RugbyRebels

There's a nice line in the Times today from Hugo Rifkind, that there's a schism in the ERG over how to proceed and the group would split but none of them want to be left in the European group, and none of them want to do any research

Digby wrote:There's a nice line in the Times today from Hugo Rifkind, that there's a schism in the ERG over how to proceed and the group would split but none of them want to be left in the European group, and none of them want to do any research

That name is rapidly becoming three lies for the price of one.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:There's a nice line in the Times today from Hugo Rifkind, that there's a schism in the ERG over how to proceed and the group would split but none of them want to be left in the European group, and none of them want to do any research

That name is rapidly becoming three lies for the price of one.

Ha. Very good.

And now the real nonsense can commence, both in parliament and that we'll to a large extent cease bilateral talks with the EU and get into multilateral talks with all the member countries with what will often be competing claims for structure. We're over a barrel and good negotiators would struggle

UK focused equity funds used to bring in net inflows of around $10 billion a month, since the leave vote they've haemorrhaged $1 trillion

Onwards and downwards

Todays fun Brexit fact -

Ever wondered how much "money" Brexit is taking back control of? 37p in each £100 that the UK Government spend. That's £3.70 in each £1,000.

I do wish someone had brought this up during the referendum.

So a No Deal Brexit will cost this country £240B a year - let's spend that on the NHS instead.
May's deal will cost a "mere" £100Bn a year.

For comparison, the NHS costs £125B a year
Our EU contribution was £8.6B

Jebus, she really just said (PMQs) that finding out the current will of the people is to ignore the will of the people.
Corbyn really is terrible at holding her to account on this (yes, I know, but this is by far the biggest political issue ofmour time).

She followed that up by claiming that the analysis doesn't show that we'll be poorer, despite the analysis saying the precise opposite.

The lack of honesty from our leading politicians is shameful.

Brexit is going to cost. This analysis, just like all the other ones produced by credible sources, points that out very clearly. There is no economic argument for leaving the EU. There never was.

Jesus what a shit show.

Which Tyler wrote:So a No Deal Brexit will cost this country £240B a year - let's spend that on the NHS instead.
May's deal will cost a "mere" £100Bn a year.

For comparison, the NHS costs £125B a year
Our EU contribution was £8.6B

Jebus, she really just said (PMQs) that finding out the current will of the people is to ignore the will of the people.
Corbyn really is terrible at holding her to account on this (yes, I know, but this is by far the biggest political issue ofmour time).

She followed that up by claiming that the analysis doesn't show that we'll be poorer, despite the analysis saying the precise opposite.

She's sort of right if you allow poorer means we'll have less than we have now and they're not predicting that,they're saying we'll not have as much extra

Would people vote for May's deal if they were an MP?

I'm a bit on the fence, yes it's a shit deal but all leave options are shit and the vote was to leave. And at least May's deal keeps us in alignment on the regulatory front which makes rejoining at some future point in time much easier

Digby wrote:Would people vote for May's deal if they were an MP?

I'm a bit on the fence, yes it's a shit deal but all leave options are shit and the vote was to leave. And at least May's deal keeps us in alignment on the regulatory front which makes rejoining at some future point in time much easier

Not really. If at some later date we decide to rejoin we would HAVE to join the Euro. The one thing I have/do agree with in regards
to our politicians choices regarding the EU is keeping us out of that financial sink hole. Having your currency not under the control
of your own parliament/central bank is just lunacy

Digby wrote:Would people vote for May's deal if they were an MP?

I'm a bit on the fence, yes it's a shit deal but all leave options are shit and the vote was to leave. And at least May's deal keeps us in alignment on the regulatory front which makes rejoining at some future point in time much easier

I've got a crazy idea here. What about, and I know this is pie in the sky stuff right here, we, well, stay.

I mean, it's not as if we had a legally binding vote that forces us to leave and it's not as if we will actually get any benefit from leaving...

There is only one thing I can say about leaving: it will make visiting family cheaper with the erosion of the £! But that will probably be offset by the rise in cost to get there!!!

belgarion wrote:

Digby wrote:Would people vote for May's deal if they were an MP?

