Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

BikingBud

phillw wrote: »

I don't know, according to the evidence that was submitted to the court Boris says it's £10 billion a year.

However that comes out of tax income that the government gets which some comes from exports to the EU that will reduce if we leave on WTO terms & there will be extra costs in terms of regulatory checks as we will have to take control of all the things we got the EU to do (drug, food regulations etc).

So it shouldn't be represented as a figure we'll have to spend on NHS etc if we leave the EU & it's misleading to use it as such even if the number was what we sent the EU.

Your other points are irrelevant because the claim was "we send". I was trying to point that out when I discussed the divorce settlement but you seem to have misunderstood.

You read what you may wish to see. Answer if the statement on the bus was misleading?

You don't know the figure yet you argue a point on you prejudices!

I deliberately said send because that's what it said on the bus. Don't move the argument on, or introduce other factors or considerations.

Attention to detail and reading the small print such as up to 50% off is critical and as a member of MSE you should be aware that it's the small print that makes the difference.

phillw

BikingBud wrote: »

I never said anything was OK i was seeking clarification about how much we might be paying.

I believe that being a member of the EU is a net benefit to the country, any money we send to the EU is dwarfed by the overall benefit. I'm sure the numbers were published by the remain campaign. Focusing on the (what amounts to) taxation we pay to be in the EU is misleading.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

It's hard to get an exact figure what what comes back. We know that 1 trillion pounds has been moved out of the UK since the referendum, that will supposedly lose us £600 million a year in income tax etc as financial service jobs are permanently moving out of the UK.

As brexit unfolds there will be further costs revealed that they purposefully didn't put on the bus.

I've not seen any indication what effect it will have with on VAT for imports and exports, because I believe that will change radically if we leave the single market.

BikingBud wrote: »

Tony Blair hasn't been dealt with. Some people think there was insufficient evidence. However, it was very telling how little evidence was kept by those in power who knew their actions would come under scrutiny. Especially those that seemed to suffer from amnesia, although it may have just been old age.

Whether someone gets prosecuted is always about whether there is enough evidence, you can't magic it out of thin air and you can't just prosecute someone because you feel like it. The people who leave the most evidence around are more likely to find themselves in court. Unfortunately for you all of the evidence that may have existed will have been in private, while Boris put all his evidence in the public domain.

But feel free to bring a case against Tony Blair, I might even contribute to the crowdfunding.

BikingBud wrote: »

Answer if the statement on the bus was misleading?

Yes, every part of the statement on the bus was designed to mislead you.

We don't send any money to the EU every week.
The number didn't match the total we sent in a year.
We won't have it to spend on the NHS (or anything else) instead.


Focusing on the "money we send to the EU" is like quitting your job because you hate paying NI and Income tax. It's misleading just for using the argument.

BikingBud wrote: »

I deliberately said send because that's what it said on the bus. Don't move the argument on, or introduce other factors or considerations.

I did, Boris said 10 billion a year (at the same time standing by £350 million a week, which doesn't add up). In 2017 it was 9 billion a year.

One example is given that in a televised interview in May
2016 the proposed defendant stated, “we send the EU £10 billion per year” and that
therefore he knew that the £350 million per week figure (£20 billion per year) was
incorrect.

Although there is something wrong with their maths as I make that £18.2 billion a year.

BikingBud wrote: »

Attention to detail and reading the small print such as up to 50% off is critical and as a member of MSE you should be aware that it's the small print that makes the difference.

Right, which is why I've been trying to stop you fixating on irrelevant details. What I'm saying is the small print that Boris forgot to put on the bus.

Meanwhile you haven't noticed that Boris defense amounts to "I found the numbers somewhere and made them fit my argument but I was off duty, don't really know what I'm doing and was crossing my fingers when I said it, so I can't be held accountable". The fact that you're defending him is proof of the effectiveness of his actions and adds to proof of his misconduct.

BikingBud

phillw wrote: »

Unfortunately for you all of the evidence that may have existed will have been in private, while Boris put all his evidence in the public domain.

