Just saw this -

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... ng-336986/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ght-along/

The right-wing knew about it but kept their head in the sand. And from what little I know, Telegraph is also a RW newspaper. So, if they have to turn, probably in sometime even Daily Mail will start doing the same. Somebody was stating about 'mistakes', mistakes happen when you don't know or don't have knowledge, but when people have shared knowledge and you still go off on your own then it's intentional, not 'mistakes'. And I do see them still doing more of the same.

You beat me! Listening to this I had wondered if worth a thread, since the B of E one was locked.
Phil, who has worked as a teacher in colleges, gives his view on what is, I agree, an unlikely column in a paper, while long known as 'The Torygraph', has really gone off the rails since owned by reclusive tax dodgers who of course, love Brexit, from being yes pro conservative to almost Daily Mail level paranoia, mainly since, guess when? 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntyPGPaJueI

According to Phil from a different bias, the Telegraph has started saying this some time ago. It's a serious newspaper (seriousish), not a tabloid, they can't keep lying when the obvious is that obvious. Besides, it's not like there is any benefit to Brexit that can be shown to justify the drawbacks.

The Daily Mail has started publishing articles critical of Brexit, too, more sporadingly.

The Express is another story, they'll sink with Brexit.

edit : ah ah I see phil has actually made a video about this, I hadn't seen it yet.

Speaking as an American, the Brexit movement seemed similar to our MAGA movement. Same roots in anger and discontent, and the belief that isolation is good and international involvement is bad.

I know that massively oversimplifies the issue, but in very fundamental terms the two are similar in wanting to extricate. Trump with all his anti-NATO and anti-Europe rhetoric, but today we see that NATO is quite strong and beneficial.

But in America we have media outlets that still push that narrative as well, most are part of the Murdoch empire.

pune wrote:

Just saw this -

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... ng-336986/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ght-along/

The right-wing knew about it but kept their head in the sand. And from what little I know, Telegraph is also a RW newspaper. So, if they have to turn, probably in sometime even Daily Mail will start doing the same. Somebody was stating about 'mistakes', mistakes happen when you don't know or don't have knowledge, but when people have shared knowledge and you still go off on your own then it's intentional, not 'mistakes'. And I do see them still doing more of the same.

Sure they know, their argument was totally misleading and that won over the public. Project Fear = opinions from experts, so this is the only logical conclusion. But given this, not every Brxiteers is ready to admit they were wrong.

Aesma wrote:

According to Phil from a different bias, the Telegraph has started saying this some time ago. It's a serious newspaper (seriousish), not a tabloid, they can't keep lying when the obvious is that obvious. Besides, it's not like there is any benefit to Brexit that can be shown to justify the drawbacks.

The Daily Mail has started publishing articles critical of Brexit, too, more sporadingly.

The Express is another story, they'll sink with Brexit.

edit : ah ah I see phil has actually made a video about this, I hadn't seen it yet.

Express and Mirror are owned by the same company I think. One is pro-Brexit, one is pro-Remain.

Both are incredibly low quality. But they’ve hedged their bets.

pune wrote:

Just saw this -

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... ng-336986/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ght-along/

The right-wing knew about it but kept their head in the sand. And from what little I know, Telegraph is also a RW newspaper. So, if they have to turn, probably in sometime even Daily Mail will start doing the same. Somebody was stating about 'mistakes', mistakes happen when you don't know or don't have knowledge, but when people have shared knowledge and you still go off on your own then it's intentional, not 'mistakes'. And I do see them still doing more of the same.

Warner has always been a bit skeptical of Brexit. He and the Brussels editor (Rayner?) never got into the business of Brexit kool aid. And the business section has always been open to critical stories.

The Telegraph’s editorial stance hasn’t changed (that would be revolutionary), but it’s interesting that they’re now putting on pieces that actively contradict Project Fear orthodoxy, like today’s piece by Bootle re: institutions.

The paper has its strong points and weak points - Chris Hope/Chopper has a great podcast (formerly called the Brexit podcast, now called “politics podcast”) where he routinely invites both sides, although he sometimes shows away from asking tough questions. And then there’s the Tominey types.

This article gives an overview on the impact of leaving the EU. Statics are from official source


https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/w ... k-economy/

Obviously this was written before Truss mini budget

A101 wrote:

This article gives an overview on the impact of leaving the EU. Statics are from official source


https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/w ... k-economy/

Obviously this was written before Truss mini budget

Translation:

"So where are the benefits?"

"Well, it's been a pretty middle-of-the road decline along the lines predicted by actual experts instead of a totally catastrophic meltdown so far, at least by (illegally) abandoning all import checks!"

"So that means it was a good idea?"

"..."

And then came Truss & Kwarteng...

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

This article gives an overview on the impact of leaving the EU. Statics are from official source


https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/w ... k-economy/

Obviously this was written before Truss mini budget

Translation:

"So where are the benefits?"

"Well, it's been a pretty middle-of-the road decline along the lines predicted by actual experts instead of a totally catastrophic meltdown so far, at least by (illegally) abandoning all import checks!"

"So that means it was a good idea?"

"..."

And then came Truss & Kwarteng...

It’s run by Brexiteers, so they’re bound to emphasize positive aspects more than the negative ones.

Still, some of it makes for amusing reading. Take this, for example:

“This is a relatively good start to life after Brexit, especially since few changes in regulations have yet been made. If we assume that future divergence in regulation will only be made when it assists economic growth in the UK then post-Brexit conditions should favour the UK. The good start confirms that the success in negotiating a free trade agreement, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, in December 2020 was far-sighted even if it came at the cost of the Northern Ireland Protocol which remains unfinished business.”

