Another new Brexit thread

[George Hannah]

im trying to understand the potential financial cost of a no deal brexit. This is what I’ve come up with, am I right?

• Uk GDP in 2018 was just over 2 trillion
• We pay for EU membership 18 billion in 2018 ( I’m excluding rebates and the amount we get back from the EU)
• KPMG forecast hit to GDP follow a no deal brexit is a reduction of 1.5%. Which equals a 30 billion hit to the economy
• I think government forecasts to GDP are in the range of negative 3.5 to 6.5%. Which equals 70 billion to 130 billion hit to the economy
• Bank of England forecast to GDP are negative 5.5% (revised down from 8%). Which equals 110 billion hit to the economy.

Are my maths correct?

I think it has to actually happen before we know whether anybody's sums add up.
(and given the choice of what to count probably not then either.)

 

[urban genie]

Why wouldn't I be when it means violent uprising against government?

So if we hypothetically ended up in the future with either a facist state or left wing totalitarian one you would happily go along with it because we shouln't want to overthrow the govenenment?

The partisans that deffied moussolini and Tsolakoglou governments, the down fall of
Ceaușescu, the french revolution, the french resistance to Vichy, the american revolution, cuban revolution, bolivars independance campaigns across south america from colonialist spain, etc,
The magna carter existing, the civil war which shaped our nation constitutiinally (though both are more about power bases shifting than the people insurecting)

All these thing you would have said, nah it is an armed struggle against a government so shouldn't happen.

 

[blueinsa]

So if we hypothetically ended up in the future with either a facist state or left wing totalitarian one you would happily go along with it because we shouln't want to overthrow the govenenment?

The partisans that deffied moussolini and Tsolakoglou governments, the down fall of
Ceaușescu, the french revolution, the french resistance to Vichy, the american revolution, cuban revolution, bolivars independance campaigns across south america from colonialist spain, etc,
The magna carter existing, the civil war which shaped our nation constitutiinally (though both are more about power bases shifting than the people insurecting)

All these thing you would have said, nah it is an armed struggle against a government so shouldn't happen.

Hang on a minute mate.

The last few days have been a demand for rhetoric to be curbed and the use of language that could lead to violence against politicians stopped.

I agree.

The shadow chancellor calling for insurrection falls slap bang in the middle of what needs to stop.

What is fucking wrong with some of you on this forum?

Its ridiculous.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

im trying to understand the potential financial cost of a no deal brexit. This is what I’ve come up with, am I right?

• Uk GDP in 2018 was just over 2 trillion
• We pay for EU membership 18 billion in 2018 ( I’m excluding rebates and the amount we get back from the EU)
• KPMG forecast hit to GDP follow a no deal brexit is a reduction of 1.5%. Which equals a 30 billion hit to the economy
• I think government forecasts to GDP are in the range of negative 3.5 to 6.5%. Which equals 70 billion to 130 billion hit to the economy
• Bank of England forecast to GDP are negative 5.5% (revised down from 8%). Which equals 110 billion hit to the economy.

Are my maths correct?

I think it's pretty much impossible to give hard numbers, it wouldn't be pretty though

 

[Vic]

Not good enough I'm afraid mate. I don't give a toss if you voted leave or remain, if you say there should be riots then you're a class A knob

Ah but he didn't want riots of burning shops or looting. He wanted riots like the Levellers!

 

[cibaman]

im trying to understand the potential financial cost of a no deal brexit. This is what I’ve come up with, am I right?

• Uk GDP in 2018 was just over 2 trillion
• We pay for EU membership 18 billion in 2018 ( I’m excluding rebates and the amount we get back from the EU)
• KPMG forecast hit to GDP follow a no deal brexit is a reduction of 1.5%. Which equals a 30 billion hit to the economy
• I think government forecasts to GDP are in the range of negative 3.5 to 6.5%. Which equals 70 billion to 130 billion hit to the economy
• Bank of England forecast to GDP are negative 5.5% (revised down from 8%). Which equals 110 billion hit to the economy.

Are my maths correct?

The other statistic that you’re missing is that each 1% change in gdp affects tax revenues by £8b pa. so a 2% reduction in gdp would wipe out the net savings in Eu contributions

 

[Hesperus]

I think it's pretty much impossible to give hard numbers, it wouldn't be pretty though

Agreed, but given the best data we have and some of the smartest minds analysing it. I just wanted to know if my figures were in the ball park, or if I’d missed something obvious.

 

[urban genie]

Hang on a minute mate.

The last few days have been a demand for rhetoric to be curbed and the use of language that could lead to violence against politicians stopped.

I agree.

The shadow chancellor calling for insurrection falls slap bang in the middle of what needs to stop.

What is fucking wrong with some of you on this forum?

Its ridiculous.

You obviously cannot distinguish between the difference between elected or prominent people in public office and people of influence making comments that could incite violent reaction as johnsons rhetoric does and some comments by McDonnel in the past, and the idea that insurection against a state should never be a viable option to a repressed populace.

Two completely different subjects.

You said insurection should be a crime and it is under treason laws, but if wthis country ever got to a point where the people needed to revolt because the government was dictatorial or totalitarian then, I would not say that is an acceptable outcome.
Bit this scenario will never happen, we are not anywhere near that happening.

