Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Beechey]

25 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The only reason there is not widespread support is because the Brexiteers know they would lose now that all the lies are exposed.

Why am I not £4,300 worse off per year already, or why is nobody still saying this?

 

 

Possibly because it was never true?

Edited 28 February 2018 by Beechey

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Beechey said:

Why am I not £4,300 worse off per year already, or why is nobody still saying this?

 

 

Possibly because it was never true?

 

Do you see the bit where it says, "If Britain leaves the EU"?

 

 

[Beechey]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Do you see the bit where it says, "If Britain leaves the EU"?

 

 

And we are leaving, so why is nobody still saying this?

 

I can tell you why, it's because they took a GDP forecast for 30 years in advance, divided it by the number of UK households (nobody has ever used this statistic, especially not a government) and then stated it as "your family will be this much worse off".

 

I'd call that at the very least, a stretching of the truth, no?

Edited 28 February 2018 by Beechey

[Donut]

20 minutes ago, Captain... said:

A Hard Brexit will piss off a number in the 52% nobody voted for Hard Brexit of that 52% some voted for a Swiss deal, some for EFTA some for a bespoke deal where we have our cake and eat it, some just want to shut our borders. There were many different reasons for voting leave but not all of these can be delivered. It was a binary question with a really complex solution.

 

Regardless of all of that any sane politician should want a second referendum to either put the whole thing to bed or cover their own backs.

Essentially, this

 

The public were never going to be in a position to make an informed decision where they could narrow their decision down to a yes or no, especially on the leave side which is a radical change, when the decision itself contains an absolute myriad of possibilities, consequences, and compromises.

 

Everyone has a version of "their" brexit in their heads. One that might not be deliverable, one that might not be negotiable, one that might utterly ruin our country. There was absolutely no clarity on what an end game even might have looked like, and a complete lack of real facts, how YOU will be affected financially, how EU law does or doesn't affect you etc. Some also think they are exempt from the bad things that could come to them from brexit and will not listen.

 

A second referendum really has to be essential on the terms of brexit, or people are NOT being offered the control they were promised initially.

 

 

[Buce]

Just now, Beechey said:

And we are leaving, so why is nobody still saying this?

 

Ask George Osbourne.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

14 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Switzerland are able to negotiate their own trade deals, but they still have to follow certain rules on trade and I don’t think they are bound by the ECJ but they can choose to go to it to settle disputes, it is the closest to have your cake and eat it Brexit but it relies on freedom of movement.

If the Swiss decide to stop freedom of movement that will be interesting. To be honest Switzerland is a country worth aspiring too.

 

Very clean, safe and efficient.

 

If we have a deal it should be as close to that as we can get.

Edited 28 February 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Beechey]

19 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think some wanted a so called hard Brexit, no idea on the percentages involved however. To be honest I can see the advantages of a hard Brexit over a soft Brexit but my personal preference would be no Brexit. To be in a block that we have no real control over would be ridiculous in my eyes, I don't know if the Swiss deal allowed them to negotiate their own trade arrangements, I would expect not? I don't think they have any influence over negotiating deals for the EU/Single market either but again I could be wrong.

 

To me it makes sense for people to lay on the table clearly what their position and let people vote on that. If May or the Tories are going to go with Hard Brexit give us the details behind that, what it means honestly. Labour have set down their position now, I think its rubbish but in fairness they have been quite clear. We need all parties to do the same.

Switzerland can negotiate their own deals, yes. That's because they're in the Single Market, but not the Customs Union, which also means they have to accept freedom of movement. However, the people entering their country have no right to settle.

 

EFTA allows them this luxury.

Edited 28 February 2018 by Beechey

[Guest Foxin_mad]

11 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Switzerland can negotiate their own deals, yes. That's because they're in the Single Market, but not the Customs Union, which also means they have to accept freedom of movement.

 

EFTA allows them this luxury.

Makes Corbyns position even more perplexing then. No Labour government will ever end freedom of movement, he says he doesn't want to be in the single market or 'the' customs union but wants 'a' new customs union. I can only assume then that he is not acting in the best interests of the country here, and is basically acting in quite a dishonourable way so that he can enact his own policies without EU anti state aid laws causing him problems.

 

So in summary:

 

Hard Brexit - potentially no trade deal with EU, no 'divorce' payment, end fom, strike our own trade deals with others

Labour Brexit - 'a' customs union potentially without fom but no ability to strike trade deals, fom highly likely either way

 

Other soft Brexit - some kind of Swiss deal possibly without fom especially if they get that.