I think they’ve fallen into a couple of traps:

- they’re assuming that the market will reward them for divergence. Their first go at that (whatever we just witnessed) doesn’t bode well. Trust/confidence in the market/regulatory approach is critical, and it’s…not faring well these days.

- any significant “divergence” will negate the beneficial aspects of the TCA (which they themselves admit has helped them paint a rosy picture) because it will result in more checks / barriers to trade.

The most telling part in all of this is that the noise around the NIP seems to have faded away. Maybe it’s lurking around the corner, waiting to burst out. Or maybe Hunt et al aren’t ready to jeopardize the TCA.

Worth pointing out too that one of the authors - Julian Jessop - was behind the Truss policies that had to be overturned. He’s probably sound on economic theory, but his reading of the market’s interpretation of his policies (and the UKs in general) is, well, suspect.

Klaus wrote:

Translation:

"So where are the benefits?"

Best benefit of all is choice and accountability.

Government/Parliament have a choice to either implement any rules from the EU or any other nation in fact if it is in the benefit of the UK

Accountability by the electorate of the choices made by government at a GE you can either vote for them or not

Klaus wrote:

Well, it's been a pretty middle-of-the road decline along the lines predicted by actual experts instead of a totally catastrophic meltdown so far,

Ah no we are still along the trend lines long term if we were still in the EU

Klaus wrote:

at least by (illegally) abandoning all import checks!"

Seems you are wrong again.

There is no legal requirement for the UK to impose customs checks on EU imports under the TCA actually the EU doesn’t have to either but we know why the EU does

ElPistolero wrote:

It’s run by Brexiteers, so they’re bound to emphasize positive aspects more than the negative ones.

No difference to the anti Brexit links most here provide


What it does shows was yes there have been disruptions but no big doomsday implosions that remain said would happen in the referenda campaign

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

It’s run by Brexiteers, so they’re bound to emphasize positive aspects more than the negative ones.

No difference to the anti Brexit links most here provide


What it does shows was yes there have been disruptions but no big doomsday implosions that remain said would happen in the referenda campaign

By their own admission, because of the TCA that’s predicated on the NIP.

All things that a lot of Brexiteers were actively trying to undermine till this mini budget took over the air waves.

Which is to say, some of those implosions are still possible depending on what happens with the NIP. More so now, I suspect, given the impact that Jessop’s sage advice has had on the UK economy.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

It’s run by Brexiteers, so they’re bound to emphasize positive aspects more than the negative ones.

No difference to the anti Brexit links most here provide


What it does shows was yes there have been disruptions but no big doomsday implosions that remain said would happen in the referenda campaign

By their own admission, because of the TCA that’s predicated on the NIP.

All things that a lot of Brexiteers were actively trying to undermine till this mini budget took over the air waves.

Which is to say, some of those implosions are still possible depending on what happens with the NIP. More so now, I suspect, given the impact that Jessop’s sage advice has had on the UK economy.

Possible but still has not materialised has it.

Least the article I link to werebeing honest

A careful reading of the evidence shows that while there is little evidence yet that Brexit is doing much to help the UK economy, neither is there evidence of much harm. This is significant because it was generally agreed, even by Brexiteers, that there would be initial difficulties.

A101 wrote:

There is no legal requirement for the UK to impose customs checks on EU imports under the TCA actually the EU doesn’t have to either but we know why the EU does

Of course there is a legal requirement, and it has nothing to do with the TCA. It's called the World Trade Organization, remember the "WTO rules" ?

Currently the UK is favoring EU imports over other countries' imports. So of course the EU will not say anything, it's all good for us. China, USA, etc., that's another story, at some point they'll start a dispute at the WTO against the UK.

Aesma wrote:

A101 wrote:

There is no legal requirement for the UK to impose customs checks on EU imports under the TCA actually the EU doesn’t have to either but we know why the EU does

Of course there is a legal requirement, and it has nothing to do with the TCA. It's called the World Trade Organization, remember the "WTO rules" ?

Currently the UK is favoring EU imports over other countries' imports. So of course the EU will not say anything, it's all good for us. China, USA, etc., that's another story, at some point they'll start a dispute at the WTO against the UK.

If no goods are being custom cleared as you allude to then how are we breaching WTO rules.

And by the way there are no rules that say the UK has to check goods whenentering the country MFN just say trade on equal terms

And if there is a trade agreement between nations then WTO does not apply anyway

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Translation:

"So where are the benefits?"

Best benefit of all is choice and accountability.

Government/Parliament have a choice to either implement any rules from the EU or any other nation in fact if it is in the benefit of the UK

Accountability by the electorate of the choices made by government at a GE you can either vote for them or not

No real difference here: I vote both in national elections to set the policy direction of my own country in national decisions and in the EU Council where my government has a veto in all crucial matters and in the european election to further influence the direction of the EU.

And on both levels the elected politicians are absolutely accountable to the public.

Even Germany wouldn't really matter much on the global scale, but the EU very much does, so my votes as a EU citizen have a much greater weight than they would outside of it.

That UK politicians were allegedly completely powerless in the EU and had those mythical "unaccountable EU bureaucrats" foisting arbitrary and alien rules on the UK played well in certain domestic media with a strong anti-EU slant but was actually completely false – the UK actually had substantial influence on EU policies and practically no EU rule went through without the UK's explicit consent and cooperation – UK politicians just chose to lie to their own constituents about that.

