hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1373 of 1683 FirstFirst ... 3738731273132313631370137113721373137413751376138314231473 ... LastLast
Results 27,441 to 27,460 of 33650

Thread: (UK EURO WAFFLE) Limey Civil War

  1. #27441
    Crystalline Entity's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Whisperings of a no confidence vote in the tory party...
    Who would they have confidence in, though? I mean sure, by alm means kick May out, she's been the worst prime minister since Lord Liverpool. But who to replace her with?
    Good, ffs she is awful. Not sure who would replace her as they have hardly given any newbeans a chance and the current cabinet are mostly wet rags.

    Replace her now, get somebody who actually acts like a human being and is good on TV - I would love the Moggster but I know that won't happen. But a practical option would be Johnny Mercer.....but of course he doesn't have cabinet experience so.. voila.
    "I think we could all do with sitting back a bit and detaching ourselves from the situation to really think about how these issues reflect on our future and how we discuss them here and be a bit less aggressive or defensive because everyone has a complicated set of circumstances that has led the to place importance on particular issues and it doesn't meany any of them is less valid, we just need to look at the broader picture"

    Smuggo - Brexit Thread

  2. #27442

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    4,677
    UKIP's founder (no, not Farage) has weighed in - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a8175926.html

  3. #27443

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    4,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalline Entity View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Whisperings of a no confidence vote in the tory party...
    Who would they have confidence in, though? I mean sure, by alm means kick May out, she's been the worst prime minister since Lord Liverpool. But who to replace her with?
    Good, ffs she is awful. Not sure who would replace her as they have hardly given any newbeans a chance and the current cabinet are mostly wet rags.

    Replace her now, get somebody who actually acts like a human being and is good on TV - I would love the Moggster but I know that won't happen. But a practical option would be Johnny Mercer.....but of course he doesn't have cabinet experience so.. voila.
    TBH, you'd be mad to want the job. Anyone with sense will want to sit it out and let May continue to drink from the poisoned Brexit chalice

  4. #27444
    Movember 2012 Zekk Pacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    7,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    UKIP's founder (no, not Farage) has weighed in - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a8175926.html
    Sked has never been a fan of UKIP post-Sked.

    I mean he has a fair point, it was originally founded under very different ideals before people like Farage swerved it to the right.
    'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'

  5. #27445
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    17,114
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/cabine...18-1?r=US&IR=T

    3 former Conservative cabinet ministers have been caught selling Brexit information to a fake Chinese company.

    Documentary on Channel 4 about it this evening I think.

    Fuck the tories, eat the rich.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  6. #27446
    Movember 2012 Stoffl's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The original viennese waffle
    Posts
    22,086
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonard...xRw#.ui434WKOW

    Exclusive: BuzzFeed News has seen a new Brexit impact assessment, which says leaving the EU will adversely hit almost every sector and every UK region.

    The government's new analysis of the impact of Brexit says the UK would be worse off outside the European Union under every scenario modelled, BuzzFeed News can reveal.

    The assessment, which is titled “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing” and dated January 2018, looked at three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios based on existing EU arrangements.

    Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis.

    The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%.

    These calculations do not take into account any short-term hits to the economy from Brexit, such as the cost of adjusting the economy to new customs arrangements.

    The assessment seen by BuzzFeed News is being kept tightly guarded inside government. It was prepared by officials across Whitehall for the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) and is reportedly being presented to key ministers in one-to-one meetings this week ahead of discussion at the Brexit cabinet subcommittee next week.

    Asked why the prime minister was not making the analysis public, a DExEU source told BuzzFeed News: "Because it's embarrassing."

    Even though the analysis assumes that the UK will agree a trade deal with the US, roll over dozens of the EU’s current trade agreements, and consider loosening regulations after Brexit, there is no scenario that does not leave the country worse off.

    Officials believe the methodology for the new assessment is better than that used for similar analyses before the referendum.

    The January 2018 analysis looked only at existing EU arrangements, which means bespoke arrangements have yet to be modelled. Prime Minister Theresa May has repeatedly said she is seeking a "deep and special partnership with the EU".

