Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Bojo has been rumbled by Westmonster
https://www.westmonster.com/brexit-meps-hit-out-at-boris-as-he-seeks-eu-deal-with-merkel-and-macron/
he Brexit Party have questioned whether PM Boris Johnson can be trusted as he pushes for an EU deal with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron.
Instead of focusing on a No Deal, Boris now seemingly wants to push ahead with Theresa May’s treaty minus the backstop.
That has provoked criticism, with Brexit Party MEP Alexandra Phillips telling the Daily Express: “Boris has been shown to be devoid of any principles throughout his life in politics, who will say anything to anyone if it helps his political career.
“There’s a sneaking suspicion that he backed Brexit as the best route to getting the keys to Number 10.
“Once a fan of the EU’s single market, he voted for Theresa May’s surrender treaty in Parliament.
“Now he wants us to believe that he backs a clean Brexit that the 17.4 million Leavers voted for.”
...........................
Ignoring of course all the promises that were made to these 17.4 million suckers to get their vote for anything BUT a clean Brexit
https://www.westmonster.com/brexit-meps-hit-out-at-boris-as-he-seeks-eu-deal-with-merkel-and-macron/
he Brexit Party have questioned whether PM Boris Johnson can be trusted as he pushes for an EU deal with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron.
Instead of focusing on a No Deal, Boris now seemingly wants to push ahead with Theresa May’s treaty minus the backstop.
That has provoked criticism, with Brexit Party MEP Alexandra Phillips telling the Daily Express: “Boris has been shown to be devoid of any principles throughout his life in politics, who will say anything to anyone if it helps his political career.
“There’s a sneaking suspicion that he backed Brexit as the best route to getting the keys to Number 10.
“Once a fan of the EU’s single market, he voted for Theresa May’s surrender treaty in Parliament.
“Now he wants us to believe that he backs a clean Brexit that the 17.4 million Leavers voted for.”
...........................
Ignoring of course all the promises that were made to these 17.4 million suckers to get their vote for anything BUT a clean Brexit
it's only to be expected, the brexiteers will vote down any deal, no matter what it is.
Thats a very clever post OG, you, ve got every base covered. Whatever Boris does you can criticise and say "I told you so". You should read palms and tea leaves. You have the gift. Gypsy Rosie Campbell...
I’ve just heard it’s the Notting Hill festival of Knives, Crime and Violence this weekend. I should have invested in that blue tarpaulin factory. Damn, another business opportunity missed. We need to grab these chances before Brexit.
Last edited:
Saw a sobering statistic about violence, specifically murder, in London other day.
Last year there were 136 murders in our capital.
During the gang years in Chicago (quoted as 1919 to 1933),arguably the most violent civilian times we have witnessed there were 739 murders. Around one a week. London is well ahead now!!! I suppose we should take into account massive population increase/difference but lets not forget London isnt using Chicago piano... Yet...
Last year there were 136 murders in our capital.
During the gang years in Chicago (quoted as 1919 to 1933),arguably the most violent civilian times we have witnessed there were 739 murders. Around one a week. London is well ahead now!!! I suppose we should take into account massive population increase/difference but lets not forget London isnt using Chicago piano... Yet...
.. arguably the most violent civilian times?. .. the current murder rate in Chicago is nearly 600 per annum on a population base of 2.7 million. So the London population at nearly three times that is running at 1/10 !.
As I've reminded 50Hertz more than once, why pick on London when there's far worse elsewhere in England, particularly Birmingham and the West Midlands with far less than London's population.
Like 79 murders in in June 2017 to June 2018, their murder rate further increased since then and now at crisis levels. Violent crime is worse there than in London. They don't just stab up there, one of the victims was beheaded where he was killed in a betting shop.
The problem we face in London is that the media go for the biggest figure, so London with a true circa 10.2 millions resident will always have that. Cities with one or two millions can be far worse, while not superficially appearing so.
.
Bernard Connolly making some excellent points (as usual):
Where were the Brexit no deal warnings during the Scottish independence debate?
