Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Rough_Justice

I'm sorry remainer disbelievers but it really is beginning to look more and more like there are many parts within the EU that would suffer greatly in the event of a no-deal Brexit and - unless the senior EU politicos are prepared to accept the probability of disruption from within - it is looking more and more likely that a good deal is quite possible for the UK.

We have seen mutterings and reports from Denmark, Ireland and Germany already.
Well, now it seems that there has been a new study coordinated by the European Committee of the Regions, the body which represents regions in the EU, into the possible impacts of a hard Brexit (presumably they mean a no-deal Brexit).
This from El Pais:

Spain’s regions concerned about impact of a hard Brexit
New report outlines the concerns of around 40 European regions, including eight Spanish ones

https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/01/12/inenglish/1515755694_911389.html

Rough_Justice

Bruno Le Maire has been talking about EU reforms and wanting implementation quickly.

“We are advancing phase by phase, the first includes banking union, capital market union and fiscal convergence. In these areas, progress must be made by the end of 2018 and at the latest by the start of 2019,” Le Maire said in a New Year’s speech to French economic representatives.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eurozone-france/euro-zone-must-make-first-reforms-by-2019-french-minister-idUKKBN1F41CS?il=0

Further steps toward a United States of Europe - but how will this be accepted by the already-numerous dissenters?

Herzlos

Rough_Justice wrote: »

I'm sorry remainer disbelievers but it really is beginning to look more and more like there are many parts within the EU that would suffer greatly in the event of a no-deal Brexit and - unless the senior EU politicos are prepared to accept the probability of disruption from within - it is looking more and more likely that a good deal is quite possible for the UK.

We have seen mutterings and reports from Denmark, Ireland and Germany already.
Well, now it seems that there has been a new study coordinated by the European Committee of the Regions, the body which represents regions in the EU, into the possible impacts of a hard Brexit (presumably they mean a no-deal Brexit).
This from El Pais:

https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/01/12/inenglish/1515755694_911389.html

I don't think anyone has claimed noone in the eu will suffer from a hard brexit. Just that it's not enough to get a good deal.

gfplux

Rough_Justice wrote: »

I'm sorry remainer disbelievers but it really is beginning to look more and more like there are many parts within the EU that would suffer greatly in the event of a no-deal Brexit and - unless the senior EU politicos are prepared to accept the probability of disruption from within - it is looking more and more likely that a good deal is quite possible for the UK.

We have seen mutterings and reports from Denmark, Ireland and Germany already.
Well, now it seems that there has been a new study coordinated by the European Committee of the Regions, the body which represents regions in the EU, into the possible impacts of a hard Brexit (presumably they mean a no-deal Brexit).
This from El Pais:

https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/01/12/inenglish/1515755694_911389.html

I don’t know which is better.
The EU doing detailed impact reports and publishing them
Or
Britain NOT doing impact reports, then pretending they have then having to admit they haven’t.

gfplux

Politico.eu report in today’s email that the EU are making moves and attempting to take the initiative.
They are saying that the EU want to change the cut off date for EU nationals to freely move to the UK.
Also that Britain are going to give more money to FRANCE on Thursday.

Does anyone have this information printed anywhere. This could all be nothing.

This is what they say
—-
“SECONDS OUT, ROUND 2: European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Council President Donald Tusk will address the European Parliament in Strasbourg this morning with Brexit high on the agenda. We can also expect to hear from the Parliament’s Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt, who gives a press conference at 9.45 a.m. U.K. time. The Brexit negotiations restarted with a bang last night as the EU27 demanded any citizens who move to Britain before the end of the decade be given permanent residency rights. Draft negotiating directives drawn up for Michel Barnier and leaked to several news outlets show Brussels wants to curb Britain’s right to bring in a strict new immigration system immediately after Brexit day in March 2019. The FT’s Alex Barker got the scoop, others were close behind.

Tory backlash: POLITICO’s Jacopo Barigazzi has a copy of the same draft guidelines and reports on a predictable Brexiteer backlash at the latest EU demands. One Tory MP warns it “might very well be a deal breaker” and “makes a ‘no deal’ outcome all the likelier.” The EU has also toughened its stance on Britain’s ability to strike trade deals during the transition period, and clarifies rules for setting fishing quotas — another serious point of contention for Brexiteers. But with U.K. businesses piling huge pressure on Theresa May to agree a transition deal quickly, Brussels knows it holds all the aces in this round of talks.