    The other main findings of the analysis:

    • Almost every sector of the economy included in the analysis would be negatively impacted in all three scenarios, with chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, and cars and retail the hardest hit. The analysis found that only the agriculture sector under the WTO scenario would not be adversely affected.

    • Every UK region would also be affected negatively in all the modelled scenarios, with the North East, the West Midlands, and Northern Ireland (before even considering the possibility of a hard border) facing the biggest falls in economic performance.

    • There is a risk that London’s status as a financial centre could be severely eroded, with the possibilities available under an FTA not much different to those in the WTO option.

    • On the plus side, the analysis assumes in all scenarios that a trade deal with the US will be concluded, and that it would benefit GDP by about 0.2% in the long term. Trade deals with other non-EU countries and blocs, such as China, India, Australia, the Gulf countries, and the nations of Southeast Asia would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term.


    The government has found itself in repeated difficulty over the existence – or lack – of Brexit impact studies. Last year, the Brexit secretary David Davis suggested that dozens had been carried out “in excruciating detail”, but after a Commons vote forced the publication of these assessments, he told MPs he had been misunderstood and they did not exist after all. DExEU published a series of broad "sectoral analyses" instead.

    The biggest negative impact comes from the UK’s decision to leave both the EU’s customs union and the single market – the issue at the heart of the Conservative Party’s ongoing internal strife over Brexit.

    Leaving these arrangements creates what the analysis calls “non-tariff barriers” to trade, such as loss of market access in certain sectors and new customs and border checks and practices.

    Some of these can be minimised if Britain were to remain in the single market via the EEA, and the impact can also be partly offset through domestic policy or trade deals with the US and others, but the losses cannot be eliminated altogether once the UK is outside the customs union.

    This new analysis suggests that there could be opportunity for the UK in agreeing trade deals with non-EU countries and deregulating in areas such as the environment, product standards, and employment law.

    However, the analysis also casts doubt on the idea that these benefits would be enough to mitigate the losses to the economy caused by leaving the single market and customs union. Moving away from the existing set of rules and standards would also make it harder to trade with the EU in the future, and would be politically controversial domestically.

    This specific debate risks deepening the conflict inside the Tory party between those, such as chancellor Philip Hammond, who want to remain more closely aligned to the EU for years, and the hardline Brexiteers, led by backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    A government spokesperson told BuzzFeed News: “We have already set out that the government is undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis in support of our EU exit negotiations and preparations.

    "We have been clear that we are not prepared to provide a running commentary on any aspect of this ongoing internal work and that ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiation position.”

    A government source said: “As part of its preparations for leaving the European Union, officials from across Whitehall are undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis.

    "An early draft of this next stage of analysis has looked at different off-the-shelf arrangements that currently exist as well as other external estimates. It does not, however, set out or measure the details of our desired outcome – a new deep and special partnership with the EU – or predict the conclusions of the negotiations.

    "It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependent on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”
    Grim projections bruvs

  7. #27447
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    17,114
    The majority of the public are apathetic about the economy now. Projections are basically meaningless prophesying.

    We spent years being told everything was great and then the bubble burst. Then we were told we needed austerity because we'd committed the great sin of "living above our means" when we were told everything was great. This was sure to fix it we got told; by de-leveraging the national economy the supply side was going to invest because their tax bill will be smaller in 20 years time due to less debt. Then austerity made everything worse and the national debt wasn't even decreasing.

    The economy is a just a bunch of numbers, macro economics is basically meaningless to the man in the street. What does 8% reduction over 15 years forecasts actually mean? Does it mean everyone will lose their jobs? Does it mean a pint at spoons with cost an extra 20p? It's all so detracted from everyday reality people are just numb to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  8. #27448

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    11,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    The majority of the public are apathetic about the economy now. Projections are basically meaningless prophesying.