Bernard Connolly
Four years ago, 45 per cent of Scottish voters favoured leaving the UK. Many of the warnings about the negative impact of independence on the Scottish economy were justified. But they did not extinguish a yearning for independence – and the same could be said of the EU referendum, with the caveat that this time a majority voted to leave, and many of the warnings were unjustified. An ineradicable desire to get our country back triumphed over the Project Fear campaign conducted by the Treasury and the whole of the nomenklatura that sought to preserve position, power and privilege for itself and to suppress any notion that ordinary people, in Britain or in any other European country, could have a say in how they are governed.
In part, that triumph came because of the risible – and dubiously motivated – nature of the economic argument for staying in as presented by assorted anti-Brexit ‘experts’; the ‘experts’ who habitually get the big questions wrong. Indeed, I believe that on the balance of probabilities the longer-term impact of Brexit on the British economy will be favourable.
Now we’re being told that leaving the EU without a deal would be economically catastrophic. Curiously, those same ‘experts’ didn’t flag up such purported risks associated with Scotland leaving the EU and the UK without a deal four years ago; and Scottish independence would have inevitably been a no-deal exit from both. The EU, and for that matter the rest of the UK, could not have negotiated any kind of trade arrangement with Scotland until it became a sovereign state – that is, until it was already out of the UK and thus out of the EU. Yet no one suggested, as they now suggest about Brexit, that ‘no deal’ would mean the imposition of a blockade. Not even the most ardent unionists warned of plagues of super-gonorrhea and of Prime Ministers being deprived of insulin. Why not? The answer says a lot about the true nature of the EU and its attitudes to Britain, which are very different from English attitudes to Scotland.
But economics first. The Treasury’s notorious short-term prediction of immediate recession, rocketing unemployment and a ‘punishment Budget’ if Leave won has been shown to be utterly, scandalously wrong. For one thing, it assumed that fiscal and monetary policy would become more restrictive if Leave won. That aspect of their dire warnings was proved false the very day after the referendum. But even to have threatened that the people would be punished for voting in the ‘wrong’ way was disgraceful.
The Treasury’s emanations are nearly always wrong. Yet the organs of the establishment trot out the Treasury’s even more fantastical medium-term and long-term warnings of income foregone after we’ve left the EU empire, even with a deal. Its assessment of the Brexit impact on productivity growth is based on the so-called gravity model of trade. Unsurprisingly, however, the Treasury model, despite being used by a highly-politicised body, ignores the most important aspect of the relationship: what happens to the power of those in charge when trade arrangements change?
The gravity model has been based mainly on the experience of the integration of previously backward and/or communist countries into the capitalist world economy. When operated in the Treasury’s biased way, it attributes just to the volume of trade impacts that should be attributed to an associated institutional and political improvement, and in particular a reduction in the exploitative power of rent-seeking organisations, whether public (the state) or private (big landlords and monopoly firms).
The Treasury thus reverses the correct sign of the productivity impact of Brexit. There will be substantial long-run Brexit gains in productive potential (a Corbyn/McDonnell government is an obviously important caveat to this but one less likely to be relevant in a no-deal scenario with a proper Conservative leader than in a May-capitulation scenario). The political system would become more democratic and open; the power of those in charge would be reduced; we would be freed from the EU’s protectionist customs union and could reduce tariffs with the rest of the world, whether reciprocally or unilaterally; and we would be freed from the anti-competitive (and very obviously anti-British) Single Market rules.
What about the threatened biblical plagues that will supposedly be visited on us if we leave without a deal? Why were these blood-curdling threats not made in the Scottish referendum? Quite rightly, no one would have believed such stories. No one would ever have imagined that the rest of the UK would have blockaded Scotland; and Brussels knew that if it had ordered Britain to institute a blockade that order would have been ignored, creating an immediate crisis for the whole EU edifice.
So why do Brussels and the civil service now make fearful threats about no deal? Where Brussels, Berlin and Paris are concerned, the answer is obvious. In the Scottish case, they reasoned on the principle that ‘my enemy’s [England’s] enemy [Scotland, as they saw it, ignoring three hundred years of shared history] is my friend.’ In the Brexit case, there is just an enemy – Britain – which must be impoverished, subjugated and humiliated. As for the domestic branch of the nomenklatura, one shudders to think what might be shaping its attitude.