Edited 28 February 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

Makes Corbyns position even more perplexing then. No Labour government will ever end freedom of movement, he says he doesn't want to be in the single market or 'the' customs union but wants 'a' new customs union. I can only assume then that he is not acting in the best interests of the country here, and is basically acting in quite a dishonourable way so that he can enact his own policies without EU anti state aid laws causing him problems.

The thing is that there's no way the EU Parliament will allow a non-member state to have better terms than a member state.

[Guest Kopfkino]

10 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Makes Corbyns position even more perplexing then. No Labour government will ever end freedom of movement, he says he doesn't want to be in the single market or 'the' customs union but wants 'a' new customs union. I can only assume then that he is not acting in the best interests of the country here, and is basically acting in quite a dishonourable way so that he can enact his own policies without EU anti state aid laws causing him problems.

 

 

The bizarre thing is he noted the problem with his proposal in his own speech. He talked of having a 'say' in future EU trade deals and not having rules imposed on us. But there's almost no way the EU will give us a veto or really let us have much influence, why would they? We'd probably get better than Turkey but it's not going to be great. And it's the Corbyn supporters that will kick off about a renewal of TTIP and shout doomsday about it's impact on the NHS. 

[Buce]

Theresa May concedes on EU migrants' residency rights during Brexit transition

Major climbdown revealed by Home Office as EU citizens will have right to settle permanently

 

Theresa May has conceded that new EU migrants who come to Britain during the Brexit transition will have the right to settle permanently in the UK, in a major climbdown over future residency rights.

The concession, slipped out in a Brexit policy paper by the Home Office, also makes clear that new EU migrants who arrive after March 2019 will be given a five-year temporary residence permit, not the two-year one that was previously proposed by ministers.

The policy paper does, however, make clear that new EU migrants who come to live and work in Britain after the transition period gets under way will not have the same rights after the Brexit transition to bring family to join them as EU nationals already resident in Britain who have secured “settled status”.

 

Instead, they will have to pass a minimum income threshold test, which is currently set at £18,600 for British but not EU citizens.

The three-page policy statement on new EU migrants arriving in the UK during the transition period makes clear they will be given the chance to build up the five years’ continuous residency that is needed to apply to be given the right to stay permanently in Britain.

It says those EU citizens and their family members who arrive during the transition period and who register will be offered “a temporary status in UK law that will enable them to stay after the implementation period has concluded – this means that they will be able to remain lawfully in the UK working, studying or being self-sufficient for the five years needed to obtain settlement”.

The policy paper makes clear that those new EU migrants who wish to stay long term will have to register within three months of arriving in Britain. There will also be a three-month “window” at the end of the Brexit transition period for applications to ensure there is no cliff-edge. Irish citizens will not be required to register.

One major potential sticking point with this fresh British offer on citizens’ rights however is the government’s insistence that they will only be enforceable in UK courts and not through the European court of justice.

May was accused of pandering to hard Brexiters when she promised during a three-day trip to China earlier this month to “battle the EU” over their proposal to give long-term residency rights to those who arrived after the 29 March 2019.

The official Brexit policy document says the concessions have been made because “it is important to provide certainty to business and those EU citizens who wish to move to the UK during the implementation period as to the terms under which they will be able to remain in the UK and make a life here once the period is over”.

The climbdown is likely to be sharply criticised by hard Brexiters and groups such as Migration Watch, whose claim that as many as a million EU citizens could try to take advantage of the concession has been condemned as pure speculation.

The unilateral British offer was however welcomed as “a big step in the right direction” by the British Chambers of Commerce who said it would remove “significant short-term uncertainty for families, businesses and wider communities”.

Adam Marshall, BCC director-general, added: “Business will be pleased that during a time of record-high labour shortages, the government is showing a pragmatic approach to immigration. Firms will want to see this realism embedded in future migration policy when the UK leaves the EU.”

The British government hopes that this offer will be matched by a similar move by the 27 EU states to British citizens living in other EU countries. They faced a setback on Wednesday when the draft EU withdrawal treaty made clear they faced losing their onward free movement rights to live, work or provide services in a third EU state. Jane Golding, chair of British in Europe, said it would do nothing to allay the fears of thousands of British citizens in the EU27 who depended on free movement across member states on a daily basis.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/28/theresa-may-concedes-on-eu-migrants-residency-rights-during-brexit-transition

[Beechey]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

Theresa May concedes on EU migrants' residency rights during Brexit transition

Major climbdown revealed by Home Office as EU citizens will have right to settle permanently

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/28/theresa-may-concedes-on-eu-migrants-residency-rights-during-brexit-transition

Good. The only major obstacle now is the NI border.

