on the left side of the normal distribution regarding their IQ. It was bound to fail...

The problem is with that thinking is that in this day and age you can survive without being part of a group and that premise is disproven. Even the U.S. is part of at least 5-6 different trade groups. Now it takes an enormous amount of ego/vanity to not see the obvious but have far-fetched ideas. Another thing to think, would the U.S. come to secure U.K. against a foreign adversary ? What happened in Afghanistan, the U.S. bugged out without telling the UK. Remember the U.S. stuck a deal with Taliban, did it involve the UK, not at all.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timel ... ghanistan/

And as can be seen most of the work was done when Trump was the president.

As I said it would have needed planning, like an actual plan on how inter-country relationships, trade, etc. would look like after leaving the EU. But there was nothing like that. Nothing was or is done. There could have been a proper bilateral agreement in place the day after leaving. It is not like there were no options. Switzerland has one, other countries have one through the EEA. In fact, many countries have agreements with the EU in place. Yes they took years to negotiate and work out. Thats why I said, it would have taken 10-15 years of competent ground work to ensure that Brexit (leaving the political union) could have been successful.
But do you expect competent work from populist screamers with below average cognitive abilities?
Thats why everything falls apart, there was no plan because no one in the ERG/Tory party was and is able to produce one.

Just in my industry marine equipment used to be covered by MED, the Marine Equipment Directive, MED approved equipment was accepted by all European classification societies, LR, BV, RINA, DNV-GL, now the UK has pulled out of MED and instigated there own new set of UK standards, it's complete BS, it will cost companies more to implement, there is no benefit to the UK at all, it will end up costing companies buying marine equipment in the UK more.

It's going to be fun trying to build a UK flagged vessel in the future with equipment which meets the new UK standards. IMO this will lead to a further reduction in the number of vessels on the UK register, further eroding the UK maritime industry.

https://www.dnv.com/services/uk-marine- ... er--220597

FluidFlow wrote:

As I said it would have needed planning, like an actual plan on how inter-country relationships, trade, etc. would look like after leaving the EU. But there was nothing like that. Nothing was or is done. There could have been a proper bilateral agreement in place the day after leaving. It is not like there were no options. Switzerland has one, other countries have one through the EEA. In fact, many countries have agreements with the EU in place. Yes they took years to negotiate and work out. Thats why I said, it would have taken 10-15 years of competent ground work to ensure that Brexit (leaving the political union) could have been successful.
But do you expect competent work from populist screamers with below average cognitive abilities?
Thats why everything falls apart, there was no plan because no one in the ERG/Tory party was and is able to produce one.

They could have planned it all they like but to no avail as the UK is only one side of the equation.

I believe that was the original intention of PM May to negotiate prior to invoking A50 the EU President at the time Jean-Claude Juncker knocked that on the head by saying ““no negotiations without notification” which gave a two-year deadline

Joining EFTA was incompatible with the reason of the vote to leave and the four freedoms of the EU. The Swiss model likewise If the intention was to reduce national sovereignty into vassalage, then there was no point in voting to leave in my book we are either fully in the organisation or totally out of the organisation.

But one thing you are right on we need someone with bold vision to take a hold of the opportunities of being free from the EU institutions for the better of the UK if that means up ending our current standards, I’m all for it. Don’t be afraid of change accept that they will not get everything right when they do accept that its not working and change policy

Is Sunak or Starmer the answer only time will tell.

pune wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

The real problem about Brexit is not actually Brexit itself, that could have been a success if it would have been planned and executed properly (what would probably have taken 10-15 years overall).

The problem is, that Brexit came in combination with the Loony Toons as a government. Getting a Ferrari sounds nice, but if you get a Ferrari driven by a monkey you should probably not shout shotgun and jump in...

The reason all this is crumbling is not Brexit per se, it is the fact that the ERG and now the Tory party are riddled with subpar (and this is me being nice) politicians. Most of them are either selfish or outright on the left side of the normal distribution regarding their IQ. It was bound to fail...

The problem is with that thinking is that in this day and age you can survive without being part of a group and that premise is disproven. Even the U.S. is part of at least 5-6 different trade groups. Now it takes an enormous amount of ego/vanity to not see the obvious but have far-fetched ideas. Another thing to think, would the U.S. come to secure U.K. against a foreign adversary ? What happened in Afghanistan, the U.S. bugged out without telling the UK. Remember the U.S. stuck a deal with Taliban, did it involve the UK, not at all.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timel ... ghanistan/

And as can be seen most of the work was done when Trump was the president.

Agree its fine to be in trade blocks as we have seen there are numerous trade agreements across the globe hence why the UK wants to join the CPTPP, but vast difference between those and the EU organisation

There's a difference between wanting to join and being a member.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA3uBIxoKMI

Saw this, what a joke. Now I understand why William Shatner said he won't be selling the star trek memorablia in the UK and he stopped. Even the celebrated author JK Rowling, she has been moving all her production of stuff to Europe as its cheaper to produce there and also sells well. And I'm sure if I ask how many brexiteer leaders have moved their shops and manufacturing assets to Europe, probably would be a long list.

Quite simply put more investment away from UK.

pune wrote:

There's a difference between wanting to join and being a member.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA3uBIxoKMI

Saw this, what a joke. Now I understand why William Shatner said he won't be selling the star trek memorablia in the UK and he stopped. Even the celebrated author JK Rowling, she has been moving all her production of stuff to Europe as its cheaper to produce there and also sells well. And I'm sure if I ask how many brexiteer leaders have moved their shops and manufacturing assets to Europe, probably would be a long list.

Quite simply put more investment away from UK.

The (small) list of major businesses that supported Brexit, were in the process of offshoring, notably Dyson, Ratcliff - he promised his new SUV would be built in the UK, of course like a true tax dodging Brexit cheerleader, he meant France.
JCB, always happy to donate to the Tories, provided Johnson with photo ops in the 2019 election, they announced a 400m new plant.
'Red Wall' area?, No, Germany!

As for inward investment the mugs who voted for Brexit, were often the ones whose areas needed it the most.
With all the news around that battery plant, one very major provider of electric vehicle batteries wanted to build a large plant in the UK, Brexit, in particular once it was clear the all the stuff they said during the Referendum to head off concerns about jobs if we left the Single Market, that is, we would stay in it, which as we saw they had no intention of doing, no chance of building it here after that.

A101 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

As I said it would have needed planning, like an actual plan on how inter-country relationships, trade, etc. would look like after leaving the EU. But there was nothing like that. Nothing was or is done. There could have been a proper bilateral agreement in place the day after leaving. It is not like there were no options. Switzerland has one, other countries have one through the EEA. In fact, many countries have agreements with the EU in place. Yes they took years to negotiate and work out. Thats why I said, it would have taken 10-15 years of competent ground work to ensure that Brexit (leaving the political union) could have been successful.
But do you expect competent work from populist screamers with below average cognitive abilities?
Thats why everything falls apart, there was no plan because no one in the ERG/Tory party was and is able to produce one.

They could have planned it all they like but to no avail as the UK is only one side of the equation.

I believe that was the original intention of PM May to negotiate prior to invoking A50 the EU President at the time Jean-Claude Juncker knocked that on the head by saying ““no negotiations without notification” which gave a two-year deadline

Joining EFTA was incompatible with the reason of the vote to leave and the four freedoms of the EU. The Swiss model likewise If the intention was to reduce national sovereignty into vassalage, then there was no point in voting to leave in my book we are either fully in the organisation or totally out of the organisation.

But one thing you are right on we need someone with bold vision to take a hold of the opportunities of being free from the EU institutions for the better of the UK if that means up ending our current standards, I’m all for it. Don’t be afraid of change accept that they will not get everything right when they do accept that its not working and change policy

Is Sunak or Starmer the answer only time will tell.

You show perfectly how stupid and short shighted the UK Brexit camp in Parlament was.

If you ask your landlord what happens if you cancel my rentalagreement at date X and he says, then you have to be out by date Y a smart Person starts looking for options before cancelling the agreement. Everything else is just stupid and could lead to homelessness.

The UK would have had a lot of time to internally prepare and decide with what vision of trade agreement to go into that 2 year period but unfortunatelly no one thought about that.

And regarding the options: I also could have written Canada, Japan or any other country (and there are dozens) that have a trade agreement with the EU. Some more and some less aligned. Pick what you have liked and started from there.

The UK did nothing, no preparation jusz plain nothing and went headless and literally with the trousers down into the 2 year negotiation period. Only solution was to either bebd over or live for the future with the genitals out for the whole world to see what a laughingstock it is.

Well and here we are now…

And by the way, it is a great life in vasselage Switzerland: 3% inflation and we can heat and eat and even do our own trade agreements and guess what: If an EU citizen has no work after 3 months we can send him home.
Our passports are also the colour we want it to be.

A101 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

As I said it would have needed planning, like an actual plan on how inter-country relationships, trade, etc. would look like after leaving the EU. But there was nothing like that. Nothing was or is done. There could have been a proper bilateral agreement in place the day after leaving. It is not like there were no options. Switzerland has one, other countries have one through the EEA. In fact, many countries have agreements with the EU in place. Yes they took years to negotiate and work out. Thats why I said, it would have taken 10-15 years of competent ground work to ensure that Brexit (leaving the political union) could have been successful.
But do you expect competent work from populist screamers with below average cognitive abilities?
Thats why everything falls apart, there was no plan because no one in the ERG/Tory party was and is able to produce one.

They could have planned it all they like but to no avail as the UK is only one side of the equation.

I believe that was the original intention of PM May to negotiate prior to invoking A50 the EU President at the time Jean-Claude Juncker knocked that on the head by saying ““no negotiations without notification” which gave a two-year deadline

Joining EFTA was incompatible with the reason of the vote to leave and the four freedoms of the EU. The Swiss model likewise If the intention was to reduce national sovereignty into vassalage, then there was no point in voting to leave in my book we are either fully in the organisation or totally out of the organisation.

But one thing you are right on we need someone with bold vision to take a hold of the opportunities of being free from the EU institutions for the better of the UK if that means up ending our current standards, I’m all for it. Don’t be afraid of change accept that they will not get everything right when they do accept that its not working and change policy

Is Sunak or Starmer the answer only time will tell.

Surely 2 years is reasonable.

How many years did they need.

FluidFlow wrote:

A101 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

As I said it would have needed planning, like an actual plan on how inter-country relationships, trade, etc. would look like after leaving the EU. But there was nothing like that. Nothing was or is done. There could have been a proper bilateral agreement in place the day after leaving. It is not like there were no options. Switzerland has one, other countries have one through the EEA. In fact, many countries have agreements with the EU in place. Yes they took years to negotiate and work out. Thats why I said, it would have taken 10-15 years of competent ground work to ensure that Brexit (leaving the political union) could have been successful.
But do you expect competent work from populist screamers with below average cognitive abilities?
Thats why everything falls apart, there was no plan because no one in the ERG/Tory party was and is able to produce one.

They could have planned it all they like but to no avail as the UK is only one side of the equation.

I believe that was the original intention of PM May to negotiate prior to invoking A50 the EU President at the time Jean-Claude Juncker knocked that on the head by saying ““no negotiations without notification” which gave a two-year deadline

Joining EFTA was incompatible with the reason of the vote to leave and the four freedoms of the EU. The Swiss model likewise If the intention was to reduce national sovereignty into vassalage, then there was no point in voting to leave in my book we are either fully in the organisation or totally out of the organisation.

But one thing you are right on we need someone with bold vision to take a hold of the opportunities of being free from the EU institutions for the better of the UK if that means up ending our current standards, I’m all for it. Don’t be afraid of change accept that they will not get everything right when they do accept that its not working and change policy

Is Sunak or Starmer the answer only time will tell.

You show perfectly how stupid and short shighted the UK Brexit camp in Parlament was.

If you ask your landlord what happens if you cancel my rentalagreement at date X and he says, then you have to be out by date Y a smart Person starts looking for options before cancelling the agreement. Everything else is just stupid and could lead to homelessness.

The UK would have had a lot of time to internally prepare and decide with what vision of trade agreement to go into that 2 year period but unfortunatelly no one thought about that.

And regarding the options: I also could have written Canada, Japan or any other country (and there are dozens) that have a trade agreement with the EU. Some more and some less aligned. Pick what you have liked and started from there.

The UK did nothing, no preparation jusz plain nothing and went headless and literally with the trousers down into the 2 year negotiation period. Only solution was to either bebd over or live for the future with the genitals out for the whole world to see what a laughingstock it is.

Well and here we are now…

And by the way, it is a great life in vasselage Switzerland: 3% inflation and we can heat and eat and even do our own trade agreements and guess what: If an EU citizen has no work after 3 months we can send him home.
Our passports are also the colour we want it to be.

ahh the belittlement comes shining through

The Cameron government did no planning as it did not expect the UK to leave, and any subsequent government had little time to prepare. The May government as she was pro remain did not believe in what Brexit stood for those are the reasons why it was such a dogs breakfast

As for inflation for the swiss the cost of living is exceptionally high for the swiss already with a vast majority crossing the border to get cheaper goods which is approx 60% higher than the euro average which are marked up by inflation in those regions (so yes indirectly the swiss are paying the same inflation rate to the rest of the euro countries) also he swiss do not rely on imports for its energy needs with roughly 60% of energy by hydro

bennett123 wrote:

A101 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

As I said it would have needed planning, like an actual plan on how inter-country relationships, trade, etc. would look like after leaving the EU. But there was nothing like that. Nothing was or is done. There could have been a proper bilateral agreement in place the day after leaving. It is not like there were no options. Switzerland has one, other countries have one through the EEA. In fact, many countries have agreements with the EU in place. Yes they took years to negotiate and work out. Thats why I said, it would have taken 10-15 years of competent ground work to ensure that Brexit (leaving the political union) could have been successful.
But do you expect competent work from populist screamers with below average cognitive abilities?
Thats why everything falls apart, there was no plan because no one in the ERG/Tory party was and is able to produce one.

They could have planned it all they like but to no avail as the UK is only one side of the equation.

I believe that was the original intention of PM May to negotiate prior to invoking A50 the EU President at the time Jean-Claude Juncker knocked that on the head by saying ““no negotiations without notification” which gave a two-year deadline

Joining EFTA was incompatible with the reason of the vote to leave and the four freedoms of the EU. The Swiss model likewise If the intention was to reduce national sovereignty into vassalage, then there was no point in voting to leave in my book we are either fully in the organisation or totally out of the organisation.

But one thing you are right on we need someone with bold vision to take a hold of the opportunities of being free from the EU institutions for the better of the UK if that means up ending our current standards, I’m all for it. Don’t be afraid of change accept that they will not get everything right when they do accept that its not working and change policy

Is Sunak or Starmer the answer only time will tell.

Surely 2 years is reasonable.

How many years did they need.

if done in parallel

Major problem came with PM May and the WA, Brussels wanted to tie up the UK with it which they did to a degree which left little time on getting a trade deal. I always thought when BJ came to power, he should have just binned the entire agreement the WA should have been just that an agreement to leave with the financial aspects nothing more then plan to trade on WTO terms until a trade agreement was in place

A101 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

A101 wrote:

They could have planned it all they like but to no avail as the UK is only one side of the equation.

I believe that was the original intention of PM May to negotiate prior to invoking A50 the EU President at the time Jean-Claude Juncker knocked that on the head by saying ““no negotiations without notification” which gave a two-year deadline

Joining EFTA was incompatible with the reason of the vote to leave and the four freedoms of the EU. The Swiss model likewise If the intention was to reduce national sovereignty into vassalage, then there was no point in voting to leave in my book we are either fully in the organisation or totally out of the organisation.

But one thing you are right on we need someone with bold vision to take a hold of the opportunities of being free from the EU institutions for the better of the UK if that means up ending our current standards, I’m all for it. Don’t be afraid of change accept that they will not get everything right when they do accept that its not working and change policy

Is Sunak or Starmer the answer only time will tell.

You show perfectly how stupid and short shighted the UK Brexit camp in Parlament was.

If you ask your landlord what happens if you cancel my rentalagreement at date X and he says, then you have to be out by date Y a smart Person starts looking for options before cancelling the agreement. Everything else is just stupid and could lead to homelessness.