The economic and, importantly, financial-system cost (and, even more, the security and defence cost) to the EU as a whole – and particularly to some individual EU countries, such as Ireland, and sectors, such as the German auto industry – of a no-deal Brexit and no FTA will be substantial.
May’s deal, in contrast, would be very beneficial to the EU, allowing it to impose additional regulatory burdens on British firms and gain access to British markets on terms unfavourable to Britain, as bait in FTAs with other countries. So one can understand why the EU prefers May’s capitulation deal, even without taking into consideration the dreadful dilemma for the EU about the Irish border question it will have created for itself if there is no deal.
But if the trahison des clercs of the British Establishment is defeated, and we leave without a May-type deal, will the EU institute a punishment blockade? One hopes there will be bilateral side deals. But one cannot ignore the motivation of the EU. Its mindset is arguably that the war – a war against political legitimacy – has never ended. Britain is now the most vulnerable part of the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ world, as it was in 1803-05 and in 1940. The obstruction of supplies of food and medicines to Britain would in effect be an act of aggression – but simply a more overt act in what has always been a long-running fight against the ‘Anglo-Saxon model’.
So either no deal holds no terrors, or terrors have to be confronted, as we once confronted Napoleon. Defending our independence, and by extension that of every European people, from an historically vengeful European Empire is worth more than a container-load of avocados.
Bernard Connolly is the author of The Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe’s Money.
Where were the Brexit no deal warnings during the Scottish independence debate?
Bernard Connolly
Four years ago, 45 per cent of Scottish voters favoured leaving the UK. Many of the warnings about the negative impact of independence on the Scottish economy were justified. But they did not extinguish a yearning for independence – and the same could be said of the EU referendum, with the caveat that this time a majority voted to leave, and many of the warnings were unjustified. An ineradicable desire to get our country back triumphed over the Project Fear campaign conducted by the Treasury and the whole of the nomenklatura that sought to preserve position, power and privilege for itself and to suppress any notion that ordinary people, in Britain or in any other European country, could have a say in how they are governed.
In part, that triumph came because of the risible – and dubiously motivated – nature of the economic argument for staying in as presented by assorted anti-Brexit ‘experts’; the ‘experts’ who habitually get the big questions wrong. Indeed, I believe that on the balance of probabilities the longer-term impact of Brexit on the British economy will be favourable.
Now we’re being told that leaving the EU without a deal would be economically catastrophic. Curiously, those same ‘experts’ didn’t flag up such purported risks associated with Scotland leaving the EU and the UK without a deal four years ago; and Scottish independence would have inevitably been a no-deal exit from both. The EU, and for that matter the rest of the UK, could not have negotiated any kind of trade arrangement with Scotland until it became a sovereign state – that is, until it was already out of the UK and thus out of the EU. Yet no one suggested, as they now suggest about Brexit, that ‘no deal’ would mean the imposition of a blockade. Not even the most ardent unionists warned of plagues of super-gonorrhea and of Prime Ministers being deprived of insulin. Why not? The answer says a lot about the true nature of the EU and its attitudes to Britain, which are very different from English attitudes to Scotland.
But economics first. The Treasury’s notorious short-term prediction of immediate recession, rocketing unemployment and a ‘punishment Budget’ if Leave won has been shown to be utterly, scandalously wrong. For one thing, it assumed that fiscal and monetary policy would become more restrictive if Leave won. That aspect of their dire warnings was proved false the very day after the referendum. But even to have threatened that the people would be punished for voting in the ‘wrong’ way was disgraceful.
The Treasury’s emanations are nearly always wrong. Yet the organs of the establishment trot out the Treasury’s even more fantastical medium-term and long-term warnings of income foregone after we’ve left the EU empire, even with a deal. Its assessment of the Brexit impact on productivity growth is based on the so-called gravity model of trade. Unsurprisingly, however, the Treasury model, despite being used by a highly-politicised body, ignores the most important aspect of the relationship: what happens to the power of those in charge when trade arrangements change?