Klaus wrote:

Well, it's been a pretty middle-of-the road decline along the lines predicted by actual experts instead of a totally catastrophic meltdown so far,

Ah no we are still along the trend lines long term if we were still in the EU

You go and tell that to the british exporters who lost large chunks of their business – unless they followed UK government advice and moved to the EU.

"Growth" in a declining currency is also just fictitious once you have substantial import needs from abroad, as the UK obviously does. Then you have just inflation and a decline in real terms.

Klaus wrote:

at least by (illegally) abandoning all import checks!"

Seems you are wrong again.

There is no legal requirement for the UK to impose customs checks on EU imports under the TCA actually the EU doesn’t have to either but we know why the EU does

Nope. WTO members must actually have border checks in order to enforce the rules they have agreed to adhere to, and the same is required by the TCA.

Because this is currently strongly in the EU's interest the EU has just chosen not to insist on UK import checks yet – but that will change once the UK starts undercutting EU standards in earnest, such as when the Australia trade deal comes into force which will not just decimate the UK agricultural sector but also trash UK food standards and threaten EU food safety as well. Dito in other areas.

Other WTO members also haven't sued the UK for its negligent border management yet, but that is likely to happen at some point, too, when they see themselves unfairly disadvantaged by it.

This is a substantially unstable situation where the UK has put itself at the mercy of others – consistent with the major loss of control of its own affairs Brexit has actually meant.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Best benefit of all is choice and accountability.
Government/Parliament have a choice to either implement any rules from the EU or any other nation in fact if it is in the benefit of the UK
Accountability by the electorate of the choices made by government at a GE you can either vote for them or not

No real difference here: I vote both in national elections to set the policy direction of my own country in national decisions and in the EU Council where my government has a veto in all crucial matters and in the european election to further influence the direction of the EU.

You do not vote for the EC and not all fields that become law requires unanimity there is a lot the only needs qualified majority to pass the EC. If the law or regulations pass both the EC &EP and not in the interest of the UK then the UK Parliament has to pass that into law.

Every law and regulation that now goes to the government and parliament as we just saw recently the pressure placed on the government to re-evaluate that’s one type of accountability. would the UK financial groups have that much sway with the EC if it had passed a law that only effected the UK and not the other member nations....i think not

As to the veto will how much longer will it be around as there is a push to abolish the veto

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/0 ... -brussels/

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Well, it's been a pretty middle-of-the road decline along the lines predicted by actual experts instead of a totally catastrophic meltdown so far,

Ah no we are still along the trend lines long term if we were still in the EU

You go and tell that to the british exporters who lost large chunks of their business – unless they followed UK government advice and moved to the EU.

That not what we were talking about was it, the conversation was about the “expert” predictions on what would happen if the UK voted to leave. As the article mention there were disruptions but not the catastrophic doomsday predations like an immediate recession or it will cause WW3

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

at least by (illegally) abandoning all import checks!"

There is no legal requirement for the UK to impose customs checks on EU imports under the TCA actually the EU doesn’t have to either but we know why the EU does

Nope. WTO members must actually have border checks in order to enforce the rules they have agreed to adhere to, and the same is required by the TCA.

Well, if you can show where in the GATT that would be good if you can….

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/201 ... r-borders/

There is no rule in the WTO requiring its member governments to secure their borders.
After Brexit, the UK could drop all border controls for traded goods and services and it would be perfectly within its WTO rights.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.3710136

"There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts," said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.

But….. as I said earlier under MFN the UK has to treat every one whom we trade with on WTO terms to have the same conditions, we are not trading with the EU on WTO terms.
https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/organisat ... agreements

A key rule of the multilateral trade system is that reductions in trade barriers should be applied, on a most-favoured nation basis, to all WTO members. This means that no WTO member should be discriminated against by another member's trade regime. However, regional trade agreements (RTAs) are an important exception to this rule. Under RTAs reductions in trade barriers apply only to the parties to the agreement. This exception is allowed under Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) for trade in goods, in Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for Trade in Services and in the Enabling Clause for developing countries.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/econom ... ntil-2024/

There is no legal requirement for the UK to impose customs checks on EU imports under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which came into force after the UK left the single market.

Klaus wrote:

Because this is currently strongly in the EU's interest the EU has just chosen not to insist on UK import checks yet – but that will change once the UK starts undercutting EU standards in earnest, such as when the Australia trade deal comes into force which will not just decimate the UK agricultural sector but also trash UK food standards and threaten EU food safety as well. Dito in other areas.

Please do tell how the Australian Government via the UK/AU trade deal can change UK food standards, would it not be the other way around with the UK being bigger than AU tell them to change their food standards?

Also, why would the EU insist on customs checks on goods that are not entering the EU?

Klaus wrote:

Other WTO members also haven't sued the UK for its negligent border management yet, but that is likely to happen at some point, too, when they see themselves unfairly disadvantaged by it.

Why would they complain as you said they have abandoned all border checks are they not getting a greater benefits out of it?

Never mind 'Project Fear' the Brexit bunch, the real backers long term of it, are having their own meltdown;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw9Uvb7tHB8

Since the real plan, all along, never mind the big lies behind it, have been exposed by the actions of those who espoused it the most, some muppet (a senior writer) on the Telegraph hailed Kwarteng's budget as a 'true Tory one', well that did not last, their precious markets disagreed, to shattering political effect.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

No difference to the anti Brexit links most here provide


What it does shows was yes there have been disruptions but no big doomsday implosions that remain said would happen in the referenda campaign

By their own admission, because of the TCA that’s predicated on the NIP.