The UK would have had a lot of time to internally prepare and decide with what vision of trade agreement to go into that 2 year period but unfortunatelly no one thought about that.

And regarding the options: I also could have written Canada, Japan or any other country (and there are dozens) that have a trade agreement with the EU. Some more and some less aligned. Pick what you have liked and started from there.

The UK did nothing, no preparation jusz plain nothing and went headless and literally with the trousers down into the 2 year negotiation period. Only solution was to either bebd over or live for the future with the genitals out for the whole world to see what a laughingstock it is.

Well and here we are now…

And by the way, it is a great life in vasselage Switzerland: 3% inflation and we can heat and eat and even do our own trade agreements and guess what: If an EU citizen has no work after 3 months we can send him home.
Our passports are also the colour we want it to be.

ahh the belittlement comes shining through

The Cameron government did no planning as it did not expect the UK to leave, and any subsequent government had little time to prepare. The May government as she was pro remain did not believe in what Brexit stood for those are the reasons why it was such a dogs breakfast

As for inflation for the swiss the cost of living is exceptionally high for the swiss already with a vast majority crossing the border to get cheaper goods which is approx 60% higher than the euro average which are marked up by inflation in those regions (so yes indirectly the swiss are paying the same inflation rate to the rest of the euro countries) also he swiss do not rely on imports for its energy needs with roughly 60% of energy by hydro

If you voted tory and then brexit its of your own making. Brexit was bound to fail mainly becose the forces that wanted brexit (ERG, Farage, et al) were always gonna be in the minority. If they had the balls they would have made their own party. But they knew they had no chance because their leadership is just not competent enough.

The whole thing just could not work. Not because the people did not want it but because the leadership of the movement was and still is shite and never had the balls to actually stand their ground.

And yes we gave it good but thats because (in general) we have competent politicians from left to right. I rather vote for a competent person I do not 100% agree with than someone that matches my preference more but it an idiot. And I am not alone. So yeah thats why we have it good here. Competence is still prefered over party.
And guess what? Isnt it amazing, that we can use our wealth to drive over the border and go shopping and even claim VAT back?
We have the best of both worlds. BTW thats something N.Ireland could have atm if there wouldnt be some people (DUP) throwing out their toys. Imagine being in the EU and the UK (economically) and playing both sides to the advantsge of the people?

FluidFlow wrote:

The whole thing just could not work. Not because the people did not want it but because the leadership of the movement was and still is shite and never had the balls to actually stand their ground.

That I 100% agree on PM May was trying to be the appeaser with Brussels and Johnson was fighting a hostile Parliament. was never a fan of BJ but you only get who stands the post

The other option was Corbyn which I think Johnson was the better of two evils

FluidFlow wrote:

And yes we gave it good but thats because (in general) we have competent politicians from left to right. I rather vote for a competent person I do not 100% agree with than someone that matches my preference more but it an idiot. And I am not alone. So yeah thats why we have it good here. Competence is still prefered over party.
And guess what? Isnt it amazing, that we can use our wealth to drive over the border and go shopping and even claim VAT back?
We have the best of both worlds. BTW thats something N.Ireland could have atm if there wouldnt be some people (DUP) throwing out their toys. Imagine being in the EU and the UK (economically) and playing both sides to the advantsge of the people?

That generally works as we do not vote for the PM and cabinet. I vote for my local MP who I believe to be one of the better MP in Parlaiment

it's also a pity that you have to accept EU rules and regulations for that level of integration of the SM a fine balancing act but if it works for you all the best with it good luck with it happy for you. just not for me

A101 wrote:

ahh the belittlement comes shining through

The Cameron government did no planning as it did not expect the UK to leave, and any subsequent government had little time to prepare. The May government as she was pro remain did not believe in what Brexit stood for those are the reasons why it was such a dogs breakfast

As for inflation for the swiss the cost of living is exceptionally high for the swiss already with a vast majority crossing the border to get cheaper goods which is approx 60% higher than the euro average which are marked up by inflation in those regions (so yes indirectly the swiss are paying the same inflation rate to the rest of the euro countries) also he swiss do not rely on imports for its energy needs with roughly 60% of energy by hydro

More like Brexiteer lack of self-awareness shining through.

But much to accuse others of “belittlement” when they’re responding directly to your Brexiteer nonsense about vassalage.

Aside from Brexiteers and the international chapter of QAnon, no one thinks European countries aren’t sovereign. At least no less sovereign than the UK, that’s quite literally had its domestic policies - and choice of PM and Chancellor - dictated by the markets, aka “remainer establishment/Davos/globalists”. Some “sovereignty”, that.

The name-calling can continue all day long, but I think it’s pretty clear that - with the exception of Trumpists and their ilk - most people outside the UK don’t think highly of Brexit, or the UK after Brexit. Brexiteers are, of course, free to believe otherwise. After all, there’s little point in discussing the shortcomings of a religion with its most ardent zealots.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ahh the belittlement comes shining through

The Cameron government did no planning as it did not expect the UK to leave, and any subsequent government had little time to prepare. The May government as she was pro remain did not believe in what Brexit stood for those are the reasons why it was such a dogs breakfast

As for inflation for the swiss the cost of living is exceptionally high for the swiss already with a vast majority crossing the border to get cheaper goods which is approx 60% higher than the euro average which are marked up by inflation in those regions (so yes indirectly the swiss are paying the same inflation rate to the rest of the euro countries) also he swiss do not rely on imports for its energy needs with roughly 60% of energy by hydro

More like Brexiteer lack of self-awareness shining through.

But much to accuse others of “belittlement” when they’re responding directly to your Brexiteer nonsense about vassalage.

Aside from Brexiteers and the international chapter of QAnon, no one thinks European countries aren’t sovereign. At least no less sovereign than the UK, that’s quite literally had its domestic policies - and choice of PM and Chancellor - dictated by the markets, aka “remainer establishment/Davos/globalists”. Some “sovereignty”, that.

The name-calling can continue all day long, but I think it’s pretty clear that - with the exception of Trumpists and their ilk - most people outside the UK don’t think highly of Brexit, or the UK after Brexit. Brexiteers are, of course, free to believe otherwise. After all, there’s little point in discussing the shortcomings of a religion with its most ardent zealots.

Gosh, you've been very busy with your clipboard and pen. So over half of 7.4 billion people don't think highly of the UK after Brexit. That's quite some research - put your feet up and have a cup of tea. One lump or two?

Btblue wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ahh the belittlement comes shining through

The Cameron government did no planning as it did not expect the UK to leave, and any subsequent government had little time to prepare. The May government as she was pro remain did not believe in what Brexit stood for those are the reasons why it was such a dogs breakfast

As for inflation for the swiss the cost of living is exceptionally high for the swiss already with a vast majority crossing the border to get cheaper goods which is approx 60% higher than the euro average which are marked up by inflation in those regions (so yes indirectly the swiss are paying the same inflation rate to the rest of the euro countries) also he swiss do not rely on imports for its energy needs with roughly 60% of energy by hydro

More like Brexiteer lack of self-awareness shining through.

But much to accuse others of “belittlement” when they’re responding directly to your Brexiteer nonsense about vassalage.

Aside from Brexiteers and the international chapter of QAnon, no one thinks European countries aren’t sovereign. At least no less sovereign than the UK, that’s quite literally had its domestic policies - and choice of PM and Chancellor - dictated by the markets, aka “remainer establishment/Davos/globalists”. Some “sovereignty”, that.

The name-calling can continue all day long, but I think it’s pretty clear that - with the exception of Trumpists and their ilk - most people outside the UK don’t think highly of Brexit, or the UK after Brexit. Brexiteers are, of course, free to believe otherwise. After all, there’s little point in discussing the shortcomings of a religion with its most ardent zealots.

Gosh, you've been very busy with your clipboard and pen. So over half of 7.4 billion people don't think highly of the UK after Brexit. That's quite some research - put your feet up and have a cup of tea. One lump or two?

A clipboard? Whatever for?

They put their money where their mouth is… by refusing - in a most remarkable way, I say - to fund the “believe in Britain” campaign of Frost, Kwarteng, Rees Mogg, Farage and other Brexit luminaries mere weeks ago.