The gravity model has been based mainly on the experience of the integration of previously backward and/or communist countries into the capitalist world economy. When operated in the Treasury’s biased way, it attributes just to the volume of trade impacts that should be attributed to an associated institutional and political improvement, and in particular a reduction in the exploitative power of rent-seeking organisations, whether public (the state) or private (big landlords and monopoly firms).
The Treasury thus reverses the correct sign of the productivity impact of Brexit. There will be substantial long-run Brexit gains in productive potential (a Corbyn/McDonnell government is an obviously important caveat to this but one less likely to be relevant in a no-deal scenario with a proper Conservative leader than in a May-capitulation scenario). The political system would become more democratic and open; the power of those in charge would be reduced; we would be freed from the EU’s protectionist customs union and could reduce tariffs with the rest of the world, whether reciprocally or unilaterally; and we would be freed from the anti-competitive (and very obviously anti-British) Single Market rules.
What about the threatened biblical plagues that will supposedly be visited on us if we leave without a deal? Why were these blood-curdling threats not made in the Scottish referendum? Quite rightly, no one would have believed such stories. No one would ever have imagined that the rest of the UK would have blockaded Scotland; and Brussels knew that if it had ordered Britain to institute a blockade that order would have been ignored, creating an immediate crisis for the whole EU edifice.
So why do Brussels and the civil service now make fearful threats about no deal? Where Brussels, Berlin and Paris are concerned, the answer is obvious. In the Scottish case, they reasoned on the principle that ‘my enemy’s [England’s] enemy [Scotland, as they saw it, ignoring three hundred years of shared history] is my friend.’ In the Brexit case, there is just an enemy – Britain – which must be impoverished, subjugated and humiliated. As for the domestic branch of the nomenklatura, one shudders to think what might be shaping its attitude.
The economic and, importantly, financial-system cost (and, even more, the security and defence cost) to the EU as a whole – and particularly to some individual EU countries, such as Ireland, and sectors, such as the German auto industry – of a no-deal Brexit and no FTA will be substantial.
May’s deal, in contrast, would be very beneficial to the EU, allowing it to impose additional regulatory burdens on British firms and gain access to British markets on terms unfavourable to Britain, as bait in FTAs with other countries. So one can understand why the EU prefers May’s capitulation deal, even without taking into consideration the dreadful dilemma for the EU about the Irish border question it will have created for itself if there is no deal.
But if the trahison des clercs of the British Establishment is defeated, and we leave without a May-type deal, will the EU institute a punishment blockade? One hopes there will be bilateral side deals. But one cannot ignore the motivation of the EU. Its mindset is arguably that the war – a war against political legitimacy – has never ended. Britain is now the most vulnerable part of the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ world, as it was in 1803-05 and in 1940. The obstruction of supplies of food and medicines to Britain would in effect be an act of aggression – but simply a more overt act in what has always been a long-running fight against the ‘Anglo-Saxon model’.
So either no deal holds no terrors, or terrors have to be confronted, as we once confronted Napoleon. Defending our independence, and by extension that of every European people, from an historically vengeful European Empire is worth more than a container-load of avocados.
Bernard Connolly is the author of The Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe’s Money.
Last edited:
That is impossible, they are not congenital liars like him
Bernard Connolly is the author of The Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe’s Money.
But economics first. The Treasury’s notorious short-term prediction of immediate recession, rocketing unemployment and a ‘punishment Budget’ if Leave won has been shown to be utterly, scandalously wrong
"Now we’re being told that leaving the EU without a deal would be economically catastrophic."
So why are we spending billions to stop that?
And we are much further in the red than we were three years ago
" Yet no one suggested, as they now suggest about Brexit, that ‘no deal’ would mean the imposition of a blockade"
Nobody has actually, apart from a prominent leave politician GOVE
The Treasury’s emanations are nearly always wrong
But now no deal is going to be just fine?
May’s deal, in contrast, would be very beneficial to the EU, allowing it to impose additional regulatory burdens on British firms and gain access to British markets on terms unfavourable to Britain, as bait in FTAs with other countries. So one can understand why the EU prefers May’s capitulation deal, even without taking into consideration the dreadful dilemma for the EU about the Irish border question it will have created for itself if there is no deal.
It gives us access t over a hundred FTA's we have no chance of getting on our own!