All things that a lot of Brexiteers were actively trying to undermine till this mini budget took over the air waves.

Which is to say, some of those implosions are still possible depending on what happens with the NIP. More so now, I suspect, given the impact that Jessop’s sage advice has had on the UK economy.

Possible but still has not materialised has it.

Least the article I link to werebeing honest

A careful reading of the evidence shows that while there is little evidence yet that Brexit is doing much to help the UK economy, neither is there evidence of much harm. This is significant because it was generally agreed, even by Brexiteers, that there would be initial difficulties.

That Project Fear hasn’t proven to be catastrophic does not mean that it hasn’t done real harm to the UK’s international standing. The markets have lost confidence and are taking control away from the people.

Let’s see if Briefings for Britain’s future analysis is honest enough to admit how significantly the UK’s sovereignty has been impaired here. They’ve successfully demanded a new co-PM (Hunt in all but name).

You can keep arguing that it would’ve happened regardless of Brexit, but the reality is that Truss/Kwarteng/Minford/Jessop/Frost and the other brains behind this would never be anywhere near power if Brexit hadn’t happened.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

By their own admission, because of the TCA that’s predicated on the NIP.

All things that a lot of Brexiteers were actively trying to undermine till this mini budget took over the air waves.

Which is to say, some of those implosions are still possible depending on what happens with the NIP. More so now, I suspect, given the impact that Jessop’s sage advice has had on the UK economy.

Possible but still has not materialised has it.

Least the article I link to werebeing honest

A careful reading of the evidence shows that while there is little evidence yet that Brexit is doing much to help the UK economy, neither is there evidence of much harm. This is significant because it was generally agreed, even by Brexiteers, that there would be initial difficulties.

That Project Fear hasn’t proven to be catastrophic does not mean that it hasn’t done real harm to the UK’s international standing. The markets have lost confidence and are taking control away from the people.

Let’s see if Briefings for Britain’s future analysis is honest enough to admit how significantly the UK’s sovereignty has been impaired here. They’ve successfully demanded a new co-PM (Hunt in all but name).

You can keep arguing that it would’ve happened regardless of Brexit, but the reality is that Truss/Kwarteng/Minford/Jessop/Frost and the other brains behind this would never be anywhere near power if Brexit hadn’t happened.

Governments can never 100% control financial markets i you think they do then you need a reality check

But talking reality, Truss is here and Brexit has happened. You can talk all the hypothetical all you want it dosnt change where we are

A101 wrote:

Governments can never 100% control financial markets i you think they do then you need a reality check

But talking reality, Truss is here and Brexit has happened. You can talk all the hypothetical all you want it dosnt change where we are

Quite the straw man you’ve created there.

It’s not about Governments “controlling” markets, it’s about Governments losing the confidence of the markets to the extent that the markets take effective control of government policy.

Are you arguing that governments cannot control the confidence the markets have in them (i.e. they cannot regain it?)? Because that would be an incredibly daft tack to take.

The pro-Brexit, pro-Tory Spectator has a fantastic podcast on this exact subject today - about how badly the UK’s international reputation has been tarnished (even comparing it to the ashes crisis)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcasts

Amazing that there are so many non-Brits fascinated about UK politics and our economy.

Never conversations on nations with the most appalling human rights abuses and dreadful levels of persecution of the people.

No, just an obsession of a third-country leaving a political union.

The populists/Brexiteers are launching their own Project Fear. Tim Stanley’s got a piece in the DT warning about the remainer establishment taking over again (to wit: Deviate from orthodoxy, and you’ll be crushed by the Remainer, ‘expert’-driven establishment)

Spiked has published a similar article:

“The lobotomisation of the government has only emboldened financial markets and technocracy over democracy, empowering these unaccountable forces to dictate government policy and bring down politicians. And all this has elevated Hunt, a veteran of Cameron-Osborne austerity who, with his plan for tax hikes and spending cuts, is apparently keen to relive the good old days.

Your views on Liz Truss’s mini-budget are now utterly irrelevant. This is about democracy – that old-fashioned principle that we should be able to decide the direction of our nation. The people should not be bystanders in their own democracy, especially in such serious times. We needed a General Election before General Hunt’s coup – but we need one even more so now.”

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/1 ... unts-coup/

Seems the idea of sovereignty in an interconnected world has slammed into the reality of the way the world actually works, triggering a Brexit version of Project Fear (“the establishment is striking back!”).

noviorbis77 wrote:

Amazing that there are so many non-Brits fascinated about UK politics and our economy.

Never conversations on nations with the most appalling human rights abuses and dreadful levels of persecution of the people.

No, just an obsession of a third-country leaving a political union.

Is it? Notwithstanding the psychodrama (and there’s lots), a lot of us are directly ( and indirectly) financially exposed to events there. The politics keeps bleeding into it (Brexit, mini budget etc)

What with London being a global financial capital and all (if one considers it a part of England anyway, given how different it is to the rest of the country).

ElPistolero wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Amazing that there are so many non-Brits fascinated about UK politics and our economy.

Never conversations on nations with the most appalling human rights abuses and dreadful levels of persecution of the people.

No, just an obsession of a third-country leaving a political union.