To paraphrase a popular quote: “international markets, dear boy, international markets.” It’s always been the most efficient way of gauging what the world thinks of you and what you’re selling.

Two lumps of sugar please. But only from a remainer. I wouldn’t trust a Brexiteer to know the difference between sugar and salt these days. After all, they might insist it’s just a matter of “belief”.

ElPistolero wrote:

A clipboard? Whatever for?

They put their money where their mouth is… by refusing - in a most remarkable way, I say - to fund the “believe in Britain” campaign of Frost, Kwarteng, Rees Mogg, Farage and other Brexit luminaries mere weeks ago.

And here I thought the market was reacting to the mini budget policy and policy change. Not sure where the “believe in Britain” campaign comes from as Brexit has been delivered didn’t know we were still campaigning to leave

ElPistolero wrote:

To paraphrase a popular quote: “international markets, dear boy, international markets.” It’s always been the most efficient way of gauging what the world thinks of you and what you’re selling.

Don’t believe FDI has actully stopped has it?

With even some financial strategist believe that the reaction was overblown by the market

Viraj Patel, senior strategist at Vanda Research

"I think some of these doomsday fears are being somewhat overblown to some extent, but I don't think anyone wants to step in right now and buy undervalued U.K. assets at this point," he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/09/30/is- ... tdown.html

ElPistolero wrote:

Two lumps of sugar please. But only from a remainer. I wouldn’t trust a Brexiteer to know the difference between sugar and salt these days. After all, they might insist it’s just a matter of “belief”.

And how many tin foil hats do you keep in the cupboard?

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A clipboard? Whatever for?

They put their money where their mouth is… by refusing - in a most remarkable way, I say - to fund the “believe in Britain” campaign of Frost, Kwarteng, Rees Mogg, Farage and other Brexit luminaries mere weeks ago.

And here I thought the market was reacting to the mini budget policy and policy change. Not sure where the “believe in Britain” campaign comes from as Brexit has been delivered didn’t know we were still campaigning to leave

Indeed. Or put more simply, it reacted to the policies loudly cheered on by Brexiteers. Admittedly forgot Minford, one of the many cheerleaders and/or architects of that policy. (Along with JRM, Frost, Farage etc). Amusing how one could predict who supported these policies based on how they voted during the referendum, no?

And it responded very well when the Remainer establishment (Hunt, BoE, OBR) took control and rolled back those policies. There’s a reason Brexiteers like Briefings for Britain are bemoaning these changes:

“This was the economic policy that supporters of Brexit had wanted since the UK left the European Union. However, the Remainer elite both at home and abroad was determined that Brexit would not be a success and has done everything in its power to trash it.”

https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/t ... ory-party/

The truth, as always, is in eating the pudding. Even Truss name-checked remainers (or “Brexit deniers”) as opponents of her policy. Why bring up Brexit at all?

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

To paraphrase a popular quote: “international markets, dear boy, international markets.” It’s always been the most efficient way of gauging what the world thinks of you and what you’re selling.

Don’t believe FDI has actully stopped has it?

Didn’t have to. They managed to oust a Chancellor and a PM and replace them with “grown ups” without having to resort to that.

A101 wrote:

With even some financial strategist believe that the reaction was overblown by the market

Viraj Patel, senior strategist at Vanda Research

"I think some of these doomsday fears are being somewhat overblown to some extent, but I don't think anyone wants to step in right now and buy undervalued U.K. assets at this point," he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/09/30/is- ... tdown.html

Is this another one of those Brexiteer quirks, where a financial analyst literally saying that the markets are avoiding undervalued British assets … is somehow interpreted as a good thing?

If anything, it shows how little confidence investors have in the UK, regardless of how cheaply they can buy UK assets.

Thing with “international markets” is that they aren’t sentient or ideological. They’re predicated on a simple desire to make money through good investments. If there was a good outcome to invest in, they’d be all over it, not looking the other way.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Two lumps of sugar please. But only from a remainer. I wouldn’t trust a Brexiteer to know the difference between sugar and salt these days. After all, they might insist it’s just a matter of “belief”.

And how many tin foil hats do you keep in the cupboard?

Only the ones I borrowed from Minford, Farage, and gang. Should return them soon, before they do even more damage to themselves and the country.

Anyway, here’s a fun piece from Sir John Curtice a week ago to chew on:

“The poll certainly finds that the gradual decline in support for staying outside the EU that has been detected in Redfield and Wilton’s polls during the course of this year has continued. After leaving aside those not expressing a view, 57% now say they would vote to join the European Union, while 43% would back staying out. That represents a three-point swing from staying out to joining since the previous poll in August – and as much as a ten-point swing since the first poll last November.“

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/has-the-fiscal-cr ... ds-brexit/

If nothing else, it underlines how this mini-budget and the politics of Brexit are intertwined - at a fundamental level - even within the public mindset within the UK.

FluidFlow wrote:

pune wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

The real problem about Brexit is not actually Brexit itself, that could have been a success if it would have been planned and executed properly (what would probably have taken 10-15 years overall).

The problem is, that Brexit came in combination with the Loony Toons as a government. Getting a Ferrari sounds nice, but if you get a Ferrari driven by a monkey you should probably not shout shotgun and jump in...

The reason all this is crumbling is not Brexit per se, it is the fact that the ERG and now the Tory party are riddled with subpar (and this is me being nice) politicians. Most of them are either selfish or outright on the left side of the normal distribution regarding their IQ. It was bound to fail...

The problem is with that thinking is that in this day and age you can survive without being part of a group and that premise is disproven. Even the U.S. is part of at least 5-6 different trade groups. Now it takes an enormous amount of ego/vanity to not see the obvious but have far-fetched ideas. Another thing to think, would the U.S. come to secure U.K. against a foreign adversary ? What happened in Afghanistan, the U.S. bugged out without telling the UK. Remember the U.S. stuck a deal with Taliban, did it involve the UK, not at all.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timel ... ghanistan/

And as can be seen most of the work was done when Trump was the president.

As I said it would have needed planning, like an actual plan on how inter-country relationships, trade, etc. would look like after leaving the EU. But there was nothing like that. Nothing was or is done.

And that's by design.

Any serious research would have yielded the result that staying put was by far the best option. Enough of experts remember?

Even accepting that down the line more favourable conditions would be agreed to the short and medium term loss would still be there, for less gain than just staying.

Because any serious trade integration (Norway, Switzerland, etc.) implied an unacceptable level of vassalage in Brexiteer parlance and it can only be the work of the remainer elites undermining sovereignty.

ElPistolero wrote:

Indeed. Or put more simply, it reacted to the policies loudly cheered on by Brexiteers. Admittedly forgot Minford, one of the many cheerleaders and/or architects of that policy. (Along with JRM, Frost, Farage etc). Amusing how one could predict who supported these policies based on how they voted during the referendum, no?

You said it yourself earlier nothing wrong with what she proposed in the minibudget just wrong timing. She went off like a bull out of a gate and not prepare the ground work was her downfall
And as I said earlier, I support leaders who are bold to get the country moving. I think where she went wrong was hold her nerve to support her position and calm the markets down. The country is still deeply divided and will be for many years between leave/remain

ElPistolero wrote:

Didn’t have to. They managed to oust a Chancellor and a PM and replace them with “grown ups” without having to resort to that.

Grown ups were always at the table just had competing views

ElPistolero wrote:

Is this another one of those Brexiteer quirks, where a financial analyst literally saying that the markets are avoiding undervalued British assets … is somehow interpreted as a good thing?
If anything, it shows how little confidence investors have in the UK, regardless of how cheaply they can buy UK assets.

Someone will always buy the assets if they get them cheap enough and cam make money out of it. And they certainly have, what the analyst did say that the risks were overblown and to much hysteria going on

ElPistolero wrote:

Only the ones I borrowed from Minford, Farage, and gang. Should return them soon, before they do even more damage to themselves and the country.