But one cannot ignore the motivation of the EU. Its mindset is arguably that the war – a war against political legitimacy – has never ended. Britain is now the most vulnerable part of the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ world, as it was in 1803-05 and in 1940. The obstruction of supplies of food and medicines to Britain would in effect be an act of aggression – but simply a more overt act in what has always been a long-running fight against the ‘Anglo-Saxon model’.
If ever there was proof this author is an idiot, that paragraph does the job with style
Europe is a "Single Entity" engaged in economic Warfare with us?
This is utter absolute tripe!
When have we ever been at war with a unified Europe? that hasn't existed since the Roman Empire.
I'm sorry but you have to turn your brain off to believe this blithering idiot
He is simply deranged.
What days can we visit him in the loony bin?
As to his book
Bernard Connolly is the author of The Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe’s Money.
"From the moment I picked up your book to the moment I put it down I couldn't stop laughing.
One of these days I may even read it"
Here is something worth reading
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-cost-how-much-uk-economy-money-spent-a8854726.html
Brexit has cost UK economy £66bn so far, study finds
Britain has missed out on £550m per week of growth since June 2016 referendum, according to Standard & Poor's
And it has yet to happen, remember that
But economics first. The Treasury’s notorious short-term prediction of immediate recession, rocketing unemployment and a ‘punishment Budget’ if Leave won has been shown to be utterly, scandalously wrong
"Now we’re being told that leaving the EU without a deal would be economically catastrophic."
So why are we spending billions to stop that?
And we are much further in the red than we were three years ago
" Yet no one suggested, as they now suggest about Brexit, that ‘no deal’ would mean the imposition of a blockade"
Nobody has actually, apart from a prominent leave politician GOVE
The Treasury’s emanations are nearly always wrong
But now no deal is going to be just fine?
May’s deal, in contrast, would be very beneficial to the EU, allowing it to impose additional regulatory burdens on British firms and gain access to British markets on terms unfavourable to Britain, as bait in FTAs with other countries. So one can understand why the EU prefers May’s capitulation deal, even without taking into consideration the dreadful dilemma for the EU about the Irish border question it will have created for itself if there is no deal.
It gives us access t over a hundred FTA's we have no chance of getting on our own!
But one cannot ignore the motivation of the EU. Its mindset is arguably that the war – a war against political legitimacy – has never ended. Britain is now the most vulnerable part of the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ world, as it was in 1803-05 and in 1940. The obstruction of supplies of food and medicines to Britain would in effect be an act of aggression – but simply a more overt act in what has always been a long-running fight against the ‘Anglo-Saxon model’.
If ever there was proof this author is an idiot, that paragraph does the job with style
Europe is a "Single Entity" engaged in economic Warfare with us?
This is utter absolute tripe!
When have we ever been at war with a unified Europe? that hasn't existed since the Roman Empire.
I'm sorry but you have to turn your brain off to believe this blithering idiot
He is simply deranged.
What days can we visit him in the loony bin?
As to his book
Bernard Connolly is the author of The Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe’s Money.
"From the moment I picked up your book to the moment I put it down I couldn't stop laughing.
One of these days I may even read it"
Here is something worth reading
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-cost-how-much-uk-economy-money-spent-a8854726.html
Brexit has cost UK economy £66bn so far, study finds
Britain has missed out on £550m per week of growth since June 2016 referendum, according to Standard & Poor's
And it has yet to happen, remember that
Last edited:
That’s less than on HS2 train-set. Plus we are going to get £350 000 000 per week back once we leave the EU, it said do on the side of a bus.
I wonder where that bus is now?
Those" excellent points " simply ignore a fundamental truth. The Scottish Referendum might well have passed,except that the Scots were informed in no uncertain terms that they would be expelled from the EU..from Mr Cameron . And that it would be a long time before they would have any opportunity of joining as an independent nation. There was an implicit threat that England would thwart any early membership.
That was the turning point.
Last edited:
That's your opinion about what many consider to be (on all side of the political spectrum) one of the most insightful economists in the world right now.
OG - you're just not in his league. Just not in his league.
Bless.
Nice weather though huh? How's your wife? Any improvements?