    We spent years being told everything was great and then the bubble burst. Then we were told we needed austerity because we'd committed the great sin of "living above our means" when we were told everything was great. This was sure to fix it we got told; by de-leveraging the national economy the supply side was going to invest because their tax bill will be smaller in 20 years time due to less debt. Then austerity made everything worse and the national debt wasn't even decreasing.

    The economy is a just a bunch of numbers, macro economics is basically meaningless to the man in the street. What does 8% reduction over 15 years forecasts actually mean? Does it mean everyone will lose their jobs? Does it mean a pint at spoons with cost an extra 20p? It's all so detracted from everyday reality people are just numb to it.
    Except when it results in dumb decisions in elections of some sort under various propaganda influences.

    People might be numb to it but they don't ignore it, "national morale" and all.

    All in all they should probably care less tbfh.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  9. #27449
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    17,114
    I'm not sure you can compare the promise of funding for a specific cause at the front of the nations consciousness (NHS) to mystical, non-tangible growth figures.

    Using a bus to pledge money to health care isn't really macro economics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  10. #27450

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    11,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    I'm not sure you can compare the promise of funding for a specific cause at the front of the nations consciousness (NHS) to mystical, non-tangible growth figures.

    Using a bus to pledge money to health care isn't really macro economics.
    No, but when people keep getting told things are great/terrible it does tend to affect how they perceive other more concrete things.

    "We're being kept down due to nebulous shit and things are bad so if we take control things can get better and we'll give more to you in ways x and y" sort of stuff.

  11. #27451

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    4,677
    Snooper's Charter ruled illegal - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...oopers-charter

  12. #27452

    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    6,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Except for the bit where the ruling is about DRIPA, not the IPA.

  13. #27453
    Crystalline Entity's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,216
    I mean all the pre-referendum predictions were spot on so this is indeed terrible

    /s
    "I think we could all do with sitting back a bit and detaching ourselves from the situation to really think about how these issues reflect on our future and how we discuss them here and be a bit less aggressive or defensive because everyone has a complicated set of circumstances that has led the to place importance on particular issues and it doesn't meany any of them is less valid, we just need to look at the broader picture"

    Smuggo - Brexit Thread

  14. #27454
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalline Entity View Post
    I mean all the pre-referendum predictions were spot on so this is indeed terrible

    /s
    tell us more about those 350 million pounds, where did they go ?
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  15. #27455
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalline Entity View Post
    I mean all the pre-referendum predictions were spot on so this is indeed terrible

    /s
    tell us more about those 350 million pounds, where did they go ?
    Big coaches and a signwriter don't come cheap m8

  16. #27456
    Movember 2012 Zekk Pacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    7,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalline Entity View Post
    I mean all the pre-referendum predictions were spot on so this is indeed terrible

    /s
    Where's the £350m a week for the NHS?

    Why are we not staying in the single market, an approach as promoted by people like Daniel Hannan?

    When are Turkey joining the EU?
    'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'

  17. #27457
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,958
    You guys are missing the big deal though... We're getting blue passports!

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  18. #27458
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,940
    engerlaaaaaaaand

  19. #27459
    Crystalline Entity's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,216
    Since 2 of you asked. The £350m?

    1) A cross party campaign group that said "we could spend some of that £350m a week on the NHS" or "we would have available" etc etc etc ....from a group that didn't represent the party of government.

    2) Which part of, "when we leave" do you utter retards not understand. You clearly watch the news slavishly and are aware we haven't left yet...
    "I think we could all do with sitting back a bit and detaching ourselves from the situation to really think about how these issues reflect on our future and how we discuss them here and be a bit less aggressive or defensive because everyone has a complicated set of circumstances that has led the to place importance on particular issues and it doesn't meany any of them is less valid, we just need to look at the broader picture"

    Smuggo - Brexit Thread

  20. #27460

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    11,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalline Entity View Post
    Since 2 of you asked. The £350m?

    1) A cross party campaign group that said "we could spend some of that £350m a week on the NHS" or "we would have available" etc etc etc ....from a group that didn't represent the party of government.

    2) Which part of, "when we leave" do you utter retards not understand. You clearly watch the news slavishly and are aware we haven't left yet...

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •