Extend the uncertainty?

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

I can't see us extending beyond the EU parliament term, nor making any progress in the mean time. If we can't agree something amongst ourselves by the 29th we're as well just leaving and then begging to get back in.

I'm struggling to remember the last time a homeless man came up to me and asked if I could help out a brother by letting him give me £350 million a week. That's a strange use of the word "beg".

(Yes, the Boris bus figure is the relevant one here; if we leave the EU and then "beg" to come back in, we won't have a rebate anymore, and it is highly unlikely the EU will want to spend much of its budget on Cornwall and the like - why would they spend money in a country that will almost certainly try to get out again, turning any previous "investment" into a waste of money?)

Herzlos

The Boris figure isn't in any way relevant to anything.

You also don't seem to grasp what the £160ish million a week was for, and it's actually remarkably good value for money. Of course, once we've left we'll be looking at north of £250m/week to get to what we had before. Marvellous!


We won't be begging them to give them money, we'll be begging them to rejoin the single market, and that'll come with paying our fair share.

Malthusian

Literally nobody begs to be part of any market. That's not what a market is.

Remainers treat the whole thing as a weird S&M power game and then wonder why the country is so sceptical of the free-trade benefits of EU membership.

The country has had two and a half years of "You come back here right this minute or you'll get the spanking of your life" and after 2.5 years of no spankings, that tactic starts to wear thin.

The irony is that if Remain actually had put through their Emergency Budget in 2016, even though there was no more economic need for one than for Mark Carney's temper tantrum with the interest rate, it would at least have made the country think twice.

Takedap

Malthusian wrote: »

The irony is that if Remain actually had put through their Emergency Budget in 2016, even though there was no more economic need for one than for Mark Carney's temper tantrum with the interest rate, it would at least have made the country think twice.

Didn't Hammond actually have a budget in 2016 where he announced abandoning the plan to get back in surplus by 2020/21& added an extra £122 billion of Government borrowing which would take the National Debt to £1.95 Trillion?

Herzlos

Takedap wrote: »

Didn't Hammond actually have a budget in 2016 where he announced abandoning the plan to get back in surplus by 2020/21& added an extra £122 billion of Government borrowing which would take the National Debt to £1.95 Trillion?

It wasn't called an "emergency budget" and it didn't happen the day after the referendum, so naturally it doesn't count.

Malthusian wrote: »

Literally nobody begs to be part of any market. That's not what a market is.

You do if that market is important to you, and there are no better alternatives. It's not like being barred from Camden and walking over to Brick Lane.

Remainers treat the whole thing as a weird S&M power game and then wonder why the country is so sceptical of the free-trade benefits of EU membership.

I don't entirely follow. Free trade benefits are entirely independent of any power games. Though to be fair here, it's only the UK that's been trying to play power games here, and losing spectacularly because the EU has rigid rules we can't get them to violate.

The country has had two and a half years of "You come back here right this minute or you'll get the spanking of your life" and after 2.5 years of no spankings, that tactic starts to wear thin.

It hasn't really. It's had 2.5 years of "So what are you trying to do? What do you want? Just pick an option!"



We'll see who really has the power once we're on WTO terms and they follow them to the letter, as any big Bureaucracy does.

lewisa

AG47 wrote: »

You sound very uncertain about the fact that there is no uncertainty :rotfl::rotfl:

There are certain uncertainties, uncertain certainties, certain certainties and uncertain uncertainties.

This is one of those. I checked with Donald Rumsfeld.

Malthusian

Takedap wrote: »

Didn't Hammond actually have a budget in 2016 where he announced abandoning the plan to get back in surplus by 2020/21& added an extra £122 billion of Government borrowing which would take the National Debt to £1.95 Trillion?

So Brexit resulted in us having a normal scheduled budget where it was announced that the national debt would continue to increase exactly as it has every year and always will until the end of time, and there would be no Income Tax rises or material swingeing cuts to public spending.

I think you should go back to the pallet shortage crisis. That was scary.

sevenhills

AG47 wrote: »

They will never vote for Mays deal, so why keep flogging a dead horse, it's just prolonging the pain and making things worse, property was going to fall only 30% but now it could be a larger crash and last for much longer, maybe several years

I get what you are saying, but Mays deal is only the first part of the deal, we also have the backstop. The backstop will decide how close we are to the EU, we cannot have different regulations to Northern Ireland, so the agreed Mays deal will change.
There are years more debating and argueing still to come, it will go on and on.

AG47

sevenhills wrote: »

I get what you are saying, but Mays deal is only the first part of the deal, we also have the backstop. The backstop will decide how close we are to the EU, we cannot have different regulations to Northern Ireland, so the agreed Mays deal will change.
There are years more debating and argueing still to come, it will go on and on.

Oh dear, years more uncertainty?

phillw

AG47 wrote: »

Oh dear, years more uncertainty?

Yes, which means the housing market will likely stay where it is.

All the time there is uncertainty then nobody will rock the boat, things will only change when certainty emerges.