It's not for me its for all of us. Many lives were needlessly lost because of Bliar's vanity and lap dog approach to keeping Bush sweet.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/

War and occupation directly and indirectly claimed the lives of about a half-million Iraqis from 2003 to 2011, according to a groundbreaking survey of 1,960 Iraqi households. The violence peaked in 2006 and 2007, say public health experts who were part of the study.

To dismiss it as only my problem is abhorrent. We should be holding those people to much greater accountability for the decisions they made.

The monetary cost is not insignificant also, £8.2 billion for Iraq and a further £21.3 billion for Afghanistan.

So you may understand why the whole pantomime about leaving a gang doesn't get me too excited or worried.

phillw

BikingBud wrote: »

It's not for me its for all of us. Many lives were needlessly lost because of Bliar's vanity and lap dog approach to keeping Bush sweet.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/

It's unfortunate for you if you wish to bring a case. It's not clear to me how complicit Tony Blair was. Someone was responsible for either being incompetent or lying, but you can't take someone to court just because you hate them. Being fixated on someone so many years after the event that you disregard events that are happening now doesn't seem to be healthy.

BikingBud wrote: »

So you may understand why the whole pantomime about leaving a gang doesn't get me too excited or worried.

To me you sound penny wise and pound foolish.

The total cost of military operations over ten years for Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan was £20.3 billion, that was spread over ten years and we spend £36 billion every year on the military.

Meanwhile we export £274 billion to the EU every year and import £341 billion.

Estimates from the ERG is that we will be worse off for between thirty and fifty years. A small drop in exports could easily dwarf the cost of the those wars.

buglawton

Whoops 'apologist' barely even covers that.

BobQ

movilogo wrote: »

Does EU have a list of what is meant by being inside EU?

I searched on internet but could not find any straight answer.

If there is such list, is there any governing EU document which says whether 100% of all those points need to be followed by a member country or one can be still be in EU by following 70-80% of those rules?

It is signing and abiding by the Treaty for the Functioning of the EU. Clearly you did not look very far and assuming you are entitled to a "straight" answer or "a list" is bizzare.

Do you have a list of what is meant by being British? I demand you find a definitive answer and it must be on the internet.:D

phillw

mayonnaise wrote: »

Read this on the twitter...

Jeremy Hunt is playing catch up to Boris, you need to disbelieve every word he says before he can become Tory leader.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/the-brexiters-guide-to-why-lies-are-good-20190530186081

I think his suggestion to invite the DUP to negotiations is genius. I'd written him off completely until that point.

buglawton wrote: »

Whoops 'apologist' barely even covers that.

barely covers what?

Greenglockenspiel

Hello everyone, you might get this question on here a lot - we are looking at buying our first home around September time, is this completely mad and should we wait for after Brexit? OH is worried about negative equity but I don't want to spend longer than necessary wasting money on rent. Or should we use this as an opportunity to try to haggle sellers down?

melanzana

You must remember, and I am sure many already know, that the candidates for the Leadership of the Tories are speaking to MPs firstly (a majority of whom appear to reject No Deal), and secondly to the membership who appear to really WANT no deal.

It is all opium for the people. Forget it. I can see through all these shenanigans.

If only Corbyn was put to the kerb. Labour would romp home in a jiffy.

I don't get why they are not capitalising on such an open goal.

But anyway. I am a realist. The dogfights will not result in a crash out, nor a renegotiation of the WA either.

So what is left now?

Be great if TM just sent a letter the day before the expiry of her leadership to revoke A50, and let the next incumbent deal with the fall out. Ha ha.

Masomnia

melanzana wrote: »

I don't get why they are not capitalising on such an open goal.

Labour?

Well most of the strongly remain areas would vote for a hat stand if it had a red rosette on it, so they don't need to worry too much about those and don't need to be remain for them to stay Labour. It's all about the marginal seats. Not just the Labour ones, the Tory ones that they would need to win back if they were to get a majority at the next election, and for those they can't be a party of Remain. Hence Corbyn's now rather impressive fence sitting act. Just need to sit out the Tories delivering Brexit, then they'll ditch Jez.