[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Demolitia]

If Charles doesn't keep his opinions to himself once he is on the throne there is a risk that he'll break the royal family, the Queen has been remarkably good at ensuring her opinions are kept private so she can be the queen of the entire country, not just those she agrees with.

Several PMs have said that the Queen's advice is invaluable, it turns out that a first-class education and lifetime spent in the middle of UK politics can provide useful insights.

She's had those weekly little chats with every PM from Churchill to May, and that's for the UK only. This lady must be a gold mine and they would be fools not to listen to her.
It's indeed remarkable that she has managed to keep her opinions to herself in public for all this time

[ranzino]

She's had those weekly little chats with every PM from Churchill to May, and that's for the UK only. This lady must be a gold mine and they would be fools not to listen to her.
It's indeed remarkable that she has managed to keep her opinions to herself in public for all this time

now does she influence politics by such talks with PM or just is a nice old lady waggling an invisible finger from time to time ?

[Dhrizzle]

now does she influence politics by such talks with PM or just is a nice old lady waggling an invisible finger from time to time ?

In all honesty we don't know as they're incredibly private. Maybe the queen threatens the PM and their entire extended family if things aren't done exactly as desired, and the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy is a sham and the democratic process absolutely pointless.

In theory though the Queen's advice is supposed to help the implementation of policy rather than influence what policy is.

[Dhrizzle]

She has an army of Corgi assassins!

Somebody please make this movie. I see the Queen in this being as diabolical but benevolent as Lord Vetinari in the Discworld novels.

[Demolitia]

Here is the draft transition paper.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Period__1_.pdf
Nothing new I guess.

[Mayhem]

In name only, though sometimes I look at the shower of shits we have in Westminster and think a hereditary tyrant couldn't be much worse.

Well alright, the glorified mascots some people call king and queen aren't really much of a monarch anyway.

[dribbles]

Here is the draft transition paper.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Period__1_.pdf
Nothing new I guess.

It's a disgraceful piece of pro EU toilet paper that is not what 17.5 million people voted for. Luckily even though it couldn't be more EU friendly, the EU27 have rejected it already out of hand. I say goody gum drops one step closer to the position of no deal is better than any deal.

Look at the gutter levels the remainers are stooping to.



Unbelievable, at least the Brexit bus figures were realistic.

[Deleted]

It's a disgraceful piece of pro EU toilet paper that is not what 17.5 million people voted for.

Too bad it's government policy then.

Luckily even though it couldn't be more EU friendly, the EU27 have rejected it already out of hand.

Really bad it's government policy then.

I say goody gum drops one step closer to the position of no deal is better than any deal.

But that's not true sadly, Oh you are one step closer to no-deal, but there still doesn't really exist any deals that are worse than no deal, and certainly none that is realistic.

Look at the gutter levels the remainers are stooping to.
Unbelievable, at least the Brexit bus figures were realistic.

I have no idea about the accuracy, but it doesn't actually matter since the 350 was a total lie.

[Deleted]

Unbelievable, at least the Brexit bus figures were realistic.

Neither the 350 million, or the fact that the money would be spent on the NHS were true, let alone realistic.

Here's your messiah Farage on the referendum results day.



I'll understand if you hadn't seen it, I assume people like you were too busy trying to suck there own dicks on results day.

[Kallisto]

It's a disgraceful piece of pro EU toilet paper that is not what 17.5 million people voted for. Luckily even though it couldn't be more EU friendly, the EU27 have rejected it already out of hand. I say goody gum drops one step closer to the position of no deal is better than any deal.

Look at the gutter levels the remainers are stooping to.



Unbelievable, at least the Brexit bus figures were realistic.

Does poor baby Dribbles not like a factual numbers and can only be calm in a safe space of lies by Boris, Farage and Gove.

[Tinch]

Does poor baby Dribbles not like a factual numbers and can only be calm in a safe space of lies by Boris, Farage and Gove.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this taking the total loss of GDP growth predicted over the next 15 years and then spreading that cost over 1 year?

If so it's just as disingenuous as the £350m a week claim.

[Pann]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this taking the total loss of GDP growth predicted over the next 15 years and then spreading that cost over 1 year?

If so it's just as disingenuous as the £350m a week claim.

Not quite, they are using the projected figures from the government report that predict the UK growth to be roughly 8% less by 2032 which would equate to a roughly £100billion loss in GDP per annum from 2032 onwards. Therefore, assuming the government figures are correct, the UK's GDP will be approximately £2billion per week lower from 2032 than if Brexit had not happened.

There are issues with these figures (and I am not sure that another bus with tenuous figures on the side is such a great idea) but, given the quality of debate in this thread, I'd really rather not get into them.

[Tinch]

And even if it isn't, what is the point of this ad? The UK is not having a new referendum, there is no party campaigning on a promise of stopping Brexit, so why do this?