Borrowing from the circle of friends very good

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, here’s a fun piece from Sir John Curtice a week ago to chew on:

“The poll certainly finds that the gradual decline in support for staying outside the EU that has been detected in Redfield and Wilton’s polls during the course of this year has continued. After leaving aside those not expressing a view, 57% now say they would vote to join the European Union, while 43% would back staying out. That represents a three-point swing from staying out to joining since the previous poll in August – and as much as a ten-point swing since the first poll last November.“

And what’s the actual chance of the UK re-joining hey?
I have talked to a number of pro-re-join when they realise that we have no opt outs anymore and will have to use the euro eventually they go all quite and are not happy about using the euro for starters
It will be a very different EU to the one we left and no better and quite possibly a federation by that time.

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, here’s a fun piece from Sir John Curtice a week ago to chew on:

“The poll certainly finds that the gradual decline in support for staying outside the EU that has been detected in Redfield and Wilton’s polls during the course of this year has continued. After leaving aside those not expressing a view, 57% now say they would vote to join the European Union, while 43% would back staying out. That represents a three-point swing from staying out to joining since the previous poll in August – and as much as a ten-point swing since the first poll last November.“

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/has-the-fiscal-cr ... ds-brexit/

If nothing else, it underlines how this mini-budget and the politics of Brexit are intertwined - at a fundamental level - even within the public mindset within the UK.

That’s hardly surprising given we’re close to two years into the “adventure”. The average man on the street hasn’t seen a single benefit from the whole fiasco, quite the opposite.

The lead Brexiteers have shown they don’t have a clue and can’t deliver the golden unicorns they all promised. Meanwhile, JRM still pushing for us to return to imperial weights and measures, that’s what taking back control is all about! He wants to take us back to 1822.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ion-brexit

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Indeed. Or put more simply, it reacted to the policies loudly cheered on by Brexiteers. Admittedly forgot Minford, one of the many cheerleaders and/or architects of that policy. (Along with JRM, Frost, Farage etc). Amusing how one could predict who supported these policies based on how they voted during the referendum, no?

You said it yourself earlier nothing wrong with what she proposed in the minibudget just wrong timing. She went off like a bull out of a gate and not prepare the ground work was her downfall
And as I said earlier, I support leaders who are bold to get the country moving. I think where she went wrong was hold her nerve to support her position and calm the markets down. The country is still deeply divided and will be for many years between leave/remain

ElPistolero wrote:

Didn’t have to. They managed to oust a Chancellor and a PM and replace them with “grown ups” without having to resort to that.

Grown ups were always at the table just had competing views

ElPistolero wrote:

Is this another one of those Brexiteer quirks, where a financial analyst literally saying that the markets are avoiding undervalued British assets … is somehow interpreted as a good thing?
If anything, it shows how little confidence investors have in the UK, regardless of how cheaply they can buy UK assets.

Someone will always buy the assets if they get them cheap enough and cam make money out of it. And they certainly have, what the analyst did say that the risks were overblown and to much hysteria going on

ElPistolero wrote:

Only the ones I borrowed from Minford, Farage, and gang. Should return them soon, before they do even more damage to themselves and the country.

Borrowing from the circle of friends very good

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, here’s a fun piece from Sir John Curtice a week ago to chew on:

“The poll certainly finds that the gradual decline in support for staying outside the EU that has been detected in Redfield and Wilton’s polls during the course of this year has continued. After leaving aside those not expressing a view, 57% now say they would vote to join the European Union, while 43% would back staying out. That represents a three-point swing from staying out to joining since the previous poll in August – and as much as a ten-point swing since the first poll last November.“

And what’s the actual chance of the UK re-joining hey?
I have talked to a number of pro-re-join when they realise that we have no opt outs anymore and will have to use the euro eventually they go all quite and are not happy about using the euro for starters
It will be a very different EU to the one we left and no better and quite possibly a federation by that time.

Not just “timing”. Also Brexity impulses like removing the Treasury Permanent Secretary over “remainer establishment” grudges, sidelining the OBR and generally assuming that the rest of the world has drunk enough Brexit kool-aid to be hoodwinked by “believe in Britain” fantasy when the numbers aren’t adding up. But that’s by-the-by. The moaning and groaning coming from Brexiteers speaks for itself.

As for rejoining the EU, politics is (and has always been) the art of the possible. Either way, I would say the odds of the UK rejoining the Eu are now somewhere in the same ballpark as the odds of the UK leaving the EU were in 2015.

Not that that matters with respect to what the survey about Brexit tells us today: it was a pretty bad idea innit? The bright side is that we’re now beginning to see a split between the pragmatists and the zealots aka those who’re willing to admit Brexit was a bad idea, and those who must believe it must be a good idea, because that is an article of the Brexit faith.

scbriml wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, here’s a fun piece from Sir John Curtice a week ago to chew on:

“The poll certainly finds that the gradual decline in support for staying outside the EU that has been detected in Redfield and Wilton’s polls during the course of this year has continued. After leaving aside those not expressing a view, 57% now say they would vote to join the European Union, while 43% would back staying out. That represents a three-point swing from staying out to joining since the previous poll in August – and as much as a ten-point swing since the first poll last November.“

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/has-the-fiscal-cr ... ds-brexit/

If nothing else, it underlines how this mini-budget and the politics of Brexit are intertwined - at a fundamental level - even within the public mindset within the UK.

That’s hardly surprising given we’re close to two years into the “adventure”. The average man on the street hasn’t seen a single benefit from the whole fiasco, quite the opposite.

The lead Brexiteers have shown they don’t have a clue and can’t deliver the golden unicorns they all promised. Meanwhile, JRM still pushing for us to return to imperial weights and measures, that’s what taking back control is all about! He wants to take us back to 1822.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ion-brexit

Well, the entire “we stuck it to the EU / establishment” euphoria was always going to melt away once Brexit inevitably hit wallets. Everyone’s trying to pin it on covid, but even that doesn’t avoid the reality that the situation is worse than it needs to be because of Brexit.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

And what’s the actual chance of the UK re-joining hey?
I have talked to a number of pro-re-join when they realise that we have no opt outs anymore and will have to use the euro eventually they go all quite and are not happy about using the euro for starters
It will be a very different EU to the one we left and no better and quite possibly a federation by that time.

As for rejoining the EU, politics is (and has always been) the art of the possible. Either way, I would say the odds of the UK rejoining the Eu are now somewhere in the same ballpark as the odds of the UK leaving the EU were in 2015.

I agree. And yes because of Brexit, rejoining will be on lesser terms for the UK, no more opt-outs of course. Another Brexit benefit and this time a real one, for the EU. The EU has moved on since 2016 and is moving forward. If it will be better or not is a matter of perspective, but it will be much stronger.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Indeed. Or put more simply, it reacted to the policies loudly cheered on by Brexiteers. Admittedly forgot Minford, one of the many cheerleaders and/or architects of that policy. (Along with JRM, Frost, Farage etc). Amusing how one could predict who supported these policies based on how they voted during the referendum, no?

You said it yourself earlier nothing wrong with what she proposed in the minibudget just wrong timing. She went off like a bull out of a gate and not prepare the ground work was her downfall
And as I said earlier, I support leaders who are bold to get the country moving. I think where she went wrong was hold her nerve to support her position and calm the markets down. The country is still deeply divided and will be for many years between leave/remain

ElPistolero wrote:

Didn’t have to. They managed to oust a Chancellor and a PM and replace them with “grown ups” without having to resort to that.

Grown ups were always at the table just had competing views

ElPistolero wrote:

Is this another one of those Brexiteer quirks, where a financial analyst literally saying that the markets are avoiding undervalued British assets … is somehow interpreted as a good thing?
If anything, it shows how little confidence investors have in the UK, regardless of how cheaply they can buy UK assets.

Someone will always buy the assets if they get them cheap enough and cam make money out of it. And they certainly have, what the analyst did say that the risks were overblown and to much hysteria going on

ElPistolero wrote:

Only the ones I borrowed from Minford, Farage, and gang. Should return them soon, before they do even more damage to themselves and the country.

Borrowing from the circle of friends very good

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, here’s a fun piece from Sir John Curtice a week ago to chew on:

“The poll certainly finds that the gradual decline in support for staying outside the EU that has been detected in Redfield and Wilton’s polls during the course of this year has continued. After leaving aside those not expressing a view, 57% now say they would vote to join the European Union, while 43% would back staying out. That represents a three-point swing from staying out to joining since the previous poll in August – and as much as a ten-point swing since the first poll last November.“

And what’s the actual chance of the UK re-joining hey?
I have talked to a number of pro-re-join when they realise that we have no opt outs anymore and will have to use the euro eventually they go all quite and are not happy about using the euro for starters
It will be a very different EU to the one we left and no better and quite possibly a federation by that time.