I'm a bit on the fence, yes it's a shit deal but all leave options are shit and the vote was to leave. And at least May's deal keeps us in alignment on the regulatory front which makes rejoining at some future point in time much easier

Not really. If at some later date we decide to rejoin we would HAVE to join the Euro. The one thing I have/do agree with in regards
to our politicians choices regarding the EU is keeping us out of that financial sink hole. Having your currency not under the control
of your own parliament/central bank is just lunacy

That’s not an answer to the question, though I would say I've not heard any significant voices observe if brexit didn't proceed we'd have to join the Euro, that's Trumpesque speculation being presented as fact

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Would people vote for May's deal if they were an MP?

I'm a bit on the fence, yes it's a shit deal but all leave options are shit and the vote was to leave. And at least May's deal keeps us in alignment on the regulatory front which makes rejoining at some future point in time much easier

I've got a crazy idea here. What about, and I know this is pie in the sky stuff right here, we, well, stay.

I mean, it's not as if we had a legally binding vote that forces us to leave and it's not as if we will actually get any benefit from leaving...

There is only one thing I can say about leaving: it will make visiting family cheaper with the erosion of the £! But that will probably be offset by the rise in cost to get there!!!

I'm up for a second referendum but I will concede that's hardly a universal position. So, given where we are now is accepting May's deal an option to take, or does one pursue another outcome with the risk of no deal?

I'm really not sure myself what the best path forward is given there was a vote to leave and given there's something of a time constraint as things stand

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Would people vote for May's deal if they were an MP?

I'm a bit on the fence, yes it's a shit deal but all leave options are shit and the vote was to leave. And at least May's deal keeps us in alignment on the regulatory front which makes rejoining at some future point in time much easier

I've got a crazy idea here. What about, and I know this is pie in the sky stuff right here, we, well, stay.

I mean, it's not as if we had a legally binding vote that forces us to leave and it's not as if we will actually get any benefit from leaving...

There is only one thing I can say about leaving: it will make visiting family cheaper with the erosion of the £! But that will probably be offset by the rise in cost to get there!!!

I'm up for a second referendum but I will concede that's hardly a universal position. So, given where we are now is accepting May's deal an option to take, or does one pursue another outcome with the risk of no deal?

I'm really not sure myself what the best path forward is given there was a vote to leave and given there's something of a time constraint as things stand

Have another vote with the options actually outlined.

a) May's deal - lose power to influence decisions that will impact our ability to trade. Pay £100bn divorce settlement. No guaranteed trade deals available.
b) No Deal - £ plummets, inflation skyrockets. Cut price holidays to Spain disappear overnight, price of lager goes through the roof.
c) Cancel the whole thing and pretend it didn't happen - lose international standing. No divorce settlement. Retain ability to influence our own trade deals. Don't have to deal with Trump on trade without backup from European partners.

Yeah...

Digby wrote:

belgarion wrote:

Digby wrote:Would people vote for May's deal if they were an MP?

I'm a bit on the fence, yes it's a shit deal but all leave options are shit and the vote was to leave. And at least May's deal keeps us in alignment on the regulatory front which makes rejoining at some future point in time much easier

Not really. If at some later date we decide to rejoin we would HAVE to join the Euro. The one thing I have/do agree with in regards
to our politicians choices regarding the EU is keeping us out of that financial sink hole. Having your currency not under the control
of your own parliament/central bank is just lunacy

That’s not an answer to the question, though I would say I've not heard any significant voices observe if brexit didn't proceed we'd have to join the Euro, that's Trumpesque speculation being presented as fact

You're misunderstanding Bel's point there - it's that if we leave and then rejoin, we'd have to join the Euro, not that it'd happen if Brexit didn't proceed.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

belgarion wrote:
Not really. If at some later date we decide to rejoin we would HAVE to join the Euro. The one thing I have/do agree with in regards
to our politicians choices regarding the EU is keeping us out of that financial sink hole. Having your currency not under the control
of your own parliament/central bank is just lunacy

That’s not an answer to the question, though I would say I've not heard any significant voices observe if brexit didn't proceed we'd have to join the Euro, that's Trumpesque speculation being presented as fact

You're misunderstanding Bel's point there - it's that if we leave and then rejoin, we'd have to join the Euro, not that it'd happen if Brexit didn't proceed.