Edited 28 February 2018 by Beechey

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Why am I not £4,300 worse off per year already, or why is nobody still saying this?

 

 

Possibly because it was never true?

Reduced growth has already cost us about £25 billion, the payment to leave is approx £60bil on its own and the government's own forward view suggests a further £75 bil in lost growth over the next 15 years.  and that's without taking into account anything else.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

John Major calls for Commons vote on second referendum

Former PM attacks government’s Brexit strategy saying parliament has duty to consider ‘well-being of the people’

 

Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.

 

In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.

“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”

“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said.

At the same time as calling for the country to have a final say on Brexit if the terms negotiated by the government were unacceptable to MPs, Major issued scathing criticism of the government’s strategy, which he described as lacking credibility.

“Every one of the Brexit promises is – to quote Henry Fielding – ‘a very wholesome and comfortable doctrine to which (there is) but one objection: namely, that it is not true’”, he said.

“I know of no precedent for any government enacting a policy that will make both our country and our people poorer. Once that is apparent, the government must change course.”

 

Major, who helped build the groundwork for peace in Northern Ireland, also hit out at recent calls to ignore the dangers of restoring border control. “We need a policy to protect the Good Friday agreement – and we need one urgently,” he said. “And it is our responsibility to find one – not the European Union.”

The former prime minister withheld his strongest criticism for Brexit ultras taking the Tory party away from its pro-business roots.

“Over many years, the Conservative party has understood the concerns of business. Not over Brexit, it seems,” he says. “This is not only grand folly. It’s also bad politics.

 

“Our self-imposed ‘red lines’ have boxed the government into a corner,” he added. “They are so tilted to ultra Brexit opinion, even the cabinet cannot agree them – and a majority in both houses of parliament oppose them. If maintained in full, it will be impossible to reach a favourable trade outcome.”

Warning that 125,000 jobs with Japanese companies could be lost in the UK, he said “none of it has yet been properly explained to the British people”.

“No one voted for higher prices and poorer public services, but that is what they may get,” said Major. “The emerging evidence suggests Brexit will hurt most those who have least ... This isn’t ‘Project Fear’ revisited, it is ‘Project Know Your History’.”

He delivered a veiled attack on fellow former Tory prime minister David Cameron, who recently suggested in Davos that Brexit may not be a total disaster.

“In recent weeks, the idea has gained ground that Brexit won’t be too bad; that we will all get through it; that we’re doing better than expected – and all will be well,” said Major. “Of course we will get through it: life as we know it won’t come to an end. We are too resourceful and talented a nation for that. But our nation is owed a frank assessment of what leaving Europe may mean – for now and the future.”

This, he said, is the “patriotic” argument to make, chastising those who argue he and other critics are letting the country down. “We are all urged to be ‘patriotic’ and get behind Brexit. But it is precisely because I am patriotic that I oppose it,” said Major.

“There must be respect for differing views that are honestly held. In this debate there are no ‘remoaners’, no ‘mutineers’, no ‘enemies of the people’ – just voices setting out what they believe is right for our country.”

Interesting speech from Major, he calls for a free commons vote on the outcome of brexit. Did he allow a free vote on the maastricht treaty?

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

So the EU is now trying to interfere in the constitutional affairs of a sovereign nation? I wish I could say I was surprised. A common regulatory area that covers customs, VAT (they aren't even forced into that now ), energy, product markets and of course - full ECJ jurisdiction.

 

If this is some weird negotiating move then it should become clear, but they know full well no British government could accept that, whether Blue, Red or Yellow.

 

I hope those criticising the British government for jeopardising the peace process will also now be just as critical of the EU when doing the same. What a fcuking organisation this really is.

 

 

I haven't had chance to look at the proposal in detail re. VAT, energy etc.

 

With that proviso, my understanding is that this is simply what Theresa May signed up to as third-choice option in December.