It's been put together by an anti-Brexit group who want a second referendum, or to just scrap Brexit altogether.

I can understand why they've done it, just makes your argument look weak when you accuse the other side of using deliberately misleading figures, and then go ahead and do the same.

[Tinch]

Not quite, they are using the projected figures from the government report that predict the UK growth to be roughly 8% less by 2032 which would equate to a roughly £100billion loss in GDP per annum from 2032 onwards. Therefore, assuming the government figures are correct, the UK's GDP will be approximately £2billion per week lower from 2032 than if Brexit had not happened.

There are issues with these figures (and I am not sure that another bus with tenuous figures on the side is such a great idea) but, given the quality of debate in this thread, I'd really rather not get into them.

But by stating that Brexit will 'cost' £2 billion per week, that implies over 15 years that the total cost would accumulate in the region of £1.5 trillion?

I understood it to be £100 billion over 15 years, not per annum. Or am i just interpreting this wrong.

[Kallisto]

But by stating that Brexit will 'cost' £2 billion per week, that implies over 15 years that the total cost would accumulate in the region of £1.5 trillion?

I understood it to be £100 billion over 15 years, not per annum. Or am i just interpreting this wrong.

It's per year, which while £2 billion is very little over the top (I generally means 2 weeks no loss of money) it's a rounded figure instead of 1.923(and a bunch of other numbers) Billion per year. Since people seem to hate lots of numbers.

[Pann]

But by stating that Brexit will 'cost' £2 billion per week, that implies over 15 years that the total cost would accumulate in the region of £1.5 trillion?

I understood it to be £100 billion over 15 years, not per annum. Or am i just interpreting this wrong.

From what I have read it is £100billion per annum after 15 years. This is how they reached the figure;

'UK GDP is currently worth about £2 trillion.

Without Brexit, we could have expected GDP to reach £2.7 trillion by 2032 – a 35 per cent increase.

If Brexit goes ahead, we leave the single market and strike a trade deal, we can expect GDP to rise by just 30 per cent by 2032. That means GDP would be worth £2.6 trillion in today’s prices.

So that’s a difference of £100 billion a year from 2032, or around £2 billion a week (they write it as £2,000 million instead of £2 billion on the bus).'

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...billion-a-week

[Demolitia]

It's a disgraceful piece of pro EU toilet paper that is not what 17.5 million people voted for. Luckily even though it couldn't be more EU friendly, the EU27 have rejected it already out of hand. I say goody gum drops one step closer to the position of no deal is better than any deal.

Look at the gutter levels the remainers are stooping to.



Unbelievable, at least the Brexit bus figures were realistic.

Congratulations! Looks like your team started a a wonderful trend.
The loud red bus with random bullshit written on it instead of proper debates and ideas during campaigns.
Expect red buses with "Corbyn is a communist and he eats babies" and "Theresa is a Dreadlord" for the next GE.
I predict a truly bright future for your proud, strong and stable nation!

[Tinch]

It's per year, which while £2 billion is very little over the top (I generally means 2 weeks no loss of money) it's a rounded figure instead of 1.923(and a bunch of other numbers) Billion per year. Since people seem to hate lots of numbers.

That can't be right as that would amount to roughly 5% of the UK's GDP per year. That would indicate a recession, which the Treasury isn't predicting.

[Tinch]

From what I have read it is £100billion per annum after 15 years. This is how they reached the figure;

'UK GDP is currently worth about £2 trillion.

Without Brexit, we could have expected GDP to reach £2.7 trillion by 2032 – a 35 per cent increase.

If Brexit goes ahead, we leave the single market and strike a trade deal, we can expect GDP to rise by just 30 per cent by 2032. That means GDP would be worth £2.6 trillion in today’s prices.

So that’s a difference of £100 billion a year from 2032, or around £2 billion a week (they write it as £2,000 million instead of £2 billion on the bus).'

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...billion-a-week

Yeah I read that but it doesn't make sense to me either. If there is going to be a 5% difference in GDP growth for the 15 years to 2032, thats £100 billion in total, which equates to roughly £6.5 billion of GDP lost per year up until that point. How does it then suddenly jump to £100 billion per annum after 2032?

I feel like I'm probably having a brain fart because I haven't seen anyone challenge the calculations yet, but its just not adding up to me and it's doing my head in [emoji38]

[Tinch]

If you have a rate of growth of 2,35% over 15 years then in that period GDP increases to (1,0235)^13=1,35 so by 35%
If the rate of growth slows to 2,2% then you will only get 30% growth.

Yeah I get that, but that rate of slowdown in growth is much less than the 5% drop in GDP per annum that £2 billion a week would equate to in the UK.

If I'm understanding this right, for the UK the difference between a 35% growth rate and a 30% growth rate in cash terms is around £100 billion.

If that is correct, then £100 billion over 15 years = approx £6.6 billion per annum which = roughly £130m a week, not £2 billion?