This clown saying we should riot is as dickish as johnsons surrender bollocks, the rest of the convo on laws we veered off to talking about is a seperate debate and has fuck all to do with it

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

The Kaiser Chiefs should be placed under house arrest.

Do they know the lotto numbers as well?

 

[Vic]

Last few minutes of Today prog. Listen from 1.48.00 for Cardiff business people struggling to see any benefit from crashing out - "it might harm my competitors" was the only one - then a concise discussion (with experts!) about what might happen over a no confidence vote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0008x96

 

[BobKowalski]

Hang on a minute mate.

The last few days have been a demand for rhetoric to be curbed and the use of language that could lead to violence against politicians stopped.

I agree.

The shadow chancellor calling for insurrection falls slap bang in the middle of what needs to stop.

What is fucking wrong with some of you on this forum?

Its ridiculous.

The call was to curb the language from the Govt and it’s Ministers and the PM. There is a secondary call to curb the language of politicians as a whole. Then you have a counter that it should apply to all of us which is troubling for different reasons.

The first is dangerous. Inflammatory language by the PM and the Govt is dangerous because it legitimises violent response against those who would oppose the PM or Govt. It is why we are taken aback by Johnson’s rhetoric because we don’t often hear it. It’s the language of would be dictators. The violence becomes state sanctioned and just as the state can legitimise its citizens climbing into a plane and bombing enemy civilians in times of war it can legitimise violence by its followers against opposition voices.

Aside from the question of politeness the language used by opposition politicians does not have to reach the same standards. They are not agents of the state. They are ‘outside’ the state and therefore it does not legitimise violent response. We can still be critical of hateful and divisive language but it doesn’t carry the same health warnings.

Asking those who are not represented or feel they have no voice to curb their language is equally dangerous because veers toward repression. Having no voice or representation means you have to shout louder. The voice of the street has to be heard.

 

[blueinsa]

Excuse after excuse after excuse when its pointed out that your own side is no better when it comes to the rhetoric.

 

[BobKowalski]

Somewhat sceptical of the ‘backers of Brexit betting on a no deal crash out’ angle but here is Hammond giving it some credence

‘It’s official. Philip Hammond in today’s Times confirming that Boris Johnson is committed to a hard Brexit because the disaster capitalists who backed his campaign will make millions’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-no-longer-recognise-this-party-of-radicals-cpdmxcxwf

 

[BobKowalski]

Excuse after excuse after excuse when its pointed out that your own side is no better when it comes to the rhetoric.

It’s not about sides. It’s about holding the Govt, irrespective of who is in Govt, to a higher standard because it must be. If it’s no better than a ‘rabble mob’ we are all screwed.

 

[Neville Kneville]

So essentially you already have a preconception that Brexit is a catastrophe and so you want to stitch up the public to make sure that they cannot decide for themselves?

What if Boris brings a deal back to the table or what if he reignites May's deal?? What are the Lib Dems/Labour etc going to do then?!

I think this is where Boris is moving and essentially he will say if you vote against this deal then you are directly responsible for us not leaving the EU and he will be right.

It is electoral suicide for the likes of Labour unless they can unite the remain side and that is not happening, in fact Labour at conference voted to not even have remain as policy!!

Just let the people decide for themselves with every single option available ffs.

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage has warned Prime Minister Boris Johnson not to return from Brussels with Theresa May's "reheated deal".

At a rally in London, he said the Tories will "lose votes to us" in "huge numbers" when voters "realise nothing has changed" if they keep that deal.

He then criticised Labour's "policy of uncontrolled mass immigration.

 

[hgblue]

Excuse after excuse after excuse when its pointed out that your own side is no better when it comes to the rhetoric.

In short, everyone gets to say exactly what they want and if Boris says humbug in response he’s a facist ****. How very convenient.

 

[urban genie]

Excuse after excuse after excuse when its pointed out that your own side is no better when it comes to the rhetoric.

This last conversation isn't about sides, it is about the people having the power to call out thier government if it became a danger to the nation.

As I said you cannot seem to seperate the different issues of public figures stiring up the public which can lead to harm and people right to voice oppositin to a government that fails it.

 

[urban genie]

In short, everyone gets to say exactly what they want and if Boris says humbug in response he’s a facist ****. How very convenient.

Well that is not true and never has been, I love how context is thrown out to win a discussion.

 

[blueinsa]

In short, everyone gets to say exactly what they want and if Boris says humbug in response he’s a facist ****. How very convenient.

Essentially that is exactly what is happening.

Look i have no issue in demands for his language to be toned down, none at all. Constantly calling the Benn act was childish at best and below any PM. It was very deliberate and very confrontational. His Humbug comment was crass to say the least and he should apologise.

Its the stunning double standards on show that gets me.

 

[blueinsa]

This last conversation isn't about sides, it is about the people having the power to call out thier government if it became a danger to the nation.

As I said you cannot seem to seperate the different issues of public figures stiring up the public which can lead to harm and people right to voice oppositin to a government that fails it.

Is it not right to call out the official opposition if they could become government in a few weeks time?

I can separate no problem but wont when you are desperately trying to gain some moral high ground yet have none if you then turn a blind eye to the rhetoric from your own side and worse still, excuse it as if it was nothing.