If we vote for Brexit what happens

Fella

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Weird budget. Almost as if Brexit wasn't happening.

Far more like the most relaxed budget I've ever seen delivered, both in terms of minimal content & the staggeringly chilled out way Hammond delivered it. Has there ever been a chancellor fortunate enough to have so little to worry about from the opposition? He looked like he was having a chat with his pals down the pub. And sure enough, in response Corbyn spluttered like an old fool, (including saying the UK wasn't ready for Breakfast), in such a staggeringly ineffective way even his own die-hard supporters looked like they'd nodded off. Then shortly after we had John McDonnell claiming that if he'd been in charge the country would have been £70 billion better off because he wouldn't have cut corporation tax. When it was pointed out to him how much corporation tax receipts had risen since it was cut he mumbled that it was "because the economy had grown". So to be clear, he's acknowledging that the economy has grown & Corporation tax receipts have risen, whilst simultaneously claiming that we're £70billion worse off because of the way the economy has been handled. OK.....

The BBC pundits interviewing him looked like they couldn't even be bothered to point out how ludicrous he sounded, they just let him rattle on for awhile then just moved to the next item.

Neither Corbyn or McDonnell seemed to even realise that the NI increase for the self-employed was the open goal waiting for them to score. Utterly incompetent clowns.

Fella

mayonnaise wrote: »

The time and money time waster is our stubborn and vindictive PM who could have avoided all this by not appealing the high court ruling.

Nonsense. If successful the appeal would have saved the time & money wasted on the subsequent commons vote.

Stubborn is a pretty good quality in a PM by the way. Not sure what was vindictive about appealing a bad decision. Perhaps you simply mean that she didn't agree with you, therefore she must be vindictive?

mayonnaise

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Not quite.



Weird budget. Almost as if Brexit wasn't happening.

A bit like the orchestra on the Titanic.

always_sunny

Conrad wrote: »

Why do thousands of Europeans pour into the UK each month in search of a new life if we are a laughing stock?

Presumably you do not welcome the Lords wanting 3 million Europeans rights guaranteed as you feel they will be better off not in Britain given our dire laughing stock future?

For the same argument why many Britons go to the Middle East despite being so different.
The majority coming here do so to make money, because when calculating 'the lot' it's still worth it financially. When the pound started to tank, many have started to assess if it was still the case, some have and are making other arrangements.

The question will be in the future, will EU folks still pour here if they could go elsewhere with the same efforts?

I.e. if the visa requirements, fees and salary to get to the UK are the same or stricter than Canada, Australia, United States, etc, would people still come here?

Of course there will be some sort of economy in the future post Brexit, though will it be strong enough to attract the right people? I don't think you and I can answer that until it happens.

mrginge

mayonnaise wrote: »

The time and money time waster is our stubborn and vindictive PM who could have avoided all this by not appealing the high court ruling.

Oh and then you'd have been having a good old bleat when the scots started their own separate challenge through the high court.

What you don't seem to get is that by appealing to the supreme court it forced the SNPs hand and stopped their delaying tactics.

Oh and the govt won that argument by the way.

So as usual your big crybaby moaning is based on complete ignorance. But at least you keep us all entertained.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Even 1.6% growth isn't particularly amazing. It's 40% below the average since 1956 and around half that of 2015.

The world has changed somewhat since 1956........

GDP is little more than a measurement of output. Somewhat distorted by monetary expansion and inflation.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Not quite

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Quote:
"In producing the forecast, the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has not attempted to predict the precise outcome of negotiations, nor the breadth and depth of new relationships that may be negotiated bilaterally with the EU or other trading partners. Instead, its assumptions on the effects of leaving the EU on trade, unchanged from those which underpinned the Autumn Statement 2016 forecast, are in line with a range of external studies."

The footnote to table B6, which documents the OBR's assessment of total managed expenditure, reads:

"As we do not have sufficient detail about the government's negotiation preferences, or the chances of achieving them, we are not able to forecast how spending will be affected after the UK leaves the EU."

I`m not sure your quoted passage covers 2017, as it talks about forecasts post Brexit negotiations.

CKhalvashi

Fella wrote: »

Remainer nonsense of exactly the type I'm describing.

The will of 17 million voters trumps the will of 3 Judges, two of whom are best mates with Blair & had massive vested interest in seeing Brexit overturned. Luckily that ploy got nowhere, although it has wasted time & taxpayer money.

So, you'd allow rule breaking (which it's now established would have been illegal) if it's in your own interests, but not Parliament completely ignoring your 'will of the people' when they have the right to do so because it's not, despite being completely within the rules, as accepted by everyone in the specific wording of the relevant legislation?

In many countries a court wouldn't rule against a government. This IMO shows that the entire system is fair, as backed up by the highest court in the land.

The government has wasted taxpayer money by not putting the debate through the Commons before the court case came. I suggest you take that matter up with your MP if you see it proceeding as far as it did as a problem.

Please remember this is a huge task, and should have full scrutiny from Parliament in the process. If it's so sensitive, surely the best thing to do is ensure the debates aren't televised and limited details are given publicly (although I don't believe this is the case, and the EU already wants negotiations to be transparent) rather than allowing a small group of people with no direct responsibility to the majority of the population (I can't vote Theresa May out at the next election, as I don't live in Maidenhead) the chance to go solo.

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The world has changed somewhat since 1956........

GDP is little more than a measurement of output. Somewhat distorted by monetary expansion and inflation.

I appreciate that, but the UK economy is shrinking when inflation is taken into account.

Anyone that says otherwise is lying to you.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

I`m not sure your quoted passage covers 2017, as it talks about forecasts post Brexit negotiations.

It was from Politics.co.uk today. I forgot to include the link, apologies.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/03/08/the-spring-budget-is-like-brexit-isnt-happening