IMO, there were several things wrong with the mini budget.

Timing was not the sole issue, although allowing time for an OBR would clearly have helped.

1. Scrapping the 45 % tax band, given the financial situation was a bad idea. With large numbers of people struggling to then give those paid £150K+ a tax reduction funded by borrowing was not a good idea.

2. Given the problems caused by the Bonus/Commission culture in banking Scrapping restrictions on the level of bonuses was not a good idea.

3. Changes in Stamp Duty that encourage upward pressure on house prices was not a good idea especially if people use the capital gains to support further

I am not going to try and change the views of a cult.
It is more instructive to consider why we are where we are, why in fact Cameron did the damn stupid thing in the first place.
Which is still causing all the problems, for which there are no answers to, since the whole thing is a square peg in a round hole;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMBwGSYiBwc

And how even some of those responsible are concerned;
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/no ... g-brexiter

bennett123 wrote:

1. Scrapping the 45 % tax band, given the financial situation was a bad idea. With large numbers of people struggling to then give those paid £150K+ a tax reduction funded by borrowing was not a good idea.

Scrapping the highest tax bracket itself was not a bad idea, as it can actually lead to more internal revenue for government and contribute to growing the economy. Whilst I acknowledged that increasing borrowing was unhelpful as the debt sooner or later has to be repaid in some shape or form. The actual cuts were not supposed to kick in to 2023 I noticed no one was complaining about reducing the lowest tax rate from 20-19%
https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/t ... d102d12f43

bennett123 wrote:

2. Given the problems caused by the Bonus/Commission culture in banking Scrapping restrictions on the level of bonuses was not a good idea.

And all that achieved was it increased the level of wages across the financial industry from a system of reward to mediocrity performers within the industry, it didn’t create stability. Enforcing transparency and strong compliance policies and procedures is the only way reduce risk in the industry

bennett123 wrote:

3. Changes in Stamp Duty that encourage upward pressure on house prices was not a good idea especially if people use the capital gains to support further

Any changes to stamp duty even if limited to 1st home buyers will increase upward pressure on prices there’s no getting around that. Higher interest rates are the only deterrent to higher prices as it increases the cost of ownership which in turn reduces market demand.

I said in a previous post my thoughts on the mini budget, Truss still could have announced tax cuts but gave a longer timeline for the reduced rates to kick in. ( and also it’s not like the markets were not aware that is what she intended to do anyhow)If she was smart, she would have timed it for them to kick in a couple of months before the next GE has to be held (can’t call it pork barreling it is known a couple of years in advance.

To help struggling families and business in these high inflationary times without resorting to additional borrowings to fund energy prices caps Truss could have reduced the VAT (20% saving twice the amount of inflation) on energy bill to zero for 6 months and pledge to reevaluate the situation again something that would defiantly being able to do as a Brexit dividend as it is something that could not have happened if we were in the EU.

All water under the bridge now

GDB wrote:

It is more instructive to consider why we are where we are, why in fact Cameron did the damn stupid thing in the first place.
Which is still causing all the problems, for which there are no answers to, since the whole thing is a square peg in a round hole;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMBwGSYiBwc

And how even some of those responsible are concerned;
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/no ... g-brexiter

Geez I had to laugh at his supposed genius on why Cameron went to a vote, it certainly wasn’t about the party splitting fr from it.

Much more the reason being it was getting harder to argue against a referenda. Does Phil realise that we had no national referenda’s prior to 1973 (we did have local area referenda’s from about 1850) which gave way to the increased use of referenda’s since then for a variety of reasons at both national and constituent countries level.

With each progressive treaty being authorised by parliament on significant EEC/EU matters with no say if the country wanted to further integrate themselves into an ever-closer union, it was only a matter of time before John Locke view permeated within the party for a representative democracy and deferring important decision-making to the people.

And the kicking the can down the road everything from deferring A50 to The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Does he conveniently forget that the extension was orchestrated by the pro-remain element within the parliament. Not being able to deal with the NI Protocol was all because of the Surrender Act(Benn Act) talk about twisting the facts

Pushing the Revocation and Reform bill is the right thing to do as the number of laws to get through huge amount. As for the ERG bring down the government early no way in high hell will that happen.

Phill is entitled to his own views, but they are far from reality

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

1. Scrapping the 45 % tax band, given the financial situation was a bad idea. With large numbers of people struggling to then give those paid £150K+ a tax reduction funded by borrowing was not a good idea.

Scrapping the highest tax bracket itself was not a bad idea, as it can actually lead to more internal revenue for government and contribute to growing the economy. Whilst I acknowledged that increasing borrowing was unhelpful as the debt sooner or later has to be repaid in some shape or form. The actual cuts were not supposed to kick in to 2023 I noticed no one was complaining about reducing the lowest tax rate from 20-19%
https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/t ... d102d12f43

bennett123 wrote:

2. Given the problems caused by the Bonus/Commission culture in banking Scrapping restrictions on the level of bonuses was not a good idea.

And all that achieved was it increased the level of wages across the financial industry from a system of reward to mediocrity performers within the industry, it didn’t create stability. Enforcing transparency and strong compliance policies and procedures is the only way reduce risk in the industry

bennett123 wrote:

3. Changes in Stamp Duty that encourage upward pressure on house prices was not a good idea especially if people use the capital gains to support further

Any changes to stamp duty even if limited to 1st home buyers will increase upward pressure on prices there’s no getting around that. Higher interest rates are the only deterrent to higher prices as it increases the cost of ownership which in turn reduces market demand.

I said in a previous post my thoughts on the mini budget, Truss still could have announced tax cuts but gave a longer timeline for the reduced rates to kick in. ( and also it’s not like the markets were not aware that is what she intended to do anyhow)If she was smart, she would have timed it for them to kick in a couple of months before the next GE has to be held (can’t call it pork barreling it is known a couple of years in advance.

To help struggling families and business in these high inflationary times without resorting to additional borrowings to fund energy prices caps Truss could have reduced the VAT (20% saving twice the amount of inflation) on energy bill to zero for 6 months and pledge to reevaluate the situation again something that would defiantly being able to do as a Brexit dividend as it is something that could not have happened if we were in the EU.

All water under the bridge now

Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that?.

A101 wrote:

GDB wrote:

It is more instructive to consider why we are where we are, why in fact Cameron did the damn stupid thing in the first place.
Which is still causing all the problems, for which there are no answers to, since the whole thing is a square peg in a round hole;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMBwGSYiBwc

And how even some of those responsible are concerned;
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/no ... g-brexiter

Geez I had to laugh at his supposed genius on why Cameron went to a vote, it certainly wasn’t about the party splitting fr from it.

Much more the reason being it was getting harder to argue against a referenda. Does Phil realise that we had no national referenda’s prior to 1973 (we did have local area referenda’s from about 1850) which gave way to the increased use of referenda’s since then for a variety of reasons at both national and constituent countries level.

With each progressive treaty being authorised by parliament on significant EEC/EU matters with no say if the country wanted to further integrate themselves into an ever-closer union, it was only a matter of time before John Locke view permeated within the party for a representative democracy and deferring important decision-making to the people.

And the kicking the can down the road everything from deferring A50 to The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Does he conveniently forget that the extension was orchestrated by the pro-remain element within the parliament. Not being able to deal with the NI Protocol was all because of the Surrender Act(Benn Act) talk about twisting the facts

Pushing the Revocation and Reform bill is the right thing to do as the number of laws to get through huge amount. As for the ERG bring down the government early no way in high hell will that happen.

Phill is entitled to his own views, but they are far from reality

It’s amusing I suppose to see you pretend to have knowledge of these issues, you cannot even the date of the 1974 referendum right. And that one was done only to deal with a split in the then governing party, again.
However the PM at the time handled it much more skillfully than the posh entitled idiot Cameron.
A50? ‘Remainders’ or give the proper term, people who know what they are talking about, yes the then Leader Of The Opposition whipped his party into voting for it as he was an idiot, he hasn’t even got his own Parties whip in the Commons now, for refusing to implement an evidence based report.
His views on the EU were essentially what Tony Benn told him to think in the 1970’s about the EEC, so not liking evidence is not new for him.