Is it? Notwithstanding the psychodrama (and there’s lots), a lot of us are directly ( and indirectly) financially exposed to events there. The politics keeps bleeding into it (Brexit, mini budget etc)

What with London being a global financial capital and all (if one considers it a part of England anyway, given how different it is to the rest of the country).

If that matters more to you, then fair enough.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Is it? Notwithstanding the psychodrama (and there’s lots), a lot of us are directly ( and indirectly) financially exposed to events there. The politics keeps bleeding into it (Brexit, mini budget etc)

What with London being a global financial capital and all (if one considers it a part of England anyway, given how different it is to the rest of the country).

If that matters more to you, then fair enough.[/quote]

Indeed. We worry about the risk of this spilling over and affecting global markets. Still can, in fact. It’s why the IMF and the US publicly asked the UK to reverse its mini budget. To its credit, it did (albeit with no one being clear on who the actual PM is anymore). Doesn’t happen often with advanced economies, so it’s very noteworthy in that sense.

I think we can both agree that the worlds most vulnerable are already suffering enough, and don’t need an unnecessary ideologically driven financial crisis to go with it.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Governments can never 100% control financial markets i you think they do then you need a reality check

But talking reality, Truss is here and Brexit has happened. You can talk all the hypothetical all you want it dosnt change where we are

Quite the straw man you’ve created there.

It’s not about Governments “controlling” markets, it’s about Governments losing the confidence of the markets to the extent that the markets take effective control of government policy.

LOL, you are the one saying that we have lost sovereignty to the financial market, when no such thing has happened.

They Governments pull levers that help move the market in certain ways to achieve an outcome they do not always get it right. Hence why we see nations credit rating can move up or down depending on fiscal policy or as we saw the way the market reacted.

You posted a link a which also said as much if they attempted this in a more benign times without the current Volatility in global markets she might have had non of the upheaval we are seeing

ElPistolero wrote:

Are you arguing that governments cannot control the confidence the markets have in them (i.e. they cannot regain it?)? Because that would be an incredibly daft tack to take.

Ad-libbing once again are we....

I haven’t said anything about confidence in the government. But you are continuing to conflate policy with Brexit

Just that the pro remain crowd can’t get over the fact we are out and none of the doomsday predictions came true

I see the new brexit thread has started.

The same things being said over and over.

Arion640 wrote:

I see the new brexit thread has started.

The same things being said over and over.

It is very boring.

Just move on.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Amazing that there are so many non-Brits fascinated about UK politics and our economy.

Never conversations on nations with the most appalling human rights abuses and dreadful levels of persecution of the people.

No, just an obsession of a third-country leaving a political union.

Nothing stopping you from being the OP.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Governments can never 100% control financial markets i you think they do then you need a reality check

But talking reality, Truss is here and Brexit has happened. You can talk all the hypothetical all you want it dosnt change where we are

Quite the straw man you’ve created there.

It’s not about Governments “controlling” markets, it’s about Governments losing the confidence of the markets to the extent that the markets take effective control of government policy.

LOL, you are the one saying that we have lost sovereignty to the financial market, when no such thing has happened.

They Governments pull levers that help move the market in certain ways to achieve an outcome they do not always get it right. Hence why we see nations credit rating can move up or down depending on fiscal policy or as we saw the way the market reacted.

You posted a link a which also said as much if they attempted this in a more benign times without the current Volatility in global markets she might have had non of the upheaval we are seeing

ElPistolero wrote:

Are you arguing that governments cannot control the confidence the markets have in them (i.e. they cannot regain it?)? Because that would be an incredibly daft tack to take.

Ad-libbing once again are we....

I haven’t said anything about confidence in the government. But you are continuing to conflate policy with Brexit

Just that the pro remain crowd can’t get over the fact we are out and none of the doomsday predictions came true

Take it up with Tim Stanley of the Telegraph. The links right there, and so is his commentary about “remainers”. He’s the one linking it to “remainers”. Come to think of it, Truss called the critics “Brexit deniers” at the conference, didn’t she?

And yes, I still stand by belief that these reforms would have worked in normal times. I never disputed that. I just drew attention to the incredible lack of intelligence it takes to try to enact these reforms in this manner given the circumstances.

And, of course, the lack of intelligence inherent in putting these kind of figures in serious offices because they say what you want to hear (a damning indictment, if you will, of the Tory membership).

Again, supply side reforms=good. Implementing it in the Trussian/Frostian/Minfordian way = beyond daft.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I see the new brexit thread has started.

The same things being said over and over.

It is very boring.

Just move on.

Unfortunately (or not), Brexit taints everything (positive or negative) that follows. If the vaccine rollout was a Brexit-related success, whatever’s happening today is, by the same logic, a Brexit-related failure. It’s all encompassing - and still one of the primary dividing lines within the country.

The world views all of this through the prism of Brexit, but it should be said that they’re not; notice the relative absence of posturing on the NIP - a hot button issue pre-mini budget, that isn’t hogging the same level of attention anymore. In fact, all signs point to a quiet agreement, no more removing the ECJ and ripping it up and risking a trade war etc.

We can pretend that all these developments aren’t linked, but they’re all part of the same strategic calculus that’s dictated by Brexit. This mini-budget has harmed the UK position on the NIP far more heavily than anything Parliament could have been accused of pre-2019.

I don’t understand why there’s a fear of talking about Brexit anyway.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Quite the straw man you’ve created there.

It’s not about Governments “controlling” markets, it’s about Governments losing the confidence of the markets to the extent that the markets take effective control of government policy.

LOL, you are the one saying that we have lost sovereignty to the financial market, when no such thing has happened.