Bad faith: The main charge being leveled at Europe from within Whitehall is one of bad faith. The deal struck between Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker last month suggested the end-date for free movement would be March 2019. The Times’ Oliver Wright and Bruno Waterfield have obtained some incendiary comments from what sounds suspiciously like a gloating EU source. “The British always tell us that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Here is an example of exactly how that works in practice,” the source says delightedly. “The deal in December did specify March 2019 for free movement rights. That was then. Now, as part of the discussion on transitional arrangements, that has changed.”

Also gloating: French President Emmanuel Macron, who according to the Telegraph reckons he has already won his battle to extract more cash and support from Britain in return for keeping the Le Touquet agreement in place. Macron will be visiting Calais today to discuss the agreement with local officials, ahead of his summit with Theresa May on Thursday.”
—-

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

gfplux wrote: »

They are saying that the EU want to change the cut off date for EU nationals to freely move to the UK.

As the UK will remain part of the single market throughout any transitional deal, with the 4 freedoms in place, from a technical and legal perspective this makes sense.

And in reality it doesn't actually vary much from the UK's position anyway, despite the PR spin of 'taking back control' in March 19 the only practical change proposed for the transitional period by the UK so far is that EU citizens who arrive after that date would have to register... With nobody suggesting in reality that they'd be unable to stay, just that they may have fewer rights in future than those who move before the date.

This looks like a negotiating strawman.

Also that Britain are going to give more money to FRANCE on Thursday.

AIUI there are currently arrangements made to put the UK border in Calais as part of the bilateral Le Touquet agreement.

The French are engaging in one of their periodic demands to claim additional costs for this. I suspect they'll get them.


It's a slow news week - getting inflammatory quotes from EU officials and Brexiteers serves the clickbait needs of all sorts of online publications.

tracey3596

gfplux wrote: »

I don’t know which is better.
The EU doing detailed impact reports and publishing them
Or
Britain NOT doing impact reports, then pretending they have then having to admit they haven’t.

We already know how much the EU love to waste money upon mostly inconsequential paperwork exercises.
Personally I would rather the UK not go down the same route.
Especially when any "impact reports" will be mostly pure conjecture, as contributors on both sides of the referendum debate in this thread are only too quick to point out when they read any reports which do not suit their various biases.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

A poll in general is asking a a person informally, recording the info and extrapolating. There's no real control over respondents except some filtering.
A referendum is asking a person formally, more control over respondents (no double voting, under 18''s etc) with no need to extrapolate. Respondents are still largely self selecting because voting isn't a legal obligation.

You seem to be talking abut exit polls specifically, but they are asking the same question to the same people but in a less formal way. Assuming people answer both consistently they'll both provide the same result albeit with a different error margin; balot will have a tighter margin because of the way it's done. Note that unless we ask everyone in the country then the error margin is above zero.

I suspect you misunderstood me and think I'm claiming the referendum balot result wasn't 52/48; I'm not but it's an easy mistake to make.
I'm saying that from such a tight margin (easily within the error) we can't infer anything about the will of the people, or in fact anything beyond leave having a statically insignificant majority.

You wouldn't paint a room or choose a pub with a 52/48 result; so who'd be stupid enough to make a significant economic change based on it?

That's before we get to the fact that if you're relying on the will of the people; all the indications across the dozens of polls is that the will has changed within the error margin the other way.

I can’t find what the accuracy of an election or referendum is but I suspect the margin of error is considerably less than 2% and it’s the most accurate reflection of peoples opinions.

I wonder if you would be challenging the results if they had gone your way.

Enterprise_1701C

I cannot see how people can believe that there is a "margin of error" in elections or referendums.

People vote the way they vote. You cannot make assumptions about people that do not vote, and you cannot sit there and think that maybe 2% put their mark in the wrong place on the form.

The only problem is that people are able to register to vote in two different places. It appears that quite a few people voted twice in the last general election, and probably in the referendum too, especially students who boasted about voting twice for Khorbyn. IIRC The government tried to put something in place to stop this but labour blocked it, I cannot see why people need to be able to vote in two different places, surely you can register for a postal vote (which SHOULD then negate your ability to vote in person) but of course labour probably feel they need every two votes they can get.

westernpromise

The voting system itself changes the result, of course. It is very naive to assume that the split of votes seen in any given election / referendum / etc would be exactly the same if they were being counted a different way. People in safe seats don't vote because their vote makes no difference; there is no telling how they'd vote if it did.