Now off you go and try and find those unicorns.
Phil, a former teacher (so not someone Brexiteers will like, people who know stuff), follows UK politics closely, you don’t.
An expert? I doubt he would describe himself that way. But I see even approaching being informed is such a threat to you lot.
Why not stop your multiple and long posts here, that few take seriously, engage with Phil.
Tell him how wrong he is.
I’d love to see that.

A101 wrote:

GDB wrote:

It is more instructive to consider why we are where we are, why in fact Cameron did the damn stupid thing in the first place.
Which is still causing all the problems, for which there are no answers to, since the whole thing is a square peg in a round hole;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMBwGSYiBwc

And how even some of those responsible are concerned;
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/no ... g-brexiter

Geez I had to laugh at his supposed genius on why Cameron went to a vote, it certainly wasn’t about the party splitting fr from it.

Much more the reason being it was getting harder to argue against a referenda. Does Phil realise that we had no national referenda’s prior to 1973 (we did have local area referenda’s from about 1850) which gave way to the increased use of referenda’s since then for a variety of reasons at both national and constituent countries level.

With each progressive treaty being authorised by parliament on significant EEC/EU matters with no say if the country wanted to further integrate themselves into an ever-closer union, it was only a matter of time before John Locke view permeated within the party for a representative democracy and deferring important decision-making to the people.

And the kicking the can down the road everything from deferring A50 to The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Does he conveniently forget that the extension was orchestrated by the pro-remain element within the parliament. Not being able to deal with the NI Protocol was all because of the Surrender Act(Benn Act) talk about twisting the facts

Pushing the Revocation and Reform bill is the right thing to do as the number of laws to get through huge amount. As for the ERG bring down the government early no way in high hell will that happen.

Phill is entitled to his own views, but they are far from reality

It’s amusing I suppose to see you pretend to have knowledge of these issues, you cannot even the date of the 1975 referendum right. And that one was done only to deal with a split in the then governing party, again.
However the PM at the time handled it much more skillfully than the posh entitled idiot Cameron.
A50? ‘Remainders’ or give the proper term, people who know what they are talking about, yes the then Leader Of The Opposition whipped his party into voting for it as he was an idiot, he hasn’t even got his own Parties whip in the Commons now, for refusing to implement an evidence based report.
His views on the EU were essentially what Tony Benn told him to think in the 1970’s about the EEC, so not liking evidence is not new for him.

Now off you go and try and find those unicorns.
Phil, a former teacher (so not someone Brexiteers will like, people who know stuff), follows UK politics closely, you don’t.
An expert? I doubt he would describe himself that way. But I see even approaching being informed is such a threat to you lot.
Why not stop your multiple and long posts here, that few take seriously, engage with Phil.
Tell him how wrong he is.
I’d love to see that.

A101 wrote:

I noticed no one was complaining about reducing the lowest tax rate from 20-19%

Why do you think that might be?

A101 wrote:

And the kicking the can down the road everything from deferring A50 to The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Does he conveniently forget that the extension was orchestrated by the pro-remain element within the parliament. Not being able to deal with the NI Protocol was all because of the Surrender Act(Benn Act) talk about twisting the facts

Pushing the Revocation and Reform bill is the right thing to do as the number of laws to get through huge amount. As for the ERG bring down the government early no way in high hell will that happen.

Phill is entitled to his own views, but they are far from reality

Hmmm?

If the NIP was so bad, why didn’t BoJo renege on it after the 2019 election and leave with no deal in 2020? Why continue to lie about it this day? The Benn Act was meaningless after the election. How long are Brexiteers going to continue blame that for their own apparent incomprehension or bad faith negotiation (take your pick)?

At the end of the day, it was a pro-Brexit majority government that shied away from renouncing the NIP and leaving with no deal. Why didn’t they just leave with no deal in the first place instead? Too scared of no deal at the time? Pretty spineless behaviour for a “principle” bunch, no?

Gotta stop blaming everyone else for your own sides mistakes and/or dishonesty. This revisionism isn’t fooling anyone, fundamental tenet though it may be of Brexiteer mythology.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

I noticed no one was complaining about reducing the lowest tax rate from 20-19%

Why do you think that might be?

I don’t think some folk understand that the markets are rarely against targeted relief measures; only questionable structural cuts.

I’ll take it one step further and point out that these folk probably don’t know what either of those two terms mean.

But we should, nonetheless, trust their judgment on massive economic and constitutional changes, such as Brexit.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

I noticed no one was complaining about reducing the lowest tax rate from 20-19%

Why do you think that might be?

Well it takes away from internal government revenue all the same as the higher tax bracket doesn't it?

hypocrisy at work

GDB wrote:

It’s amusing I suppose to see you pretend to have knowledge of these issues, you cannot even the date of the 1975 referendum right

The 1973 Northern Ireland border poll was the first referenda held by the UKGov

GDB wrote:

And that one was done only to deal with a split in the then governing party, again.

It was to gain legitimacy for Heaths lies in putting us into the EEC in the first place without a referenda which he promised to but knew he would lose at the time. As Heath had committed acts of sedition and treason in order to take the UK into the EEC hence why he classified FCO30/1048 the document under the 30-year rule in which under the UK constitution because our Constitution expressly forbids any such surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament may do many things but what it cannot do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war. ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal

GDB wrote:

However the PM at the time handled it much more skillfully than the posh entitled idiot Cameron.

It certainly wasn’t skilful; I was around at the time when heath had taken us in and the 75 referenda there was lots of misinformation just like now with only 64% of the electorate turning out to vote

GDB wrote:

A50? ‘Remainders’ or give the proper term, people who know what they are talking about, yes the then Leader Of The Opposition whipped his party into voting for it as he was an idiot, he hasn’t even got his own Parties whip in the Commons now, for refusing to implement an evidence based report.
His views on the EU were essentially what Tony Benn told him to think in the 1970’s about the EEC, so not liking evidence is not new for him.

Not sure what you are getting at here A50 is the clause in the treaty to leave the EU. Pro remain are people in favour of remaining in the EU in which they did everything including throwing the kitchen sink to try and achieve it.

GDB wrote:

Now off you go and try and find those unicorns.

Don’t need to as what I mainly wanted has been achieved no more control from Brussels

GDB wrote:

Phil, a former teacher (so not someone Brexiteers will like, people who know stuff), follows UK politics closely, you don’t.

You have to be a former school teacher to follow politics

GDB wrote:

An expert? I doubt he would describe himself that way.

Who described him as being an expert…..certainly not I

GDB wrote:

But I see even approaching being informed is such a threat to you lot

No threat just don’t need to treat him like some sort of gospel Messiah

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

And the kicking the can down the road everything from deferring A50 to The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Does he conveniently forget that the extension was orchestrated by the pro-remain element within the parliament. Not being able to deal with the NI Protocol was all because of the Surrender Act(Benn Act) talk about twisting the facts

Pushing the Revocation and Reform bill is the right thing to do as the number of laws to get through huge amount. As for the ERG bring down the government early no way in high hell will that happen.

Phill is entitled to his own views, but they are far from reality

Hmmm?

If the NIP was so bad, why didn’t BoJo renege on it after the 2019 election and leave with no deal in 2020? Why continue to lie about it this day? The Benn Act was meaningless after the election. How long are Brexiteers going to continue blame that for their own apparent incomprehension or bad faith negotiation (take your pick)?

At the end of the day, it was a pro-Brexit majority government that shied away from renouncing the NIP and leaving with no deal. Why didn’t they just leave with no deal in the first place instead? Too scared of no deal at the time? Pretty spineless behaviour for a “principle” bunch, no?

Gotta stop blaming everyone else for your own sides mistakes and/or dishonesty. This revisionism isn’t fooling anyone, fundamental tenet though it may be of Brexiteer mythology.

I championed for it,

Why also the implications of renegotiating and then actively campaigning for it to be revoked. you dont see the problem at the political level...... oh well

ElPistolero wrote:

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

I noticed no one was complaining about reducing the lowest tax rate from 20-19%

Why do you think that might be?

I don’t think some folk understand that the markets are rarely against targeted relief measures; only questionable structural cuts.

I’ll take it one step further and point out that these folk probably don’t know what either of those two terms mean.

But we should, nonetheless, trust their judgment on massive economic and constitutional changes, such as Brexit.

The market reacted to unfunded tax cuts 20% to 19% or the 45% to 40% it's all part of the same deal

As i said hypocrisy at work

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

I noticed no one was complaining about reducing the lowest tax rate from 20-19%

Why do you think that might be?

Well it takes away from internal government revenue all the same as the higher tax bracket doesn't it?

hypocrisy at work

You were clearly in favour of a significant tax cut for the 10%ers, claiming it would in fact result in more tax revenue. Yet you’re apparently unhappy about a 1p cut in base rate for those that need it the most. Hypocrisy indeed.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Why do you think that might be?

I don’t think some folk understand that the markets are rarely against targeted relief measures; only questionable structural cuts.

I’ll take it one step further and point out that these folk probably don’t know what either of those two terms mean.

But we should, nonetheless, trust their judgment on massive economic and constitutional changes, such as Brexit.

The market reacted to unfunded tax cuts 20% to 19% or the 45% to 40% it's all part of the same deal

As i said hypocrisy at work

That is actually a very basic macro economy. The poorer you are the more higher the chance that you are living pay check to pay check. By reducing the basic rate, you literally give people more money to spend and this money will be spent. This inherently leads to growth (domestic spending) as well as higher VAT income for the government.

On the other hand scrapping the highest tax band does not lead to more spending but in general to more saving as well as more money that is removed from "working" towards growth.

A101 wrote:

The market reacted to unfunded tax cuts 20% to 19% or the 45% to 40% it's all part of the same deal

As i said hypocrisy at work

Not really. More like economic illiteracy at work.

The markets recognize the merit in helping the lowest income earners because if they’re compelled to tighten their belts too much, you’re headed for a deep recession. Millionaires don’t keep corner stores and cafes open; high volumes of local consumers do.

In contrast, a millionaire who doesn’t get his hands on an extra GBP 50K is unlikely to change their consumption patterns because they can absorb inflation.

Think of it as a subsidy to the working poor during a period of high inflation. Not particularly different to the energy price subsidy, that the markets were equally ambivalent about (and are continuing unscathed).

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Why do you think that might be?

Well it takes away from internal government revenue all the same as the higher tax bracket doesn't it?

hypocrisy at work

You were clearly in favour of a significant tax cut for the 10%ers, claiming it would in fact result in more tax revenue. Yet you’re apparently unhappy about a 1p cut in base rate for those that need it the most. Hypocrisy indeed.

Nope, just the hypocrisy of being all being all big and mighty about unfunded tax cuts to certain groups and not others

tall poppy syndrome

FluidFlow wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

I don’t think some folk understand that the markets are rarely against targeted relief measures; only questionable structural cuts.

I’ll take it one step further and point out that these folk probably don’t know what either of those two terms mean.

But we should, nonetheless, trust their judgment on massive economic and constitutional changes, such as Brexit.

The market reacted to unfunded tax cuts 20% to 19% or the 45% to 40% it's all part of the same deal

As i said hypocrisy at work

That is actually a very basic macro economy. The poorer you are the more higher the chance that you are living pay check to pay check. By reducing the basic rate, you literally give people more money to spend and this money will be spent. This inherently leads to growth (domestic spending) as well as higher VAT income for the government.

On the other hand scrapping the highest tax band does not lead to more spending but in general to more saving as well as more money that is removed from "working" towards growth.

Cuts to tax leads to more discretionary spending which in turn can lead to economic growth which also can lead to more productive workforce and incentive to work more.

National saving also works as it’s generally invested either short or long term which has positive economic benefits also

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

The market reacted to unfunded tax cuts 20% to 19% or the 45% to 40% it's all part of the same deal

As i said hypocrisy at work

Not really. More like economic illiteracy at work.

The markets recognize the merit in helping the lowest income earners because if they’re compelled to tighten their belts too much, you’re headed for a deep recession. Millionaires don’t keep corner stores and cafes open; high volumes of local consumers do.

In contrast, a millionaire who doesn’t get his hands on an extra GBP 50K is unlikely to change their consumption patterns because they can absorb inflation.

Think of it as a subsidy to the working poor during a period of high inflation. Not particularly different to the energy price subsidy, that the markets were equally ambivalent about (and are continuing unscathed).

The markets did not distinguish between high and low income earners all it related to was unfunded tax cuts and increased borrowing

So for complete openness please inform me why Hunt did not keep the cuts to low income earners?

Mr Hunt told politicians that he was cancelling Ms Truss' plan to reduce the basic rate of income tax by 1 percentage point and most of her other libertarian economic policies.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/hunt- ... 57830.html

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

The market reacted to unfunded tax cuts 20% to 19% or the 45% to 40% it's all part of the same deal

As i said hypocrisy at work

Not really. More like economic illiteracy at work.

The markets recognize the merit in helping the lowest income earners because if they’re compelled to tighten their belts too much, you’re headed for a deep recession. Millionaires don’t keep corner stores and cafes open; high volumes of local consumers do.

In contrast, a millionaire who doesn’t get his hands on an extra GBP 50K is unlikely to change their consumption patterns because they can absorb inflation.

Think of it as a subsidy to the working poor during a period of high inflation. Not particularly different to the energy price subsidy, that the markets were equally ambivalent about (and are continuing unscathed).

The markets did not distinguish between high and low income earners all it related to was unfunded tax cuts and increased borrowing

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say anymore.

The economics of tax cuts to lower income groups Vs higher income groups are well known. The markets understand them too. It’s a really odd hill to die on.

Anyway, they responded as much to the cuts, as to the cavalier Brexit-y attitude of going in without an OBR forecast, and booting the grown ups out of the room.

We all know how the markets reacted when the grown ups came back into the room.

A101 wrote:

So for complete openness please inform me why Hunt did not keep the cure to low income earners?

Mr Hunt told politicians that he was cancelling Ms Truss' plan to reduce the basic rate of income tax by 1 percentage point and most of her other libertarian economic policies.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/hunt- ... 57830.html

Oh that’s simple enough; he had to undo all the extra damage done by the mini budget. It wasn’t a cost free exercise, even if it only lasted a couple of weeks.

Worth pointing out that the market didn’t react badly (or at all) when Sunak first announced it in March. The only thing that changed between then and it’s eventual reversal, was the damage inflicted by the mini budget. Credit where it’s due: Kami-kwase and Trussonomics.

It still strikes me as a smarter move than the top end cuts. I expect it’ll make a come back soon enough, once proper costing is prepared.

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well it takes away from internal government revenue all the same as the higher tax bracket doesn't it?

hypocrisy at work

You were clearly in favour of a significant tax cut for the 10%ers, claiming it would in fact result in more tax revenue. Yet you’re apparently unhappy about a 1p cut in base rate for those that need it the most. Hypocrisy indeed.

Nope, just the hypocrisy of being all being all big and mighty about unfunded tax cuts to certain groups and not others

tall poppy syndrome

Bless. The "tall poppies" are more than capable of looking after themselves, whereas those down in the weeds are far less able.

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, they responded as much to the cuts, as to the cavalier Brexit-y attitude of going in without an OBR forecast, and booting the grown ups out of the room.

We all know how the markets reacted when the grown ups came back into the room.

Not to mention failing to keep the Bank of England informed about the disastrous "mini budget".

Meanwhile, in a rare display of common sense, the government has cancelled one of Boris's pet projects.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63547568

Plans for a national flagship yacht to promote the UK abroad have been shelved, the defence secretary has announced.

Ben Wallace told MPs a competition to build the vessel, estimated to cost up to £250m, had been terminated.

The ship was commissioned by former PM Boris Johnson last year to host trade fairs and diplomatic events.

No 10 said it was right to "prioritise" spending "at a time when difficult spending decisions need to be made".

The move comes as the government searches for spending cuts ahead of an autumn statement on 17 November, also likely to include tax rises.

Labour's shadow defence secretary John Healey said he welcomed the news "the previous prime minister's vanity project has been scrapped".