They Governments pull levers that help move the market in certain ways to achieve an outcome they do not always get it right. Hence why we see nations credit rating can move up or down depending on fiscal policy or as we saw the way the market reacted.

You posted a link a which also said as much if they attempted this in a more benign times without the current Volatility in global markets she might have had non of the upheaval we are seeing

ElPistolero wrote:

Are you arguing that governments cannot control the confidence the markets have in them (i.e. they cannot regain it?)? Because that would be an incredibly daft tack to take.

Ad-libbing once again are we....

I haven’t said anything about confidence in the government. But you are continuing to conflate policy with Brexit

Just that the pro remain crowd can’t get over the fact we are out and none of the doomsday predictions came true

Take it up with Tim Stanley of the Telegraph. The links right there, and so is his commentary about “remainers”. He’s the one linking it to “remainers”. Come to think of it, Truss called the critics “Brexit deniers” at the conference, didn’t she?

And yes, I still stand by belief that these reforms would have worked in normal times. I never disputed that. I just drew attention to the incredible lack of intelligence it takes to try to enact these reforms in this manner given the circumstances.

And, of course, the lack of intelligence inherent in putting these kind of figures in serious offices because they say what you want to hear (a damning indictment, if you will, of the Tory membership).

Again, supply side reforms=good. Implementing it in the Trussian/Frostian/Minfordian way = beyond daft.

I can’t open DT links no subscription

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Quite the straw man you’ve created there.

It’s not about Governments “controlling” markets, it’s about Governments losing the confidence of the markets to the extent that the markets take effective control of government policy.

LOL, you are the one saying that we have lost sovereignty to the financial market, when no such thing has happened.

They Governments pull levers that help move the market in certain ways to achieve an outcome they do not always get it right. Hence why we see nations credit rating can move up or down depending on fiscal policy or as we saw the way the market reacted.

You posted a link a which also said as much if they attempted this in a more benign times without the current Volatility in global markets she might have had non of the upheaval we are seeing

ElPistolero wrote:

Are you arguing that governments cannot control the confidence the markets have in them (i.e. they cannot regain it?)? Because that would be an incredibly daft tack to take.

Ad-libbing once again are we....

I haven’t said anything about confidence in the government. But you are continuing to conflate policy with Brexit

Just that the pro remain crowd can’t get over the fact we are out and none of the doomsday predictions came true

Take it up with Tim Stanley of the Telegraph. The links right there, and so is his commentary about “remainers”. He’s the one linking it to “remainers”. Come to think of it, Truss called the critics “Brexit deniers” at the conference, didn’t she?

And yes, I still stand by belief that these reforms would have worked in normal times. I never disputed that. I just drew attention to the incredible lack of intelligence it takes to try to enact these reforms in this manner given the circumstances.

And, of course, the lack of intelligence inherent in putting these kind of figures in serious offices because they say what you want to hear (a damning indictment, if you will, of the Tory membership).

Again, supply side reforms=good. Implementing it in the Trussian/Frostian/Minfordian way = beyond daft.

I can’t open DT links no subscription

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

LOL, you are the one saying that we have lost sovereignty to the financial market, when no such thing has happened.

They Governments pull levers that help move the market in certain ways to achieve an outcome they do not always get it right. Hence why we see nations credit rating can move up or down depending on fiscal policy or as we saw the way the market reacted.

You posted a link a which also said as much if they attempted this in a more benign times without the current Volatility in global markets she might have had non of the upheaval we are seeing



Ad-libbing once again are we....

I haven’t said anything about confidence in the government. But you are continuing to conflate policy with Brexit

Just that the pro remain crowd can’t get over the fact we are out and none of the doomsday predictions came true

Take it up with Tim Stanley of the Telegraph. The links right there, and so is his commentary about “remainers”. He’s the one linking it to “remainers”. Come to think of it, Truss called the critics “Brexit deniers” at the conference, didn’t she?

And yes, I still stand by belief that these reforms would have worked in normal times. I never disputed that. I just drew attention to the incredible lack of intelligence it takes to try to enact these reforms in this manner given the circumstances.

And, of course, the lack of intelligence inherent in putting these kind of figures in serious offices because they say what you want to hear (a damning indictment, if you will, of the Tory membership).

Again, supply side reforms=good. Implementing it in the Trussian/Frostian/Minfordian way = beyond daft.

I can’t open DT links no subscription

Your local library probably offers PressReader for free, which is the easiest way to access the Telegraph from abroad.

But the Spiked article by Tom Watson has a similar narrative. That’s not paywalled.

Incidentally, Brendan O’Neill has weighed in too. And he can’t help but invoke Brexit.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/1 ... it-britain

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

LOL, you are the one saying that we have lost sovereignty to the financial market, when no such thing has happened.

They Governments pull levers that help move the market in certain ways to achieve an outcome they do not always get it right. Hence why we see nations credit rating can move up or down depending on fiscal policy or as we saw the way the market reacted.

You posted a link a which also said as much if they attempted this in a more benign times without the current Volatility in global markets she might have had non of the upheaval we are seeing



Ad-libbing once again are we....

I haven’t said anything about confidence in the government. But you are continuing to conflate policy with Brexit

Just that the pro remain crowd can’t get over the fact we are out and none of the doomsday predictions came true

Take it up with Tim Stanley of the Telegraph. The links right there, and so is his commentary about “remainers”. He’s the one linking it to “remainers”. Come to think of it, Truss called the critics “Brexit deniers” at the conference, didn’t she?