The December agreement, signed by the UK and the EU, said that to ensure there is no hard border, one of 3 things will happen:

(1) Under a UK-EU trade deal, tariffs and regulations will be so closely aligned that no border checks are required (as now). Given Tory ambitions to leave the Customs Union and negotiate low-tariff deals externally, this seems a non-starter.

(2) Despite diverging, no hard border is required as an alternative technological or organisational solution is identified. The UK has said this will be possible but has yet to present any solution. The EU does not believe it is possible.

(3) N. Ireland effectively stays in the Customs Union and Single Market to avoid a hard border. May specifically signed up to this as the fall-back option, while saying that (2) was possible, maybe even (1).

 

Incidentally, the RoI Govt has repeatedly said that it would prefer options (1) or (2). I presume that the EU would, too. Option (1) seems unlikely given current Tory policy so they need to present an alternative technological/organisational solution (2) if they want to avoid (3)......or was the signature of the British PM in December worth fvck all, as David Davis suggested at the time?

 

Tbf, I'm sure there is an aspect of negotiating strategy on the EU side here. But they're also entitled to want us to get a move on and reveal our alternative. We're due to agree the transition deal (and finalise December's deal) within a month, due to complete the Brexit divorce deal by September and due to leave the EU in 13 months!

 

Perhaps the UK's alternative solution deploys Boris' congestion charge technology? Instead of taking photos of number-plates, his cameras will use x-ray technology to look inside passing container lorries to identify each batch of goods so as to say whether it is EU-compliant or zero-tariff, non-compliant produce from Trump or Africa?  I don't know what other options there might be? Selective checks on loads away from the border: i.e. EU inspectors checking lorries at a lorry park within Norn Iron and UK inspectors doing likewise in the Republic? Can't see that being popular with anyone.... 

 

Here's the take from the Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/analysis-eu-presses-on-in-face-of-british-dithering-1.3407960

"If the UK cannot get its house in order, then the least the EU can do is plan to prepare theirs. This appears to have been the guiding light behind the drafting of the proposed treaty in Brussels covering the UK’s withdrawal from the EU that will be published by the EU Commission on Wednesday. In the absence of the British proposing concrete ideas around a future EU-UK free trade agreement or a specific solution for the Irish Border post-Brexit - Options A and B in December’s political agreement on the Border issue - Brussels has had to concentrate on preparing for Option C, the so-called “backstop”. This is the default position, set out in December, that will kick in to ensure that there is regulatory alignment - common rules and procedures - north and south of the Border".

[Alf Bentley]

The Grauniad reckons May has (partially) climbed down over the rights of EU citizens arriving in the UK during the transition period (if one is negotiated): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/28/theresa-may-concedes-on-eu-migrants-residency-rights-during-brexit-transition

 

The paper reckons she's agreed that such new arrivals during the transition would be able to qualify for permanent residency (via a 5-year temporary residency permit) - but not to then bring family members, it seems.

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

If the Swiss decide to stop freedom of movement that will be interesting. To be honest Switzerland is a country worth aspiring too.

 

Very clean, safe and efficient.

 

If we have a deal it should be as close to that as we can get.

Most remainders would be happy with a Swiss deal as opposed to the Hard Brexit alternative.

 

I might even prefer it to full EU membership.

Edited 28 February 2018 by Captain...

[Vardinio'sCat]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

So the EU is now trying to interfere in the constitutional affairs of a sovereign nation? I wish I could say I was surprised. A common regulatory area that covers customs, VAT (they aren't even forced into that now ), energy, product markets and of course - full ECJ jurisdiction.

 

If this is some weird negotiating move then it should become clear, but they know full well no British government could accept that, whether Blue, Red or Yellow.

 

I hope those criticising the British government for jeopardising the peace process will also now be just as critical of the EU when doing the same. What a fcuking organisation this really is.

 

 

Well, that is one interpretation... 

 

This is a draft document, setting out in legal language, as the EU sees it, the phase 1 agreement. The regulatory alignment bit is what they understand to be the fall back position, which TM signed up to a few months ago. Of course the language used was a fudge, so both sides seem to interpret it somewhat differently.

 

Now if we haven't really finished with phase 1, we are pretty much back to square one, and that is not great news for Leavers. It must to be hard to own this process, given the huge mess TM is in. 

 

I'm not quite clear how the EU are jepoardising the peace process with this document, surely we have (a kind of) peace at the moment, and this arrangement would largely replicate what we have currently. Sadly, the Leavers have a pretty consistent record of minimising the NI problem, witness mega-brain Borois yesterday.