Puja

I got that, more I don’t take not really as an answer

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
I've got a crazy idea here. What about, and I know this is pie in the sky stuff right here, we, well, stay.

I mean, it's not as if we had a legally binding vote that forces us to leave and it's not as if we will actually get any benefit from leaving...

There is only one thing I can say about leaving: it will make visiting family cheaper with the erosion of the £! But that will probably be offset by the rise in cost to get there!!!

I'm up for a second referendum but I will concede that's hardly a universal position. So, given where we are now is accepting May's deal an option to take, or does one pursue another outcome with the risk of no deal?

I'm really not sure myself what the best path forward is given there was a vote to leave and given there's something of a time constraint as things stand

Have another vote with the options actually outlined.

a) May's deal - lose power to influence decisions that will impact our ability to trade. Pay £100bn divorce settlement. No guaranteed trade deals available.
b) No Deal - £ plummets, inflation skyrockets. Cut price holidays to Spain disappear overnight, price of lager goes through the roof.
c) Cancel the whole thing and pretend it didn't happen - lose international standing. No divorce settlement. Retain ability to influence our own trade deals. Don't have to deal with Trump on trade without backup from European partners.

Yeah...

It's a possible question, but what answer constitutes a win? Also there would reasonably be some concerns about splitting the leave vote

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm up for a second referendum but I will concede that's hardly a universal position. So, given where we are now is accepting May's deal an option to take, or does one pursue another outcome with the risk of no deal?

I'm really not sure myself what the best path forward is given there was a vote to leave and given there's something of a time constraint as things stand

Have another vote with the options actually outlined.

a) May's deal - lose power to influence decisions that will impact our ability to trade. Pay £100bn divorce settlement. No guaranteed trade deals available.
b) No Deal - £ plummets, inflation skyrockets. Cut price holidays to Spain disappear overnight, price of lager goes through the roof.
c) Cancel the whole thing and pretend it didn't happen - lose international standing. No divorce settlement. Retain ability to influence our own trade deals. Don't have to deal with Trump on trade without backup from European partners.

Yeah...

It's a possible question, but what answer constitutes a win? Also there would reasonably be some concerns about splitting the leave vote

The government gets to set the question and doesn't have to consult the not not nots (ERG).

We won't be getting a say in the matter until May's deal has been voted down in Parliament - probably twice. So we can take that off the table.
It'll be straight "No Deal" or "No Brexit"; 50%+1

We really, really need some sort of consultation to actually address how we go about these things going forwards - any question that's important enough to require a referrendum is important enough to need more than just 50%+1 of those who can be bothered to vote.

Which Tyler wrote:We won't be getting a say in the matter until May's deal has been voted down in Parliament - probably twice. So we can take that off the table.
It'll be straight "No Deal" or "No Brexit"; 50%+1

We really, really need some sort of consultation to actually address how we go about these things going forwards - any question that's important enough to require a referrendum is important enough to need more than just 50%+1 of those who can be bothered to vote.

Or can, Which, don't forget that.

I and countless other emigrants to Hungary did not get our voting papers on time to actually vote. I'm sure this was the case elsewhere, too. Considering the margin and the number of Brits who live abroad (1.3 million in the EU alone, pretty much equal to the difference in Remain and Leave) that could make a huge difference.

There's another 3 million of us living outside the EU, too. How many of them voted or were able to?

Which Tyler wrote:We won't be getting a say in the matter until May's deal has been voted down in Parliament - probably twice. So we can take that off the table.
It'll be straight "No Deal" or "No Brexit"; 50%+1

We really, really need some sort of consultation to actually address how we go about these things going forwards - any question that's important enough to require a referrendum is important enough to need more than just 50%+1 of those who can be bothered to vote.

It's not a bad plan, but it is the one Blair is backing so that'll wind some people up.

The plan I'd go for all things being equal would be to hold two votes, one for remain vs leave and then if leave win the second for deal vs no deal. of course not all things are equal