And yes, I still stand by belief that these reforms would have worked in normal times. I never disputed that. I just drew attention to the incredible lack of intelligence it takes to try to enact these reforms in this manner given the circumstances.

And, of course, the lack of intelligence inherent in putting these kind of figures in serious offices because they say what you want to hear (a damning indictment, if you will, of the Tory membership).

Again, supply side reforms=good. Implementing it in the Trussian/Frostian/Minfordian way = beyond daft.

I can’t open DT links no subscription

Open in a new private window and quickly switch to reader view. That works for me.

cpd wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Take it up with Tim Stanley of the Telegraph. The links right there, and so is his commentary about “remainers”. He’s the one linking it to “remainers”. Come to think of it, Truss called the critics “Brexit deniers” at the conference, didn’t she?

And yes, I still stand by belief that these reforms would have worked in normal times. I never disputed that. I just drew attention to the incredible lack of intelligence it takes to try to enact these reforms in this manner given the circumstances.

And, of course, the lack of intelligence inherent in putting these kind of figures in serious offices because they say what you want to hear (a damning indictment, if you will, of the Tory membership).

Again, supply side reforms=good. Implementing it in the Trussian/Frostian/Minfordian way = beyond daft.

I can’t open DT links no subscription

Open in a new private window and quickly switch to reader view. That works for me.

Yeah someone else said something like that while ago which I tried but no joy

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Take it up with Tim Stanley of the Telegraph. The links right there, and so is his commentary about “remainers”. He’s the one linking it to “remainers”. Come to think of it, Truss called the critics “Brexit deniers” at the conference, didn’t she?

And yes, I still stand by belief that these reforms would have worked in normal times. I never disputed that. I just drew attention to the incredible lack of intelligence it takes to try to enact these reforms in this manner given the circumstances.

And, of course, the lack of intelligence inherent in putting these kind of figures in serious offices because they say what you want to hear (a damning indictment, if you will, of the Tory membership).

Again, supply side reforms=good. Implementing it in the Trussian/Frostian/Minfordian way = beyond daft.

I can’t open DT links no subscription

Your local library probably offers PressReader for free, which is the easiest way to access the Telegraph from abroad.

But the Spiked article by Tom Watson has a similar narrative. That’s not paywalled.

Incidentally, Brendan O’Neill has weighed in too. And he can’t help but invoke Brexit.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/1 ... it-britain

Yeah I read the spike you link earlier that works. But I notice some sites only give limited access by number of articles but I just delete the cookies that seems to fix it some times

Had to laugh about the local library the last time I was in a library was in school nearly 50 years ago lol

Arion640 wrote:

I see the new brexit thread has started.

The same things being said over and over.

With a slight difference being the brutal incursion of reality and the obvious necessity of the much-maligned experts having to rescue the country from the culmination of the whole radical debacle.

It's over: There just are no benefits, only damages.

Of course Brexit cannot be reversed, that is the "success" of indeed having wrecked the UK's membership. That just doesn't help anyone, by now not even the disaster capitalists behind the whole strategy any more.

Let me try and give a simplified explanation as to why markets behaved the way they did.

It was all because of the uncosted budget.

Instead of a country, let's take an example of a person, say Mr. X.

Now Mr. X wants a loan of say Rs. 1000/- for whatever reason.

He goes to the bank and asks give me IINR 1000/-

The banks asks him to produce a statement of accounts.

He produces a half-filled statement of accounts -

In which all liabilities are shown, but incomes are not.

The bank says you already have so much liabilities, how are you gonna pay those, accounts have to be matched otherwise you are not solvent.

Mr. X adamantly refuses citing he doesn't need to.

Both Mr. X credit rating goes down and nobody in the market will give him loan.

At the same time, the assets he held, their value also depreciates because it became known that he can't act responsibly. So whose to say whether or not Mr.X has those number of assets and priced them accurately.

Mr. X also tries to say this is Mr. Z's responsibility as he is my lawyer/accountant etc. (Cue BoE here.) so the responsibility lies with him. Mr. Z says as any accountant would, what actions to take, what policy to do, what budgets to make, that is not in my remit. At the most what I can do is he brings the budget and I can see whether the books balance or not. The rest is his prerogative.

Pretty bizarre and shameful scenes in the Commons yesterday, best viewed through satire and disdain;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... y-mordaunt

GDB wrote:

Pretty bizarre and shameful scenes in the Commons yesterday, best viewed through satire and disdain;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... y-mordaunt

Wowee, didn't know all that drama. I did see somebody sharing about Penny Morduant was putting the dagger on Liz Truss but this is beyond wild. Didn't know she actually showed up and remained silent in commons.

pune wrote:

GDB wrote:

Pretty bizarre and shameful scenes in the Commons yesterday, best viewed through satire and disdain;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... y-mordaunt

Wowee, didn't know all that drama. I did see somebody sharing about Penny Morduant was putting the dagger on Liz Truss but this is beyond wild. Didn't know she actually showed up and remained silent in commons.

It gets worse;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InZDQjIJw2Y&t=304s

Don't feel too sorry for Truss, nasty piece of work as most who have worked with her will say going back years, more recently, Johnny Mercer, a Tory MP and ex Royal Marine with three Afghan tours and the PTSD that went with it, was made a Minister For Veterans, Truss axed the job but when Mercer, who has said this, tried to explain the importance of looking after veterans, Truss just laughed.
There it is you Brexit Backers, with your faux concern, your swallowing the Kool Aid of Austerity, that's the true face of it.
And from a Tory MP.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Amazing that there are so many non-Brits fascinated about UK politics and our economy.