 

Not a good day for anyone really, because although you could make a case that the Toyota investment is a positive, it seems a touch flaky to me, given the statements of the boss at the announcement emphasising the importance of tariff-free trade for the future.

[Vardinio'sCat]

2 hours ago, Beechey said:

And we are leaving, so why is nobody still saying this?

 

I can tell you why, it's because they took a GDP forecast for 30 years in advance, divided it by the number of UK households (nobody has ever used this statistic, especially not a government) and then stated it as "your family will be this much worse off".

 

I'd call that at the very least, a stretching of the truth, no?

 

George Osboune lied again, like he had to do in 2012 when he stalled the economy with too much austerity. If you trusted that man you only have yourself to blame.

 

In future, listen to people like the IFS, probably most widely respected forecasters/analysts in the country.

[BlueSi13]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

John Major calls for Commons vote on second referendum

Former PM attacks government’s Brexit strategy saying parliament has duty to consider ‘well-being of the people’

 

Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.

 

In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.

“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”

“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said.

At the same time as calling for the country to have a final say on Brexit if the terms negotiated by the government were unacceptable to MPs, Major issued scathing criticism of the government’s strategy, which he described as lacking credibility.

“Every one of the Brexit promises is – to quote Henry Fielding – ‘a very wholesome and comfortable doctrine to which (there is) but one objection: namely, that it is not true’”, he said.

“I know of no precedent for any government enacting a policy that will make both our country and our people poorer. Once that is apparent, the government must change course.”

 

Major, who helped build the groundwork for peace in Northern Ireland, also hit out at recent calls to ignore the dangers of restoring border control. “We need a policy to protect the Good Friday agreement – and we need one urgently,” he said. “And it is our responsibility to find one – not the European Union.”

The former prime minister withheld his strongest criticism for Brexit ultras taking the Tory party away from its pro-business roots.

“Over many years, the Conservative party has understood the concerns of business. Not over Brexit, it seems,” he says. “This is not only grand folly. It’s also bad politics.

 

“Our self-imposed ‘red lines’ have boxed the government into a corner,” he added. “They are so tilted to ultra Brexit opinion, even the cabinet cannot agree them – and a majority in both houses of parliament oppose them. If maintained in full, it will be impossible to reach a favourable trade outcome.”

Warning that 125,000 jobs with Japanese companies could be lost in the UK, he said “none of it has yet been properly explained to the British people”.

“No one voted for higher prices and poorer public services, but that is what they may get,” said Major. “The emerging evidence suggests Brexit will hurt most those who have least ... This isn’t ‘Project Fear’ revisited, it is ‘Project Know Your History’.”

He delivered a veiled attack on fellow former Tory prime minister David Cameron, who recently suggested in Davos that Brexit may not be a total disaster.

“In recent weeks, the idea has gained ground that Brexit won’t be too bad; that we will all get through it; that we’re doing better than expected – and all will be well,” said Major. “Of course we will get through it: life as we know it won’t come to an end. We are too resourceful and talented a nation for that. But our nation is owed a frank assessment of what leaving Europe may mean – for now and the future.”

This, he said, is the “patriotic” argument to make, chastising those who argue he and other critics are letting the country down. “We are all urged to be ‘patriotic’ and get behind Brexit. But it is precisely because I am patriotic that I oppose it,” said Major.

“There must be respect for differing views that are honestly held. In this debate there are no ‘remoaners’, no ‘mutineers’, no ‘enemies of the people’ – just voices setting out what they believe is right for our country.”

That's funny, he promised before the referendum there wouldn't be a second vote.

 

https://www.strongerin.co.uk/john_major_vote_leave_s_campaign_is_an_unforgivable_fraud_on_british_people#xY7UdwHWFb9SA6ZK.97

 

Another Remain lie.

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

5 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

That's funny, he promised before the referendum there wouldn't be a second vote.

 

https://www.strongerin.co.uk/john_major_vote_leave_s_campaign_is_an_unforgivable_fraud_on_british_people#xY7UdwHWFb9SA6ZK.97

 

Another Remain lie.

 

How could he promise that when it wasn't within his power to make it so? Reminds me of the notorious 350million a week for the NHS. Why promise something you do not have the power to deliver? It just brings politics into further disrepute.

 

Of course some folks would have understood that when Major said it, and I'm sorry you were taken in. 