Never conversations on nations with the most appalling human rights abuses and dreadful levels of persecution of the people.

No, just an obsession of a third-country leaving a political union.

I wouldn't look forward to the day nobody cares anymore.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Amazing that there are so many non-Brits fascinated about UK politics and our economy.

Never conversations on nations with the most appalling human rights abuses and dreadful levels of persecution of the people.

No, just an obsession of a third-country leaving a political union.

Well we are close culturally so that makes a difference. What happens in say Saudi Arabia is horrible but if people there don't mind...

Here it seems most British people think their government is fucked up.

Incidentally the rising interest rates were compromising my search for a new home, and the Kwamikazi crash lost me a good chunk of money so it's not just about a third country. From my understanding pension funds all over the world have been screwed by him, too.

ElPistolero wrote:

I don’t understand why there’s a fear of talking about Brexit anyway.

Because even the staunchest Brexit supporters feel the pang of being called out on their previous misinformation when not flat out lies and the build up to Brexit was as acrimonious as it could be so people won't pass up the chance to remind them.

There's still the occasional Baghdad Bob trying to argue it was either inevitable or part of the plan though.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Amazing that there are so many non-Brits fascinated about UK politics and our economy.

I have always had a cultural and lingual affinity to Britain (to both of the main isles, actually), so an interest in its political affairs has always been natural to me. And I observed in horror throughout the Thatcher years and the Iraq invasion and followed the various media and political campaigns right up to the Brexit campaign as the UK version of the Trump ideology (both substantially fed and driven by the same Rupert Murdoch).

Also as you may have noted I am a european citizen not just by happenstance but by conviction and based on observed historical experience and actual information, not just by propaganda, so I was appalled by the spectacular and factually disproven lies about the EU that were peddled by UK media and politicians and which were unfortunately believed by too many voters.

I do not primarily blame the voters for the outcome, because it is normal that we citizens rely on our politicians and on the media to form our own voting decisions and it is not always easy to get that right, but politicians and journalists have a responsibility to get it right and to tell the public the truth: It is their whole job!

So no mercy for those who knew better but chose to lie in order to boost their own careers and certain moneyed special interests even knowing this would be detrimental to their country as a whole.

Europe has been impacted, but also galvanized and ultimately strengthened by Brexit, ironically, which is where my self-interest comes in again, but I also want the UK to be a friendly, successful country, not one ruined by hateful and incompetent demagogues!

If you can see a connection with my german nationality and our own collective history there then that is not coincidental at all.

Never conversations on nations with the most appalling human rights abuses and dreadful levels of persecution of the people.

How nice would it be if whataboutism wasn't the immediate first resort?

No, just an obsession of a third-country leaving a political union.

The UK has already left and that is irrevocable. You should have no illusions about that. A new accession will be much harder and will take considerable time and effort, but unless there is a broad and especially a stable consensus in the UK population not even an application would be possible.

We have observed the UK marching off into the wilderness and only yesterday it has just barely stepped back from the brink of an absolute abyss; That is not how I imagine my favourite entertainment, really.

We have much more important problems to solve, and we need to do that together!

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Amazing that there are so many non-Brits fascinated about UK politics and our economy.

I have always had a cultural and lingual affinity to Britain (to both of the main isles, actually), so an interest in its political affairs has always been natural to me. And I observed in horror throughout the Thatcher years and the Iraq invasion and followed the various media and political campaigns right up to the Brexit campaign as the UK version of the Trump ideology (both substantially fed and driven by the same Rupert Murdoch).

Also as you may have noted I am a european citizen not just by happenstance but by conviction and based on observed historical experience and actual information, not just by propaganda, so I was appalled by the spectacular and factually disproven lies about the EU that were peddled by UK media and politicians and which were unfortunately believed by too many voters.

I do not primarily blame the voters for the outcome, because it is normal that we citizens rely on our politicians and on the media to form our own voting decisions and it is not always easy to get that right, but politicians and journalists have a responsibility to get it right and to tell the public the truth: It is their whole job!

So no mercy for those who knew better but chose to lie in order to boost their own careers and certain moneyed special interests even knowing this would be detrimental to their country as a whole.

Europe has been impacted, but also galvanized and ultimately strengthened by Brexit, ironically, which is where my self-interest comes in again, but I also want the UK to be a friendly, successful country, not one ruined by hateful and incompetent demagogues!

If you can see a connection with my german nationality and our own collective history there then that is not coincidental at all.

Never conversations on nations with the most appalling human rights abuses and dreadful levels of persecution of the people.

How nice would it be if whataboutism wasn't the immediate first resort?

No, just an obsession of a third-country leaving a political union.

The UK has already left and that is irrevocable. You should have no illusions about that. A new accession will be much harder and will take considerable time and effort, but unless there is a broad and especially a stable consensus in the UK population not even an application would be possible.

We have observed the UK marching off into the wilderness and only yesterday it has just barely stepped back from the brink of an absolute abyss; That is not how I imagine my favourite entertainment, really.

We have much more important problems to solve, and we need to do that together!

That is fair enough. Thank you for a detailed and thoughtful response.

I’ve never really thought of myself as European. Maybe if the UK hadn’t sat fully at the edge of integration, during our years of EEC/EU membership this may have been different.

Brexit or not Brexit, it is in everyones interests to work together.