 

Simple majority referendums on huge and complex constitional issues are madness really. But Camoron went for it because of narrow party reasons, and look what a mess we are in now.

 

 

 

 

 

[Beechey]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Reduced growth has already cost us about £25 billion, the payment to leave is approx £60bil on its own and the government's own forward view suggests a further £75 bil in lost growth over the next 15 years.  and that's without taking into account anything else.

Firstly, there's no proof to suggest we would have grown as much as forecasts showed. We were forecast to grow at 2.4% in 2015 and grew at 2.2%.

 

We were forecast to grow at 2.4% for both 2016 and 2017:

 

                                2015                                2016                               2017                               2018

GDP                        £1,888,737,000,000        £1,930,289,214,000       £1,965,034,419,852       -

Growth                    2.2%                                1.8%                              1.7%                               -

 

GDP forecast '15    2.4%                                 2.4%                              2.4%                               2.4%

GDP2*                    £1,888,737,000,000         £1,934,066,688,000      £1,980,484,288,512       £2,028,015,910,000

GDP2* = had we met growth forecasts made in government budget 2015. 2015 blank as not relevant. 2018 blank as no data.

 

Now, looking in the 2017 column, there doesn't seem to be a £25bn difference there, does there? For us to lose £25bn in a single year of lower growth, we'd need to see a growth reduction of over 1.3% per year, which isn't happening. We have had a total reduction of 1.3% over 2 years, not 1, meaning an average reduction of 0.65%. And this was from our supposed least optimistic year.

 

2015 budget for you, see page 16.

 

For your second point of the forecast growth reductions, even if we absorbed that alleged total £75bn per year on current GDP, it would amount to a reduction of 0.25% of GDP per year, which frankly is peanuts in absolute terms, and well within a margin of error for an economy as large as ours.

 

If you want, we can look at the 2016 budget, whereby even though it was before the referendum, it still forecast relative GDP growth reductions of 0.9% for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 combined from the 2015 budget, almost as if forecasts are wrong on a regular basis, and you shouldn't base your opinion from them.

 

                                2015                                2016                               2017                               2018

GDP                        £1,888,737,000,000        £1,930,289,214,000       £1,965,034,419,852       £1,994,509,940,000

Growth                    2.2%                                1.8%                              1.7%                               1.5%

 

GDP forecast '16    2.2%                                 2.0%                              2.2%                               2.1%

GDP2*                    £1,888,737,000,000         £1,930,289,214,000      £1,968,894,998,280       £2,010,241,800,000

GDP2* = had we met growth forecasts made in government budget 2016. 2018 is forecasted data.

 

So even according to the 2016 budget, we're £3.8bn worse off, not £25bn. Which would be about a loss of £1.35bn or so to the exchequer, when we spend £815bn per year anyway. Peanuts.

Edited 28 February 2018 by Beechey

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

One more thing. I was hearing yesterday that everything is rosy on the economy.

 

Try telling that to the workers at Maplin and Toys R Us.

[Buce]

22 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

That's funny, he promised before the referendum there wouldn't be a second vote.

 

https://www.strongerin.co.uk/john_major_vote_leave_s_campaign_is_an_unforgivable_fraud_on_british_people#xY7UdwHWFb9SA6ZK.97

 

Another Remain lie.

 

What utter nonsense.

 

He was in no position to 'promise' anything, and neither did he.

[SMX11]

3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Firstly, there's no proof to suggest we would have grown as much as forecasts showed. We were forecast to grow at 2.4% in 2015 and grew at 2.2%.

 

We were forecast to grow at 2.4% for both 2016 and 2017:

 

                                2015                                2016                               2017                               2018

GDP                        £1,888,737,000,000        £1,930,289,214,000       £1,997,849,336,490       -

Growth                    2.2%                                1.8%                              1.7%                               -

 

GDP forecast '15    2.4%                                 2.4%                              2.4%                               2.4%

GDP2*                    -                                        £1,934,066,688,000      £1,980,484,288,512        -

GDP2* = had we met growth forecasts made in government budget 2015. 2015 blank as not relevant. 2018 blank as no data.

 

Now, looking in the 107 column, there doesn't seem to be a £25bn difference there, does there? For us to lose £25bn in a single year of lower growth, we'd need to see a growth reduction of over 1.3% per year, which isn't happening.

 

2015 budget for you, see page 16.

Please also remember that we are late into this 'expansion' and a recession is likely brexit or not in the next few years (based on historical norms).